With school being out for the summer and commencement speeches (like this one from Conan O’Brien at Dartmouth) over, let’s take a quick look at possible pro sports franchise moves since all of the leagues have some potential realignment scenarios. I have a few key guidelines:
(1) Contraction is not a realistic option – Contraction is a popular proposal among columnists, bloggers and message board people since all of the leagues other than the NFL would probably be much more competitive top-to-bottom by dropping a franchise or 2 or 6. However, there’s a reason why no team has been eliminated in nearly 4 decades: when owners have been given the option of either (A) paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to dissolve a franchise or (B) collecting hundreds of millions dollars in franchise relocation fees and using those moves as examples of threats to get brand new stadiums for their own teams, they’ve logically chosen option B every single time. As a result, I will assume that any franchise that isn’t doing well would need to be moved as opposed to contracted.
(2) Favorable stadium deals trump markets – In a world where the NFL has a team in Jacksonville but not in Los Angeles, it’s clear that having the “right” stadium in place is more important than even market size to pro sports owners. As much as Seattle should never have lost the Sonics and deserves another NBA team, Key Arena has been deemed unacceptable due to its lack of revenue-generating suites (whether fairly or not) and, therefore, Seattle won’t be a viable market for the NBA or NHL until they get concrete new stadium plans into place. Outside of the NFL (where LA is still priority #1), I will only look at markets that have “acceptable” stadiums in place.
(3) Less is more – Much like college conference realignment, where our imaginations ran wild with various configurations and proposals but ultimately ended up with much more subdued changes, radical realignments to the pro sports leagues are very unlikely. The fewer teams switching leagues, conferences and/or divisions, the better.
With those guidelines in mind, here are my thoughts:
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL
There’s been a lot of talk lately about MLB realignment ranging from a simple move of one National League team to the American League to scrapping divisions altogether. One of the issues with baseball is that the owners actually have veto power over whether their own teams move leagues or divisions, which means that no one can be forced to move against their will. Another issue is that no NL franchise is going to willingly move to the AL unless it gets placed in the AL East, where it would receive a bunch of seat-filling dates with the Yankees and Red Sox. The cornerstone franchises in the NL Central (Cubs and Cardinals) and, to a lesser extent, the NL West (Dodgers and Giants) are significantly greater attendance draws than their counterparts in the AL such as the White Sox, Angels and A’s (and I say this as a massive White Sox fan). That’s why the Brewers ran to the NL Central as quickly as possible when they received the opportunity – they get to enjoy sellout a dozen or more sellout crowds from traveling Cubs and Cards fans that never came when they were playing the White Sox and Twins.
This is where the prospect of the Astros moving to the AL West makes a lot of sense. They’re going through an ownership change that needs to be approved by MLB, which means that this is a rare opportunity to force realignment by making such approval conditioned upon a league switch. The Astros likely would never have agreed to switch leagues on their own, but a new owner that’s trying to get into the MLB club is going to have to acquiesce to the iron-fisted demands of Bud Selig. Look at what Selig just did to Frank McCourt and the Dodgers. Bud might as well be sporting a “Thug Life” tattoo.
NHL HOCKEY
NHL realignment is also on the radar with the impending move of the Thrashers franchise from Atlanta to Winnipeg. It appears that the Thrashers (or hopefully the Jets) will end up staying in the Southeast Division of the Eastern Conference for next season, which makes some sense as it gives the Phoenix Coyotes another year to figure out whether they’re staying in that market and the league wouldn’t want to realign two years in a row.
What I was a bit surprised about was seeing how much the Red Wings and their fans seem to be pushing for (AKA whining about) switching conferences because they were supposedly promised by Gary Bettman first dibs on a move to the East back in the 1990s. (Apologies to the generally level-headed Wings fans that read this blog. All of you guys are OK.) First of all, why anyone would believe a thing Gary Bettman says about anything (especially something from nearly 2 decades ago) is beyond me. Second, the Red Wings presumably don’t want to move to the Southeast Division (as it appears that their goal is to reunite with Toronto in the Northeast Division), which means that the NHL would have to switch around a whole number of teams in the Eastern divisions (including possibly marquee franchises like the Bruins and Penguins) in order to make that happen. Why would the Penguins agree to be separated from the Flyers or the Bruins from the Canadiens to accommodate the Wings? Detroit moving conferences is the most logistically messy option out there. Third, switching the Red Wings to the East would mean 5 of the Original Six franchises would be in that conference along with breaking up the team’s rivalry with the Blackhawks. I know that a lot of Wings fans seem to think that reviving the Maple Leafs rivalry is more important (maybe absence makes the heart grow fonder or, more likely, there’s a denial of this self-evident truth), but let’s look at it from an NHL business perspective. The East is already receives a disproportionate share of TV coverage because it has 4 of the Original Six franchises plus 2 other marquee franchises in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and currently another superstar in Washington (Alex Ovechkin). The NHL is almost solely dependent upon the Red Wings and Blackhawks for national TV drawing power in the West. Is the NHL seriously going to let the revitalized Chicago market sit out on an island when the Blackhawks franchise helped the league get the highest Stanley Cup Finals TV ratings in the last 4 decades? And forgetting about the Blackhawks (as one may argue that my status as a Hawks fan causes me to be biased), but why on Earth would the other franchises in the West let the Wings move? That would be like the Western Conference teams in the NBA allowing the Lakers to leave for the East in terms of attendance and TV ratings. It simply doesn’t make any business sense for any of them. Finally, there’s already one franchise located further east than Detroit in the Eastern Time Zone (Columbus) and another that’s much more geographically suited to be in the Southeast Division (Nashville), albeit in the Central Time Zone. There’s no reason why moving Detroit, which would cause a massive domino realignment of the entire Eastern Conference, makes more sense than simply plugging Columbus or Nashville in the Southeast without any other repercussions.
Therefore, going with the “less is more” mantra and assuming that the Coyotes work out some type of deal with Glendale where they don’t end up moving, I believe the best switch is simply slotting Nashville into the Southeast Division, putting Minnesota in the Central Division and sending Winnipeg to the Northwest Division. While Nashville is located in the Central Time Zone, the Predators are simply much more of a regional fit with the other Southeast teams (and geographic rivalries are arguably more important in hockey than any other sport). It also makes more sense from a regional rivalry standpoint to keep Columbus with the other Midwestern teams in the Central Division. I personally like the prospect of a semi-recreation of the old Norris Division with Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and Minnesota. It would be nice if Toronto could switch back to the West so that there would be 3 Original Six teams in each conference again, but much like the desirability of the NL over the AL (outside of the AL East), none of the Eastern Conference teams would willingly move to the West barring an actual franchise move (like the Thrashers situation).
NBA BASKETBALL
The Sacramento Kings are the current threat to move markets if they don’t end up with a new stadium deal to replace ARCO Arena. Sacramento mayor (and former NBA star) Kevin Johnson has a proposal on the table for a new arena for that market, but with the long track record of aggressive stadium plans falling apart in California over the past decade, I wouldn’t bet on any groundbreakings there. While I’m personally not a huge fan of the LA market getting a third NBA team if the Kings ultimately move to Anaheim, I can see how it could financially work since drawing from Orange County alone (not to mention the San Diego market directly adjacent to it to the south) is more than enough of a population base to support a franchise. Add in the more valuable suite situation at the Honda Center and MUCH higher potential TV rights and it looks like a strong financial deal for the Kings by heading to Anaheim. The only caveat is that this would bail out the Maloof brothers, who don’t deserve it.
I’m a firm believer than an NBA franchise would make a killing in Las Vegas with its high-roller culture, yet that’s another market that can’t ever seem to get a concrete arena deal into place. Kansas City, on the other hand, has a beautiful state-of-the-art arena (the Sprint Center) ready-to-go without a regular major pro sports league tenant. That market seems to make a lot of sense for a franchise like the Hornets to move to if they decide to leave New Orleans. The Hornets were already struggling financially prior to Hurricane Katrina, but David Stern was committed to staying in that market in the wake of that disaster. After witnessing terrible attendance even with a great superstar in Chris Paul playing there, it seems that the NBA simply is not going to work in New Orleans.
The NBA Western Conference divisions are probably the screwiest of any of the 4 major pro sports leagues at this point where a larger realignment would be justified, yet it’s tough since, as we’ve seen in other leagues, you’re not going to get a franchise like the Bulls to willingly move from the East to the West. Sacramento moving to Anaheim wouldn’t require any type of change to the Pacific Division. However, if the Hornets move to Kansas City, I’d put Oklahoma City into the Southwest Division and move the new KC Hornets to the Northwest. It’s not that pretty, but that at least continues to provide Minnesota with a Central Time Zone mate and OKC gets to be with its natural geographic counterparts in Texas.
NFL FOOTBALL
The franchise that should move is the Jacksonville Jaguars. They’re in a small market that has to compete with 2 other NFL franchises in its home state (Buccaneers and Dolphins) and the fan base is apathetic. However, the Jags have a stadium lease deal that essentially handcuffs them to their market until 2029. There’s also been talk about the Vikings moving if they don’t a new stadium, but my feeling is that the political willpower will be there to push that through. The NFL letting them move would be almost Browns-like and I doubt the league lets that happen again. As a result, the Chargers and Raiders are much more likely candidates to move to the goldmine of Los Angeles (assuming that there’s a stadium deal, which is a dangerous assumption even though this latest downtown proposal next to the Staples Center looks perfect). There’s also a possibility of the return of the Rams, who can leave St. Louis in 2014 if the Edward Jones Dome isn’t renovated. Personally, I think the Raiders are best-suited for LA, as they have some history there (today was a good day, Ice Cube), the AFC would benefit more than the NFC in having an LA franchise (as the NFC already has the top team in the New York market plus Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington, which results in Fox paying $90 million per year more for the NFC TV package compared to the CBS AFC TV package) and the San Francisco Bay Area might be the most overrated place to locate a pro franchise in the country. Don’t get me wrong – I think the Bay Area is fantastic and Napa Valley is on my retirement locale short-list. However, I’m continuously perplexed as to how many proposals that I’ve seen to move additional NBA and NHL teams to that market (Larry Ellison’s recent bid to bring the Hornets to San Jose, for example) when they’ve only proven to support the 49ers and Giants (and only after they built a ballpark that’s as much of an attraction as the team itself). A strong sports fan culture just doesn’t exist there and the Raiders should have never moved back to Oakland. Regardless, a Raiders, Chargers or Rams move to LA would be easy enough for the NFL and wouldn’t require any division switches (as they are all currently in one of the western divisions). The Vikings moving to LA would likely require the Rams to move into the NFC North, while a Jaguars relocation would kick the Chiefs to the AFC South (which would be sad considering the history that Kansas City has with the other AFC West teams, but ultimately necessary).
We’ve had a relatively long period of stability in the pro sports world with only the Sonics and Thrashers having moved within the past 5 years. The combination of a weak economy, a more cautious electorate regarding publicly-financed stadiums and a gaping NFL hole in LA is going to put that stability to the test in the near-future.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Nacho Donut)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Realignment stinks.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
I don’t see the NL giving up the whole state of Texas. They would have to be desperate to get to 15/15. And the Astros have 50 years in the NL. I don’t think the fans would have any interest. There are no AL ties. Houston even hard a Card minor league franchise at one point before the Astros. Cardinal fans flood the place more than any other team when they are in town.
As for football, the two biggest disasters belong to Bud Adams-Jacksonville, who got an expansion franchise for helping to hold up Houston with Bud as lead cheerleader for their bid, (and Houston is still paying for improvements to the empty Astrodome), and Nashville, who got the Oilers. If LA had their act halfway together, Houston would still be without a team. I think you’re right, its likely the Raiders or Chargers. But in addition to Jacksonville and Nashville, New Orleans and Buffalo are shaky in the long run. Both are declining metro areas. Both would be as politically difficult as the Vikings, but would make more sense. I don’t think they let anyone move until they give LA every possible chance to get the team.
LikeLike
New Orleans is turning into Green Bay lite. Unlike the Hornets, I think they’re safe, though there will probably be several occasional attempts to move them to Baton Rouge, San Antonio, Oklahoma, or another SEC market in the future. The Bills are building the case to move to Toronto and Toronto alone.
LikeLike
Also, I suspect you’d have to live in Philly to understand the history of their rivalry with the other teams in their division, especially the Pens.
LikeLike
Delete this post, intended to be associated with the one below.
LikeLike
My feeling, though, is that conference alignment matters quite a bit more than divisional alignment. You play teams 6 times a year in division, 4 times a year in conference. Sure, the difference matters, but I don’t think it matters that much given that 8/15 teams make the playoffs.
Now, if the NHL changed its scheduling matrix to give more games against the opposite conference, that’s another ball of wax.
LikeLike
Bullet – the Saints aren’t going anywhere. The Superdome is undergoing $85 million in renovations, including more club seats. The Saints have a sweetheart deal with the state on the ‘Dome lease agreement through 2025.
LikeLike
Bettmam. What a goober.
LikeLike
Baseball is the most likely to contract. They are the most imbalanced as they have so much unshared local revenue. The franchises that are successful almost all are in metro areas of 3.0 million +. All but 3 are in metro areas of at least 2 million and those 3 are big baseball towns. Milwaukee with Madison and the Chicago burbs in WI probably really is over 2 million. And Cincy with Dayton only 50 miles away is really almost 3 million. KC had the advantage for many years of being the only team north of the Red River from the banks of the Mississippi to the Pacific coast.
The only options for teams are Montreal (been there, done that), Portland (marginal) and San Juan (no money).
Sacramento, Las Vegas and San Antonio are growing, but still aren’t at that 2 million level and are a long way from 3 million. Combined with Austin, San Antonio is over 3 million, but they would undoubtedly want the stadium in the downtown tourist area rather than up north to improve access to Austin (80 miles from downtown).
LikeLike
GEAUX HORNETS!
LikeLike
Unscientific guesses: NHL contracts. NBA expands to KC and Vegas. NFl stays at 32. Jags go to LA.
The Astros go the AL west. Inter league play is expanded where the leagues play their counterpart division every year and also alternate between the other two.
18 games against 4 divisional foes =72 games
6 games against 10 league foes= 60 games
3 games against 10 inter league foes= 30 games
Total=162 games. (idea from an ESPN columnist)
LikeLike
Hi Frank, like the post, but a few quibbles:
1. . . .except MLS (though you can argue that they’re not major league).
2. . . .except for MLB. Baseball does require a rather large metropolitan area to support a team. As it is, even Cardinals tickets to weekday games are at a significant discount to tickets to Friday & weekend Cardinals games.
Also, I have to echo Bullet (to a degree). While I don’t think Houston would be averse to moving (yes, they give up Cardinals games, but would gain a fierce rivalry with the Rangers), I just don’t see MLB (or rather, Selig) wanting 15 in each league and spreading out Selig’s baby, interleague play, throughout the season.
LikeLike
With the NHL, I’d go Columbus to the East, not Nashville, because of the time zone thing. But I’d also replace Atlanta with Philadelphia. Changing divisions within a conference in the NHL is not a big move. If Philadelphia moved to the Southeast Division (which, in that hypothetical, would probably need to be renamed; perhaps the Coastal Division or something), they would have a grand total of 8 games change. Sure, they’d be picking up 2 extra games against the Panthers and Hurricanes (yawn), but those are essentially the same as the 2 games a year they’d be dropping against the Islanders and Devils. Similarly, although they’d be dropping 2 games a year against the Penguins and Rangers, they’d be picking up 2 games a year against Ovechkin and the Capitals, and the Yzerman-led Lightning also seem kind of attractive to me. Philadelphia is already part of a greater megalopolis with Washington DC. Perhaps this makes sense only to me.
With the NBA, I’d rather see them add 4 games to the regular season and dump the divisions altogether. Right now, the season schedule is:
16 games against 4 teams in your division (4x)
36 games against 10 teams in your conference/outside your division (3.6x)
30 games against 15 teams in the opposite conference (2x)
16+36+30=82 games
If you added 4 games to that middle category, it’d be 16+40+30=86, and you could just drop the divisions altogether. This would have the additional benefit of ending the opportunity for seeding paradoxes like occurred in 2006 and almost in 2008.
LikeLike
“Philadelphia is already part of a greater megalopolis with Washington DC.”
Which also includes New York, significantly closer to home.
LikeLike
I take it your point is that Philadelphia should remain grouped with New York, then? I certainly understand that, and it’s not a good arrangement, but it seems like the least-bad to me. It doesn’t make sense of me to shift Columbus, a struggling team, into the Eastern Conference unless they’re in a division with Pittsburgh, which means that someone else is the one that goes into the Southeast-to-be-renamed Division. I would anticipate that Philadelphia will be basically a business success in whatever division it is placed, and the mix of “good” and “bad” games it would lose by leaving the Atlantic Division are mostly mirrored by the mix of “good” and “bad” games it would add by joining the “Southeast” Division. That’s my reasoning, anyway.
LikeLike
Frank, here’s a question for you: do you feel that there’s anything the NHL can do to help out Dallas? I have read persuasive arguments here that it is really rather unfair to put Dallas in the Pacific Division. If we could split up the Alberta teams, I would think that a division along the lines of Dallas, Phoenix, Colorado, Winnipeg, and one of the Alberta teams would be a pretty good arrangement, but people would scream bloody murder about separating them.
LikeLike
And, I should note, it is not totally implausible for the NHL to consider some kind of relief for Dallas at this juncture, since the new team in Winnipeg to some extent invites some thinking about how to rearrange things.
LikeLike
The Houston point is very interesting. Would really be willing to go as far as deny someone who was qualified but wanted to keep the Astros in the NL? My guess is that they wouldn’t, but the threat might be enough to convince potential owners to accept it for fear of rejection.
On ESPN a week or so ago, they said these talks were serious, but still less than 50-50. It is my hope that there is no movement between leagues as I like to think of them as a lot more separate than I do conferences/divisions/etc in other sports and don’t want to see interleague expanded either.
LikeLike
I don’t think the proposal is to expand interleague. It’s just that there would be 1 interleague series every weekend all year long, instead of all the interleague series bunched together in June and a weekend in May.
LikeLike
Probably true, but I’d rather not have those games in August and September. It’s something I’d rather see restricted to a couple times of year than throughout the year actually.
LikeLike
I’d like to see everybody travel to every other stadium, personally. You play 162 games, there’s plenty of room for everybody to play everybody.
LikeLike
I get that, but the American League and National League are supposed to be separate leagues to a greater degree than in other sports (even the rules are different). I think playing the whole other league each year devalues that.
LikeLike
Unrelated to my other remarks, I’m left wondering, Frank, whether you think there’s any fire behind the smoke in the NHL. The league has talked about waiting on realignment to allow more comprehensive alignment reform to be discussed. Does this have no legs? Personally, I think it would be absurd to split the league north/south in order to make the travel “fairer” (the league should group nearby teams together when it can to capture what regional rivalries and travel advantages it can, not give those away to be “fair”), but I get the impression that’s serious enough that it’ll be considered.
LikeLike
By the way: it is patently absurd that the league is allowing Atlanta to move to Winnipeg but not realign. There should be consequences to getting a deal done so late. The sky would not have fallen if the Winnipeg ownership group was forced to operate the team in Atlanta for a final season. It sets a bad precedent for the future that the Board of Governors can be bullied into this sort of thing.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Is the sky going to fall because they’re in Winnipeg this year?
They pay a price with all the travel for the team and not playing their preferred Canadian opponents as much.
LikeLike
It sets a bad precedent for the future and it should be beneath the dignity of the NHL to have a Winnipeg team in the “Southeast” Division.
LikeLike
What dignity? Winnipeg in the Southeast for 1 season is a huge problem? OK. I’m sure no other major pro sports leagues would ever have a team so far out of place (Braves in NL West, Cowboys in NFC East, etc).
I doubt there is much precedent to be set here. A few road trips are changed for eastern teams. So what?
LikeLike
Your examples are baseball and football, which have always maintained a loose geographic alignment. Here, by contrast, the NHL has a very strong geographic alignment with a very weird outlier. Moreover, that outlier was caused not by considered deliberation that this is a wise long-term outcome for the league, but instead due to the fact that it took so long to close the sale. It puts the league in a position of accommodating those who would own a team, instead of vice-versa (i.e., wanna-be owners accommodating the league).
There should be consequences to getting the deal done so late — consequences such as not getting to move your team as soon as you’d have liked. Don’t like it? Get a deal done sooner. If the Winnipeg group had just pursued the Atlanta franchise from the beginning, instead of dilly-dallying for the Coyotes, maybe we wouldn’t be in this position.
LikeLike
I apologize for using the two most popular leagues in US professional sports to find examples. Clearly the NHL is above the lowly NFL and MLB as shown by their relative business success. How about LA in the Norris while St. Louis was in the Smythe and Calgary was in the Patrick in 1980-1981? That was the result of Atlanta losing a team to Alberta and the league realigned after one year. Sound familiar?
LikeLike
It does sound familiar. The NHL (and pro sports generally) were less professionally run back then (e.g., the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay — unthinkable today). Not a good idea to repeat that.
The geographic looseness that MLB and the NFL have is due to the fact that they once consisted of wholly separate leagues which merged together; the NHL has never had this dynamic, and while the NBA could have when it was first organized after the BAA/NBL merger, it didn’t choose to do that.
In short, there’s a fairly good reason for the NFL and MLB’s geographic casualness. There isn’t for the NHL in this day and age.
LikeLike
@Adam – I think the North/South alignment in the NHL is in the same category as the proposal to eliminate divisions entirely in baseball – I’m sure there’s a faction of owners that would like to see it happen (particularly those that don’t get marquee opponents coming to their stadiums as often as other divisions or those that have the worst current travel burdens), but I don’t think there will be serious discussions about it. The current NHL divisions are pretty geographically logical, so I agree with you that it wouldn’t be a good idea to make travel “equally bad” for everyone.
LikeLike
While I generally agree with you about not shifting Detroit East, Frank, there is one slight contrary point I make. The general consensus seems to be that Quebec is going to get a team again, sooner or later. If so, I would anticipate that division being the 4 Canadian teams and Buffalo, which would mean Detroit would be in the Atlantic Division with the New York teams and Pittsburgh. But if the NHL anticipates that now, you could put Detroit in the Atlantic Division now, slide one team into the “Southeast” (probably needs to be renamed) and avoid “massive” realignment.
On the other hand, like I say, there are good reasons for Detroit not to be the team, at any rate.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought. The Atlanta team leaving for Winnipeg isn’t very good. Nashville has been a pretty good team, a consistent playoff team. Columbus hasn’t. Will there be any pressure to have the swap be of peer franchises? Columbus is a lot more similar to Atlanta than Nashville is. Would it be appropriate to swap Atlanta for Nashville, if only for competitiveness reasons? Certainly, if that were the only reasonable choice, I’d say they just have to grin and bear it, but with another option that basically preserves the status quo, I wonder.
LikeLike
As one of the “level-headed Wings fans who read this blog”, I felt I had to chime in on the Wings to the East debate. Sadly, I’m split right down the middle on this one.
For example, I want to see them play Toronto, Montreal, Boston, NY Rangers, Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia, New Jersey and Tampa Bay more frequently. But as a Denver resident, I don’t want to sacrifice the 1-3 times they visit the Pepsi Center each season. Nor would I want the rivalry with the Hawks to become what the Leafs rivalry has been for years,…a distant memory.
I recognize (as I just demonstrated above) that the Wings are a HUGE draw in the West and that would hurt the attendance figures for MANY of the West franchises. Not to mention the new Winnipeg franchise is going to need all the help it can get to keep that tiny arena filled to capacity.
But should that be the Wings problem? Revising the ridiculous scheduling formulas the NHL employs would go a long way to getting ALL of the East’s big draw teams to the West more frequently. Perhaps the Wings moving to the East would facilitate these changes. And perhaps not.
Quite frankly, if baseball and football can have their Leagues (MLB) and Conferences (NFL) span the continent, why do the NHL and NBA have to have their conferences geographically defined? I say bring back the Campbell and Wales conferences, with teams from each spread across both countries, then define the divisions geographically. Then you could incorporate some sort of NFL-type of scheduling formula and each team would see every other team on a more frequent basis.
LikeLike
Personally, I detest the MLB and NFL alignments, so I would resist that. At any rate, those alignments are based at least in part on the historical status of those leagues once operating as two separate and competing businesses. The NHL and NBA’s histories don’t match up enough to do that, and I see no principled way to go about making 2 continent-wide alignments now (do you draw names out of a hat or something? why? so that travel is “fair”?).
LikeLike
Welcome back Adam!
Gotta disagree with you. The wings’ travel burden is insane and watching games that start at 9 or 10 is bs. I’m sure the preds and bjs feel the same.
There’s a million ways to change this. But something needs to give. It sucks.
LikeLike
I have no doubt it sucks, but like I said below, it’s going to suck for someone. As between Columbus, Detroit, and Nashville, I’d say it ought to suck least for Columbus. Detroit and Nashville have claims that are harder for me to evaluate (Detroit is healthier than Nashville, but Nashville is on Central Time), but Columbus is for-sure the one who deserves the most sympathy, IMO.
LikeLike
By the way jj, your welcoming remarks were most gracious and appreciated, but it didn’t seem etiquette to respond. And then after a day or so it seemed equally cold and distant not to respond.
LikeLike
@Ron – I think the main issue with the Wings switching conferences is that it’s no longer the logical move geographically (even beyond the West’s attendance issues). If we were in a 1993 world where Columbus and Nashville didn’t have franchises, then it would’ve been a different story as Detroit would’ve stuck out like a sore thumb in West. As of now, though, Columbus is actually located further east than Detroit and Nashville has a natural geographic connection to the Southeast division. Unless Detroit moves directly to the Southeast (which probably kills much of the allure of moving to the East for Wings fans), then triggering a large-scale Eastern realignment simply to appease the Wings doesn’t make sense, either. You’re right that the attendance issues of Western teams shouldn’t be the Wings’ problem. However, it definitely is the NHL’s problem and, in turn, the league also shouldn’t be elevating Detroit’s realignment concerns over those of Columbus and Nashville (who each have more compelling claims to get a spot in the East and would cause less disruption to the league’s overall alignment if they move compared to Detroit).
LikeLike
And, I would add, Columbus and Nashville are on shaky footing and could use whatever advantages going to the East would give them far more than the Red Wings need it. I’m sure it sucks staying up for a game that starts anywhere from 9-10:30pm, but it sucks just as much in Columbus and Nashville as it does in Detroit, and Columbus and Nashville are struggling to hold things together in a way that Detroit isn’t.
LikeLike
@Frank – First and foremost, let me reiterate that I’m torn on whether I want the Wings to move to the East.
That said, the first few sentences of your reply are missing the point. As you pointed out so prudently last year , using geographic distance as a logical reason to eliminate a potential move of the University of Texas to the Big 10 is utter nonsense. So why should that be any different when discussing a potential move of the Wings to the Eastern Conference? Especially, when Columbus is only further east of Detroit by a mere 10.5 miles (as measured longitudinally (83.3 West (Det.) vs 83.1 West (Col.)) at 40 degrees north latitude – which is where Columbus sits). I don’t consider that to be a more complelling claim.
Like I said previously, blow it all up. Fire Bettman and bring back Cambell & Wales. Or how about modernizing it a little bit (relatively speaking) with (Toe) Blake & (Scotty) Bowman? Not to mention I would absolutely love a Central division of Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Columbus and Pittsburgh.
I agree the attendance figures for the western franchises is indeed a NHL problem. When I asked yesterday whether it was the Wings problem, I tried to illustrate with the scheduling issue that it shouldn’t be SOLELY their problem. I suppose I should have added ‘solely’ to the original question to avert confusion.
Inevitably, the attendance issue is the reason I don’t think the move will happen. And selfishly, as I’ll still be able to see the Wings come to Denver 1-3 times a season, I’ll be fine with that.
Aterlay,
Ron
LikeLike
I believe the Wings travel to Denver exactly twice per regular season. There’s no flex in the scheduling formula.
LikeLike
While I certainly understand your comparison to Texas and the Big Ten (a point that I think is more true in the just-a-business world of pro sports), I haven’t yet heard a refutation of the counter-argument from Wings fans. I mean, the Red Wings are financially healthy. The Blue Jackets and Predators are not financially healthy. I don’t understand why the Red Wings should be ahead of at least the Blue Jackets, if not the Predators, to move into the Eastern Conference.
LikeLike
It’s called triage. It’s better to sacrifice a dying CBJ franchise (let it move to Quebec in a few years) than hurt one of your best franchises while still potentially losing the CBJ.
Why should Detroit be the only prominent franchise that is asked to sacrifice for the good of the west? If having a major name coming west is what helps keep western teams going, then having more major teams come west should be the plan. Expecting one franchise to carry the burden is just dumb enough for Bettman to think of it.
LikeLike
It’s easy to blithely throw around “triage” as an explanation, but that seems totally inconsistent with the assumptions Frank made (the point of departure of this post, exactly my criticism of your position the last time you started blithely throwing around assumptions about the league’s ability to throw away franchises or relocate them willy-nilly).
LikeLike
@Brian – you aren’t speculating are you? Perhaps we should let the NHL decide who is moving to new cities and divisions before posting comments. 😉 LOL.
LikeLike
Also worth noting: if there were a group in Quebec that wanted to own the team, and if they could get an arena deal worked out, and if the Blue Jackets actually did relocate to Quebec . . . we’d be right back to square 1, because the Eastern Conference would have 15 teams and there’d be no room for Detroit. Assuming the 4 Canadian teams plus Buffalo were the new Northeast Division, and Boston slid down to be in the Atlantic Division with the New York teams (consistent with how they’re aligned in most sports), we’d be right back to choosing which poor sap of a franchise gets put in the “Southeast” Division; basically choosing between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
LikeLike
Adam,
You said you hadn’t heard the reply to your argument. Triage is that reply. You don’t have to agree with it (that’s the point of debates), but others don’t have to agree with you that bending over backwards for a failing franchise in Columbus is right either.
As for Frank’s assumptions, none of them apply here. I didn’t call for contraction (#1) and made no judgement on stadium deals (#2). One team needs to move east and I’m just proposing it be a different team than you are, so less is more also is off point (#3).
I suggested letting Columbus sink or swim, and offered moving them to Quebec after they sink as a logical choice since Quebec is looking for a team and the rumor mill has them on the short list to get one. Having them survive or move elsewhere doesn’t change my argument, though. Your problem last time, and this time, is that you assume that trying to save the CBJ should be the NHL’s top priority and I don’t. I think they should worry about the NHL and let the individual owners worry about their teams. It’s better for the NHL, in my opinion, to please the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Red Wings fans that late start times are aggravating than to worry about the three CBJ fans. Hockey is much bigger in Michigan and the Red Wings have an international fan base. There are probably more DRW fans than CBJ fans in Columbus, let alone Ohio as a whole.
LikeLike
gregenstein,
No, I’m really not speculating. My argument isn’t dependent on the CBJ failing or moving to Quebec. I threw that out as a plausible possibility, but my point is that there is an obvious counter argument to Adam’s view. It is not obvious that it is better for the NHL to help the CBJ than the DRW. It’s not like Columbus is an especially valuable market or a hockey hotbed. The NHL fought for Phoenix and let Atlanta go, two very different approaches to teams in trouble. Why shouldn’t views on the CBJ also be split?
LikeLike
Frank said that contraction is not a realistic option. You’re leaving Columbus out to dry (“letting Columbus sink or swim”), but if “contraction is not a realistic option,” then the league (by the very terms of this discussion) is committed to doing the best it can to avoid putting itself in a position where contraction is on the table. No other city has enough information to even reasonable speculate relocating Columbus to; they all lack either adequate facilities (Quebec) or apparent interest from ownership groups (Kansas City) or both, at least at this stage, so it is unreasonable to blithely assume that someone else will come along and pick the franchise up.
I maintain that, by the very terms of this discussion, a weak franchise like Nashville or Columbus must have its needs seen to before a strong franchise like Detroit, at least in circumstances like this, where (if all teams were succesful business enterprises) it would otherwise be a close question.
LikeLike
Contraction isn’t on the table because the NHL knows it could move a team. They have been actively turning down bids for Phoenix because they don’t want to move them. They could move the CBJ easily and you know it.
LikeLike
So, is there a reason Houston doesn’t have an NHL team? I mean, every other sunbelt city gets one except for the largest city in the southeast? Do the Rockets just not like to share facilities?
LikeLike
I honestly do not know that they could easily move Columbus. I have absolutely no idea which towns have ownership groups that would be interested in buying a team. It wasn’t like the world was beating down the doors of ASG to buy the Thrashers.
LikeLike
I had also never heard they were actively turning down bids with the Coyotes. The only impression I got was that there was Hulsizer and then a whole lot of nothing outside of the True North group that wanted a team in Winnipeg.
LikeLike
As a Pens fan, I can tell you it would cause uproar to not be in the same division as Philadelphia. I would like being in a division with the Blue Jackets as I think something could develop there over time. You’d have to toss out Toronto to make it work for us, and I think that defeats the purpose for you.
LikeLike
Almost any change is going to cause uproar; nobody else really wants to be in a division with the Southeast Division teams. At least for me, the legitimacy of the uproar is reduced if the decision that causes it is logical. Assuming Columbus stays where they are, it seems more important to me to put the struggling Columbus team with Pittsburgh than it does the successful Philadelphia team, the preferences of the Flyers and Penguins notwithstanding. Given that there is at least a thin reed upon which to base shifting Philadelphia into the “Southeast” Division (i.e., the fact that it is part of a megalopolis with Washington), the whole thing seems logical to me.
The way to duck the uproar is definitely to have Nashville be the team that you put into the Southeast Division, and this makes geographic sense, but it seems very foolish to me to put a Central Time team into that Division when you have two Eastern Time teams in the Western Conference.
LikeLike
The problem is that you lose Detroit to gain Pittsburgh.
To help the CBJ, you really need something like this (assuming the same basic NHL structure):
E1. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, Columbus
E2. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Buffalo
E3. NYR, NYI, NJ, Tampa Bay, Florida
W1. Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Minnesota
W2. San Jose, LA, Anaheim, Phoenix, Colorado
W3. Dallas, St. Louis, Chicago, Nashville, Carolina
Is Columbus worth that much change?
LikeLike
Personally, I don’t think Columbus is worth any change at all and wish the franchise would go away with another of the weak sister teams (say, Florida). But as long as the team is there, it feels rhetorically dishonest to me not to argue for league policy changes that would keep them going as best as possible until the stakeholders who are in a position to decide when it’s time to abandon ship make that choice.
LikeLike
I saw a study several years ago (sorry, can’t find it) that said pretty much all NHL teams’ best attended games were against their conference rivals. Sure, a traditional powerhouse or Original Six team may draw well pretty much everywhere they go, but for the most part Phoenix’s best attended games were against the Kings and Ducks. Same for Carolina, their best attended games were against other Southeastern foes. And that’s why the NHL has pushed such a conference-heavy schedule, playing division foes six times a year at the expense of fewer inter-conference matchups (I think 12 of 15 cross-conference opponents don’t make it to a city from the opposite conference even once in any given year.) This sucks for displaced fans who want to see their childhood team, but those aren’t the fans that will carry a franchise. A division-heavy conference creates drama in the race for playoff spots.
So, after all that rambling, I agree with Frank: move Nashville to the Southeast, put Winnipeg with the other western Canadien teams, and bring Minnesota into the old Norris Division.
LikeLike
MLB: Does anyone know how scheduling would work if the Astros switched leagues? There would be 15 teams in each league and right now interleague play is an “event”. Would teams have bye series? Would there be one interleague series every three days? I kind of like how the two leagues have their own identities right now, but I’d like it even more if the TV contracts were ever structured that way the way they are in the NFL (which appears to be only for historical reasons involving when the competing leagues merged). In an ideal world, the D-Backs or Rockies would switch leagues and the Astros would move to the NL West to mirror the Rangers in the AL West (rather than playing with them), or the Astros would move to the AL Central while the Royals moved to the West (mirroring how the Pirates are in the NL Central but the Phillies are in the East despite being in the same state). But in an ideal-ideal world, MLB would expand to even out the leagues, if not the divisions unless it went to an NFL-style eight-division setup. What MLB really needs is a salary cap to make the league not so dependent on a few franchises…
NHL: Similar deal here, only more so. I’m saddened to see the Thrashers go, or the Coyotes potentially go; as someone who stares at Nielsen market lists a lot, Nashville is the only real “WTF?” of the NHL’s southern push. There have been success stories – some of the highest rated non-NHL markets for the Stanley Cup Finals were in Florida – but the NHL hasn’t done enough to replicate them. And the NHL also hasn’t done enough to build audiences out West; I read at least one comment saying the NHL needed to do whatever it took to get doubleheaders on Versus. Why aren’t the Avs on that list of draws?
NBA: What I hated about the potential Kings move wasn’t the move itself, but that they would move to a market with two NBA teams already. Why not just move the Clippers to Anaheim? What SHOULD have happened after Katrina was that the Hornets should have stayed in OKC and the Sonics would never even be considered for a move. Hopefully this was Stern’s soul-selling alone and either Bettman or Stern’s successor will see past Bennett’s lies.
NFL: One attractive part of moving the Jags is how painfully generic their team name is that it can fit in any market (and would sound even more painfully generic in LA), but it would result in divisional bedlam – all the teams in the AFC West are original AFL teams who all have rivalries with each other, which is why moving the Raiders or Chargers, on some level, makes more sense than any other AFC team (the Raiders and Seahawks had a healthy rivalry back in the day, but in a five-team division), though I kinda hope the Chargers don’t move. The NFL in general went for rivalries rather than strict geographical alignments when it most recently realigned, which is why the Cowboys are in the NFC East, and why moving the Vikings would cause divisional bedlam even though it’s probably a straight swap with the Rams (especially since NFL schedules really stress divisions above all else). It’s sad that they feel the need to build a brand new stadium rather than renovate the Coliseum that’s right there, but I suppose USC would throw a fit for numerous reasons, and the downtown stadium is a far better option than building something out in City of Industry.
LikeLike
What’s wrong with the City of Industry proposal (other than the neighboring cities not wanting a stadium there?) It is at the junction of LA, Orange and the IE. Plus, it would actually have room to tailgate, unlike the downtown proposal.
But assume that a downtown stadium gets built. What are the chances that USC will finally get tired of the Coliseum Commission and play downtown? The Commission recently said it can’t keep a promise to spend $60million in renovations. My guess is that makes the downtown site more likely to get built.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/17/local/la-me-coliseum-20110617
LikeLike
I’ve been left wondering why LA couldn’t do both. If they can support multiple NHL, NBA, and MLB teams, I should think they could support more than one NFL team.
LikeLike
USC has been in off and on serious discussions about buying the Coliseum over the last year or so. They want to do it. The state keeps changing its mind. The Coliseum is almost adjacent to campus, so its effectively an on-campus stadium. They won’t want to move. Given the state’s financial difficulties, I suspect it will probably happen fairly soon.
But its not a good site for an NFL team. Downtown is much better. City of Industry has easier access.
LikeLike
City of Industry is in the middle of nowhere and would make LA’s infamous traffic problems exponentially worse on game days.
LA needs the economic boost – and would get more of it – than Industry.
LikeLike
@Morgan – I suspect that interleague play would become more prominent. To continue to do 162 games in 6 months, every team will still need to play 26-29 games per month. They’d have interleague play starting in April and finishing the last day or two of the season, and you might see more interleague games.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Network realignment? For marketing reasons, MSNBC has been positioned as the far left’s alternative to Fox, trying to squeeze CNN from the left. Apparently its slipping even into NBC’s sports coverage, editing the pledge of allegiance. I first saw this in the Atlanta paper. Ran across links slamming it from an atheist point of view and even this from Investor’s Business Daily:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576023/201106211821/Pledge-Debacle-Shows-How-PC-Golf-Is-Getting.htm
I guess NBC will have to drop ND football with their Catholic identity.
LikeLike
@bullet – I think this concern is a bit overstated as large media companies have to appease lots of different audiences. I thought that the editing of the Pledge of Allegiance by NBC was wrong, but not on the basis of religious/political grounds, but rather I think it’s wrong for any network to censor anything other than the most graphic images and language that would cause an FCC fine (and frankly, I’d personally rather see those FCC rules eliminated entirely). As much as Fox News is a conservative bastion, remember that the over-the-air Fox network also probably did more to push the taste boundaries of previously prudish network TV than anyone over the past 25 years. As much as MSNBC has positioned itself as the new leftist network, it was CNBC’s editor (Rick Santelli) that’s credited with sparking the Tea Party movement in his on-the-air knockdown of government bailouts. It makes sense that cable networks cater to their own niches (as that’s how they create value), but the over-the-air networks generally take a different tact simply for business purposes (a la Michael Jordan saying that “Republicans buy shoes, too” when asked why he wasn’t active in politics like Muhammad Ali before him).
LikeLike
I have a real problem with editing for political correctness. The ND comment was facetious. Even far left liberals like money.
Editing the pledge is going really far. Reminds me of Red Skelton’s great classic on the pledge. He was talking about this very thing in the 60s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM
LikeLike
Santelli is considered an outlier on the network though. The only thing I read more than sports message boards is market one (mostly conservative (although not Republican) dominated) and Santelli is considered about the only sane thing that CNBC produces (left or right leaning).
LikeLike
As for movement in the NFL to LA, Kronke (sp?), who recently bought the Rams, has said he plans on upgrading the stadium to meet the 2014 deadline. Since he lives in Columbia, MO, I think he’ll keep the Rams in STL if it’s economically viable to upgrade. But if the numbers don’t make sense to upgrade, and recent articles from area papers doubt the upgrade is doable, I think STL may lose yet another NFL tream and they’ll have a great big indoor airplane hanger downtown.
LikeLike
Regarding Kansas City, the problem is that that none of the local millionaires/billionaires seem willing to buy a team and move it to the Sprint Center. We don’t have a Clay Bennett. No local owners stepped up to buy the Royals after Ewing Kauffman died in 1993, the Royals and Chiefs are owned by men from Arkansas (David Glass) and Dallas (Clark Hunt). The rumors of NHL teams coming to KC involved the Penguins ownership moving to KC, which was never going to happen, or a California businessman named Boots Del Biaggio moving the Predators. He ended up buying a minority share in the franchise before going to jail for fraud. The MLS team, Sporting KC, does have a great local ownership group, but they seem focused on soccer and have not expressed any interest in basketball or hockey.
Frankly, I’m not sure the Anschutz group, which runs the Sprint Center, wants an NHL/NBA franchise. They told the city they would try to bring one in, which would have increased sales tax revenue in the downtown developments adjacent to the arena. But the Sprint Center itself is very profitable the way it is, by having a very open schedule for concerts and not having to share any revenue with a NHL/NBA tenant.
LikeLike
Seconded. I heard somewhere that the Sprint Center is the most profitable arena without a major sports team. It’d be interesting to see if it could even support a hockey team.
LikeLike
I know it isn’t always feasible, but I really like when all or most of a city’s teams share the same city rivalries across different sports (i.e. Boston and New York, Chicago and Detroit, etc.). I think it adds passion to the rivalries, and makes it feel more like college rivalries. I hate the Hawkeyes in everything because of the basketball situation with Bruce Pearl back in the 90’s; I’m sure Boston and New York fans hate each other a little more across all sports because of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry.
So I think it would be great to get the Minnesota franchises, Wild and T’wolves, in a division with Chicago and Detroit.
LikeLike
Good change of pace, Frank.
Whenever I contemplate realignment scenarios, the one “radical” idea I have, which really isn’t so radical when you get down to it, which I have never seen anyone else propose, is this:
Do away with conferences.
Why are conferences still a necessity in this day and age? (Note: I can see the need, partially from historical reasons but also from the realities of playing multi-day series with games practically no every day, for MLB to have its leagues, so I’ll conveniently ignore them for this argument.)
Divisions, I get. They allow teams with close geographic proximity to each other to play each other much more frequently during the regular season, and they do allow a way to permit some guidance into seeding for playoffs.
But conferences? Is there any logical reason why it’s important for the Miami Heat and the Milwaukee Bucks to be in the same conference? Or the Vancouver Canucks and the Nashville Predators?
Also, it seems practically every season, someone from the group of the NHL, NBA and NHL has the problem of an “imbalanced league: in which one conference is much stronger than the other, leaving better quality teams out of the playoffs in favor of weaker teams from the inferior conference.
I would advocate that the NFL move to a model (assuming the schedule remains at 16 games, which I think it will) in which a division plays two entire other divisions each year, with other two non-divisional games being determined by the previous year’s records, much as is done now. This would allow games like Dallas-Pittsburgh to be played much more frequently (though at the cost of a slightly less-frequent Dallas-Green Bay game).
I would advocate that the NBA and NFL move to a model with more divisional games and a more balanced number of games against each of the other divisions, with no greater number of games against non-divisional teams from the same conference. (To get to the right number of games, the NBA and NHL could rotate schedules annually, like the NFL, so that, say, the Pacific and Atlantic divisions match off three times instead of twice in a particular season.)
Yes, there might be more travel for the eastern teams in denser population centers if they’re playing more games, relatively speaking, against teams from the west, but welcome to the travel realities practically every team from the west has to face anyway. Besides, traveling nowadays is much easier for pro athletes than it was a generation ago, when travel-based concerns about keeping conferences made more sense.
Playoff structures would remain the same. Six seeded divisional champs receiving byes in the NFL, and the six best non-divisional champs receive wildcards. I think it’s a benefit that you could see a Giants-Jets wildcard game, or a Dallas-Pittsburgh game before the Super Bowl.
NBA and NHL keep their 16-team playoffs, with the top six seeds going to the divisional winners and the next 10 spots going to the next 10 best teams.
Other than nebulous concerns about “tradition,” why doesn’t this make all the sense in the world?
LikeLike
The best rivalries are built by playoff encounters. With no conferences, any given playoff matchup becomes that much less likely. That would be my biggest objection — conference playoff battles help provide the juice that fuels the regular season (over time). Would there have been a Red Wings/Avs rivalry if they weren’t both members of the Western Conference and were funneled toward each other? I say no. In fact, lots of people would like to see the NHL go back to the division-based playoff format (i.e., 4 divisions, top 4 teams in each division qualify, division champs in each conference play for the conference title), again because it would funnel teams together for repeat playoff encounters. I don’t think that works in a 30-team league, but I would absolutely endorse it in a 28-team league, and I think it’s something the NFL should consider for its 32-team league.
LikeLike
True, a non-conference alignment might have meant less Avs-Wings series. But who’s to say that they wouldn’t have met anyway, perhaps even with the Cup on the line? Also, without the artificiality of conferences,w ho knows if a great Avs-Devils rivalry could have formed if those two elite teams from the late 90s had opportunities to play in the playoffs each year in a round other than the Finals.
Also, the current structure often means that the greatest teams at a particular time can never meet on the biggest stage. Shouldn’t the Cowboys-Niners games of the 90s, or the Patriots-Colts games of the 00s, have had the opportunities to be Super Bowl matchups instead of mere conference championships?
LikeLike
I would rather have ensured that there was repeated Cowboys-Niners or Patriots-Colts games than ensure that they were as late in the playoffs as possible. I don’t think it is wise to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
LikeLike
Another, better football example. Between 1988 and 1994, seven seasons in all, either the Niners or the Bills made the Super Bowl each year, yet the two teams never met in the playoffs. Who knows what kind of rivalry could have been formed had the conference structure not limited their opportunities to meet in the playoffs.
LikeLike
It’s just a matter of cost-benefit. I’d rather be sure that the 49ers and Cowboys played regularly (or whatever other great rivalry you want to pick) than open up the playoff format in the hope that the 49ers and Bills played.
LikeLike
Tradition really matters in the NHL. Someone tell bettman.
LikeLike
Really? I think the top rivalries are in the same division in MLB and NFL. NBA rivalries are built in the playoffs because nobody cares about the regular season and only a few teams win regularly. NHL rivalries have developed both ways (long history and recent playoffs).
MLB – Yankees/Red Sox, Cardinals/Cubs, Dodgers/Giants
NFL – Cowboys/Redskins, Packers/Bears, Steelers/Ravens/Browns, Raiders/Broncos
LikeLike
I think your idea makes a lot of sense for the NHL and NBA.
It obviously doesn’t work in baseball with the history of different leagues.
Not sure about the NFL. There were different leagues, but it doesn’t matter as much now. You don’t play your own conference much more than the other. Six of the 32 teams are post merger expansion and Cincinnati was formed about the time the leagues agreed to merge. 3 of the old NFL clubs are in the AFC and the Colts aren’t in Baltimore and the Browns aren’t quite sure whether they are still in Cleveland or in the former home of the Colts. And the Steelers were awful when they left the NFL. Of the AFL, the old west is intact (for now), the east is intact so you keep the divisions, but the Oilers are Titans. So 8 would have their division rivalries and the rest wouldn’t matter. In the NFL you have the Black and Blue and the NFC East, so those 8 have their divisions, while the rest of the teams have moved divisions or cities so much, it really doesn’t matter.
Interesting idea.
LikeLike
You play your own conference a lot more than the other in the NFL. Of the 16 games, only 4 are against the opposite conference.
LikeLike
Outside your division you play 6 games against the other 12 teams vs. 4 games against the 16 in the other conference so its not a great difference outside your division. And with the scheduling, there’s no regularity to the non-division conference opponents you play. You could go indefinitely without playing a particular team in your conference.
If the 18 game schedule comes about, that would change. It also seems like a good time to review the structure.
LikeLike
Yes there is regularity. Of the 6 “conference” opponents every team plays, 4 are against one of the other 3 divisions on a rotating basis (i.e., play all 4 teams). The last 2 games are against the 2 teams that finished in the same ordinal position as you the prior season from the 2 divisions you aren’t playing. So, for example, in 2011 the NFC East is playing the NFC West, so every NFC East team will play every NFC West team. In addition, every NFC East team plays the team from the NFC South and NFC North that finished in the same ordinal position within the division as them in 2010. So the Eagles (2010 NFC East Champs) will play the Chicago Bears (2010 NFC North Champs) and Atlanta Falcons (2010 NFC South Champs). The Giants (2nd place in 2010 NFC East) will play the Packers (2nd place in 2010 NFC North) and Saints (2nd place in 2010 NFC South). But both the Giants and the Eagles will play everybody in the NFC West, because that’s the division the rotation puts them up against.
Since the NFL realigned to the 8-division format, everybody plays in everybody else’s stadium at least once every 8 years.
LikeLike
My mistake. I was thinking the schedule was still based totally on place.
LikeLike
The system is actually very simple, but I always find it very cumbersome to describe it. It takes a lot of words, and it’s easy to lose the attention of the person you’re trying to explain it to.
LikeLike
Home-and-home against teams in the same division
4 games against a rotating division in the same conference
4 games against a rotating division in the other conference
1 game against the team in each of the other two divisions in the same conference that finished in the same position last year (1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, 3rd vs 3rd, 4th vs 4th)
There you go, simple.
LikeLike
However, I do agree that the NFL/AFL juxtaposition is almost totally irrelevant for the current alignment, for all the reasons you mention. Many of the clubs substantially post-date the merger (or came about right at the time of the merger and thus have no relation to the AFL/NFL days), and several NFL clubs switched to the AFC at the time of the merger. At this point, the AFC/NFC split is, effectively, maintained because that’s the way it’s always been, without the same meaningful history that the AL and NL have (which, until fairly recently, still maintained separate governance structures and umpiring crews).
LikeLike
My crazy, everybody would hate it but me realignment of the NFL is as follows:
A1: Eagles, Jets, Giants, Patriots
A2: Browns, Steelers, Bills, Lions
A3: Falcons, Buccaneers, Dolphins, Jaguars
A4: Panthers, Bengals, Redskins, Ravens
B1: Bears, Colts, Packers, Vikings
B2: Saints, Rams, Titans, Chiefs
B3: Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Seahawks
B4: Texans, Cowboys, Cardinals, Broncos
Top 2 teams in each division make the playoffs and play each other in the first round. In the 2nd round, the pairings are: A1 vs. A2, A3 vs. A4, B1 vs. B2, B3 vs. B4. Winners advance to the Conference Championship round (A vs. A, B vs. B), and then the Super Bowl as usual.
LikeLike
You want to put my Steelers in with the Browns, Lions, and Bills? I can’t thank you enough for the cake walk into the playoffs every year!
In reality, this would never work. The Steelers/Ravens rivalry is as good as any in the league and worthy of protection. Chiefs/Raiders too, and the Broncos are in this group. You’ve split Browns/Bengals too.
The NFL has a pretty good alignment right now in my opinion. I’m happy they don’t handle interleague play like baseball and force the Jets/Giants, Ravens/Redskins, Bucs/Dolphins, or Raiders/49ers to play every year because of some “natural rival” nonsense.
LikeLike
Except it’s not nonsense for many teams. The NFL could help themselves by playing these types of games more often, especially as more teams are struggling with blackouts.
Look at teams like the AFC South with multiple teams closer than their nearest division opponent, or Baltimore in the east.
Maybe they should lock the geographical counterpart divisions (East plays East, etc) every other year instead of an equal rotation as a compromise. That emphasizes the nearer teams but still brings all the teams around.
LikeLike
They could certainly lock the natural rivals for the preseason if they don’t now (I pay no attention). Those games need any help they can get.
And if they go to 18 games, locking in 2 or 4 games regionally make more sense since there will still be plenty of rotating games.
LikeLike
I like the idea of the Rust Belt towns forming a division. Pittsburgh won’t be good forever. The Lions are on the rise. I would think the biggest complaints would be separating the Lions from the Bears and Packers, but I suspect the Bears and Packers care more about facing each other than they do the Lions.
As for the preseason, I think the NFL teams each get to draw up their own preseason schedules. But, I’m not sure about that.
If they went to 18 games, that set of divisions reflected my notion of locking in some opponents. You’d play everybody in your own division twice (6 games); you’d play everybody in your permanent opposite division once (thus, everybody in A1 plays everybody in A2; A3 plays A4; B1 plays B2; B3 plays B4) for 4 more games; you’d alternate one of the other 2 divisions in your conference (4 games); and you’d play 1 division from the opposite league (4 games).
Anyway, it’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
For hockey, the most logical realignment, assuming Phoenix stays put, is:
Nashville to SE
Dallas to Central
Colorado to Pacific
Winnipeg to NW
Dallas (at least by time zones) is the most geographically isolated team in all of the four major leagues. All of its road divisional games are currently played two time zones later. That sucks.
This would put Colorado in a bit more geographically-concise division.
Minnesota stays in the NW with the four Canadian teams, but that feels right. Better than Colorado being with the four Canadian teams.
LikeLike
As a long time Houstonian (35 years!), let me chime in here. Even though we as a city have a lot of hate towards Dallas (we see them as a bunch of uppity a-holes), with the exception of the Cowboys, nobody here cares about any of the other Dallas pro teams.
Except for the time when Nolan Ryan left the Astros and landed with the Rangers, nobody here has ever cared about the Rangers. That even includes last season’s World Series run. Our baseball rivals were historically the Dodgers, Reds, Phillies, and Mets. The latter two because of the two epic NLCS in the 80s. More recently, our rivals have been the Braves, Cubs, Brewers, and the Cardinals. If the Astros were put in the same division as the Rangers, I’m sure a rivalry would eventually develop, but at this point there is no rivalry.
The exact same thing could be said about the Rockets and Mavericks. Our big basketball rivals have historically been the Lakers and the Spurs. The only reason anyone in Houston cared about this year’s NBA finals was because of LeBron James.
On a different subject, as far as L.A. and the NFL is concerned, IMO AEG would be better off buying the Dodgers and building them a baseball-only stadium in Downtown L.A. than building a football stadium and moving an NFL team. A baseball stadium would yield 81 home games vs the 10 home games for an NFL stadium. That way LA Live (another AEG property) would have action year-round and not just during basketball and hockey seasons.
I’ve worked in the L.A. area as well, so I’m pretty sure I can speak with some authority when I say no one in L.A. proper wants to go all the way out to the City of Industry to watch an NFL game. The bulk of the population (especially the well-to-do) in Los Angeles lives well west of downtown. City of Industry is well east of these folks. City of Industry only looks good on a map. Traffic would be a nightmare even for the most battle-hardened Angeleno.
On a related note, Frank, I love the blog, but I gotta disagree with you about anyone in San Diego making the trek to the Honda Center in Aneheim to watch the Kings (if they ever move there) play. It’s closer than driving to Staples Center in downtown L.A., but the commute to Aneheim from San Diego is still pretty bad.
LikeLike
There’s a “Houston”?!?
LikeLike
Touche, Hopkins Horn! Touche! Sadly, I’m pretty sure that’s an accurate observation of the way most Dallasites (is that the proper term?) view our humble city. Houston certainly has an inferiority complex when it comes to Dallas. With all due respect to Dallas, I don’t see why. I get that Dallas is richer and more prestigious. However, both cities are so much alike, with the exception of pro sports success, they’re practically twins of one another. Nonetheless, you hit the nail on the head. When it comes to sports, Dallas doesn’t think about Houston and vice versa.
LikeLike
What’s weird is that, when I think of cities which are most similar to Dallas (I mean generally, and not just in sports terms), I ‘ll usually think of Atlanta, and possibly Phoenix, before I think of Houston.
LikeLike
Fort Worth is “Where the West Begins”.
Dallas is “Where the East fizzles out and Dies”.
The only difference between Atlanta and Dallas is that Atlanta has hills.
LikeLike
Having lived in both cities, I really felt like Dallas had the inferiority complex to Houston (not that they would ever admit it).
I’ve often heard Atlanta compared to Dallas as being similar. There are certain southern attitudes that are comparable. But the cities and business mindset are different. And the winters are too! I was expecting Dallas winters when I moved to Atlanta, but I got southern Ohio winters.
LikeLike
While we’re talking about H-town, Vince Young’s and Moran Norriss’s old HS coach retired after 23 years (21 in playoffs) at the same school.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/hso/7622037.html
And a little trivia-what Chicago Bear player shared the same HS as Vince Young? (hint: he was before this coach and think Big Red)
LikeLike
Alright, Texas city smack talk. This is my kind of discussion. In basketball, it certainly seems like both the Mavs and Rockets hate the Spurs most, but that could be temporary. The Mavs and Rockets have never really been good at the same time (except for a brief bit about 8-10 years ago), so it’s hard to make a rivalry. If both teams were ever really competitive, you’d get something. I think what prevents the two cities from having good rivalries is that they don’t get to play each other often. Cowboys and Texans rarely play, same for ‘Gers and Stros. I don’t know about Houston, but Rangers fans sure turn out for the Silver Boot and would continue to do so for a division game. I have more fun with that “rivalry” than with any division opponent. I’m not sure I personally know a fan of any other AL West team.
LikeLike
Good Lord, do not move the Astros to the AL West. Swapping in the A’s and the Mariners for the Cardinals and Cubs would kill what little attendance we have for this awful team.
LikeLike
On an utterly unrelated note, a rumor surfaced that Missouri State is joining CUSA. Seems unlikely, but since we’re starved for CFB realignment rumors, I thought I should let you know.
LikeLike
I’m going to assume they are doing that to take their football team FBS.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the tweets. CUSA has no incentive to invite them.
LikeLike
Agreed. This seems like it would be a desperate move if the Big East or someone else was threatening to raid existing members, which they don’t currently seem to be. And even if C-USA needed members, why an FBS school instead of an established Sun Belt school? Or Louisiana Tech?
LikeLike
Desperate to have somebody other than Memphis qualify for the bb tourney? Of course, in basketball it would be a step down for Missouri State from the MVC.
Actually, they would be in my top 5 of logical move-ups. College size town, noone else near in the state and only one other fbs school. Successful in everything but football (hey-it worked for UConn).
But I don’t give this any credence either. I have seen internet chatter that they turned down the Sun Belt. I don’t think CUSA would invite them and I don’t really think they are interested.
LikeLike
I don’t know how old this proposal is, but what if West Virginia and Pittsburgh packaged themselves together to the ACC?
http://www.southernpigskin.com/ACC/view/the-nations-first-super-conference
Are these two together worth it for the ACC?
Can the ACC use this to get a bump their TV Contract?
Would Pitt and WV do it?
LikeLike
Pitt and WV would do it (contracts are still going to be bigger in the ACC as is academic prestige). Not a chance it happens though. WV while a great fit otherwise is unlikely to meet the ACC’s academic criteria. The ACC also just signed a contract in the last year or so, so the notion of expansion this quick seems a little out of place.
LikeLike
While WV and Pitt would like it, I don’t see the upside for the ACC.
They add Pittsburgh and WV to the TV footprint, which won’t pay for much (I think PSU would still be the top draw in Pittsburgh). They aren’t huge FB draws, so where does the money come from to split 14 ways instead of 12? Would the old guard want even more games against ex-BE teams rather than each other in hoops?
The plan splits the NC schools with Duke in the north and the others in the south. Splitting UVA and Duke from UNC is an issue. How do they schedule for hoops and FB?
Here’s a WV blogger on the subject:
http://www.smokingmusket.com/2011/6/22/2236985/college-expansion-realignment-superconference-acc-big-east-wvu-pitt
“The new ACC, while not quite as strong as the SEC in pigskin, would still be the second or third strongest conference in football (Big Ten has an argument for #2) and the strongest in basketball.”
How does adding Pitt and WV bump the ACC up to almost the level of the SEC in FB? It solidifies the middle but the ACC’s problem lately has been at the top and the bottom. The ACC has no old kings, and needs FSU and Miami to return to their glory days to gain status. Pitt and WV don’t help with that.
The B10 would be much stronger on paper with 4 kings (I’m not talking one particular season, just in general). The P12 and B12 will also enter the argument, as they’ve both been better than the ACC lately. Sure the B12 loses NE, but they still have 2 kings. The P12 gains a solid Utah team and a CCG which will help their reputation nationally, while UW is improving and OR has stopped it from being USC’s playground. The ACC+ should be equivalent to the B12 and P12 and well above the BE-, but the B10 and SEC should be above them (again, that’s on paper based on recent team success).
LikeLike
The B10 would be much stronger on paper with 4 kings
Well, the B1G does have “4 Kings” if you consider PSU, OSU, Michigan, and Nebraska. If you consider the B1G “middle” it’s pretty solid with Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan State.
I’m not sure that the BCS MNCG is the best yardstick, but if you look at the championships it’s been all-SEC since 2006, and the SEC has “spread the wealth” with no less than 4 different teams in 5 years. What’s interesting is that Florida has been the only team representing the SEC East, while Auburn, Alabama, and LSU have all represented the SEC West. At least in the SEC West that says “balance” to me.
In that same time frame, Ohio State has won the Big Ten, or a share of the title, every one of those years. Other than Ohio State, it’s been Penn State, Michigan State, and Wisconsin sharing titles.
I think the way I’d look at it is that “the B1G would be much stronger if the “4 Kings” (and one might argue, the conference at large) would be more balanced.” Over the past 6 years (and arguably longer if one dives into the record books), it’s pretty much been Ohio State and everybody else. Prior to OSU’s dominance, Michigan had good years but they essentially fell on their face trying to compete with OSU.
Is the SEC “lucky” with their balance, or have they done something to plan this? It seems to me that OSU’s dominance has done nothing to help the B1G be a stronger conference, and has quite possibly done much to make it appear weaker, at least in the MNCG arena, which seems to be the thing the average fan and sportswriter pay attention to the most.
LikeLike
Is oversigning a plan? Without that, I don’t think the SEC would have been as dominant lately. Their teams would still be good but they would feel the sting of injuries and attrition more like everyone else without it. I think the CCG has also helped them.
It’s not a good sign for a conference when one team dominates (FSU in the ACC for a while, Miami in the BE), but I think the B10 has been a little closer than it seems. PSU shared some titles with OSU and had the tiebreaker, and so did WI last year. MI is rebounding from being down. NE is also getting back to normal as they join the B10. With OSU probably sliding back for a few years, the top should be well contested for a while.
NE needs to find some offense, MI needs to find some defense and PSU needs to find a JoePa successor (eventually) and all of them will be able to compete for a NC.
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/6/23/2238284/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-fourth-round-complete
Conference re-draft update:
5 of the 6 conferences have names now, with #4 still named by the commissioner’s blog. The top 26 have been picked
Round 4 is done:
1. Cult of Les Miles: Stanford (LSU, Michigan, UNC)
2. House of a Thousand Sanctions: Tennessee (USC, Notre Dame, Oregon)
3. Conference TMZ: Michigan State (Ohio State, Florida State, Louisville)
4. Team Speed Kills: Texas A&M (Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska)
5. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: Miami-FL (Florida, Penn State, Virginia Tech)
6. The 12 Pack: Wisconsin (Texas, Georgia, UCLA)
Round 5 is underway:
1. The 12 Pack: Washington (Texas, Georgia, UCLA, Wisconsin)
2. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: Auburn (Florida, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Miami-FL)
Reading the various blogs you see some interesting logic to support the decisions.
I think Stanford is a huge reach in round 4 even if your priorities are academics and NC’s in non-revenue sports. Several blogs were showing interest in them, but I think last year’s FB team is tainting their judgement. They should have been around in round 6.
TMZ continues to befuddle me by taking MSU. They’re a little brother program with OK FB history and great MBB. They would have been around later, probably into round 6.
TN, TAMU, Miami and WI were solid picks, though. UW and AU are good too.
Best available at this point (IMO) – MD, GT, Duke, KY, MO, Pitt, IL
Likely reaches – KU, Cal, Syracuse, OkSU
LikeLike
With the third pick in the fifth round, Team Speed Kills selects Arizona.
The logic was – good in MBB, OK in FB, in the west, high director’s cup standings historically,
and having red and white as colors didn’t hurt (seriously)
I think AZ was a reach, and I think getting into the east would have been a wiser course. AZ would have been around for a little while.
The BE blog is next, but I think they are currently distracted by the NBA draft.
LikeLike
http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2011/6/23/2240340/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-round-five-selection-west-virginia
With the fourth pick in the fifth round, Conference TMZ selects WV.
This just keeps getting better and better. They get another midwestern team with balanced success in FB and MBB and expand their market all the way from MI to WV, plus FL. WV is a huge reach with their tiny market and geographic proximity to other teams (MI, OH, KY and WV in your top 5?). They would have been available much later.
Their rationale: 39th in Director’s Cup, high profit margins last year, a lot of FB and MBB success despite no NC
Apparently these guys don’t think TV value is meaningful for this draft.
LikeLike
With the fifth pick in the fifth round, The House of a Thousand Sanctions selects Syracuse. I’d say this a little early, but not a huge reach. They needed a MBB power and a true east coast team.
The Cult of Les Miles is now on the clock for the next 2 picks.
LikeLike
http://www.houseofsparky.com/2011/6/24/2240638/ncaa-conference-re-draft-project-fifth-round-results
The fifth round of the re-draft is over (Overall picks #25-30):
1. The 12 Pack: Washington (Texas, Georgia, UCLA, Wisconsin)
2. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: Auburn (Florida, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Miami (FL))
3. Team Speed Kills: Arizona (Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M)
4. Conference TMZ: West Virginia (Ohio State, Florida State, Louisville, Michigan State)
5. House of a Thousand Sanctions: Syracuse (USC, Notre Dame, Oregon, Tennessee)
6. Cult of Les Miles: Arkansas (LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Stanford)
I think Arkansas was a reach. At least they bring a rivalry with LSU, but they are a small market and adjacent to LSU. They’ve been down in MBB for a while, too.
CoLM is still on the clock as they have the first pick in the sixth round. Who they take then may change my opinion of the Arkansas pick.
LikeLike
yeah. that one was just plain weird.
LikeLike
Msu has a small pile of national championships, which is more than a lot of today’s top tier can say.
LikeLike
While I think MSU was a reach (they would have been around for round 5 and maybe 6), my bigger issue with the pick is that I don’t really understand their plan. OSU, FSU, UL and MSU? Do you want 3 of your top 4 from that small an area? Clearly they value MBB more than I do, but they don’t seem to value other sports that much. What about opening new markets and talent bases? MSU just doesn’t seem like a great pick for their conference when they could have taken TAMU, for example.
I don’t think of total NC’s as a major criterion, but you’re right. MSU has 21 by my count, which is a solid total (#46 overall, #23 D-IA), tied with NE. They trail PSU (41), MI (35), OSU (28), IA (25), WI (23) and IN (22) in the B10, though. I believe MSU was 41st in the Director’s Cup this year as a comparison.
Top 25 in order:
UCLA, Stanford, USC (98-108)
OkSU, LSU, TX, AR, PSU (41-47)
NC, MI (35-37)
Cal, OSU, GA, OU, IA, MD, FL, ASU, CO, ND, WI, IN, NE, UTEP and MSU (21-28)
That’s 8 B10, 6 P12, 4 SEC, 3 B12, 2 ACC, 1 Ind. and 1 non-AQ
The teams drafted before MSU that are missing:
OR, AL, TN, FSU, VT, UL
How many of those are top tier schools? Do they really constitute a lot of the top tier?
The SEC schools have smaller athletic departments generally, so it’s not a huge surprise to me (especially with the FB focus at AL and AU). The FSU, VT and OR have only been prominent for a relatively short period of time, but are bigger names in FB now than MSU is (obviously much smaller names in MBB). However, the ACC schools also open major markets and talent pools while OR brings Nike money. Nobody thought UL should have been picked yet.
Are you really surprised that any of those teams except UL went before MSU?
Teams remaining:
Cal, OkSU, AR, IA, MD, ASU, CO, IN, UTEP
Are you surprised MSU went before any of these teams?
Cal – major market, great all around athletics, west coast, great academics
OkSU – the little brother in a small state but has TBP money
MD – weaker history but has a market advantage
CO – big brother and brings a major western market
ASU – brings a major western market
What about other schools like TAMU, Miami, UW, AU, IL, MO, UK, Duke, KU, Pitt and Syracuse?
LikeLike
Just saying it’s not totally nuts.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it was, but don’t you think they probably went a little early (especially for that league)? It’s not a reach like Louisville by any means, but I don’t think that conference can even get maximum value out of MSU with OSU and UL (and now WV) on board.
LikeLike
http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2011/6/22/2237786/why-were-optimistic-about-the-future-of-big-east-football
A BE blogger is optimistic about BE FB. His argument is that all the previous good coaches have left, so the brain drain should stop for a while. Also, he thinks highly of the replacements claiming some of the best minds on O and D (he seems excited about 3-3-5 coaches). He also convinced of the benefits of expansion regardless of who the 10th team is (there are a lot of pluses, but the 10th team could brings some problems). He’s clearly got high hopes for the TV deal, too.
I think he’s spinning things the way he hopes it will turn out, but he’s right that they can’t help but get better than last year.
LikeLike
If you’ve got a coaching carousel, that situation is relatively permanent. BE has become stepping stone jobs, not much different than the MAC (except in money). Central Michigan to Cincinnati to Notre Dame, MAC to BE to B10 or SEC or Big 12 or assistant to BE to B10 or SEC or Big 12 may become a pattern.
LikeLike
Better to have a coach everybody wants than a coach nobody wants.
Sometimes the carousel stops. I despaired after Franchione left TCU for Bama, but Patterson’s stuck around and at this point I don’t think he’s going anywhere for awhile.
And yeah, there’s a lot of denial in the Big East. But the TV deal might turn out okay. Maybe.
LikeLike
The thing is, you want to have the coach everybody wants, not to have had the coach everybody wanted.
Schiano is the only coach with any tenure left in the BE, so the turnover almost has to stop for a while. Part of it is that all the new coaches need to prove their worth. If USF starts to win, though, how long until Holtz leaves? How about Holgorsen and Graham? SU and UConn are OK for now, and Strong sounds pretty loyal to UL although a big name could tempt him. UC needs to start winning again or they’ll be shopping for a new coach, too.
LikeLike
Well, obviously that’s ideal, but I’d rather lose my coach because he did a good job and went to a bigger program than because he was bad and got fired. And if you keep trying, you might find a Gary Patterson or a Chris Petersen who sticks around.
LikeLike
Bettman proposes NHL Realignment. Wings and BlueJackets may get their wish.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/22/nhl-maps-out-major-changes
LikeLike
I do not like the sounds of divisions with unequal numbers of teams in them. The only sensible way to do a 30-team league is to have 6 divisions of 5 teams each. I agree with the sentiment, in that I think a 4-division league is the way to go, but first you need a number of teams that is evenly divisible by 4.
LikeLike
So you are proposing expansion to 32 for this, because as you said above we can’t mention the C word?
MLB has managed to do OK with a lack of balance. The NHL is so imbalanced geographically that this would potentially help them a lot. I’d put 14 in the west and 16 in the east (not that I think they will):
Pacific = Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Phoenix and the CA teams
Midwest = Winnipeg, CO, Dallas, St. L , Chicago, Minnesota, Nashville
South = FL teams, Carolina, DC, Philly, NY/NJ teams
East = Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston, eastern Canada teams
LikeLike
No, I’m not proposing expansion to 32. I’m proposing that a 30-team league needs to be 6 divisions of 5 teams each. I’m taking as a given the number of teams (30) and recommending a divisional alignment in light of that. I’ll leave it up to the league to balance the myriad competing concerns to decide whether to contract to 28 or expand to 32 (I am taking for granted they would go by twos henceforth, which may be unwarranted; at any rate, I’d think about how a league with an odd number of teams ought to align when it comes to it).
LikeLike
@Pat – I’m actually warming up to this idea (outside of Detroit moving to the East). I’ve stated before that I loved the old divisional playoff format. If Columbus and Nashville were to move to the East (and once again, I know that Nashville is in the Central Time Zone, but they are such a better geographic fit for the South than Detroit and I think that matters more), we could have the following 4 divisions:
EASTERN CONFERENCE
“EAST”/NORTH
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey
Boston
Montreal
Buffalo
Toronto
Ottawa
SOUTH
Philadelphia
Washington
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Nashville
Florida
Tampa Bay
Carolina
WESTERN CONFERENCE
MIDWEST
Detroit
Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
Dallas
Winnipeg
Colorado
PACIFIC
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix
With everyone only playing the teams outside of their division home-and-home (whether in-conference or out-of-conference), that would placate the Red Wings as only the Avalanche (who are a quasi-rival) would be more than one time zone away in the Midwest division and they’ll play each of the Pacific Time Zone teams the same amount as each of the Eastern Conference teams. I just don’t see how Detroit could be placed in a division with Toronto and Montreal without screwing up multiple other important Eastern rivalries, anyway, so I find it hard to believe that Wings fans would be so hell-bent on moving to the East that they’d rather be in the South Division with the Sun Belt teams compared to the proposed Midwest Division. The crossing time zone issue largely much goes away under this format and everyone’s primary rivalry is preserved. The Western Conference teams would play each of their division foes 6 times per year. In the Eastern Conference, the teams would play 3 of their division foes 6 times per year (who could be permanently assigned rivals such as the NY area teams all playing each other the max amount, Boston-Montreal, etc.) and the 4 others 5 times per year.
It’s not ideal to have 16 teams in one conference and 14 in the other, but it exists in baseball and my inclination is that the return of the divisional playoffs and alleviation of the time zone issues would be worth it. If the NHL goes down this road, though, the first two rounds ought to be pure divisional playoffs (as opposed to a re-seeding after the 1st round as reportedly proposed) since there would be such a huge emphasis on division play during the regular season.
LikeLike
How about HH’s idea of ending conferences and have 5 divisions of 6 each with no conferences. Play 6 against your division teams (30), 2 against everyone else (48), leaving 4 extra games to play against “rivals” in other divisions.
5 west coast teams + Colorado in the west
Edmonton, Calgary, Thrashers, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis in the north
Dallas, Nashville, TB, FL, Washington and Carolina in the south
The 5 NE teams + the Islanders in the east
Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburg, Philly, Rangers and Devils in the Central.
Philly or the Devils could be traded for the Islanders in the east.
Take the top 2 in each division and 6 wildcards. Seed the playoffs based on overall record.
LikeLike
“It’s not ideal to have 16 teams in one conference and 14 in the other, but it exists in baseball and my inclination is that the return of the divisional playoffs and alleviation of the time zone issues would be worth it.”
I see two problems with this.
1. Baseball only does this because of hang-ups about interleague play (expressed elsewhere in this thread). If nobody cared about having interleague play all year long, you could do 15/15 and have an interleague series every weekend. But, lots of people are squeamish about that, and thus you have 16/14 and so on. The NHL doesn’t have a similar problem.
2. Although I personally would like to see a 4-division format with a divisional playoff, like in the ’80s, Hopkins Horn above expressed a strong contrary view that would need to be overcome: plenty of people think the format should be more open, not less. The last time I remember it being really seriously discussed in the NHL was in 2002, when you had the consensus 2 best teams in the league (Detroit and Colorado) playing in the West Finals, with the winner expected to make short work of the Eastern Champion; there was chatter at that time about using a conference-based playoff until you were down to 4 teams and then re-seeding 1-4. Can that sentiment be overcome? Perhaps, but it feels to me like you’re fighting an uphill battle if you want to have uneven divisions too. If they went down to 28 teams, that’s another ball of wax, but like you very reasonably said, contraction is out of bounds.
LikeLike
Actually, Adam, thinking about a reversion to a four-division format, I think I would be ok with making the playoffs more closed (i.e. the first two rounds are intradivisional, with a Final Four of the last four teams standing seeded based on regular season record). This would still allow what seems to be most important for you – increased likelihood of rivals meeting in the playoffs – and would still meet my goal of removing the artificiality of conferences from preventing the best two teams from meeting in the Finals.
LikeLike
How about this? I agree that the time zone advantage trumps having even numbers. To the extent it is harder to travel in the west, it is offset by having 1 more team in your division to compete with in the east. I’d go back to campbell and wales. Detroit kind of gets paid in this deal, but they give up a lot too. I really like getting away from 6 divisions, they are too small. A home and home with every team is an absolute must no matter what they do.
CAMPBELL
Pacific
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
San Jose
LA
Anaheim
Phoenix
Central
Winny
Minny
St Louis
Chicago
Colorado
Dallas
Nashville
WALES
East
Boston
Montreal
Toronto
Detroit
Buffalo
Columbus
Ottawa
Carolina
Atlantic
NY R
NY I
NJ
Philly
Pitt
DC
FLA
Tampa Bay
LikeLike
I just had an idear.
How about Toronto moves back home and Dallas moves into the new south?
You could have minny, winny, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, buffalo and columbus in one pairing. Keep it at 7 because when phoenix moves to Hamilton, you’ll need space for them.
Dallas and St louis might have to go south, which is a little weird. Pair them with Fla, tb, Nash & carolina. That seems ok.
LikeLike
I like Frank’s idea better. Dallas in with the SE bunch? Gross. The Stars picked a bad time to be bankrupt and essentially run by the league. Paging Mark Cuban, Mark Cuban to the white courtesy phone.
LikeLike
That was supposed to be below Pat’s post. Whatever.
LikeLike
@Frank, — Had a business meeting recently with some people from Illitch Enterprises, which owns the Red Wings and Tigers. The hallway scuttlebutt was the Wings are pushing hard to be in a Midwest Division with Toronto, Buffalo and Chicago. They would also like to include Pittsburgh, but the Pens are adamant about playing in the east with Philly. Depending on how Phoenix shakes out, we might be looking at something similar to this;
East Midwest South Pacific
Montreal Toronto Washington Vancouver
Boston Buffalo Nashville Edmonton
Ottawa Detroit Tampa Calgary
NY Rangers Chicago Florida Phoenix
NY Isles Winnipeg Carolina Colorado
New Jersey Minnesota Dallas San Jose
Philadelphia Columbus St. Louis Anaheim
Pittsburgh Los Angeles
Winnipeg and Minnesota do not want to be placed with the west coast teams.
By keeping the first round playoffs within each division you avoid the situation the Red Wings almost had to deal with this past season of “starting three consecutive playoff series on the west coast”. Television sponsors and fans both hate those 10:30pm start times. But, if the Wings had defeated San Jose, they would have played Vancouver in the conference final. They played Phoenix in the first round. Overtime games went til almost 2:00am. Just ridiculous!
LikeLike
Let’s try those divisions again. Sorry for the cluster fuck.
East
Montreal
Boston
Ottawa
NY Rangers
NY Isles
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Midwest
Toronto
Detroit
Buffalo
Chicago
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Columbus
South
Washington
Carolina
Nashville
Tampa
Florida
Dallas
St Louis
Pacific
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Phoenix
Colorado
San Jose
Anaheim
Los Angeles
LikeLike
The pacific is pretty straightforward. Thanks for the scuttlebutt Pat. I suspect toronto might pitch a fit about going west, but it played this side for a long time and might jump at the opportunity to reunite with the wings and hawks. Putting ottawa with them instead of Columbus and letting Columbus go east might be done as well. I don’t know what columbus wants; does it feel tied to anyone?
LikeLike
As a Blues fan I can speak to how much St. Louis would HATE this idea. While some nice animosity has developed between Blues & Nashville, our traditional foes remain the Blackhawks and Red Wings. Can’t see Washington liking placement in the South either. Doesn’t seem to me like the NHL really needs alignment this drastic.
LikeLike
I agree that realignment this drastic is not needed. The current format is basically fine. Just grow a pair and pick a team to move from East to West, and reshuffle. I think it should be Columbus, I certainly understand the argument in favor of Nashville, and I resist having it be Detroit (at this time; if someone else does the East-to-West switcheroo, that’s another matter). But it just seems senseless to make this more complicated than that.
If some teams went out of business and they went to 28, awesome! Give me 4 divisions. Until then, no.
LikeLike
Let me preface this by saying I follow almost no hockey. That said, it kind of feels like to me that Columbus is better in a Midwestern division than an eastern one.
Ohio is a Midwestern state, we are already more used to Midwestern rivals from at least college football (Detroit and Chicago being good teams to be in division with in that regard, although Pittsburgh would admittedly be a good addition in the east)
LikeLike
@Frank – I meant to reply to this post when I first read it back in June, but obviously never did until now. What I was going to say at that point was that I like the division breakdown as you presented them above. I especially liked the suggested move to the old playoff format with the first two rounds within the division and that every team plays a home and home with every other team outside of it’s division. As the resident Wings fan, I felt you proposed a pretty good compromise for keeping the Wings out west.
Well, with this week’s realignment announcement, I thought it looked very similar to your breakdown and just had to come back and see how close you were. And it’s pretty damn close, so congrats.
While I would surely love Adrian Dater’s suggestion of the Original Six division, I believe this realignment is a very good solution. The only teams I think have a true complaint is the Florida teams. But from what I’m hearing, there are a lot snowbirds from Boston, Buffalo, and eastern Canada in the Sunshine state and this will obviously help with their attendance. And as I mentioned above, I LOVE the fact that the first two rounds within the division and that every team plays a home and home with every other team outside of it’s division. AND if the Phoenix franchise eventually relocates to Quebec, then they just move from the “West” Conference to the “NE/Florida” Conference.
LikeLike
Just look at that f’ing guy.
Actually, I think this idea has legs.
Frank’s midwestern division is pretty compelling.
LikeLike
There’s an interesting bit about the Brewers’ move on their wikipedia article. Supposedly, the Royals were given the first chance to move and they turned it down. Also, the Tigers apparently voluntarily moved from the AL East to the Central. I’m not sure what the general trend comes out of that, but it does seem to go against the “AL East-NL Central-everyone else” pecking order.
LikeLike
The Tigers wanted a better chance to make the playoffs, and the Yankees and Red Sox were keeping them out in the east. They have less travel now than traversing the east coast, too.
LikeLike
and look what that got them. they have never won the AL central.
LikeLike
Back in the 90’s, the Tigers wanted to get away from the “big budget” teams in the East, Yankees and Red Sox, plus Baltimore at that time. The Tigers felt it would be too difficult to make the playoffs competing in the East, even with the wild card format. They still play the teams in the East 6 games each year, three each home and away. Being competitive and playing “meaningful games, in September was more important than being in the same division as the big market teams.
LikeLike
This dynamic is why I support playoff expansion in MLB. Yeah yeah yeah, some “undeserving” teams will make it in, but giving more teams a shot at meaningful September baseball seems way more important and entertaining to me.
LikeLike
I get that logic, but on the flip side, I’d like games to matter in the 152 game regular season. The Reds making it last year was golden, but it wouldn’t have been as big a deal if 1/2 the league was doing it every year.
LikeLike
Man, I’m two days behind on this one. Didn’t read the other comments, so:
The 41,000 who showed up in Arlington on Monday night to watch the Rangers play the worst team in baseball say that Houston to the AL West isn’t a bad idea. The ‘Gers may never get out of the AL West (unless divisions are eliminated, which I don’t really care for), but we can at least improve the company.
As much as I’d love to see the Stars franchise get back into a division with Detroit and Chicago, my plan (Thrashers => NW Division, Canucks => Pacific, Stars => Central) is a little complicated, and with the current financial situation in Dallas, they don’t really have the clout to ask for favors. Going to just four divisions as Frank suggested above (I lied about not reading the comments) could be the trick. The long and short of it is that Stars fans don’t really care that much about Pacific Division rivals. Not in any way that wouldn’t be quickly forgotten when the Red Wings and Blackhawks came to town, anyway.
Do whatever you want in the NFL, so long as the NFC East, the greatest division in all of professional sports, stays the way it is. Although, if they build a new downtown stadium, what becomes of the Mausoleum? Do you really need three giant stadiums in the LA area?
LikeLike
Oh, and Frank – you forgot a sport. The Dynamo had better move to the Western Conference with FC Dallas when Montreal starts up, or there’ll be hell to pay. A south Florida team might be a good bet to even up the league, if they don’t go with a second NYC team.
LikeLike
Random postulating:
Maybe move Coyotes to Houston (for the franchise’s sake, and just maybe so Dallas can have a rival all to itself). Move Nashville to Eastern Conference. Divisions:
Pacific: LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado
Central: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Columbus, Dallas, Houston
Northeast: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Buffalo, NYR, NYI, NJ
Atlantic: Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington, Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Tampa
Winnipeg could potentially be in the Pacific to be with their western Canadian brethren.
Increase division games to 28, play everyone else (regardless of conferences) at least twice for 44 or 46 games (depending on the size of your division) = 72 or 74. Other 8 or 10 games depending on previous year’s results – top finishers play each other, like the NFL. Detroit gets Toronto and Montreal home and road every year (along with everyone else), division titles become a little tougher to come by, and the conferences stay the same size. Columbus stays in the West, but their division is all ET and CT teams, and they’ll be playing fewer games against MT and PT teams. Also, Philly gets Pitt and Wash as division rivals.
And I’m not the only one who thinks the NHL in Skeeterville is worth looking into:
http://1340thefan.com/dallas-stars-to-play-at-houstons-reliant-stadium-in-2011-2012-nhl-preseason-game/
Also, there are the Houston people who think it would be “cool” if the Oilers relocated. They can’t understand why hockey fans react to the idea with open horror and disgust.
LikeLike
For the NFL, even if there’s movement, I don’t think there will be any realignment unless there’s expansion. They only made some drastic moves last time (Seattle from the AFC West and Arizona from the NFC East) because they were going to 4 team divisions and someone had to leave those divisions. Without that reason, I don’t think the Rams and 49ers get split up or anyone taken from the AFC West. If Atlanta and San Francisco can play in the same division for decades then the LA Vikings or LA Jaguars will do fine in their current divisions.
If the NFL expands somewhere down the line to 34 (a team in London and a 2nd team in LA?) or 36 you might then see a few teams switch around at that time.
LikeLike
Oh, and since I haven’t mentioned it yet, go Mavs. When’s the last time one metro area hosted a World Series, a Super Bowl and an NBA Finals all in the same year?
LikeLike
One more random idea on a four-division NHL format for consideration: how about putting all four Canadian teams in one division? I imagine travel would be a concern, but the schedules could be arranged for road trips to multiple cities. If playoffs reverted to the old divisional format, you could guarantee for the CBC that a Canadian team would always make the semis, while for NBC/Comcast you could guarantee that the nightmare of an all-Canadian final could never happen.
LikeLike
All “seven” Canadian teams…
LikeLike
Here it is! Your NHL Realignment Map from Google Maps.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=208444404749179703572.0004a6627a53e1aba4b98&msa=0
LikeLike
I don’t totally understand why the eastern Canadian teams, which currently have a sweetheart arrangement, would say “You know what? I’d like to play 15-20 divisional games 2 and 3 time zones away.”
LikeLike
Granted, someone is going to have to give up something they’d rather not give up to achieve realignment — but that seems like the eastern Canadian teams giving up a lot.
LikeLike
yeah. this is not workable for many reasons.
LikeLike
I mean, granted, that’s basically Dallas’ current situation, but basically I’d say it sucks to be them (although I think the NHL should probably try to help them). Nobody else is going to be volunteering for that.
LikeLike
Knowing that time zone issues are the big problem with the current alignment, I don’t see this plan flying unless the idea is to make all the eastern teams share the pain of Detroit, Columbus and Dallas. I’d expect the divisions to be more N-S than E-W. What might help is to split into Coastal and Central conferences instead of East and West. This lets the northeastern teams play their eastern rivals, but at the cost of playing all the west coast teams too. The midwestern teams don’t get to play all the east coast teams, but they wouldn’t have to play the west coast either. This spreads the pain and the marquee franchises.
LikeLike
While that is certainly a compromise position, I am left wondering why there will be sufficient consensus to go to any 4-division format (unless it’s a 4-division format that keeps the current East/West alignment). I feel like this problem is being overthought to some extent. The simple, staring-us-in-the-face answer is to choose between Columbus, Nashville, and Detroit and slide one of them into the East.
Here’s a question: isn’t it odd that Bettman is already floating a realignment proposal? How can anybody honestly know what to do until the Phoenix situation is tied off one way or the other? For example, perhaps Winnipeg’s success in getting the Thrashers will catalyze an arena deal in Quebec and the Coyotes will be there in a year, which will kind of negate all of this. Or maybe the Florida Panthers will end up on the chopping block and move to Kansas City. It seems like there are too many maybes to really know how to move forward yet.
LikeLike
That Florida to Kansas City thing isn’t a rumor; I just made it up as a hypothetical example of something semi-plausible that could upset the whole apple cart.
LikeLike
I don’t know how much consensus is needed. Depending on other options presented, it may make consensus easier to reach.
We’ve already discussed the simple option. Nashville makes geographic sense but not time zone sense. Columbus and Detroit both make time zone sense but are not great geographic fits, perhaps leading to further realignment. Columbus is the most precarious financially, Detroit the most solid. Detroit has the most pull with the NHL. Barring new facts, what more is there to say about it?
I don’t think it’s odd that Bettman is floating a plan now. He knows it is a topic of discussion for the teams and their fans. I think he and the NHL consider Phoenix a done deal for the near future and is reinforcing that idea by doing this. If he moves Detroit and Columbus east, maybe that is planning for Columbus to potentially move to Quebec. The NHL realigns fairly often, so I don’t think it’s a big deal to do it in 2012 and then face doing it again afterwards.
LikeLike
I know I read somewhere that one reason that they didn’t realign for 2011-12 with the Winnipeg move was because the Phoenix situation is still uncertain and they didn’t want to realign twice in consecutive offseasons. That cuts against your argument (which is otherwise, on its face, reasonable) about the league trying to signal their confidence in Phoenix’s situation.
The reason that occurs to me is because, until only a few years ago, the NHL schedule was always released on the day after the MLB All-Star Game. For some reason, that’s been moved up to mid-/late- June. The “official” explanation for why they didn’t realign with the Winnipeg move was that there wasn’t time, and perhaps this is true, and yet it seems almost implausible to me. The sale was finalized on May 31, and according to Bettman (not necessarily a paragon of reliability) was only actually hammered out early that morning, and that there was a real risk of not falling through if it had not gotten finalized that morning. That would have given the league 6 weeks to start over working on a new schedule if it were simply released when it had been released for several years up until very recently, and that’s a minimum — if they waited another week or got started working on it beforehand (it seemed fairly clear the team was going to be sold to True North for at least a week or two before the sale actually went down), you’d think there would have been time to put together a new schedule. I mean, I know it’s a really complicated thing and I don’t mean to just assume you could throw something together . . . but I mean, how much more involved would it have been than what they already had to do, which was rearrange the whole sequence of games to account for new travel patterns (presumably, road trips that were going to pass through Atlanta are not now going to be routed through Winnipeg instead).
In short, I guess my point is that it almost seems to me that if the league really had wanted to realign for 2011-12, they could have. The fact that they didn’t tends to support what the media repeated, which was that the league wanted to wait and see what happens with the Phoenix situation. That brings me right back to being a little befuddled that Bettman is floating a realignment plan already.
LikeLike
Adam,
Was it a quote from someone important that Phoenix uncertainty was a reason? There’s been a lot of speculation, maybe with inside sources, but unless it’s a quote from someone big who knows if it’s true? It could be, but it might not be.
To realign for next year, they need to reach consensus first. How long would that take?
Scheduling can be incredible involved. I’d guess they did replace Atlanta with Winnipeg as much as possible (certain blackout dates may have interfered with a complete swap). Any other changes require a lot of arenas to be available. Some of them have other contractual obligations by this time of year (concerts, other sports, etc) that may not be able to move and all of them are working to schedule future events. I’m guessing that redoing the schedule at this late date would actually be a problem for the league and the arenas. All these arenas need to schedule a bunch of other events to make money.
They probably could have totally reworked the schedule but it would cost them a lot of time, money and hassles that they don’t need.
LikeLike
No it definitely wasn’t a quote, it was more along the lines of a post on the ESPN Cross-Checks blog by Pierre LeBrun or another of their hockey writers. Not exactly canonical, but also not really offered in a circumstance where it triggered my “linkbait” antennae.
LikeLike
Interesting article on Bleacher Report. Yes, I know BR doesn’t have the status, integrity and cache of the NY Times, but I believe this article is spot on. The divisions are similar to those in my post from a few days ago about Red Wing scuttlebutt. However, this article explains things better and in more detail. I believe this is where the NHL is headed. The divisions might be tweaked a bit from those on the map, (Columbus, Washington, Ottawa) but I think it’s pretty close to what will happen in December at the NHL meetings.
Please Note: No conferences! Teams will be reseeded 1-8 after the first round of divisional playoffs. I like it! Plus, Detroit, Nashville and Columbus get their wish to play mostly in the Eastern and Central Time Zones. Phoenix can be relocated to the 7 team Eastern Division if they eventually move to Quebec City. Bettman might finally be getting his shit together. Thank God!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/746124-toronto-maple-leafs-and-dallas-stars-will-switch-conferences
LikeLike
The South Division? Gross. Dallas just can’t win in this thing. If only someone would move to Houston to provide the Stars with a real rival.
LikeLike
I have to believe Houston is on the short list of markets that interest the NHL if another team needs to bail on its current location since Houston has a pretty new arena (which I assume is capable of handling ice hockey). If a team became available, probably the only thing between Houston and getting that team would be whether there’s an owner or owners available who want to make that happen.
LikeLike
The intent when the new arena was built was that the Rockets owner at the time would get a hockey team along with a bb team in the arena. However, the NHL decided other cities were better for them. If memory serves, those cities were Minneapolis (logically), Columbus and Nashville.
LikeLike
Look at the positives. They’d have a chance to become a marquee name by dominating the division and getting a long playoff streak. Dallas will struggle to become a big name if they always are the new guy in a division with several O6 teams.
LikeLike
There is ZERO chance of this alignment happening for one single reason. Moving all Canadian teams into one division eliminates the possibility of two Canadian teams meeting in the Stanley Cup Finals.
LikeLike
I agree that there is almost no chance of that alignment happening, but I do not see where the NHL is going to be holding out for the possibility of two Canadian teams meeting in the Cup Finals. That sounds like a ratings armageddon, frankly (no doubt it’d be a hit in Canada, but Canada only has 10% of the USA’s population). I don’t see where the league is using that as the sine qua non of whether an alignment is acceptable.
LikeLike
So, in keeping with the conference re-draft idea, I decided to try to narrow it down to a more manageable thing. How about doing a ranking within each conference based on the 2011-2012 alignment? Now you don’t have to think about how schools complement other members, just the value of each as a standalone. I’m guessing there will be a lot of disagreement outside of the very top and bottom schools, and maybe even there. I’m looking at athletics only for this and limiting Other to the top 10, just FYI. A brief summary of my thinking is included.
ACC – FSU, Miami, NC, VT, Duke, Clemson, GT, MD, VA, BC, NCSU, WF
FB powers in FL, then a hoops king with solid FB and market, a FB power, hoops king, FB power with good talent pool, good markets/talent pools with decent history, small private school with some hoops success
BE – Pitt, Syracuse, WV, UConn, UL, USF, UC, Rutgers
Good FB with great hoops and varying markets (Pitt FB > Syracuse market), great hoops with weak FB and OK markets, FL access, OH access, NYC/NJ access but no success
B10 – OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, IL, MSU, IN, IA, PU, MN, NW
FB kings with varying markets (MI tradition > PSU market/talent pool), balanced good FB/MBB, Chicago access and solid hoops, great MBB and solid FB, MBB king, good/great FB and great wrestling, great MBB, big city but no recent success, small school with limited success
B12 – TX, OU, TAMU, OkSU, KS, MO, TT, Baylor, KSU, ISU
FB kings by market, solid FB in TX, solid FB and MBB with TBP money, MBB king, solid sports and market, in TX, some FB and MBB success, wrestling
P12 – USC, OR, UCLA, UW, AZ, Stanford, ASU, Cal, CO, Utah, OSU, WSU
FB king, great FB and Nike money, hoops king with LA access, good FB with big market, great MBB with solid FB and decent market, non-revenue sports and SF access, solid sports and market, SF access with decent sports, good market, good sports with decent market, solid FB, ugh
SEC – FL, AL, GA, TN, LSU, KY, AU, SC, Ark, Vandy, MS, MSU
great sports and FL market/talent pool, FB king, good FB and market/talent, great FB history and good hoops, great FB and talent pool, MBB king, solid FB, solid sports with crazy fans and good talent pool, solid sports, good sports but FB, ugh, little brother of ugh
Other – ND, BYU, TCU, Boise, AF, Navy, Army, UCF, Houston, SMU
FB king, good sports and national fans, great FB and TX access, great FB, best military sports, more recent sports success, last of the academies, FL access, TX access with MBB history, TX access but death penalty
LikeLike
Brian – quick thoughts – calling UNC football “solid” might be a stretch, even taking the last three years into account. I don’t dispute their placement, though.
I might quibble about the middle of the Big 12. I’d take KU and Mizzou over OSU. KU is a national name in something, and Mizzou has better markets. The Cowboys don’t have anywhere near the Texas following that the Sooners enjoy. I might even put Tech over OSU. They can still be ahead of Baylor.
LikeLike
The TBP money definitely keeps OSU ahead of TT. I put OSU ahead of KU and MO because football is so much more valuable than MBB, but it was close. I wouldn’t strenuously argue against dropping OSU behind them.
LikeLike
Oh, and as for UNC – they’re 8-5 the last 3 years. That’s sort of the definition of solid, isn’t it? They’re not great, but sometimes their good and sometimes their OK. Much like IL, though, I give them a slight bump for potential.
LikeLike
I try to take a longer view of these things. Take away the last three years or so, and Okie Lite and UNC don’t look so great. T. Boone is just one guy, and Tech I think has a stronger fan base and better market presence than the Cowboys. Tech hasn’t had a losing season in almost 20 years (that’s more what I call solid), while OSU went 4-7 twice in the last decade and has 13 losing seasons in the last 25 or so. OSU even has a tough time filling up their shiny new stadium, and they had a pretty good team the last couple years. UNC has a few good seasons when they find a good coach (see Mack Brown), but it’s still a stepping stone. Most of the time they’re mediocre. But I’ll give you the potential. North Carolina should be a major player in college football.
LikeLike
B10 I’d be inclined to move IA up a couple spots because of their great fan support and the fact that they are U of, not State U.
B12 I’d swap Mizzou and OSU. Missouri has the state to themselves and Okie St. will always be the little sister. And there are a lot more people in Missouri. Missouri has both historically and recently had more success than OSU.
SEC is tough to rank. I would put Arkansas ahead of Auburn and S. Carolina though. They have won the division 3 times, have their 1 fb national championship and have a bb national championship.
P12 UCLA definitely #2. Oregon had a good year, but they are not ahead of UW. Cal is like A&M, someone who occassionally looks good but often underperforms. I think they have a lot of natural advantages and it will show more often. So I’d have Cal 4, CU 5 (they have the CA lack of enthusiasm, but they have had success and are the only AQ school in a growing state) ASU 6, OR 7, AZ 8, Utah 9, Stanford 10, OSU 11, WSU 12. #4-#9 are pretty close with each having strengths and weaknesses. Stanford’s academic standards make it tough to be consistently competitive in football and basketball, even though it may be an advantage in many other sports. OR and UT have more recent football success, but both are in relatively lightly populated states with little football or basketball talent. When the Pac split in the late 50s, Oregon, Ore. St. and WSU were originally left behind, along with Idaho. Phil hasn’t moved Oregon that far up.
First impression is that I would rank ACC and BE very differently, although #1 and #12 in the ACC are pretty obvious.
LikeLike
bullet,
Many of these schools are similar. Ranking them isn’t an exact science and I can’t argue many of your changes.
B10 – I thought about moving IA up, but they have no MBB and MSU and IN are big time MBB schools. MSU is also solid in FB and has more population to pull from. IN sucks in FB so it was a tough call. How about we split the difference and swap IN and IA?
B12 – OSU and MO are about equal to me. OSU had more MBB success under Sutton and has a lot of NC (wrestling I think). MO has more people, but both big cities are on the border and are split with neighbors (KC with KU and NE, St. L with IL). TBP is only one guy, but he gave $100M. That changes things.
SEC – I put AU ahead of AR because they’ve been better at FB in the past 50 years (W% is 68% to 65%) and have a recent NC, no matter how tainted. AU has a better talent pool than AR does in my opinion, and brings a huge rivalry for TV purposes. SC has had very limited success in sports despite great fans and good talent available. All 3 are pretty close, though.
P12 – OR is second because of Nike and UCLA being down in FB for a while and being a decided little brother. Nike is a huge advantage for money and PR. UW is higher on tradition and market, but they don’t have that national presence anymore. I have Stanford much higher because of their all around success. All those titles count for something. There are a lot of similar schools here, too, that made it hard to pick an order.
The ACC and BE have a lot of similar schools. It’s almost picking names out of hat.
LikeLike
Oklahoma State has a large number of golf as well as wrestling championships. The also have basketball in the 40s.
Looking it up, they also have 1 in baseball and several in cross country.
LikeLike
It looks like this thread has turned into a NHL topic, but I have a couple observations about the NBA and the presumed death/relocation of my Hornets.
Frank – you stated that a favorable stadium deal trumps market. I agree. The Hornets, and the Saints both have sweetheart deals with their respective state-owned facilities, including state subsidies if the Hornets don’t reach attendance benchmarks.
You also described the Hornets attendance as “terrible”. For this past season, the Hornets rank 18th out of the 30 NBA teams in attendance as a percentage of arena capacity. Hornets fans outperformed fans in much bigger markets with only slightly larger arenas such as New Jersey, Philadelphia, Atlanta, DC, and Detroit.
New Orleans was small before Katrina with a MSA of 1.32 million. Post-Katrina, the New Orleans MSA is only 1.17 million. That a 11% drop in population. Its amazing to me that New Orleans has supported the NBA as well as it has. New Orleans is an event town. Nobody does an event better than New Orleans, and 41 home games – including weeknights – are not events. That said, the Hornets are very close to their goal of selling 10,000 season tickets for the 2011-12 season.
The objective of the NBA’s purchase of the Hornets was more to get the previous owner George Shinn out of the way. He was a bad owner, but he is also very ill. Local billionaire Gary Chouest was a Hornets minority owner and he still plans to buy the Hornets from the NBA. He is assembling a team a minority owners. As Chouest is in the offshore oil business, the BP oil spill has distracted him though and is one of the reasons for the delay.
On the court, hings are actually looking up for the Hornets. Now, they just have to keep Chris Paul, get David West healthy, and pick up a big free agent.
I attended Game #4 of the Hornets/Lakers series and it was one of the most exciting sporting events I’ve attended, and I’ve been to a few big-time games. New Orleans may be a football town, but saving the Hornets has become a badge of civic pride. For a relatively small and poor city, New Orleans has done a good job supporting this team, and has done a better job supporting the Hornets than many other bigger cities have done supporting their own teams.
LikeLike
One reason that I think the thread has become mostly an NHL discussion is that in the NBA, the divisions are almost irrelevant. You play your division opponents 4x each, you play your non-division conference opponents 3.6x each. No doubt, divisional alignment can impact playoff seedings and whatnot, but with the changes to the seeding rules after 2006 and the NBA’s rule that home court goes to the team with the better record regardless of record, the stakes of NBA divisional alignment are just a lot lower. That is why I suggested they add 4 games to the season and just drop the divisions altogether. You’d play everybody in your conference 4 times (4*14=56 games) and 2 games against everybody in the opposite conference (2*15=30), for a total of 86 games (56+30). No divisions, just the two conferences.
LikeLike
On the NBA:
1. How about they rename the Western divisions to be more accurate (like Pacific, South and Mountain) if they don’t realign? Portland isn’t enough to keep the name Northwest, and Memphis and NO don’t count as Southwest (TX really doesn’t either, but whatever).
2. Suggested realignment with current structure:
Pacific – Portland, LAL, LAC, Sac, GS
Mountain – Phoenix, Utah, Denver, OKC, MN
South – SA, Dallas, Houston, NO, Memphis
Southeast – DC, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte
Central – Cleveland, Detroit, Indy, Chicago, Milwaukee
Atlantic – Boston, NY, NJ, Philly, Toronto
3. Even better:
Pacific – Portland, LAL, LAC, Sac, GS, Phoenix, Utah, Denver
South – SA, Dallas, Houston, NO, OKC, MN, Memphis
Central – DC, Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Indy, Chicago, Milwaukee
Southeast – Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Philly, NY, NJ, Boston
LikeLike
As noted, I’d add 4 games and forget the divisions. Under the premise of your item 2 (“with current structure”), I like those Western divisions, although I’d like to entertain the notion of swapping San Antonio and Minnesota (i.e., putting San Antonio in that “Mountain” Division, and Minnesota in the other one — perhaps naming it the Midwest or something).
Those East Divisions are fine too, but I’ll throw this out there in only semi-serious fashion just to stir the pot:
North Division: Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Toronto
Atlantic Division: Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Cleveland, Philadelphia
Southeast Division: DC, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte
I’m not a fan of unevenly sized divisions so I don’t care for 3, but it sounds like the NHL might be going there, so who knows.
LikeLike
The last thing the NBA or NHL need is a longer season, but otherwise I like your idea. Not that it would ever happen, but I’d rather they drop 10 games and play all OOC teams once with a second game against one locked rival (4*14 + 2*1 + 1*14 = 72). Otherwise they could lock 10 more rivals to maintain 82 games.
I considered putting several other teams in the Mountain, but didn’t want to split the TX teams either. OKC took the bullet for screwing over Seattle. For a while I had Milwaukee there to give MN a local rival with Memphis moving to the Southeast, DC to the Atlantic and Toronto to the Central.
I’m not a big fan of uneven divisions, but they work better for the West than 3 equal ones. I don’t think it matters much with such a long season, though, it’s mostly a way to lock playoff spots.
LikeLike
Subconsciously, I may have been aiming to split Dallas and San Antonio. That’s probably motivated by my expectations of relative competitiveness that have developed over the last 10-15 years, but it’s entirely possible both teams will be turning a page pretty soon.
LikeLike
Regardless of what the NBA does, they should definitely rename the Western divisions.
LikeLike
Frank tweeted it, but I didn’t see it posted for discussion:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=567093
Can’t wait for their first game (again) with the Sharks.
LikeLike
Being the Jets that came from Atlanta, doesn’t Delta pretty much have to be a major sponsor?
LikeLike
Unrelated to pro sports: has anybody heard how the MAC is going to (re)align when UMass joins? Or is that TBA? The MAC doesn’t get a lot more coverage than high school sports, so I might have missed it if it was announced.
LikeLike
Nothing official yet, but BGSU going back to the West for football is the easy answer. That puts them back with their main rival, Toledo. Otherwise, Miami would be the next best choice.
LikeLike
If they put both UMass and Temple in the East Division, there’s going to need to be 1 team that plays in the West in Football and the East in every other divisional sport. I’d have that team be Bowling Green. However, I’d also swap Toledo and Miami in the overall alignment. It seems senseless to me that Miami’s closest divisional opponent is over 3 hours away in Athens, and lengthy hikes just within Ohio to get to Kent and Akron, even while they’re only about an hour away from Muncie (by contrast, Toledo is close to both Kent and Akron).
So, I’d have Miami in the West for everything, Toledo in the East for everything, and BGSU be the “flex” team, playing in the West for Football and the East for other sports.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/2011/04/no_decision_on_mac_division_al.html
The MAC said that FB realignment will not change the alignment for everything else.
They should have moved Miami west when they split originally, but since Toledo is in the west it makes the most sense to reunite them with BGSU. It makes for a clean WNW/ESE split. BGSU is the team that’s bounced back and forth before so they might as well switch divisions every year.
LikeLike
“Steinbrecher did reveal that the MAC would have two seven-team divisions, as expected, with teams playing six divisional games and two crossover games each season.”
I wonder how they can do this. It seems like it is in blatant disregard of the NCAA Division I manual, which requires “regular season round-robin play” (or something like that; I know the term “round robin” is used).
LikeLike
Argh, I reacted too quickly. I was expecting it to be 7 and 1 but the league has 14 teams, not 16.
LikeLike
I’m surprised they aren’t considering going to 9 games. That would allow 5 home games plus 2 paychecks every year.
LikeLike
About the NHL. First look at the franchises are losing money that could be moved New York Islanders, Phoenix, Columbus, Florida. Here are the only logical options for what NHL relocation Toronto/GTA, Quebec City, Seattle, Houston, and Kansas City. Now Toronto would have the best case option but for the foreseeable future the Maple Leafs will not share Southern Ontario with them. As shown in the Jim Bassille saga a couple years ago. So for now we can rule them out. Quebec City would be small market team as Winnipeg would/will be. Now they need a privately paid for arena and an ownership group. In 2001 the Montreal Canadiens bought and paid their own money for the Bell Centre. The city of Montreal actually billed them for the loss of tolls for construction. Kansas City if prefer to have NBA team rather than a NHL franchise. Seattle needs an arena, which it could share with NBA franchise. So just for logical hockey markets there are more dysfunctional franchises than there are sustainable markets. Canada can only support a maximum of two more teams. Long term I would prefer to dissolve two/three teams them after carefully maxing out Canada with 9 teams.
About the New York Islander they are on the watch to move after Phoenix. New York Islanders have permission from the Rangers to move to Brooklyn. The idiotic thing about that is the new NBA arena doesn’t facilitate hockey. So what a waste of an opportunity on the Barclays Centre being filled like many cities have NBA and NHL share arenas.
Phoenix Coyotes for one more year will stay in Phoenix. This team has bled money and the city of Glendale has paid for the 25 million dollar losses. Frankly, I want them to move to Quebec.
Florida Panthers fans seem if they would win they would come to games I don’t know why they don’t play in Miami with the Heat and not Fort Lauderdale, which is same thing as Phoenix saga. Fans don’t want to see a bad team and an arena that’s out of their way.
As I said before there isn’t enough teams in Canada to support the NHL’s basement teams. They will have to look at dissolving teams once all markets have been tried.
As for the NHL 2012 realignment I think two divisions of 8 and 2 divisions of 7 is the way to go. My set up will be in the lines of Pacific: San Jose, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and for now Phoenix. Central: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Nashville, St Louis, Colorado, and Dallas. North East: Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Boston, New Jersey, and Buffalo. East: Pittsburgh, Washington, Florida, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Columbus. So the west was easy to pick. The central those teams would be angry with not having Detroit in their division. The east rumours are saying New York teams have a lot of say because they could be a package or want to be separated. This set up fixes all time zones issues, but Washington still has to play southern teams now have to have Flyers, Pens, and Wings to help compete against. And for the people who don’t believe Red Wings should not play in eastern teams I think you’re wrong. The travel is terrible and they love hosting Maple Leafs and Montreal because Windsor has a strong fan from those two teams base helps the Wings to sell out even though they increased the sales compared to other opponents. Apparently Columbus wants to play with Pittsburgh and move east, hence why they have teamed up with Detroit Red Wings to move east.
LikeLike
What?
LikeLike
Houston’s probably the only team that MLB has any leverage to switch leagues, so, if there is going to be any kind of realignment in baseball, I predict Houston will move to the AL West. (Personally, I’d rather see the D-Backs get moved since they’re the newest member of the NL. The idea of moving a team that’s been in the same league for 50 years should be considered way too radical to happen.)
Anyway, my way of balancing the schedule out would be fairly simple:
1) Each team would play its four division rivals twelve times each. (12 X 4 = 48)
2) Each team would play seven interleague opponents three times each. The same teams would be played in consecutive years, switching home fields for the second year. The following year, seven other interleague teams would be played. (3 X 7 = 21)
3) Each team would play one interleague opponent six times each, three home and three away. It would be an annual series. (1 X 6 = 6)
4) Each team would play seven non-division opponents nine times each (7 X 9 = 63), and the three other non-division opponents eight times each, (3 X 8 = 24).
48 + 21 + 6 + 63 + 24 = 162
I’ll use the White Sox as an example.
It’s not perfect, but it does balance the schedule out within the league a lot more. Also, every team would in the American League would have at least three interleague series in common with every other AL team. Ditto for the NL.
LikeLike
Oops… I started to make a sample White Sox schedule and then change my mind, and I forgot to take out “I’ll use the White Sox as an example.”
Anyway, while I’m at it, everyone would need an annual six-game series against some opponent from the opposite league, so here are the pairings:
Boston-Philadelphia
NY Yankees-NY Mets
Baltimore-Washington
Tampa Bay-Miami (That’s right. Their new stadium makes “Florida” history.)
Toronto-Atlanta
Chi. White Sox-Chi. Cubs
Detroit-Pittsburgh
Cleveland-Cincinnati
Minnesota-Milwaukee
Kansas City-Colorado*
Houston-St. Louis*
Texas-Arizona
Oakland-San Francisco
Seattle-San Diego
LA Angels-LA Dodgers
*As a concession to the Astros’ for its move to the AL, Houston gets St. Louis for its permanent home-and-home interleague series. Kansas City chooses Colorado over San Diego and Arizona as its consolation for losing the St. Louis series.
LikeLike
Rutgers Athletic Dept Needs Funds to Stay Afloat.
Four of the top six schools on the list that need institutional support are from the Big East. Interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-28-rutgers-athletic-department-subsidies_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
LikeLike
The most interesting part is that their allocated revenue is 84% higher than the next nearest school, UCONN. The remainder of the universities on the list are, at least, relatively close to each other.
LikeLike
But this list also points out how different schools account for things differently. Note that Tennessee is #5 on the list. Does anybody believe TN is hurting? UVA also seems surprising.
The rest are expected, BE schools, Pac 10 schools including California who was going to cut sports (but obviously Pac 12 schools will do better), Maryland, who has been known to be struggling financially.
LikeLike
MD doesn’t surprise you, but UVA coming off a disastrous period in both FB and MBB does?
LikeLike
UVA has still averaged around 52k a year in fb over the last 4 years. Maryland’s best attendance year, at least in the last 15 years, is only a little over 52k.
LikeLike
http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2011/jun/28/subsidy-for-ut-athletics-detailed/?partner=RSS
TN blames the number on accounting differences. They say TN is self-sustaining and gives back to the school.
LikeLike
Sounds like TN is simply trying to do proper accounting. Although if they are using $3.16 million in support from the Chancellor’s office….Well maybe with all their problems lately, the administration has had to spend a little more time than usual.
LikeLike
With a little time on my hands, I’ll include my MLB international realignment idea I came up with a few years ago talking to some friends.
For the best symmetry, it would involve 10 teams from Asia. Because baseball’s traditions are part of its appeal, it would be nice to use existing pro teams there. This would also make it politically easier. Of course, this would have problems in that MLB couldn’t charge much for entry fees with pre-existing teams, and the Asian teams would have to merge with or buy out their competitors. The bought out teams could then form an Asian AAA League.
Looking at population numbers, and existing teams, I’d suggest 6 Japan teams, 3 Korean teams, and 1 Taiwanese team. I would then realign all of major league baseball into 4 leagues:
National League (NL)
East: Philadelphia; Atlanta; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Florida
West: LA Dodgers; San Francisco; St. Louis; Chicago Cubs; Houston
American League (AL)
East: NY Yankees; Boston; Baltimore; Cleveland; Detroit
West: Oakland; Seattle; Chicago WS; Minnesota; Texas
Continental League (CL)
East: NY Mets; Washington; Toronto; Tampa Bay; Milwaukee
West: LA Angels; San Diego; Arizona; Colorado; Kansas City
Pacific League (PL)
Central: Japan 1 (Tokyo); Japan 2; Japan 3; Korea 1; Korea 2
Oceanic:Japan 4 (Tokyo); Japan 5; Japan 6; Korea 3; Taiwan
-Note each league is 2 teams bigger than the original AL and NL before expansion
-For the North American Leagues, I first kept the 8 original franchises in the AL and NL. I then put the Mets and Angels in the Continental League (without the history, it needs the markets the most). I didn’t want both of the Florida teams in the Continental League, so the Marlins stay in the NL. Then I picked the older expansion franchises to fill out the AL and NL.
-There might be more than 2 Tokyo teams, but they should be split evenly between divisions; If there are 2 teams in Seoul it should be split as well
-With 3 leagues in North America, there will be 1 more MVP and Cy Young award every year, and 1 more pennant for the 30 teams.
Scheduling: with this format, you can stick to only 3 game series.
Each team plays:
-3 home and 3 away series against every team in the division (24 series)
-2 home and 2 away series against the teams in the other division in the same league (20 series)
-10 series of interleague games
That adds up to 54 series of 3 games each= 162 games.
Each season 2 leagues will be paired up for interleague play. For instance, year 1 might see the AL matched up with the PL while the NL plays the CL. For the NL and CL, every team in a division will host every team in 1 division of the other league (5 series) while visiting every team in the other division (5 series). For example, every NL West team visits the teams in the CL East, and every CL East team visits the teams in the NL East.
The teams that cross the Pacific will play every team in a single division of the other league home and away. In the AL-PL example, there will be 3 weeks in June when the entire AL East will go to Asia and the PL Central will come to America. During this time, the AL East teams will play a series against each of the 5 PL Oceanic teams, and The PL Central teams will play all of the AL West teams. Thus, there will still be 5 games each day hosted by AL teams during this time and 5 games hosted by PL teams. This lets national broadcasters still air games at normal times. (Broadcasters following a single team will have unusual times when that team travels) Regular league play then resumes until 3 weeks in August, when the AL West will go to Asia and the PL Oceanic will come to America.
With this format:
-Every team in a division has the exact same schedule
-US teams only travel to Asia in the regular season 3 weeks every 3 years. It will be rare enough that following your team at odd hours will be fun. You’ll also have a 3 week home stand that same year.
-Asian teams travel to the US for one 3 week trip every year during the regular season.
-You see every team in another league home and away every 6 years
-Major League baseball being played in Asia gives TV networks live programming to air late at night and during the mornings. No, it’s not nearly as valuable as prime time programming, but MLB already has lots of games to air in prime time. TV networks will pay something to air the Pacific League games here, especially the 6 weeks each year where American teams will be there. It would also be an opportunity to spread the game globally, with better hours for kids to watch games in Europe and Africa.
For the playoffs, each league determines its own League champion (probably with 2 rounds of playoffs; 2 Division champs + 2 Wild cards) without crossing the oceans. This leaves 4 pennant winners. The Leagues that were paired up during the regular season have their Champions play in a 7 game series (in our example, AL champ vs. PL champ and NL champ vs. CL champ). The winners would then play in a true World Series. It will always have 1 North American team, and often 2. This will be the time when time zone issues truly become difficult, as TV networks will want people to see it on both sides of the Pacific.
This whole thing is less elegant, but still works if some leagues are slightly larger or smaller (for example, it would be a good time to add a 3rd team in New York or Los Angeles), but they need to be even. You would have a couple of teams making the cross-Pacific trip at a separate time during the season.
LikeLike
I thought it was a tragedy when the Tigers were moved out of a division with both the Yankees and the Red Sox. I’d like to see them back in a division with one of them. Personally, I think that having the Yankees and Red Sox in the same division produces fatigue in the non-Boston/New York sporting public and would actually be better for MLB, but I somehow doubt they’d ever buy that.
LikeLike
Not sure I’d actually want this, but it sure is interesting to read. Neat idea.
LikeLike
I love absolutely everything about this. I wish i lived in an alternate universe where this could happen. This post absolutely made my day, I’m going to spend the next few months in a fantasy world where I get to see the Dodgers and Angels play the Yomiuri Giants and the Chunichi Dragons; I’d stay up late at night to see the A’s play in Seoul against the LG Twins.
If anything were ever to happen like this in the distant and awesome future, there would probably have to be another league for Latin America as well.
LikeLike
http://eye-on-recruiting.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26895818/30297214
The SEC wants to dial back recruiting regulations in a major way.
LikeLike
http://www.cowboyaltitude.com/2011/6/1/2200435/realigning-the-conferences-based-on-geography
An interesting series where the blogger realigns the 11 I-A conferences based purely on geography. He started on the west coast, which is the easier part IMO. The guy’s a WY blogger.
1. The P12 becomes a Southwest conference (CA, AZ and HI schools)
2. The WAC becomes a Northwest conference (WA, OR, ID and UT schools)
3. The MWC becomes a Mountains conference mostly (WY, CO and NM schools plus UTEP and TT)
4. The B12 shifts a little to the east and north, losing TX but adding MN, IA, NE and AR
LikeLike
I saw that. Fun, but in his scenario I’m pretty sure Hawaii (along with a few other schools) would have just dropped football. Too bad he’s sticking with the current conference names – I’d love to see the SWC resurrected.
LikeLike
He is renaming some of them. He kept Pac 12, but the WAC became the Great Northwest Conference for example. MWC stays the same, but the B12 became the Big 11.
LikeLike
The sixth round of the draft is under way:
1. Cult of Les Miles: Iowa (LSU, Michigan, North Carolina, Stanford, Arkansas)
2. House of a Thousand Sanctions: Kentucky (USC, Notre Dame, Oregon, Tennessee, Syracuse)
3. Conference TMZ: Maryland (Ohio State, Florida State, Louisville, Michigan State, West Virginia)
Iowa brings another solid FB program, but no market or talent base, so it’s a safe 6th round pick.
Kentucky provides a MBB king to a conference sorely lacking any hoops, as well as an OK FB team and a strong rivalry.
Maryland was a steal in the 6th round. They are more valuable than some or all of UL, MSU and WV with the DC market, a big talent base, strong hoops, UnderArmour money/PR, solid academics and other sports. MD also brings a rivalry with WV.
LikeLike
And the 6th round is done (31-36):
4. Team Speed Kills: Cal (Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Arizona)
5. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: Kansas (Florida, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Miami (FL), Auburn)
6. The 12 Pack: Duke (Texas, Georgia, UCLA, Wisconsin, Washington)
Clearly this was the round for MBB powers as UK, KU and Duke all went. I think everybody did well this round.
Top available picks IMO: GT, IL, MO, Pitt
The BC folks seem to think they need to pick BC now (1st pick of 7th round) because they won’t be around by the end of round 8. I think BC should be available.
LikeLike
Is Maryland-WV a rivalry? Huh. That’s actually the first really solid pick Conference TMZ has made since the first round. All of their other decisions have been at least a little iffy. That’s the Big East blogger, right?
Let’s see – 12 Pack picks next. GT would be a good rival for UGA, Illinois would be a good one for Wisconsin and would give you a big Chicago market, which appears to be a part of the gameplan. But he doesn’t have a northeastern school … so maybe BC, or perhaps UConn to create a real powerhouse hoops conference (and, hey, they made the Fiesta Bowl!). The Illini seem like the most likely pick.
LikeLike
MD doesn’t have any one great rivalry, especially in FB. Navy has Army, WV has Pitt and UVA has VT. However, WV is generally considered the strongest of the 3 rivalries. They have a long common border and the schools are fairly close together.
Yes, TMZ is the BE blog’s conference. And yes, this is their first solid pick since round 1 or 2.
The 12 Pack is based in a BC blog, and their blogger has vetoed UConn as a choice. The blog’s followers seem to think BC is a logical pick, but I think they are greatly over valuing BC. Pitt brings a smaller city, but it cares much more about CFB. Pitt is also more prominent in both MBB and FB. I agree GT would be a nice pick for the rivalry, but I think all of these bloggers have tended to prefer geographic diversity over rivalries.
Other schools I’ve seen mentioned a lot are Clemson and SC.
LikeLike
I’m thinking ASU, OkSU, UConn, IN, BYU and NCSU are also due to be picked soon.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and Tennessee are decent in hoops. ‘Cuse is probably just behind a ‘king’. They weren’t ‘lacking any hoops’, IMO.
LikeLike
FWIW, I meant to say “in” not “any.” I didn’t intend to knock SU, but the lack of other quality teams to play against them. ND is OK (the past few years have been above their norm), and TN is up in the air after Pearl.
A couple of other conferences are worse (CoLM, TSK, maybe SotTP) but now is when they seem to be getting hoops programs.
LikeLike
Temple coaches are telling recruits that they will be playing in the BE. They could be blowing smoke but that won’t help their recruiting in the long run.
http://templefootballforever.blogspot.com/2011/06/temple-to-be-where-theres-smoke-theres.html
LikeLike
But it would be announced by now if it was truly a done deal. At best it’s likely.
LikeLike
Hey Frank et al…..Is further B1G expansion in the future really not happening unless its Notre Dame? Or, will East Coast schools, Rutgers,Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, or UConn, or even Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, or Mizzou have a shot realistically?
LikeLike
The B10 is highly unlikely to start another round of realignment unless ND comes to the B10 and asks. If other conferences expand it might make the B10 feel it has to respond, but otherwise I don’t see it. Until a new financial model comes into play, nobody but a king like ND could make it worth while to expand. I don’t see any pair of non-king schools that could possibly bring enough value to make B10 expansion financially sound. Plus, conferences start to lose meaning when they get too large.
LikeLike
I know Bill Bradshaw, the Temple AD. He tells me that the Owls will be the part of a new football-only BE announced within the next 12 months. How soon the Owls can start in FB? 1-3 years.
LikeLike
@Vic C – Thanks for the input. When you say football-only BE, do you mean one or more football-only members added to the existing hybrid league or a split league?
LikeLike
Like I said above, there’s no way Temple can know this for sure. The BE presidents would have to vote on it and it would have been made public. At best, Temple has been told it’s likely. Remember, Nova was sure they were getting in for FB, too.
LikeLike
I should point out that Temple signed a 6 year deal with the MAC which runs through the 2012 season. I don’t know what that means for 2013 and beyond.
LikeLike
And the MAC can’t catch a break! They’ll be right back to 13 members.
LikeLike
Presumably UMass will move up to the BE in a few years anyway.
LikeLike
That’d be just as well anyway. Neither Temple nor UMass seems like a good fit with the MAC for me. It’s a marriage of convenience in both cases. Separate from the geographic aspect, neither school really seems to fit the MAC profile to me.
LikeLike
They are both tremendous cultural and geographical outliers, certainly. I’m guessing the MAC thinks the market access is worth the hassles of traveling so far, but it’s hard to believe the original 12 schools aren’t losing money by adding them. Maybe it’s helping them get eastern students?
LikeLike
My guess is that Temple and UMass each needed a football league (for different reasons) and the MAC decided to give it a whirl on the expectation that neither would be a long-term relationship and it had the potential to improve access to at least those 2 markets, if not “the east” generally. Perhaps something of a situation where, going into it, they said “Maybe we’ll lose money on this, but not so much money as not to at least see what happens.”
LikeLike
Even if Temple and UMass both end up bailing, I still think the MAC should swap Miami and Toledo in the alignment, though.
LikeLike
I have yet to figure out why they split this way to start with. There must have been a reason to not follow the obvious split.
LikeLike
Perhaps to take advantage of Toledo not being far from Ypsilanti? But that seems short-sighted — it also isn’t an extreme distance from Akron and Kent, while Oxford is a long ways away from both (I think it’s actually a longer drive from Oxford to Kent than it is from Oxford to Kalamazoo).
Granted, there’s no good way to do a geographic split in football in that Toledo and Bowling Green are a stone’s throw away from each other but a geographic split is almost certainly going to split them up on the FB side (assuming you keep the 3 Michigan schools together), and even in other sports (mostly basketball), Eastern Michigan is likely going to be on the opposite side of any alignment from its two closest schools. To my sensibilities, the benefits still seem worth it.
LikeLike
Toledo and WMU have long been rivals. WMU was the only Michigan school in the MAC for many years. It made sense for Toledo to be with them.
Temple, UMass, Buffalo, Akron, Kent make a reasonable mix of northeast rustbelt schools. Temple and Buffalo really are good matches for MAC schools with their commmuter profile and pro sports competition.
MAC gets 4 bb games a year from both Temple and UMass as part of the deal, so its not just football. It gives them a chance to raise their bb profile. Same thing with having them in football. It expands their geographic reach, raising their profile.
If (and I think this whole thing is a big if-its a huge shift from public comments, including Oliver Luck’s just a few weeks ago) this happens, MAC could probably easily get Western Kentucky or Illinois State, both of whom would help in bb (which the MAC needs).
LikeLike
That may have made sense when gas was cheap, but with the MAC mostly being a “bus league” and gasoline at $4/gal, it seems like an unnecessary luxury to accommodate a relatively obscure Toledo-WMU rivalry.
LikeLike
“Temple and Buffalo really are good matches for MAC schools with their commmuter profile and pro sports competition.”
Huh?? This seems to be exactly why I think they’re bad fits. Most MAC schools are in small college towns in their respective States’ hinterlands, not near the main metropolis. None of them are flagship schools (until UMass joins). This is why they seem like especially poor long-term fits. Short term, like I say, I can see saying, let’s give this a whirl and see what happens.
LikeLike
Adam, there are multiple ways to do a geographic split that don’t split Toledo and BGSU.
With all 14:
1. A NW/SE axis that puts them both in the West
2. Do a 6/6 split and then split the 2 FB only schools so everybody has an east coast division mate (this means the divisions would make sense for all sports)
3. OH and IN versus Other (proximity versus big city access)
4. NNW versus SSE (IL, MI x3, NY, Toledo & BGSU versus other)
With 12:
1. A NNE/SSW axis that separates EMU and Miami (West) from Toledo and BGSU (East)
2. Ohio versus other
LikeLike
@Adam
E. Michigan, N. Illinois, Miami, Kent & Akron are all in pro sports markets. Ball St. is one county removed from the Indianapolis metro area. Ohio, WMU and CMU are the only ones in “college towns.” Toledo and Bowling Green are kind of in the middle. Toledo is pretty good sized and is only 45 miles from Detroit and Bowling Green is just outside Toledo.
The alignment really is good geographically for everyone but Miami. The 7 western (more northwestern) schools are pretty well packed. Its very much a bus league for that division. And its not that bad for Miami. In a 12 team scenario, I’m sure 3 eastern Ohio schools, BG and Buffalo is preferable to 3 Michigan schools, NIU and Ball St.
LikeLike
Don’t be so sure! Here are the current Mapquest lengths from Oxford to the other East Division teams:
Athens: 168
Bowling Green: 174
Akron: 242
Kent: 254
Buffalo: 442
Avg: 256 miles
If you swapped Miami and Toledo in the alignment, Miami’s new trips would be:
Muncie: 74
Ypsilanti: 239
Kalamazoo: 248
Mt. Pleasant: 327
DeKalb: 343
Avg: 246
So they’re actually a bit closer to the West Division teams on average. The big gains come in with football — while it’s the same 246 miles for Oxford to travel to the West Division schools, when you add Philadelphia to the East Division, that’s 578 miles and the average distance balloons to 310. If they put Bowling Green back in the West when UMass joins, dropping the 174 to Bowling Green for the 892 to Foxboro makes an average 429 miles.
Of course, as long as the MAC is going to have teams that are major geographic outliers like Temple and UMass, the East Division is going to have major travel. In and of itself, I think that ought to mean that as long as it’s an unbalanced (13-team) league, they ought to make the West Division the “heavy” 7-team group.
LikeLike
http://blogs.courant.com/uconn_womens_basketball/2011/06/who-is-behind-big-east-relucta.html
A CT blogger wants the BE’s WBB tourney at Mohegan Sum at least once and believes ND is preventing it. He thinks the BE should override them and go there anyway because it is a better financial deal and ND will never join in FB anyway.
LikeLike
Interesting. What does Notre Dame being a member for football have to do with the women’s basketball tournament?
LikeLike
Well presumably the theory is that overriding ND’s preference not to have the tournament at a casino would alienate ND such that they would not consider joining in FB. But since joining in FB won’t happen anyway, what’s the harm in alienating them?
LikeLike
From the article:
“What football program in the Big East, even though it will not play football within the league, is among the most famous in the history of college football, so famous its has its own television contract even though it’s now just an average program.
Notre Dame.
What football program would the Big East love to add to its football roster, even though it should already be but chooses not to be, should it decide again to expand beyond Texas Christian University, which joins in 2012.
Notre Dame?
Which of the Catholic institutions with voting rights on conference matters would the Big East most likely defer – on matters like moving a women’s tournament to a gambling/entertainment facility that the majority of other members apparently strongly favor – because they don’t want to make them so angry they decide never to play football for them?
St. John’s, Marquette, Georgetown, Seton Hall, Villanova, Providence or DePaul?
Nope.
Notre Dame?”
More realistically, the BE might want to keep ND happy for regular season games and bowl tie-ins. I think all but the most blind BE fans know that ND will never join for FB.
LikeLike
I think this guy misses the point since apparently all the Catholic schools would likely oppose playing anywhere that allows gambling and they make up half the league.
Anyways, if the football schools do defer to Notre Dame it’s not because they think it would prevent ND from ever joining the football conference (they know that want happen) but because they don’t want to risk the Irish bolting and setting off a chain reaction ending with the Big East being picked apart by the ACC and Big Ten.
LikeLike
He says that not all of the Catholic presidents would automatically reject it out of hand. I don’t know if he has any sources to support that or not.
One commenter pointed out some interesting hypocrisy, though. Since the Catholic church does significant fundraising with bingo games, especially in the northeast, how do they justify their objection to playing WBB games at a casino complex? It’s not like anybody has to gamble to see the games.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/secs_multi-sport_dynasty_cant.html
Some interesting figures and comments on SEC’s success as of late and B10’s lack thereof. This is unusual for an article from SEC country. Its pretty balanced.
LikeLike
From the article:
Four NCAA sports are more prominent than others, the Big Four sports, if you will: football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball and baseball. The SEC has won half of those sports’ national titles in the past six years.
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn’t belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you’re absolutely…right!
LikeLike
If I had to pick one as different, I would go with baseball. It is clearly regionalized (like hockey or wrestling), not national like the other 3. WBB make a lot less and has fewer good programs, but it is a national sport that makes revenue in a few places.
Really, FB and MBB stand alone. All the other sports are regional or generally non-profit teams.
As for the article, I disagree with its premise. You don’t define a conference dynasty solely by conference National Championships. You have to look at the overall success of the whole league. It is also natural but very convenient to divide time into the chunk that maximizes the recent SEC success. As the article points out, the BE won 8 in the previous 6 year period (next best was 4) versus 2 for the SEC. Did they acknowledge that as a BE dynasty back then?
Everyone knows that the SEC has dominated the BCS title lately and nobody disputes that.
However, MBB has been a wasteland in the SEC west. WBB has been mostly UT and LSU. I think the ACC, BE and B10 folks would argue about declaring an SEC dynasty in MBB and WBB lately.
If you add hockey (the complement to baseball), the B10 and ACC both get 2 titles. Men’s track would add 3 B12 and 2 ACC titles. Wrestling would add 5 B10 and 1 B12 titles. Softball would add 6 P12 titles. The point is, the article conveniently chose criteria that make the SEC look better in comparison to other conferences. They do fine on their own, they don’t need the spin.
LikeLike
Don’t think its any spin at all. He pointed out that SEC did not do much in that previous period. There’s no dispute the two main sports are fb and men’s basketball. Baseball isn’t regional. Its just that the B10 does lousy in it. Big East has had more success lately with the same weather. In terms of national TV coverage and participation, women’s basketball is clearly the 3rd sport. Its arguable whether baseball is far enough ahead of the rest to be considered in the top group as far as colleges go. Women’s Volleyball and hockey are the only other sports anyone makes any money on, but hockey has very little participation.
LikeLike
It’s not just the B10, the north in general does much worse than it used to do. The CWS had several northern winners before they got rid of geographical regionals. Since then, not so much. The B10 could help itself some by changing recruiting rules to match the south, but they don’t believe in oversigning in baseball, either. I don’t think that changing the rules would suddenly make them competitive, either.
Northern teams in the CWS since 2000:
Nebraska x3, ND
That’s 4 of 44 teams.
Northern teams with CWS titles:
MN (’56, ’60, ’64), MI (’53, ’62), Holy Cross (’52), OSU (’66)
That’s 7 in 15 years, but none in 45 years.
Northernish teams with more than 2 CWS appearances before 2000 (last one in parentheses):
10 – Northern CO (’74)
7 – MI, Maine (’86)
6 – St. John’s, WMU (’80)
5 – MN, UConn, PSU, SIU (’79)
4 – Holy Cross, OSU, BC, Harvard, Lafayette, Seton Hall (’75)
Others in 80s and 90s:
Creighton ’91, IN St ’86, KS ’93
The point isn’t that northern baseball is great, but that the sport has become regionalized. Look at the location of successful teams versus the distribution of all DI teams. WI doesn’t even bother to field a team.
That’s why I included hockey, which is a geographically complementary sport to baseball as well as a potential revenue producer.
As for spin, picking those four sports and specifying the time period (6 years) slants the story. Calling it a dynasty because a couple of teams have won titles (outside of FB) is spin. The SEC has no dynasty in MBB or WBB. I don’t think they have one in baseball either, with the ACC, P12 and B12 being competitive. The SEC didn’t win the CWS from 2001-2008.
LikeLike
Correction:
That’s 4 of 96 CWS teams from the north since 2000.
Doesn’t that seem like it’s been regionalized to you?
LikeLike
You could make the same comment about football. Outside of Ohio State, football has been dominated by Sun Belt teams over the last decade. And there’s some chance Ohio State’s finishes could go the way of USC’s. Based on the news (Scout said Oregon paid him for influence and only asked for scouting info when NCAA started investigating), Oregon’s break into the group could go away also.
Northern teams play baseball, they just haven’t won many championships lately.
LikeLike
The baseball World Series is the final 8 of baseball, so that should be roughly equivalent to the top 8 of the men’s outdoor track and field finals. Sadly, the results aren’t in one place, so it took awhile to go compile this list
Anyway, here’s the highest finishing Northern school (not counting Pac 10 territory as North) and the highest finsihing Big Ten school for each of the last 5 years:
2011: #12 (4 way tie): Illinois
2010: #7 Kansas; #20 Indiana
2009: #13 (tie) K State; #37 (3 way tie) Illinois, Minnesota, Villanova
2008: #11(tie)Northern Iowa; #21 (tie) Wisconsin
2007 # 7 (tie) Wisconsin
There are only 2 ‘Northern’ schools that made the final 8 the last 5 years, roughly the same proportion as your baseball numbers
Does that make Men’s Track and field a regional sport?
LikeLike
bullet,
You could make that comment about football but you’d be obviously wrong. Northern teams have often earned BCS at large bids or won their conference against southern teams. The two aren’t even remotely equivalent and you know it.
Also, nobody said northern teams don’t play baseball. It’s a strawman argument against college baseball being regionalized.
It’s not that “they just haven’t won many championships lately,” it’s that they haven’t won any lately and rarely have even had a chance to compete. It’s pretty much the definition of regionalized. Why you are fighting that is beyond me.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
Assuming that your numbers are right and that a similar pattern holds for the past 20 years or more, then yes I’d say outdoor track is also regionalized (and for the same reason – weather). To be fair, though, track is a very different beast as it’s really a bunch of individual sports grouped together rather than a singular sport like baseball. I’m guessing there are parts of track and field that northern teams are good at and other parts where they chronically lag, and only those latter parts are regionalized in my opinion (but that’s not the question you asked).
LikeLike
This raised the question about participation so-top sports in Division I in 2008-9:
Men’s-# of schools
basketball 332
cross country 302
baseball 292
golf 291
track outdoor 269
tennis 258
track indoor 249
football 238
soccer 197 (higher than I would have thought-not many southern programs)
swimming/diving 139
wrestling 86
Ice hockey 58
Lacrosse 57
Volleyball 22
Water polo 22
Fencing 19
Rifle 19
Gymnastics 16
Skiing 13
There are also 28 rowing teams which is not an NCAA championship sport (of course FBS football isn’t either)
Women’s-# of schools
basketball 331
cross country 327
volleyball 317
tennis 311
soccer 310
track outdoor 307
track indoor 299
softball 276
golf 243
swimming/diving 194
Rowing 87
Lacrosse 86
Field hockey 76
gymnastics 63
ice hockey 35
water polo 32
bowling 29
rifle 24
fencing 22
skiing 14
Equestrian with 18 teams was the highest non championship sport.
LikeLike
Thanks for that info Bullet, I didn’t know some of those and quite a few of them surprised me given Title IX and such. Interesting data there.
LikeLike
There are other non-NCAA sports, too, such as synchronized swimming (OSU has 25 national titles since 1977).
LikeLike
The SEC’s current run has been as a 12 team conference. Most of college sports history had smaller major conferences, making it more difficult for any one conference to dominate national titles. Still, I decided to look and see if other conferences ever had strong runs of titles. WBB only started in 1982, so older streaks can’t include it. The CWS started in 1947, so really old streaks can’t include that either.
The comparison streak:
SEC (2005/6-2010/1) – 5 FB (’06-’10), 3 CWS (’09-’11), 2 MBB (’06-’07), 2 WBB (’07-’08)
That’s 12 in 6 years (12/24 = 50%).
Shorter periods:
B10 (1939/40-1942/3) – 3 FB (’40-’42), 2 MBB (’40-’41)
That’s 5 in 4 years (5/8 = 63%) for a smaller conference.
B10 (1959/60-1961/2) – 1 FB (’60), 1 MBB (’53, ’60), 2 CWS (’60, ’62)
That’s 4 in 3 years (4/9 = 44%) for a smaller conference.
B10 (1952/3-1955/6) – 2 FB (’52, ’54), 1 MBB (’53), 2 CWS (’53, ’56)
That’s 5 in 4 years (5/12 = 42%) for a smaller conference.
BE (1999/2000-2004/5) – 5 WBB (’00-04), 2 MBB (’03-’04), 1 FB (’01)
That’s 8 in 5 years (8/20 = 40%).
Longer periods:
P8 (1966/7-1974/5) – 3 FB (’67, ’72, ’74), 8 MBB (’67-’73, ’75), 6 CWS (’68, ’70-4)
That’s 17 in 9 years (17/27 = 63%) for a smaller conference.
B10(1952/3-1965/6) – 5 FB (’52, ’54, ’57, ’60, ’65), 2 MBB (’53, ’60), 6 CWS (’53, ’56, ’60, ’62, ’64, ’66)
That’s 13 in 14 years (13/42 = 31%) for a smaller conference.
So yes, conference streaks are rare as we all would expect. The current SEC streak is not historic, though. The conference of champions strikes again. The Pac-8 won 63% of the titles in 9 years with only 8 schools versus 50% over 6 years with 12 schools. That’s not even close.
LikeLike
brian,
having followed womens basketball since the 1970’s I would say it is more than just UT and LSU in the SEC. The SEC east has UGA and Vandy, and the west has Auburn and Arkansas. Even the bottom teams are competitive, while the other conferences drop off quickly after the top team or two. Now that the SEC has the ESPN contract I am guessing they will get more exposure at the expense of the ACC. Putting GT in tOSU’s bracket and shipping UK to the far west was not right. Aside from not getting to see lavender and dunlap go head to head (they used to play each other when they were younger), sending the #2 team in the SEC that far was poor seeding indeed.
LikeLike
I only said it was mostly UT and LSU, and that’s based on the criteria the author used of championships. TN is the only SEC team to win the WBB NC. I only added LSU because they recently had 5 final four’s in a row (’04-’08). Other SEC final four’s came before LSU’s run. TN has won the regular season and/or tournament title 20 of the past 22 years, so I think it’s safe to say they dominate the conference.
LikeLike
Since everything changes at midnight tonight, I made a list of who’s going where in college football. Correct me if I’m wrong:
2011
Boise State WAC->MWC
BYU MWC->Independent(football only, WCC all others)
Colorado BigXII->Pac12
Nebraska BigXII->BiG
Utah MWC->Pac12
2012
Fresno State WAC->MWC
Hawaii WAC->MWC (football only, BigWest all others))
Massachusetts D1AA->D1A(Ind)
Nevada WAC->MWC
TCU MWC->BigEast
Texas State D1AA->D1A(Ind)
UT-SanAntonio D1AA->D1A(Ind)
2013
Massachusetts Ind->MAC
Texas State Ind->WAC
UT-SanAntonio Ind->WAC
LikeLike
All of the websites remain with the old configurations besides the WAC which has already removed Boise State. I’m glad they are waiting till it’s official, makes it a bit neater. The WCC has a countdown clock until BYU joins.
LikeLike
This includes the PAC-10 website. Today is the last day of the PAC-10/Pacific 10.
LikeLike
Utah is excited.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700148223/Pac-12-day-plans-finalized-for-Utah-Utes.html
LikeLike
Just for completeness, here are all conference changes for 2006-2010:
2006 None
2007 Temple Ind->MAC
2008 None
2009 None
2010 None
LikeLike
Western Kentucky joined the Sun Belt for football in 2007.
LikeLike
My mistake. I was going off of the Wikipedia conference pages, which didn’t mention that.
LikeLike
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/college-sports/2011/jun/29/tdsport02-caa-believes-five-years-of-football-elig-ar-1139785/
The CAA is proposing that I-AA move to 5 years of eligibility with no more redshirting. The idea is that since the teams are much smaller than I-A, it will help provide depth for injuries without adding the cost of more scholarships. Also, studies have shown that freshmen do better academically when they are playing versus redshirting.
LikeLike
The proposal is one thing, but the logic makes no sense to me. The teams are NOT smaller than I-A unless they choose to be smaller. They can give 85 players scholarships, they just have to do partials to limit to 63 full scholarships (for example, 41 full and 44 half scholarships). I-A red-shirts and doesn’t complain about not having enough players.
The pros got by for many years with only 40 players on their rosters. Why can’t a college team get by with 48 on a single road trip (per his example).
On those studies, do they take into account the fact that some players get red-shirted because they are marginal academically and the coaches want them to get settled?
I’ve heard it proposed for I-A. Although I suspect it would be seriously abused at the I-A level (maybe not so much at FCS). If you have a good player who’s marginal as a pro keep him another year to see if he can improve his draft prospects. Net result is that some players play 5 full years. It would also lead to more running off players when there are others you get to use 5 years.
I also don’t see how it could be justified as only being for football. Would you get Title IX suits by women athletes who want to work on their graduate degree while still on a volleyball scholarship? Its a can of worms.
LikeLike
The teams really are smaller. I-A teams can generally travel with around 70 players, not the 56 of the CAA.
As for expecting I-AA players to take the abuse that NFL players did, that’s just pointless. The pros got paid to take the abuse. NFL players are better trained and physically ready for the punishment from the game, too. There are physical differences between 18 year-olds and 25 year-olds.
I assume their argument is that they already are providing 5 years of scholarship to these players, the only difference is letting them play in that fifth year. There’s no reason the policy couldn’t apply to women since it wouldn’t change costs. All it changes is who gets to play, not how many get a scholarship.
LikeLike
Traveling squads are a choice. At one time there was a 60 player limit for the major schools (not sure when that got repealed but it was a long time ago). 56 must be a CAA rule. And he was saying he couldn’t field 56 healthy players. Of course, that is part of what redshirts are about. You can take the redshirt off if you have unusual injuries that year.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone is arguing any of that. I was just pointing out that his teams really are smaller than D-I teams. I’m sure the CAA limits them to 56 to cut costs on travel. Clearly he knows that’s what redshirts are for, but he feels they could better manage players without the redshirt. Burning a redshirt for 3 games while someone heals is a tough decision, especially with a limited number of players.
Why not limit them to 44 regular season games (or whatever the equivalent of 4 full seasons is) in 5 years? Then everybody can maximize their opportunities.
LikeLike
I like your idea of games better than his unlimited 5 year. But it would be a lot tougher to police.
LikeLike
I don’t know of a good reason why eligibility should be restricted to 4 years. Maybe back when people normally got a degree in that time it made sense, but the average degree takes more than 4 years anymore. Five years would be a better fit for a “normal” degree process.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376343
LikeLike
Kansas State chronicles the final day of the Big 12 as we know it:
http://www.bringonthecats.com/2011/6/30/2249785/adventures-of-the-big-12-bon-voyage#storyjump
Chocapockets!
LikeLike
@ Frank
I would like to argue your number 1 rule in regards to the Pheonix Coyotes. First thing to note the NHL salary cap celing and floor are getting lifted by 5 million dollars. Pheonix lost around 25 million dollars last year. Now that matthew hulsizer has dropped out bid to get the team for practically for free, who is going to buy this team? The city of Glendale eventually will eventually have to give up on losing money. The city of Glendale has been bullish knowing that Winnipeg was the only fair option to move the team is now gone. Even if Quebec government pays for a new arena, its going to take a year to build the arena and that could affect 2 nhl seasons. The colosiee is not up to NHL standards. Maybe move to Toronto and if they could rent from the Air Canada Centre it would be a hard negoation for Maple Leafs to give up thier empire. So the only option might be contraction and have a dispersion draft.
I will argue even further that the rich teams in NHL are making so money that its causing the salary cap to rise. The exponential rising floor the will cause Pheonix, Columbus, Florida, and even to the Islanders to spend even more money on players. This may cause teams to leave town or fold.
LikeLike
Happy New Conference Day!
Here’s hoping Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Boise State and BYU enjoy their new conferences and that the Big 12, MWC and WAC enjoy their new lineups. May everybody flourish in their new environment.
LikeLike
In the conference redraft, the first 2 picks of the 7th round are:
Clemson and IL
You can find a table of the first 6 rounds at:
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/6/29/2251095/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-round-six-results
LikeLike
UConn went next.
LikeLike
Here is an interesting article about the beginning of the Big Ten Network.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0701-big-ten-nebraska–20110701,0,5568175.story#tugs_story_display
LikeLike
Shapiro certainly comes off as a dick in that article.
I mean, I expect a hardball negotiating style, but pouring gift champagne down the drain and then call someone else juvenile? That’s classy.
LikeLike
Dan Patrick has told a story when he was at ESPN, he was negotiating a new contract with Shapiro. Shapiro told him he was over the hill and lowballed Patrick saying he wouldn’t be able to work anyplace else.
LikeLike
Visionary
LikeLike
ESPN’s ‘lowball’ offer triggered Big Ten expansion
Failed negotiation also led to Big Ten Network
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0701-big-ten-nebraska–20110701,0,5568175.story
Actually the article actually supports the second (smaller) headline…the primary one is more speculative (and attention grabbing).
LikeLike
Oops, shoulda refreshed before posting…ninja’d by Craig.
LikeLike
Capitol One Cup final standings out:
http://www.capitalonecup.com/standings.html
LikeLike
Directors’ Cup:
http://www.nacda.com/directorscup/nacda-directorscup-current-scoring.html
LikeLike
Interesting to look at the conferences. Other than the Big 6, CUSA and MWC, only 5 schools (3 of them Ivies) cracked the top 75-Princeton #38, Denver #54, Penn #68, Cornell #70 and Kent #73. I think only WSU and Miss. St. from the Big 5 were outside the top 75.
BE did not do very well. Pitt, Cincinnati and Rutgers were all way down in the standings, along with all the basketball schools. Villanova and Georgetown, who do play football, even if not FBS, were top 75.
LikeLike
Seattle building new arena for NHL team?
Perhaps the Phoenix Coyotes will have a new home in a few years. Seattle would be much better than moving the Coyotes to Quebec City or Hamilton. The realigned NHL could still have a 7 team Pacific Division without having to move Colorado from the Midwest Division, which would be the case if Phoenix moved east. I’m sure Seattle could build a great rivalry with Vancouver which is about a three hour drive north.
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/02/report-seattle-building-a-new-arena-to-lure-hockey-team/
LikeLike
NHL to play exhibition game in Kansas City.
Might be a good relocation city for Columbus, Florida or Phoenix.
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/6/20/2233390/pittsburgh-penguins-kansas-city-preseason
LikeLike
Happy 4th folks!
Here is an observation on pro sports teams and the future, but I will go to the past to draw the inference. 100 years ago horse racing was the atop the sports heap and everyone thought this would continue. If history teaches anything, and physics is correct, it os my observation that all things grow, maintain, and then decline. In the 80’s I was sitting at a small kitchen table while my grandmother wrote out on a yellow legal pad the tracks she had been to in her lifetime (her list only included tracks in the americas – so tracks in mexico and canada were included – but tracks in europe, asia, and other places were not. By the time she was done there were probably 100 tracks on her list or more, and she was sure she had forgotten some. Fast forward to today, and try to name more than 10 or 20 tracks and only a handful like Churchill and Belmont that are names the average person on the street would actually recognize. While you may not see a correlation, I am older and I feel there is. Racing built itself up on live event to build its fan base. In the 20’s folks went to see the horses run in person, and even in the Great Depression only the movies and racing seemed to still draw patrons (Keeneland was actually founded right in the middle of the Great Depression). It was the “sport of kings” but it still depended on the 2 dollar bettor for it survival (and why they used to print a 2 dollar bill if you are old enough to remember them).
Today racing is near the bottom (I was surprised to see that the Derby only had 5 million in broadcast rights which is fast approaching 1 advertising spot for the Super Bowl. While you can argue many reasons for racings demise, I would put the loss of the “average” live fan as the number #1 reason. Tracks have closed left and right with the advent of TV (and simulcasting) so folks in Indiana can watch the biggest tracks in the country, and do not feel the need to support the local track (Hoosier Park – who filed for bankruptcy in 2010). Why you might ask do I bring up horse racing? They lost sight of the 2 dollar bettor and figured that they would keep them if all they did was watch racing on TV. I see a similar situation developing in pro sports today with the advent of “luxury” seating and price hikes that force the “average” sports fan to watching the game on TV and not attending the live event. Sure this will work for the current generation, but what happens when they die off? Baseball has historically survived on the live event and the live game as a time for father and son to share quality time. The NFL of today was built on a similar foundation in that many kids first “real” experience was a game shared with a father, uncle, or grandfather who were probably working class folks.
The NFL is probably the best at survival, but they have relied on sports betting and fantasy football to keep their demand high. When I see younger folks following players (because of fantasy football) and not teams I see less connection to a team or a place. Throw in that more folks now watch it on TV and never experience the event live would suggest less city / team loyalty going forward. While I am not suggesting contraction in the next few years, I would not be surprised at all to see contraction across the board for the “luxury” pro sports of today. I could be dead wrong, but 100 years ago who would have believed the contraction that has occurred in the sport of racing. I still feel that the long term health of any sport is the ability to draw live fans from the lower and middle class. This is still america, and our roots are deep in the ability for us to experience opportunity that is not shared in other countries with roots of kings or dictators. If we lose this, I think contraction of pro franchises are quite real indeed.
LikeLike
Sports is definitely an ever evolving industry. Coming from a family with horse background, it’s sad to see the sport the way it is, with Ohio racetracks with only a fraction of the support they had even 2 decades ago. I will comment that a lot of that isn’t directly on the tracks though. I think the internet and more things to do has hurt the tracks along with bowling alleys, miniature golf, adult softball, etc. The fact that gambling has expanded more places and more easily done online doesn’t help either.
I’ve wondered about weakening the foundations with high prices too. I’m an Ohio State grad, but I doubt I’ll be to another game anytime soon due to price. Even baseball can get very expensive. You can usually get fairly cheap tickets for bad seats (although taking a whole family it ads up), but if you want to buy any drinks, snacks, or souvenirs, the cost skyrockets.
LikeLike
I agree with yourpoint while I disagree about horse racing. Gambling alternatives hurt it more than anything else. Lotteries and casinos are all over.
I don’t think forgetting the $2 bettor really hurt the horse tracks, although I think you have a good point about baseball and football and the constant rising prices.
Society changes. Our rural slow paced society loved horse racing and baseball. Trends come and go-bridge, backgammon, now poker. So there’s no guarantee things will stay the same. Participation in high school football hasn’t declined, but with the large size of players and injuries, the lack of fitness of youth, does that continue? If participation declines, what happens to college and pro football?
LikeLike
eric,
One of my first jobs was walking hots “up the river” 🙂 and we have family with at least 3 generations of ohio bred racing. I have had long discussions with the current racing comish for Ohio for quite some time about the future of ohio racing and racing in general. The problem is we are older and actually have common sense. The younger crowd is enamored with slots but does not see the job loss and criminal issues it brings. In the old days having Coney Island and River Downs next door to each other was a true sense of marketing genius. They kids could play at Coney Island while the adults played next door! 😉 Both venues were good for the city and the state, but younger folks do not even realize the history.
bullet,
I agree 100% about your point of lotteries and casinos, but had the industry remained strong the lottery and casino factions would never have gotten their foot in the door. The biggest point people miss in the debate is the numbers of jobs racing provides versus casinos or lotteries – slot machines are preferred because their is little to no labor cost, and lotteries tend to provide limited jobs (home office with about 10 – 15 staff (a local food joint probably provides more payroll and jobs than a state lottery). Horse racing is labor intensive in grooms, trainers, track labor, vets, feed suppliers, pari mutual folks, and a whole host of jobs most folks are unaware exist. In the sense of job creation, racing is probably the #1 form of gambling for job creation. That said, I was privy to track numbers pre and post lottery and can say first hand that one just robbed dollars from the other (not a real new revenue stream). I can also say firsthand that OTB bumped up gambling numbers, but also created lower on track attendance (fewer live bettors that also bought gifts, food, and other revenue streams on track.
My bigger point was that OTB forced contraction (similar to the dropping value of D1 football teams past 48 or 64 teams). This was a primary point I made if we had a “spin off” of 4 “16 team superconferences” in that they could cover 80 – 90 % of the college football dollar, while the “other” half of the teams left would have to fight for the 10 – 20% “scraps”. If OTB (a pure TV audience could force closure of local tracks – and by default kill off or limit future fan growth) what would prevent the same thing in other pro sports? I could easily see the NBA drop from 30 to 24 teams if margins are not good for the bottom teams. Fewer teams would cut payrolls and expenses resulting in more concentrated talent. The same could follow for MLB or the NHL in a drop to 24. OTB showed the big track owners that they could eliminate competition and strengthen their own tracks by letting the big tracks be the winners in OTB. I find it hard to believe the top pro sports franchises have not at least seen the effect of power concentration. Heck, the whole realignment in college football was driven by TV money more than feeding the local fan base!
LikeLike
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/7/1/2251138/grading-the-big-tens-bowl-performance-in-the-bcs-era
Here’s an interesting article that looks at the B10’s “struggles” in bowl games in the BCS era. It examines whether the B10 gets a bad rap for bowl performance (answer – not really, especially not lately). Then it looks at who and what are the reasons for the B10’s bowl performance. The are some very reasonable comments as well.
1. The B10 does get a bad rap for BCS games. Because of OSU in the NCG and USC dominating in the Rose Bowl, people fail to recognize that OSU is 6-3 in BCS games and the B10 is 11-12 (better than the B12, BE and ACC and almost 50% more games than the P10). The B10’s overall bowl record has been weak, though.
2. The problem is NOT at the top, with OSU, WI, IA and PSU all at least 50% in BCS games and well over 50% overall.
3. The problem starts with MI (1-3 BCS, 5-6 overall, 1-5 in its last 6 bowl games, 0-3 in the Rose Bowl since 2003). Hopefully the new regime restores them to winning bowls.
4. The heart of the problem is the middle and bottom of the conference. The other 6 teams are 0-3 in the BCS and 10-26 overall (0.278), with IL the only team at 0.500 (0-2 BCS, 2-2 overall). NW is the biggest anchor at 0-6.
5. One cause is that the B10 faces the hardest bowl slate (higher % against AQs and Top 25 teams). This is topped by many opponents playing de facto home games (USC in the Rose Bowl, SEC in Florida x3, B12 in Texas x2).
6. One possible issue is playing up in bowls by having 2 BCS teams each year. This doesn’t seem to impact the top bowls so much, though, perhaps because the SEC is in the same boat.
7. Due to bowl pairings, the B10 has suffered more than anyone from recent trends in excellence by playing USC and the top of the SEC so often. The B10 would have an even better record in the top games without the rise of USC and the SEC.
From the comments:
As further proof that the top isn’t the problem, the B10 is 17-18 in bowls versus the SEC since 1998, 7-9 since 2005. That means the problem is the middle group of teams each year that go to the lower bowls.
The stats:
Bowls vs SEC teams – 17-18 since 1998, 7-9 since 2005
BCS, Cap 1 and Outback – 24-25 since 1998, 11-13 since 2005
Other bowls – 17-23 since 1998, 5-15 since 2005
One possible explanation is that the middle of the B10 has been weaker than B10 fans realize.
Regardless, adding NE should help. First, it provides another quality team so the lower bowls should see better teams. Second, adding a CCG provides an extra week of practice and competition for the top teams (this is on top of the B10 extending the regular season past Thanksgiving, which it just started to do anyway). Third, the CCG may or may not reduce the number of BCS at large bids. If it reduces them, then every non-BCS bowl gets a one level better opponent.
LikeLike
Since the SEC is the best bowl winning conference lately, I thought a comparison could be helpful.
Bowl records since the BCS started:
AL – 5-5 (1-2)
AU – 7-3 (2-0)
ARK – 3-7 (0-1)
LSU – 8-3 (4-0)* all 4 were in New Orleans
MS – 6-1
MS St – 4-1
SEC West – 33-20 (7-3)
FL – 7-6 (5-1)
GA – 10-3 (2-1)
TN – 4-7 (1-1)
SC – 3-4
KY – 3-4
VU – 1-0
SEC East – 28-24 (8-3)
SEC – 61-44 (15-6)
So the teams with high winning percentages are GA, LSU, AU, MS and MSU. LSU is bolstered by playing 4 BCS bowl home games (4-3 otherwise). The big BCS winning percentage comes mostly from LSU and FL.
I think the difference from the B10 is clear. The B10 needs some mid-level teams to step up like MS, MS St and AU have for the SEC. It would also be nice to have top teams that can either go 10-3 overall or 5-1 in the BCS. The final difference would be LSU getting BCS home games. Based on their other bowls, they might well have gone 2-2 and lost a national title if they had to play neutral site BCS games.
LikeLike
Here’s a breakdown of B10 bowl performance in the BCS era. I see 5 tiers, and NE would be in tier 2 if it counted. * indicates a BCS-only record.
Major BCS winner and only NC
OSU – 7-5 (6-3); 1-0* BE, P10, ND; 3-1 (2-1) B12, 1-4 (1-2) SEC
0.500 or better overall and in BCS bowls
WI – 7-5 (2-1); 3-0 (2-0) P10, 1-0 B12, 1-1 ACC, 2-3 SEC, 0-1* non-AQ
IA – 6-3 (1-1); 1-0* ACC, 3-1 SEC, 2-1 B12, 0-1* P10
PSU – 6-3 (1-1); 1-0* ACC, 2-0 B12, 3-2 SEC, 0-1* P10
Below 0.500 overall with a lot of bowls, but at least 1 BCS win
MI – 5-6 (1-3); 5-2 (1-0) SEC, 0-2* P10, 0-2 (0-1) B12
Winless in BCS bowls
PU – 3-6 (0-1); 1-0 B12, non-AQ; 1-3 (0-1) P10, 0-1 ACC, 0-2 SEC
IL – 2-2 (0-2); 1-0 ACC, B12; 0-1* P10, SEC
Losing record and no BCS bowls
MN – 3-6; 2-0 SEC, 1-1 P10, 0-2 ACC, 0-3 B12
MSU – 2-5; 1-0 non-AQ, 1-2 SEC, 0-1 ACC, 0-2 B12
IN – 0-1; 0-1 B12
NW – 0-6; 0-3 B12, 0-1 non-AQ, P10, SEC
For comparison
NE – 6-5 (1-1); 3-0 B10, 1-0 ACC, 1-2 (1-0) SEC, 1-2 P10, 0-1* BE
As groups:
Top 5 teams: 31-22 (11-9)
ACC 3-1 (2-0), BE 1-0*, B12 8-4 (2-2), P10 4-4 (3-4), SEC 14-12 (2-2), ND 1-0*, non-AQ 0-1*
Bottom 6 teams: 10-26 (0-3)
ACC 1-4, B12 2-9, P10 2-6 (0-2), SEC 3-6 (0-1), non-AQ 2-1
These 6 teams are causing the bowl record problems and hurting the B10’s perception overall, perhaps as much as OSU (I can’t be objective on that point). The B12 really has given these teams problems.
BCS bright spots for the B10:
1. More at large bids, and thus total bids, than anyone else
2. 2nd most wins behind SEC
3. 7 of 11 schools have been to a BCS bowl (2nd highest % behind P10 at 7/10, BE has had 8 teams but 3 are gone)
4. OSU has been to more BCS bowls than anyone
5. OSU has more BCS bowl wins than anyone
LikeLike
Some of the bottom 6 surprised me with exactly how bad they’ve been in bowls:
NW (1-8) – lost 8 in a row (Fitz is 0-3, but all were close at the end)
MSU (7-14) – lost 5 in a row and 9 of 11 (Dantonio is 0-4, only 1 within single digits)
MN (3-9) – lost 4 in a row and 7 of 10 (hopefully Kill can fix this)
IN (3-6) – lost 2 in a row and 5 of 7
PU (8-7) – won 1 in a row, lost 6 of 8
IL (7-9) – won 1 in a row, lost 9 of 13 (Zook is 1-1)
Add to that some struggles in the top tier:
MI (19-21) – 2-6 since 2001 season (once lost 7 straight including 5 Rose Bowls)
WI (11-11) – 1-3 lately (started 0-4 including 3 Rose Bowls)
PSU (27-14-2) – 1-2 lately (never lost more than 2 in a row)
OSU (20-22) – won 2 in a row but lost 3 of 5 (has had 4 streaks of 4 bowls, 2 W and 2 L)
IA (14-10-1) – won 3 in a row (only bad streak was 0-3-1 around 1990)
NE (24-23) – lost 1 in a row (lost 7 in a row including 6 to Miami and FSU in ’87-’93)
LikeLike
I should point out some other bowl bright spots for the B10:
1. JoePa holds the records for most bowls (37), most bowl wins (24) and is the only coach to win all 5 major bowls
2. PSU has the second best bowl winning percentage (min. 20 games) at 0.651, behind USC at 0.660 (USC benefits from 33 Rose Bowls in their home town, going 24-9, but only 7-7 in other bowls)
3. PSU has the third most bowl wins at 27, behind AL (32) and USC (31)
4. PSU has the 8th most bowl games
5. MI has the second longest streak of consecutive bowls at 33 behind NE at 35
6. MI won the first ever bowl game (1/1/1902 Rose Bowl)
7. OSU is the only school with 3 separate consecutive bowl streaks of at least 10 years
8. MSU has the best Rose Bowl winning percentage at 3-1 (minimum 3 games, TX is 2-0)
9. MN was the first B10 team to play in consecutive Rose Bowls
10. I got nothing for IN, PU, IL, NW, WI and IA – fans of those schools help me out
For non-B10 fans or new fans, the B10 didn’t allow bowl games before 1946 and didn’t allow the same team to go in consecutive years until 1972 (except 1961, when OSU’s faculty turned down the bid so MN went again). The B10 didn’t allow multiple bowl teams until 1975. This is why other powers have played so many more bowl games than B10 teams.
LikeLike
With the proliferation of bowl games, some of these streaks and totals will become almost meaningless. Only recently has 6-6 or 7-5 earned a team a bowl game.
I think JoePa’s records are probably safe, though.
LikeLike
The Iowa-Illinois rivalry has been discussed here several times. One point of contention has been where IL fits into the list of IA rivalries. While it is not scientific, the article below is from an Iowa blogger and contains a poll of which team IA fans loathe the most. Choices include the other 11 B10 teams and ISU.
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/05/which-iowa-football-rival-do-you-loathe-with-poll/
It certainly shows some recency bias (and like all online polls self-selects younger fans), but the results so far:
WI 247 (27%)
NW 169
NE 152
OSU 85
ISU 78
MN 69
IL 32
PSU 29
MSU 24
MI 20
PU 7
IN 6
LikeLike
Iowa has a lot of rivals. Throw out OSU (which is on that list (IMHO) solely because it’s been top dog in the conference recently, and they still have 6-7 (depending on whether you count PSU-Iowa, which isn’t a naturally rivalry, but has had its share of bad blood). For comparison, a better poll would ask the fanbase of each school to list their most hated rivals, with no limit on number.
LikeLike
I agree with almost everything you said.
1. Yes, IA has a lot of rivals. That has never been in dispute as far as I know.
2. I’d say OSU is on there for recent success, success against IA (12-1 in past 13) and NCAA issues, not any actual “rivalry”
3. The most recent results have MI, MSU, PSU and IL all on the same level for what that is worth, with only PU and IN lower
4. I said the poll had problems from the start. First, any online poll is biased towards younger people which means the historical rivalries get undervalued. Second, the poll only allows you to pick one. Third, it asked which rival do you loathe, which might not be the same as which is the strongest rival. A better poll would allow the voter to rate each rivalry on a scale of intensity and require the voter to submit their age, allowing for demographic adjustments to properly average the results.
5. All that being said, this was a source of information from Iowa fans about how they view their rivalries. It isn’t scientific, it’s biased towards the younger fans and the form of the poll reduces its accuracy. Still, it is a better source of information than speculation or anecdotal results which is what we have had before.
LikeLike
Here’s an update of the results:
WI 808 (23.3%)
NE 736
NW 566
ISU 382
OSU 313
MN 240
MI 104
IL 97
MSU 96
PSU 95
PU 21
IN 12
Total 3470
LikeLike
Nebraska is in second place and has not played Iowa in years. Add to this the fact that Wisconsin is in the other division, and UNL will be at the top of this list in short order.
LikeLike
Looks like Iowa fans are pretty stoked that Purdue is their crossover opponent from the other division.
LikeLike
They could have gotten IN, I suppose.
They weren’t going to get rid of OSU/MI or IL/NW, so that’s 2 down. They needed PSU/NE for TV and schedule balancing, so that’s 3 down. I’m sure there was a lot of discussion of WI/IA versus WI/MN, but MN needed to keep all their rivalries more than IA did, especially with IA getting NE to end the year. For competitive balance reasons, I wish they had kept WI/IA. Still, the tradition of WI/MN is tremendous and I wouldn’t want to lose it either. I can understand throwing MN a bone in this case.
LikeLike
Northwestern-Iowa is that big? Didn’t know they felt that way. I also thought Minnesota would be higher, but I guess having the sweetest rivalry trophy in college football only gets you so far. And taking away Iowa-Wisconsin as an annual rivalry … that’s still not sitting right. Could someone remind me why they didn’t just switch Northwestern and Wisconsin so the divisions would make more sense?
LikeLike
I think the wording of the article drove the responses. It asked “who do you want to beat” or “who do you loathe” rather than “biggest rival”. It may not seem like a big difference, but I think it had a big impact. NW has won 5 of 6 from Iowa, so everyone wants to beat them. PSU scored low since we’ve been kicking their arses (7 of 8), but I think a lot of people consider them a rival now. But that will likely go away with the divisions.
I think the MSU game is going to become a good rivalry. Lots of good games recently, two relatively even programs that will now play annually, and some bad blood the last couple years, including on the recruiting trail. (MSU supposedly told a DT recruit two days before signing day that Iowa was going to be firing multiple coaches due to the rhabdo incident, which obviously never came to be.)
LikeLike
NW has won 3 in a row and 5 of 6.
I think MN’s lack of success has dulled that rivalry. I think only picking one hurt MN because it isn’t the most hated rival, but is in the top 3 for most MN fans.
They didn’t switch WI and NW because they valued competitive balance between the divisions as the most important thing, and in their view (and most everyone else’s, too) NW and WI are not competitive equals. From 1993 – 2009, WI was #4/11 and NW #8/11 in conference winning percentage (0.592 – 0.434). The Northwest Division would have teams 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 + NE (equivalent to #1-3) while the SE Division would have 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11. I’m sure OSU and PSU would have been happy to play IN, PU, IL and NW every year.
LikeLike
Random questions for the Big 10ers here, now that it’s been announced that the Longhorn Network will broadcast UT’s season opener against Rice as well as a second conference game to be announced later:
(1) Within the Big 10 footprint, were there any major cable or satellite carriers who failed to sign an agreement to carry the network by the opening day of the first football season?
(2) For those carriers with whom an agreement had not been reached, whether within or outside the Big 10 footprint, were there ever any one-off distribution deals for broadcasting games before a longer agreement had been reached? (I’m almost certain the answer is “no” but just wanting to make sure.)
I’m sure we’re going to start getting lots of questions about this at BON, and my best guess is that ESPN will not have struck an agreement with everyone (especially nationally) by opening day and that those with a carrier without a signed agreement will be SOL if they want to watch the game (at least at home)….
LikeLike
Will this second (and a conference game) effect the Big 12 revenue sharing? or will it be treated as any other televised game not on the LHN?
LikeLike
HH,
I think a large number, probably most, cable carriers within the B10 footprint did not have an agreement by the opening day of the first season. There were many battles that took the entire first year to resolve. Our cable operator in Iowa, Mediacom, missed the entire first season, finally inking an agreement the next summer. The biggest hit was missing basically the entire basketball season. I think we missed one football game, but it was a home game so I was there and didn’t mind much. The missed hoops season was also the very first season under Coach Todd Lickliter (who won about 40 games in 3 seasons at Iowa, including the two worst Iowa teams ever), and the combination killed fan interest which is starting to finally return in year 2 of the Fran McCaffrey regime.
Conditions are much different in both the understanding of college networks and the level of Longhorn interest within the state of Texas, so you may see much quicker capitulation by the cable companies down there.
LikeLike
1. Yes, the BTN needed a full year in many places to get carriage on the dominant cable provider (Time Warner, Cox, Charter and Mediacom all held out for 1 year). However, it was on DirecTV, Dish Network and U-Verse from the start as well as many small cable companies. The BTN was still adding providers after 2 years for the edges of the footprint (N and E PA, St. Louis, S IL). The BTN is currently fighting with cable companies in NE.
2. Cable companies offered to do pay-per-views with all money going to the schools, but the offers were never accepted. http://www.cleveland.com/buckeyeblog/index.ssf/2008/08/ohio_state_football_time_warne.html The B10 is currently threatening the cable companies in NE with not getting to show the NE games if they don’t reach a deal.
The negotiations are all about leverage. The LHN is counting on demand for those games to force cable companies to give in, while the cable companies are holding out for a lower price. Rumor has it the LHN wants $0.40 compared to $0.70 for the BTN.
LikeLike
Comcast was another major holdout in the Big Ten region for the first year of the existence of the BTN.
Of course, an embarassing moment for the conference on the field ended up being gold for the BTN off-the-field. The first live event ever shown on the BTN was the Appalachian State upset of Michigan. That was a killer anecdote to use against the cable companies that were arguing that none of the games that people actually wanted to watch were on the network.
The dispute was *completely* about basic carriage. Anything that would’ve weakened that position (such as PPV games) was shot down by the Big Ten immediately. The biggest leverage that the BTN had was that DirecTV had complete national basic carriage from day one, so the network could point out to the cable companies specifically how many people they were losing to satellite in the Big Ten footprint. Once Comcast and others realized that paying the BTN was better than losing entire cable bills, they started to acquiese.
I think the Longhorn Network will learn from the BTN experience as well as using ESPN’s leverage to get basic carriage in at least the state of Texas, but don’t be surprised if it takes awhile.
LikeLike
“Of course, an embarassing moment for the conference on the field ended up being gold for the BTN off-the-field. The first live event ever shown on the BTN was the Appalachian State upset of Michigan. That was a killer anecdote to use against the cable companies that were arguing that none of the games that people actually wanted to watch were on the network.”
I still watch the youtube videos of that game once every couple of months. That moment in time for me as an App State alum is incomparable for sports fans. Teams win championships every year. Being the first 1-AA team to beat a top 25 team (and the #5 team in the country with the soon-to-be #1 NFL Draft pick, no less) happens, well, once. Ever.
So thanks, Frank, for reminding everyone of that glorious day. (And I don’t care how “infamous” that game was in the eyes of Big Ten or Michigan fans. The Big Ten has survived and thrived, and Michigan will back to its full glory in short order, and the game will be ultimately be a mere bump in the road for UM. For App State, on the other hand, you can’t put a dollar amount on what that game was worth.)
—————
As for the topic at hand, let me just say this: Time Warner is a pain in the @$$ of a cable company compared to Comcast. They cost way more for fewer channels than what I got in Indianapolis. Don’t be surprised if TW holds out longer in Nebraska than Comcast did in the other Big Ten states.
LikeLike
In Columbus there are three major cable companies (Insight, WOW, and Time Warner). Insight was the only cable company to have an agreement in place before the first game. WOW (our cable company) finally agreed after we missed 2 games. They didn’t reach an agreement with Time Warner until sometime after the season.
LikeLike
Fox and ESPN are cooperating on the Longhorn network, which is the most interesting aspect to me.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texas/7640490.html
LikeLike
It’s valuable to Fox to get B12 games to build their portfolio. Besides, they cooperated for the P12 so the precedent was already set.
LikeLike
Looks like the other schools must be cooperating also. Maybe its just me, but it looks like the other Big 12 members are now being to help (to a limited extent) the LHN. I am doubtful about a single school network having the quality inventory necessary to succeed without the help of others (hence the BTN, a conference network).
LikeLike
…now being recruited to help…
An edit function would help a crappy typists….
LikeLike
It depends how the contracts are written. This may not require approval from anybody else as long as it’s a TX home game. I’d like to think the other school would at least get some rights to broadcast locally, but who knows?
LikeLike
Here are some bright spots / bowl trivia for Iowa:
1. Only Big Ten team other than OSU to win a BCS game the last five years.
2. 3-game winning streak, including two wins over Top 12 teams.
3. 4-2 all-time vs. SEC, 3-1 in the last decade.
4. During a five year period, after the 2002-06 seasons, Iowa played the five national championship teams during the 2003-07 stretch (LSU, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU) in bowls. Iowa was 2-3 in those games.
LikeLike
http://www.uscho.com/2011/07/06/proposed-new-conference-includes-ccha-wcha-schools/
More college hockey realignment news.
WCHA schools UND, Denver, MN-Duluth, CC and UNO and CCHA schools Notre Dame, Miami and maybe WMU may be forming a new conference. It would leave both the WCHA and CCHA with 5 schools (you need 6 for an NCAA autobid). The obvious response would be for the new conference to become the new WCHA and the remainders (Bemidji St, MN St, St. Cloud St, MT, UAA, UAF, BGSU, Ferris St, NMU, LS St) to join together and form the new CCHA.
Some other talk involves ND to Hockey East, as well as some Atlantic Hockey schools going to full scholarship levels and moving to the CCHA or WCHA.
LikeLike
Ugh.
That new conference would be good, but it could be a death blow to those left behind.
LikeLike
There will still be a ton of OOC games left to play those left behind. The real problem will be if UAA and UAF are both in a new conference with a bunch of small schools. They may have to go independent or just play Canadian teams instead.
LikeLike
Berry Tramel on the Longhorn Network.
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011/07/07/big-12-football-espn-fox-collusion-troubling/
>>
Call it a can of worms. On both sides of the Platte, a million Nebraska fans are smiling, and this time, you can’t call them crazy.
Moving a Big 12 game to the Longhorn Network will cause quite the uproar this season. Depending on the opponent, it could be a firestorm. If it’s, say, Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, that means fans of the Cowboys or the Red Raiders possibly could have to subscribe to the Longhorn Network to see the game
<>
Just what Nebraska warned could happen is happening. The Texas network is causing all kinds of problems. And here’s the kicker. It’s not even Texas’ doing.
The blame for this lies at the feet of ESPN and Fox Sports Net. ESPN hatched this idea, trying to build subscribers to the network and recoup its $300 million commitment.
<>
The indignity of OSU or Tech or Baylor or whoever having to play a game on the Longhorn Network, with UT announcers, is not good for conference morale.
<<
LikeLike
A couple weeks ago Trammel thought the Big 12 was now calm without Nebraska. Seems to have changed his tune. http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011/07/07/big-12-football-espn-fox-collusion-troubling/
LikeLike
Methinks there will be lots of mind changing in the BXII the next few years….:)
LikeLike
The Big 12 has put together a series detailing the conference realignment. Here is part one:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205177571&DB_OEM_ID=10410
The most interesting part, to me, was in part two:
>>
While the Big Ten’s December announcement was public knowledge, Beebe and his advisors were wary of a West Coast threat. The Pacific-10 Conference was under new management.
Scott, who had spent six years in charge of the World Tennis Association, floated his expansion proposal to Texas administrators while the Longhorns were in Los Angeles to play at the Rose Bowl for the BCS national championship.
<<
LikeLike
Part 2 here:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205177572&DB_OEM_ID=10410
LikeLike
Part 3:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=106137+&SPID=13138&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=205177474
LikeLike
Part 4:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=106137+&SPID=13138&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=205177573
>>
With the retrospect of a year later, here are some of the factors that contributed to the Big 12 victory:
* The Texas Legislature. The possible end of the Big 12 – with Baylor left league-less, Texas A&M headed to the Southeastern Conference meaning the end of the UT-A&M rivalry – was untenable for the politicians in Austin. They made it clear there would be hell to pay if the Pac-10’s invitations were accepted.
* Texas A&M. Instead of going along as part of the “Texas package deal,” Texas A&M made it clear that it was comfortable being a leader and not a follower. Athletic director Bill Byrne, in particular, disliked the idea of Aggies teams trekking to the Pacific Northwest.
* Texas. At the end of the day, Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds surveyed the landscape and was able to convince UT president William Powers that the Longhorns were better off staying put (when the school and ESPN agreed to a $300 million, 15-year deal to launch The Longhorn Network this August, that decision was justified.)
* Television. ABC/ESPN wanted the Big 12 – and its Central Time Zone homes – to survive. The decision to not reduce rights fees for the length of the current contract helped Beebe’s vision of a bright future for the Conference. And that future was further solidified when FOX made good on the promises it had made in Kansas City in June of 2010.
<<
LikeLike
I enjoyed the articles. Thanks for posting them.
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/7/7/2255760/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-results-through-seven-rounds
Round 7 of the re-draft is done. This round went:Clemson, IL, UConn, MO, Pitt, OkSU. The article has a table of all the teams gone so far.
Remaining teams:
ACC (5) — Boston College, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest
Big 12 (4) — Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech
Big East (4) — Cincinnati, Rutgers, South Florida, TCU
Big Ten (4) — Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Pac 12 (5) — Arizona State, Colorado, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State
SEC (4) — Ole Miss, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Notable Non-AQs — Air Force, Army, BYU, Boise State, East Carolina, Memphis, Navy
LikeLike
http://www.cowboyaltitude.com/2011/7/6/2256929/conferences-based-on-geography-the-better-cusa
The conference realignment by geography continues with CUSA. Renamed the Great Southern Conference, it is basically the SWC plus the LA schools and Southern Miss (no Arkansas).
LikeLike
New NCAA hockey conference.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110707/NEWS/110709829#uno-headed-to-super-conference
>>
UNO, North Dakota, Denver, Colorado College, and Minnesota-Duluth will leave the WCHA, and Miami (Ohio) will depart the CCHA. That announcement reportedly will happen on Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Colo.
<<
LikeLike
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/07_power_play.php
>>
Atlantic Hockey commissioner Bob DeGregorio insisted last month that his league would remain intact, but things have a way of changing, and there’s a very real chance that schools like Niagara and Robert Morris will jump at the chance to play with 18 scholarships again in a re-constituted CCHA.
Meanwhile, is the ECAC immune to all of this? You never know. If Notre Dame goes to Hockey East, and Connecticut isn’t ready to upgrade its program and join too, that leaves Hockey East with 11 teams. Will it look for No. 12 in the ECAC, such as with Quinnipiac?
They say no, now, but — as should be abundantly clear by now — things have a way of changing.
<<
LikeLike
New NHL Central Division per Minnesota owner.
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/7/7/2264885/nhl-realignment-central-division-minnesota-wild-owner-radio
LikeLike
It still seems mighty premature to be making bold plans like this. Nobody knows what Phoenix is going to be doing a year from now, and you’ve got numerous teams (Nashville, Florida, Columbus, the Islanders) in precarious financial situations. Winnipeg just got a team by gambling on a new arena first and hoping for one to come available, and that could conceivably catalyze a new arena deal in Quebec. Kansas City has a nice arena and is looking for a primary tenant, but then again nobody knows if there are owners willing to take on a team. There was just a report that Seattle might be in the market to build a proper hockey arena.
With all of that uncertainty, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that something is going to happen. But how can you realign until you know exactly what happens? It really feels like they’re jumping the gun on this. And what about all the talk about wanting to take it slow and air as many competing perspectives as possible? All of the media reports act like the decisions were made a few days after the Atlanta team relocated.
LikeLike
The NHL realigns frequently. It wouldn’t be a big deal for them to do it again.
LikeLike
People say that a lot, but it seems like an oft-repeated, misleading myth (much like the perception that more NHL teams make the playoffs than any other sport, even though for a while it was 16/30 in the NHL and 16/29 in the NBA). The last team the league realigned was 1998. Before that it was 1993. Twice in 20 years isn’t all that often.
LikeLike
As compared to what? The NFL or MLB? Twice in 20 years (really twice in 6 years, or about to be 3 times in 20 years) is pretty frequent compared to most major sports leagues that I am familiar with. How many times in the history of the NHL has it realigned? How does that compare to MLB, NFL and NBA? If you say it’s a myth, please provide some facts to back up your assertion.
LikeLike
Much as in the Big Ten, all pro sports are run in a substantially more professional way in the last 20 years or so than in their previous history.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, it’s hard to count the number of realignments precisely. For example, when the NHL went to the 6-division format in 1998, that was in anticipation of adding 4 more teams over the next 3 seasons; I would not say that each time one of those teams was added, it was a new realignment, because the overall plan had been put in place to accommodate each of those teams in advance.
The NHL underwent a general realignment in 1998 with the switch to 6 divisions. The NBA underwent a similar general realignment in 2004. The NFL underwent a similar general realignment in 2002. MLB did the same in 1994. By that measure, each league has had only 1 general realignment of the teams, where by “general realignment” I mean one team switching from one side to the other (East to West or American to National) or a change in the number of divisions.
LikeLike
Adam,
How, exactly, are pro sports “run in a substantially more professional way in the last 20 years or so than in their previous history?” Society has changed and the law has changed, allowing leagues to do some things differently but that doesn’t mean they weren’t professional before. Was there some watershed moment of change you see that makes it “the last 20 years or so” as opposed to 10 or 30 or 40? Any chance that time period is related to your interest in sports?
LikeLike
Once upon a time, pro hockey players showed up to games drunk or hungover and this was laughed off; Jack Adams scheduled a Red Wings game against a prison team. Once upon a time, the NBA had the Finals broadcast on tape delay. World Series games were once played on weekday afternoons when relatively few people could actually listen to the game on the radio. The NFL drew names out of a hat to decide which NFL teams would play in the AFC after the merger.
Pro sports used to be run on a relatively small-scale, almost hobbyist basis. It’s now a multi-billion dollar industry. From top to bottom, the leagues are operated with a professional polish they lacked until roughly 20-25 years ago.
LikeLike
I mean, in 1972, there was a baseball strike and the Tigers won the AL East by a half-game over the Red Sox . . . because the Tigers played 1 more game than the Red Sox due to games lost to the strike. It is virtually inconceivable that something like that would happen today.
LikeLike
Adam,
Several pro athletes have admitted to being drunk/high during games in recent years and I don’t remember much outcry.
The NBA Finals used to be on tape delay because they couldn’t get live coverage, not because they didn’t want it. That’s being more popular, not more professional. It also stopped after 1981 (soon after Magic and Bird joined the NBA and the Lakers/Celtics rivalry was renewed), which is 30 years ago.
World Series games in the afternoon were in part a way to keep young fans and because not all parks had lights. Many hardcore baseball fans think MLB made a mistake by losing young fans long term for more TV money short term. Every year they still argue about late start times for the east coast. For a sport losing the younger demographic, that’s a problem. By the way, the World Series started being held at night in 1971 (much more than 20 years ago).
The NFL did not draw names out of a hat to decide which NFL teams would play in the AFC after the merger. They drew the NFC divisional alignment from a hat containing several choices because nobody wanted to be with Dallas or Minnesota (1 of them won the NFC 8 of the first 9 years).
I think much of what you mention has more to do with the growing popularity of sports than with more professional management. These leagues couldn’t have done what they do now 30 years ago, it’s not that they ignored better business options. That makes them smaller, not less professional.
LikeLike
The increase in popularity has led to a commensurate increase in the level of necessary professionalism. The two go hand in hand. Billy Martin was known for drawing his batting order out of a hat to break his team out of a slump. Something that slapdash is basically unthinkable today.
Point taken on the correction about the NFL drawing names . . . but nowadays, again, such slapdash thinking would be unacceptable. You’d have a consulting firm give you an analysis of how you could profit-maximize.
I remember when Russ Granik retired from the NBA, he gave an interview talking about when he was new there with Stern and the casual nature of what they did. They had a shoestring staff. They did almost nothing to plan or coordinate their advertising; someone would approach them about being the official (whatever) of the NBA, they’d pay a fee and that was it, they could run with it.
LikeLike
I just don’t agree with your fundamental notion that bigger is more professional. When the leagues were smaller there were fewer major decisions to make, and fewer people making them. That doesn’t make them less professional to me.
They are more corporate now, but that doesn’t mean the same thing to me as more professional. I’m guessing that is what you mean, though.
Still, you didn’t answer why you claim it happened in the last 20 years or so. Was 1991 a major turning point for something? Several of your example were much older.
LikeLike
No there’s nothing special about 1991. It was just a rough sense of when the leagues started negotiating for real money from their broadcast partners, when they started having real marketing campaigns, when they started seriously investing in scouting before the draft (remember the Mel Kiper rant from 1994?). Roughly speaking, it’s when they started operating like businesses in the sports entertainment industry rather than sports clubs. I mean, once upon a time the extent of pre-draft scouting in the NFL was the GMs getting together in a hotel ballroom and leafing through a magazine profiling college prospects and calling out a name when their turn came up. Because the stakes are higher, they have to approach things more professionally now.
LikeLike
Pro sports teams certainly didn’t have any coordinated marketing or PR sense until around 1990. In Grantland today, there was a blurb about a NYC gallery having a showing of the Costacos Brothers posters of the late-1980s (sparked by a Jim McMahon poster):
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/527/the-grantland-top-five-absurd-80s-posters-tiger-as-hermit-and-the-rest-of-the-week-in-sports-and-culture
All you need to do is take one look at this photo gallery of posters and you know that there was absolutely NO ONE with their respective leagues and teams with any marketing standards at all:
http://www.salon94.com/exhibition/for-the-kids
Jim McMahon, by the way, is *exactly* like how that Grantland article described. I actually partied with him a couple of years ago in connection with the wedding reception of my best friend from high school (long story about how that happened) and the guy still drinks like his ’85 self. It’s a wonder that he never got kicked out of BYU.
LikeLike
@Frank – Here may be an explanation
http://deadspin.com/5791041/the-truth-about-race-religion-and-the-honor-code-at-byu
LikeLike
Adam,
1. Professionally – I don’t think this word means what you think it does.
2. You seem to be implying that being more “professional” is better, but I don’t see evidence for that yet.
3. NFL scouting – they may spend more time and money now, but how much have they improved their results? Is the bust rate significantly down? Are they getting good ROI or just doing it because others do? Did they stop picking bad QBs way too early and I missed it? The whole workout warrior over-drafting started after your professed increase in professionalism. If things are so much better now, then why do the Mike Mamulas get drafted so high? Is that more professional decision making?
LikeLike
Frank,
You are looking back at those posters from a 2011 perspective. Everything from the 80s looks horrible now, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t popular or effective at the time. Marketing in the A-Team and Miami Vice era is not the same as today.
LikeLike
If a lawyer went into court dressed in bluejeans and were t-shirt, we’d say he was acting unprofessionally, even if his argument and briefing were excellent. You conduct yourself in a certain fashion when you’re trying to communicate the seriousness and stakes of what it is you’re up to. Until roughly the last 20 years or so, pro sports didn’t feel near so much need to conduct themselves in that fashion (as a general matter). In the last 20 years, with the amount of money involved skyrocketing, now they must, because none of the stakeholders would tolerate anybody doing anything that suggests any degree of casualness.
LikeLike
Adam,
I don’t see it. I see a steady trend of slowly becoming more corporate (like every business does as it goes), but no reason to draw a line at a particular point in time (at least not one so recent). As for your lawyer’s dress code issues, I’ll point out MLB managers and NFL coaches used to wear suits and now they put 80 year old men in baseball uniforms and head coaches can wear logo sweats. There are still oddball owners, off beat coaches and players and bad business decisions in the name of tradition.
LikeLike
The topic of Big East expansion hasn’t been tossed around in a while, so here I am to toss it.
I’m of the opinion that the Big East should stop at its current 9 football/17 overall membership alignment that will begin when TCU joins next summer. Nine members for football actually should work very well. Everyone would play 4 home games and 4 away, just as the ACC between 1992 and 2003 when it had nine members. A nine-membership alignment would not allow the reduce the number of non-conference games all the way down to three, but it’s not clear whether the Big East would want to have nine conference games, anyway.
I don’t even see Villanova as a viable option. Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, and perhaps others are not going to all of a sudden like the idea of adding a school that doesn’t even crack the top 30 in FCS attendance despite being a premiere FCS program, especially when its potential new stadium is a long drive from campus and would MAX OUT at a capacity of 30,000.
Adding one member from C-USA to get to 10 football members, or three C-USA schools to get to 12 in football, would almost certainly require going to 18 or 20 members overall. Such a move would put the Catholic, non-FBS schools at a more decided minority. Worse, it would decrease the per-school basketball revenue for the FBS AND non-FBS schools. If the Big East wanted to add one or more C-USA schools for football only, it would be a logistical nightmare for the incoming schools. The NCAA does not allow schools to be in one FBS conference for football and in another FBS conference for everything else. Thus, UCF or whoever would have to hope for A-10 or CAA or SoCon or Big South membership for the rest of its sports if it joined the Big East for football only. Those conferences might not be interested, and UCF may not like the step down from C-USA.
Now, I do think the Big East’s BEST option would be to add BYU for football-only, but the problem is that the Big East is probably not BYU’s best option. Football independence is probably going to work out pretty well for them financially, most likely better than the Big East. I think that neither the Big East nor BYU would have much interest in the Cougars joining for all sports. For BYU, the increase in revenue from a Big East basketball contract may (just barely) cover the financial costs of flying volleyball and golf and whatever other teams to the east coast over and over–but even with the increase in exposure, I doubt it’s enough to justify the wear and tear it would put on non-revenue sports. Besides, BYU would still only be getting “Big East money.” It wouldn’t be the mega-money that OU, Texas, & co. would have gotten in Pac-16.
This leaves one interesting candidate for the Big East: Temple. If, for whatever reason, the Big East wants to grow to 10 in football instead of just nine, Temple can do that for the league without growing the overall membership past 17. They could just stay in the A-10, where they’ve been all along, and simply depart from the MAC in football. Again, I think the Big East should stop at 9/17, but if the league wants 10/17, Temple would make the most sense.
LikeLike
Has Temple fixed all its problems that got it origionally kicked out of the Big East?
LikeLike
That’s a good question. I think the answer to it is “sort of.” They’re winning now. Granted, it’s against MAC competition, and they lost their coach to Miami, but this program couldn’t beat anybody a few years ago. Second, their facilities have improved quite a bit, and their drastically subpar facilities were supposedly a reason that they were kicked out.. Steve Adazzio, the new coach, was on the ESPN college football podcast a few weeks back talking about how impressive their facilities were. Third, attendance has improved, although last year it still averaged under 21,000. It’s hard to say whether attendance would improve once again if the team returned to the Big East, especially since it’s now a Big East without Miami and Virginia Tech
LikeLike
Nine teams presents some problems. Every week some team can’t play a conference game, forcing the conference schedule to be at least 9 weeks (more if you don’t want really early and/or really late byes). That makes it harder to max out a TV deal as well since the fifth game is an unknown quantity (could be vs SEC, MAC or I-AA). That’s one of the reasons conferences tend to even numbers. The B10 kept 11 for a while, but there were always complaints about scheduling issues. That’s one of the reasons they wanted 12.
Timelines with even number of members:
ACC 1953-1971, 1978-1991, 2005-?
BE 1991-2012
B10 1907-1912, 1916-1946, 1950-1992, 2011-?
B8 1911-1913, 1919-1921, 1925-1947, 1958-1996
SWC 1915-1916, 1918-1920, 1923-1925, 1956-1971, 1991-1996
B12 1996-?
P12 1915-1917, 1918-1924, 1928-1950, 1962-?
SEC 1940-1964, 1966-?
LikeLike
Late byes are much more of a problem for the Big Ten than with other conferences because Big Ten schools have no late-season non-conference rivals. When the ACC had nine teams, three of them (FSU, GT, and Clemson) played SEC rivals the last week of the season, and the other six played each other. The week before that, sure there may have been scheduling issues. Earlier than that, there were also non-conference games like FSU-Miami, which was often in October and November; September matchups were rare before Miami joined the league.
LikeLike
I just pointed out some of the issues an odd number of teams can bring. There are ways to deal with all of the issues, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The BE doesn’t have any major OOC rivalries to add late in the year like the ACC did as far as I know, so that’s sort of apples and oranges to me.
LikeLike
Well, TCU-SMU could go back to being late in the season. And Notre Dame could help out a bit, if they were so inclined.
LikeLike
ND isn’t a rival of any BE football team.
No offense, but I don’t consider TCU/SMU a peer rivalry to FSU/FL, SC/Clemson and UGA/GT. In part, it’s because neither is AQ yet and only 1 will be in the near future. In part, it’s because they haven’t both been good at the same time for a long time. It’s also because that rivalry has never reached beyond Texas in my lifetime.
LikeLike
I just meant that it could help with scheduling. Most Big East games, even the rivalry ones, aren’t as interesting as the ones you mentioned. Of course, if we’re talking about the last week of the season, SMU will have to keep that open for the CUSA title game. But Notre Dame needs games late in the year when most schools are tied up with conference play. And TCU-SMU was kind of a big deal back in the ’30s.
LikeLike
You’re certainly right ND and SMU could provide some games. BYU and the academies, too. I just wanted to point out that finding OOC games for the BE is different than ACC teams playing historic, geographical AQ rivals.
Maybe SMU will come back to boost the rivalry. It will gain some national attention just for TCU being a BE favorite for the near future.
LikeLike
Didn’t someone post a link to a blog suggesting several Temple recruits are supposedly being told they will be in the BEast soon?
As to BYU, forget the financial aspect. It (the school and its sports programs) are a promotional arm if the LDS church. There are a significant faction of leaders that do not believe athletics (temptation to cheat to win, admiting a kid that probably is not BYU material to win, etc) should be a part off their school mission. They ended athletics at BYUIdaho (formerly Ricks college). The visibility if the Cougars, and their usefulness in getting BYU/LDS broad recognition recognition has been more than enough to keep them going strong. Money is not a primary factor. Getting away from the limitations the MWC and the Mtn. network placed on their ability to use the BYU network. The question should be could the BEast provide great enough visibility and not be to restrictive to BYUTV to overcome the gains they have made by going independent? Being BCS would be a definate gain in my mind, but in theirs…….
LikeLike
Next post Ohio St.’s penalties and its impact on B10? With Michigan in the dumps and JoePa retiring soon, does adding Nebraska save the B10 from a decade as the new Big East?
Just saw few sentence summary, I’m sure there will be more detailed articles later today-2 year probation, forfeiture of all of 2010. Interesting that Tressel is not resigning now, he is retiring and doesn’t face the 250k penalty. Not sure how that fits with self-assessing penalties. Kind of puzzling. I guess they expect the NCAA to come down very hard.
LikeLike
I have several problems with your position.
1. MI is in the dumps? They were in the dumps, but even RR got them back to a bowl. Now they have a new coach who believe in defense and even special teams. I’d say they are on their way back to at least 8-9 win seasons if not 10-12 win seasons (depends how good Hoke is).
2. Joe Pa will retire? Ever? And what evidence is there that this will be a huge problem for PSU? FSU didn’t fall apart when Bobby Bowden left after 87 years. The key will be hiring a good coach, but you shouldn’t assume a collapse.
3. Even if the B10 had a down period, why would they become the new BE instead of the new ACC? B10 teams have more money and more fans than BE teams. Going to 12 teams means there is one more candidate to fill the bowl slots, too.
4. Most importantly, I fail to see how you jump from OSU’s self-imposed penalties to OSU expecting the NCAA to come down hard. Probation is a given for any major violation, and even Tressel admits he broke the rules. Knowingly playing ineligible players also automatically meant the 2010 season would be vacated, with the possible exception of the Sugar Bowl since the NCAA gave those players the OK. The goal of self-imposed penalties is to guess the lightest punishment the NCAA will accept as sufficient (or close enough not to anger them). Note that OSU did not self-impose a bowl ban or scholarship reductions. To me, that indicates that OSU doesn’t expect the NCAA to come down all that hard.
LikeLike
MIchigan not in the dumps? Get serious. You’re just saying that because OSU fans can keep quoting XXXXX days since Michigan last won.
JoePa-maybe you’re right. He may coach until he’s 105! As for FSU, they haven’t won a division title. Bowden had his 15 or so year streak in the top 5 which is unlikely to be matched and they are a LONG way from where they were. The reality is that nearly every major school struggles with the 1st coach after a legend. Ohio St., Michigan, Alabama, Texas, OU, Nebraska, FSU, ND, USC, Florida have all had long down periods after losing legends. Only Miami has been able to reload, but their coaches never stayed long. Penn St. we don’t know. They’ve only had one coach since the middle ages. Same thing has applied in basketball-UCLA, UK, UNC, IU.
Forfeiting every game is a very serious penalty.
LikeLike
It’s unringing a bell…….
LikeLike
Totally. Tell Sparty nation it’s a real deal. We lost a rose bowl. Will OSU refund tickets for things that apparently never happened?
LikeLike
No, I’m really not. I think MI is recovering to above average. They aren’t back to king level play, but the dumps to me is losing seasons. If you consider anything below their historical average the dumps, then I agree with you (but not your definition of the dumps).
JoePa had his doldrums from 2000-2004 but has bounced back with 9+ wins in 5 of 6 years. A
solid coach can continue to win 9 games at PSU.
FSU won the Atlantic last year in year 1 under Fisher, but they lost the CCG. 10-4 is hardly a bad first year.
The thing is, even Bobby (on average) couldn’t match Bobby’s best years. That’s why they were his best years. That’s an impossible standard. There’s a huge gap between returning a team to its historical best and a long down period.
After Woody Hayes, OSU got Earle Bruce. EB went 81-26-1 with 4 B10 titles in 9 seasons. He was 9-3 or better every year but his last one (6-4-1). He got fired for losing 3 (or more) games every year but his first. Bruce was replaced by John Cooper. JC went 111-43-4 with 3 B10 titles in 13 seasons. On the field, his problems were going 2-10-1 against MI, 3-8 in bowls and losing 5 straight to IL (he never found a big game he could win). Still, he fielded highly ranked teams with tons of talent. None of that seems like a long down period to me, much like MI after Bo but before RichRod.
They didn’t forfeit games, they vacated wins (so they went from 12-1 to 0-1). A forfeit would give wins to the other teams. Still, I agree that’s a serious penalty. However, it’s been a known penalty since Tressel was found to know about the issues before the season. He played players he knew shouldn’t play. Everybody knew the regular season would be vacated, voluntarily or not. The NCAA coming down hard would be bowl bans and major scholarship reductions like USC got.
LikeLike
“U. T. Arlington: Approval of change in athletic conference
membership to join the Western Athletic Conference”
Typo, should be UT-San Antonio? Or something I’ve heard nothing about before?
Click to access 7-11ab.pdf
LikeLike
“Officials at the WAC contacted U. T. Arlington in mid-June to initiate a discussion about
the possibility of U. T. Arlington leaving the Southland Conference to join the WAC.
U. T. San Antonio is the only other U. T. System institution that is a member of the WAC
(U. T. El Paso was formerly a member of the WAC).
The Commissioner of the WAC, Mr. Karl Benson, visited U. T. Arlington’s campus on
June 29, 2011, to meet with President Spaniolo and U. T. Arlington Athletic Director,
Mr. Pete Carlon, to discuss the possible move. On July 5, 2011, Commissioner Benson
notified President Spaniolo that the Presidents of the nine universities comprising the
current WAC membership, including President Romo of U. T. San Antonio, had voted
unanimously to extend an invitation to U. T. Arlington to join the conference. The
effective date of the move would be July 1, 2012. (The nine current members of the
WAC are: University of Denver, University of Idaho, Louisiana Tech University, New
Mexico State University, San Jose State University, Seattle University, U. T. San
Antonio, Texas State University, and Utah State University.) Like U. T. Arlington, the
University of Denver and Seattle University are non-football playing members of the
WAC. The WAC is a bowl subdivision conference where football is important, but U. T.
Arlington’s invitation is not conditioned on U. T. Arlington starting a football program.
The invitation to join the WAC is a singular opportunity for U. T. Arlington to join a highly
regarded national athletic conference and is a significant recognition of U. T. Arlington
and its intercollegiate athletics program. The WAC has an excellent reputation and a
very strong competitive profile, both in athletics and academics. U. T. Arlington has
determined that a move to the WAC is consistent with the University’s strategic plan to
increase its national prominence in support of its goal to become a major national
research university.”
LikeLike
Funny, I just drove by UTA this afternoon. I thought it smelled kind of Benson-y over there. Wow, UTA in the WAC. I can’t wait to see them start their football team up and play games in that high school stadium again. Well, good for them. The Pac-12 probably didn’t realize they would be causing so many problems for the Southland Conference when they invited Utah.
LikeLike
Benson, you still need football programs. SJSU, Idaho, Utah State, NMSU, UTSA, Texas State, and La. Tech… it’s still only seven football members. Half their games will be non-conference. BYU will help, but the Cougars won’t play all of them. Meanwhile, every other league will be playing only 4 and sometimes three non-conference opponents, many of which will be against 1-AA teams… can you say scheduling nightmare?
LikeLike
I had doubted the WAC would be around in 5 years. Looks like they will in some form. Don’t know how that will work if it ends up with non-fb playing (future projection) Seattle, Denver, UTA, San Jose, perhaps UCSB, Utah Valley and UT Pan American. Its going to be pretty spread out. But SJSU, Idaho and Utah St. really don’t have any options. WAC is turning into the MVC of the west. Everyone will have been in the conference at some time or other.
UTA was a bolt from the blue. The WAC fans were not speculating about them at all. The talk was Lamar, Utah Valley, UCSB as well as the Big Sky schools who had already said no.
LikeLike
Wac joined the levels of the Sun Belt and MAC as far as relevance. They will be great to serve as cupcakes to the Pac 10.
LikeLike
@wmtiger – kind of unfair to the Sunbelt and MAC, no?
LikeLike
I’d read any number of schools still being possible for the WAC. One university frequently mentioned is Lamar University in Texas. This addition seems to help set things up for Lamar to join, as there would be natural divisions for non-football sports:
New Mexico State
Louisiana Tech
UT San Antonio
Texas State
Lamar
(UT-Arlington)
Idaho
San Jose State
Utah State
??
(Seattle)
(Denver)
Even better if they could grab 3 schools (2 football) from California:
New Mexico State
Louisiana Tech
UT San Antonio
Texas State
Lamar
(Denver)
(UT-Arlington)
Idaho
Utah State
San Jose State
Cali 1
Cali 2
(Seattle)
(Cali 3)
This kind of structure might be easier to sell the new members. 10 football teams for 9 conference games. In basketball play division mates twice (12 games) + 6 or 7 games against the other division; meaning just one road trip to the other division (of 3 or 4 games).
LikeLike
Jake,
No kidding. The MAC has 1 team in the top 25 of the all-time wins list (#24 Miami (OH)), another in the top 50 (#45 CMU), a third (#64 WMU) before and a fourth tied with (#66 Ohio) the WAC’s best (#66 LA Tech). #72 BGSU, #75 Akron and #76 N IL all come before the second WAC team of #77 UT State with #79 Toledo just behind.
There is a lot more history in the MAC, such as:
1. The Cradle of Coaches
2. 12-1 Miami in 2003 led by Big Ben to a top 15 ranking (#11 BCS)
3. Toledo going 35-0 from 1969-1971 (2nd longest streak ever), also undefeated in 1995, and ranked as high as #12 in 1970
4. Ball St 12-0 in the 2008 regular season
LikeLike
Most telling about the WAC is that Sun Belt teams turned them down, Big Sky schools turned them down (although moving to FBS does have costs) and they invited 3 schools from the Southland, one of the 4 worst basketball conferences in the country and a conference at best a distant 5th among FCS football conferences (CAA,MVC,Southern, Big Sky in no particular order).
It does ensure their survival, but as what? Fodder for the WCC, BW, Big Sky and MWC? The schools have potential, but that’s all right now. We really don’t need more bottom feeders in FBS. There are already plenty of teams for SEC schools to schedule and the MAC takes care of the B10. Texas State is the next E. Michigan, right in the shadow of one of the kings, only 30 miles from the UT campus. Texas State was one of the weakest football programs in the Southland. UTSA is the next Buffalo, moving to FBS before they are ready, hurting their long term viability. At least Buffalo had a team. I think La Tech and NMSU would have been better off moving to the Sun Belt.
LikeLike
There was also talk of Sam Houston State (Huntsville, TX) in addition to Lamar (Beaumont, TX). I can’t imagine either one in D1A. I visited Lamar about 18 months ago when my foster daughter was checking out schools. It’s relatively small (for a state school), feels poor, and yet they were building a football stadium after two decades without football. Almost everyone I know that went to SHSU is a teacher (including several relatives). None of them care about sports at all. Those that do are aTm fans.
LikeLike
@Bullet, RE: “I think La Tech and NMSU would have been better off moving to the Sun Belt.”
I don’t know about NMSU, but I think La. Tech’s reasoning for declining the Sun Belt is that it’s holding out (in vain) for a C-USA invitation, rather than an honest preference for the WAC over the Sun Belt. When Boise and the other three were in the league, it benefited from the WAC’s better ESPN TV contract compared to the Sun Belt’s (with promise for an even better one in the future, had everyone stayed in the league) and from somewhat dependable BCS income due to Boise and Hawaii’s trips to the BCS. With Boise’s departure, the promises of a huge TV contract improvement and income from BCS appearances are now gone. To me, it seems rather ridiculous to stick around in the WAC. For one, C-USA may not expand anytime soon, and even if it does, La. Tech isn’t necessarily at the top of its want list. For another, they’d save a ton on travel and their fans would be closer to a lot more opponents. But hey, they didn’t ask my opinion. 😉
LikeLike
LT is presumably waiting to see if BE expansion includes any CUSA teams. If it does (UCF, Houston), LT seems a likely candidate to fill the void.
LikeLike
@Brian – Big East expansion might give LT a shot, but I think it depends on which CUSA team the Big East takes (if any). If the BEast snags UCF, CUSA will probably want another Florida school as a replacement, just to maintain a presence in the state. If CUSA loses Houston, they might consider LT since they already have three other schools in Texas, including one in the Houston area. Or maybe CUSA decides they would rather expand their footprint and add Middle Tennessee or a rising Georgia State program.
LikeLike
@m(Ag) Something else worth mentioning – there are a lot of rumors about UTA possibly restarting its football program. They still have their (somewhat laughable) on-campus stadium, and they’ve been working a lot in recent years to become more residential and improve student life in order to shed the reputation as a commuter school. And if they ever played a really big home game, I believe there’s another football venue in Arlington that might accommodate them. Have to check into that one.
Anybody know about Seattle and Denver? Either of those looking to add football?
LikeLike
I certainly understand how San Antonio, and even Beaumont, could support a (small) program with no nearby football competition. But it would seem insane to add a 4th FBS school to the D/FW area.
That said, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised if it actually happens,
LikeLike
Article on the WAC from this weekend:
-WAC commissioner admits he’s looking for 2 more schools so they can have divisional play and reduce travel for non-football sports.
-Admits the interest in joining has been ‘tiny’
Seems like UT-Arlington was probably at the bottom of the list, but noone else was ready to say yes.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/wires/07/29/2060.ap.fbc.wac.expansion.1st.ld.writethru.0940/
LikeLike
UTA football? Pres: Umm……no.
http://eye-on-college-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/30629682
LikeLike
Even Texas must have a limit to how many I-A programs they can support, especially in one metro area.
LikeLike
Regarding MLB realignment, I see Houston being used as a stalking horse, just as Kansas City was in 1997. I fully expect Arizona to be the team switching leagues (though it won’t be announced until after the All-Star game in Phoenix), with the Astros then going to the NL West. This provides a more equitable “mirror” situation for both leagues’ West divisions — each would have three members on the Pacific Coast, one each in the “interior” (Rockies NL, D’backs AL) and one each in Texas (Astros NL, Rangers AL).
For scheduling, you have two possibilities, both involving 60 games (6 x 10) against the teams in your league outside your division.
In plan A, you play 72 games against division rivals (18 x 4), with 30 interleague games: six against your designated rival, three against the other four teams in your mirror division, and three against four of the five teams in one of the other two divisions, rotating pairings over a 10-year cycle. So, for example, in 2012 the Nationals would play home-and-home with Baltimore, be home to the Yanks and Rays while visiting the Bosox and Jays (the sites would switch in 2013) and play four of the five AL Central teams in ’12 (and four of the five in the AL West in ’13).
If the idea of 30 interleague games is too much, then limit it to 18 interleague games — six against your designated rival and 12 against four other teams, using a three-year division cycle. Those 12 games would become division games, meaning you would play the four teams in your division 21 times each. I’m not sure the Orioles and Jays would like seeing even more of the AL East evil empires (not to mention the resurgent Rays) than they do now, but that’s where the second wild-card would help. And the idea of 21 Cubs-Cards, Tigers-Indians and Dodgers-Giants games each year would be tantalizing (because the NL Central has six teams, I think there are currently no more than 15 or 16 division meetings a year).
One thing is certain — forget the oft-discussed “balanced schedule,” whether or not divisions would be eliminated; logistics make it impossible. Baseball scheduling works best when three-game series (and an occasional four-game set) predominate. A balanced schedule would result in a huge number of two-game series, leading to higher travel expenses.
LikeLike
I’m not sure of the original source, but Marty Brennaman on a Red game a couple weeks back said the Diamondbacks wouldn’t mind moving to the American League. Houston to the National League West would then make sense. I know it sucks for them to be in a division where no one is in the same time zone. You’re probably right about saying Houston to the American League is just a ploy. MLB can then say they will compromise and keep them in the NL, but they will then be moved to the West.
LikeLike
They do have a history with the Dodgers and Giants and Padres. The West was Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Astros, Reds, Braves from ’69 until the expansion from 24 teams.
LikeLike
Also, despite being in the same time zone as three of their five Central rivals, the Astros are a bit of a geographic outlier. Take them out of the division, and the NL Central is, for all intents and purposes, the western half of the NL from 1900 to 1952 (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis) plus Milwaukee, the city that replaced Pittsburgh in that equation from 1953 to ’57 (albeit with the Braves, not the Brewers).
LikeLike
More NCAA Hockey movement. CCHA dead?
http://thecollegehockeyblog.com/2011/07/11/northern-michigan-back-to-the-wcha/
LikeLike
With the supposed new super conference taking the best WCHA and CCHA teams (not including the B10 teams, obviously), this sounds more like the remnants of the CCHA and WCHA merging. It make geographical sense for NMU to join MT in the WCHA. Maybe the WCHA are aiming for just 6 teams to keep their NCAA bid.
Getting the 2 AK schools together is an odd choice for the small schools in the WCHA, unless they value the extra games a lot.
Someone has to pick up the CCHA leftovers, though, unless they want the teams to go away. Does UAB finally get in a conference? Does Atlantic Hockey expand?
LikeLike
I don’t see why the CCHA has to die. Even if they lose Northern Michigan, they still have 6 teams. Okay, Notre Dame is as good as gone, but I’m not convinced Western Michigan is going to be invited anywhere else which would leave 5 teams. Alabama-Huntsville would jump at a chance to join and there are ongoing rumors that some teams like Niagra and Robert Morris and maybe Mercyhurst want to leave Atlantic Hockey because of their scholarship limits.
Basically put, there’s enough teams around to fill both the CCHA and WCHA to 6+ team levels. And why wouldn’t they do that and keep two auto-bids to the NCAAs? For these remaining smaller schools, having a conference you can win and make the NCAA tourney is probably their best bet than merging and going to one auto bid between them all.
LikeLike
Well, the article assumes the rumors about WMU going are true. That leaves LSSU, FSU and BGSU.
To B10 – OSU, MI, MSU
To WCHA – NMU, UA
To New Super Conference – Miami, ND, WMU
I assume WMU would be for proximity to ND and Miami.
The CCHA might be able to keep some of these schools, and they could possibly expand by taking UAB and/or some Atlantic Hockey teams. The real question is would the WCHA and CCHA prefer to be 2 small conferences or merge into 1 bigger one?
LikeLike
I’ll believe Alaska going to the WCHA when it’s announced. While I can imagine UAA pushing for it, I see no reason for the other WCHA members to want to invite them. You only get the extra games for one trip to Alaska so making two trips a season would only be an added expense/hassle (yes, I know the Alaska schools help subsidize the trip costs) without any benefit. I think UA stays with the CCHA.
I’m also skeptical about Western Mich being invited to the new super conference unless Notre Dame makes it a pre-condition of them joining — but Notre Dame has come out and said they prefer a conference with only 7 teams so there are fewer conference games so they can play more/varied non conference teams. I think that WMU ends up staying in the CCHA.
LikeLike
http://collegehockeyinc.com/view/ncaa/news/news_28876
It’s official. Play starts in 2013.
Presenting the National Collegiate Hockey Conference:
Colorado College, Denver, UNO, UND, MN-Duluth and Miami (OH)
They may choose to expand further, but are starting at 6 for now.
LikeLike
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/12_commentary_welcome_to_the.php
Here’s a discussion of college hockey realignment.
bcinterruption.com has some good posts, too
LikeLike
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/07/12_commentary_welcome_to_the.php
Here’s a discussion of college hockey realignment.
Also, bcinterruption.com has some good posts.
LikeLike
http://nanookhockey.blogspot.com/
Here’s someone who agrees with you about UAF. I think they could combine both Alaska schools in one trip, though.
LikeLike
A&M Scout site has an article that the powers that be at A&M want out of the B12 and into the SEC after seeing what Bevo TV is becoming. And they are saying Clemson would be the east team to join.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/1086147.html
LikeLike
An interesting quote from a source in the SEC office, saying that beyond Cam Newton/AU and the Willie Lyles/LSU issues:
“there are other allegations that will come out that will implicate 3-4 other SEC schools”
LikeLike
Usually when one goes down they start fingering the other schools.
A&M will almost certainly get less money if they go to the SEC. The B12 is close (15 vs. 17.1) without the ABC/ESPN contract renewal in 4 years.
LikeLike
You don’t think adding aTm and Clemson couldn’t get a revision (or as Slive calls it “a look in”) of the SEC contract to at least maintain, if not increase the per team amount? Also, I’m not completely convinced that the Big 12 tier 1 contract will have as big a bump as some believe seeing they just recieved effectively a 16% per team increase last june to hold the conference together. Depends how committed the media are to fending off super conferences, I guess.
LikeLike
No, I don’t think there would be any significant bump. When you already have a good 12, going to 14 doesn’t add much. And Clemson, despite a solid program, really adds little. SEC already has South Carolina (which isn’t a very big state anyway) and Clemson is a long way removed from their MNC.
Obviously the SEC wouldn’t do it unless it at least maintained. But I don’t see expansion happening because I don’t think the SEC wants to expand and I don’t think they want to rock the boat. It would take a significant bump, not just maintenance.
You raise a good question about the tier 1 contract. It will be interesting to see what the B10 and B12 do in the next round. It isn’t clear how much the under-valuing of college sports relates to the 2nd and 3rd tier. Everyone so far has had package deals. I suspect most of the increase is in the 2nd and 3rd tiers. But the Big 12 only has to go from 60 to 85 to exceed the SEC per school, so I think that’s pretty likely. They have to double to match the Pac 12. Were their tier 1 to increase as their other contract did, they would go from 60 to 270 and they would be at $36 million/yr/school. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
Going from 12 to 14 doesn’t add much? Gaining the entry into Texas? Increasing quality inventory? reducing the value of competing a conference? If I was in the SEC I’d be willing to subsidize the move asap, even if I had to wait a number of years before seeing a media money redo. SEC getting into Texas might be a bigger deal long term than ND joining B1G, or a Pac 16, or both.
LikeLike
bullet,
The SEC would get a bump for 2 main reasons. First, they’d be adding a huge market by getting TAMU. That’s a solid justification for ESPN giving them a raise. Second, the SEC already wants an increase since all the new deals have caught up with them. I promise the SEC doesn’t believe anyone should be their financial equal.
LikeLike
SEC has historically been behind both the B10 and the ACC. They have smaller slower growing markets. Its not in ESPN’s interest to re-open the bidding on the SEC and ACC.
In an interview, Deloss Dodds said he expects the Big 12 will match the P12 $ per school when the tier I contract is up.
He said that conferences were stable (I think the word he used was stagnant). He said the B10 and SEC don’t want to expand. He said the Pac 12 won’t without Texas and “that isn’t going to happen.”
Also said there was a lot of media talk about Texas going independent. He said UT had talked to Notre Dame and could do it if they HAD (emphasis on had) to. Said they had talked to about 20 peer institutions about dividing up into conferences. But the point was that UT had no interest. It was simply a fallback if the Big 12 ceased to be viable for some reason.
It was also mentioned that the goal for the Longhorn network was 7 million households at startup. They’ve already put $4 million in cable on campus connecting to their studio about a mile north of campus.
LikeLike
bullet,
I promise you the SEC doesn’t care about where they used to be financially, they fully believe nobody should be their equal now. It is in ESPN’s interest to adjust the contract if the SEC expands because failure to do so means they will have zero chance of re-signing them at the end of the deal. The SEC will expect fair market value, and adding TAMU and Clemson increases that value.
LikeLike
bullet,
I agree with Dodds on conferences expanding. I don’t think the ACC, B10 or SEC really want to expand. That said, anybody would take ND or TX if they became available. Unlike some Aggie fans, I’m not convinced there is a standing offer for TAMU to join the SEC. That’s why I’ve been using “if” in my replies. If this happens, though, then I think ESPN will renegotiate with the SEC.
I think the P12 may still be looking to expand. Excluding TX and OU, though, I’m not sure where they would go. BYU and TCU?
LikeLike
There is a far greater likelyhood of Idaho being asked back into the Pac than BYU. The 16 would have happened had Baylor been acceptable, and they are working on changing.
LikeLike
I agree BYU is unlikely, but BYU has advantages that Baylor doesn’t. LDS is very big in the Pacific and west coast, it brings a rivalry with Utah, and it’s a solid program in FB and MBB. Baylor was only considered for politics and geography.
I think any team seems unlikely, and yet I still think the P12 is looking.
LikeLike
From Dodds reply, it was clear that the Pac 12 wanted to expand more, but he said they can’t go west. Basically, I inferred he was saying the Pac 12 can’t financially justify expansion without Texas (or at least the state of Texas-and none of the Big 12 Texas 4 will go, A&M least of all).
LikeLike
The SEC has brains. They understand markets. They also know they aren’t that far behind the Pac 12 and Big 10 (at least not now). Their fans may think noone should earn more, but they don’t run the show. They aren’t upset with where they are at.
LikeLike
Umm…no.
We’re talking about conference membership, not simply an association of athletic departments. Don’t think Cal, UCLA, Stanford, etc will, in the foreseable future, vote in a school that Boise St probably out paces in research. This meant to simply point out the only area they fit is in being athleticaly competitive. Is the Pac snobish? Some say so, but it is what it is. They get in when the B1G invites Liberty.
LikeLike
bullet,
Slive has made it pretty clear he expects ESPN and CBS to look at the contracts and boost them closer to fair value. It won’t be a full renegotiation since the SEC can’t leave, but it will be talked about.
LikeLike
Reports are out about Dan Wetzel and Yahoo! having a “huge” article on an SEC West team (not Arkansas or Ole Miss) in about a month.
LSU and Willie Lyles? AU and Newton? AL? MS St?
LikeLike
Let’s do it! I miss the drama.
LikeLike
I can’t believe the SEC would choose Clemson to partner with A&M, unless the Gamecocks have given their blessing. Perhaps Virginia Tech is cooler to the SEC concept than originally thought.
LikeLike
I don’t think VT has given the SEC any thought. Clemson is an SEC team stuck in the ACC. They don’t expand the footprint, but they are a great cultural fit.
Where do you get the idea SC has to give their blessing? People say that about the SEC all the time. Is it written down anywhere that SEC teams have veto power over adding other in-state schools? It’s not like SC is a particularly powerful SEC member, being a relative newbie. Besides, adding Clemson moves that annual rivalry game into the conference allowing them to schedule another cupcake. Clemson has built in rivals in SC and UGA, and even a little history with AU (46 games). The rest of the SEC East they’ve played less than 20 times.
LikeLike
Can somebody pull this all together for me. I mean it’s evident that there is at least a possibility of A&M to SEC, if not now then by 2016. If so, why in the world would Big East make ANY moves with regard to ‘Nova, Temple, ECU, UCF…etc. Don’t you HAVE to sit back n see if you might be able to end up w/ Lville, Cincy, TCU, Mizzou, KU, & Kstate in the West and WVU, Pitt, SU, RU, Uconn & USF in the East?
If that’s even a remote possiblity, and can’t we state that it is at the very least that (a possibility) then how is there ANY WAY IN THE WORLD the Big East can risk adding any more “lesser” teams now?
LikeLike
Because the Big East’s TV contract comes up next year, not in 2016, and if the TV folks say adding another school now would improve it, then that’s what they’ll do. Anyway, I don’t think the Big 12 will completely fall apart. They lose some key members, they’ll just patch it together and limp along, sort of like the Big East. They lose A&M, they add TCU or Louisville or BYU. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea for KU and co. to keep a dialogue going with the BEast, just in case.
LikeLike
If Mizzu or KU leaves I see it as maybe possible to scramble and salvage, but it was the forces that kept the Texas schools together that held it together last year. If aTm is able to go then UT (with OU in tow) will be free to go also, and I believe they would.
LikeLike
I think its more likely, especially with the new rules on what makes a conference, that if the Big 12 were to fall apart, Kansas and Missouri would invite Big East schools into the Big 12.
LikeLike
Another possibility, albeit a longshot: A&M could be called on by the SEC were the Auburn scandal to reach the point where the university loses its accreditation and would thus be expelled from SEC membership.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/07/13/russell-wilson-wisconsin-mailbag/1.html
There is an interesting Q&A about the LHN in Stewart Mandel’s mailbag today. He really unleashes on ESPN.
Stewart, the news came out recently that Texas’ new Longhorn Network is going to broadcast one of the Longhorns’ Big 12 games. How in the world can the conference let it and ESPN get away with this? Wouldn’t the opposing team have to be paid, too? And wouldn’t that go right back into the conference’s TV rights pool of money? How does this not open up a huge can of worms in terms of future TV broadcast rights? Not to mention, how PO’d do you think a rival team’s fans will be to have to watch their team play on a rival team’s biased home broadcast?
— Ben, Atlanta
I’d definitely be ticked off about the latter part. That’s the TV equivalent of trying to find your favorite team’s game on the radio while driving and only being able to pick up the opposing team’s station. Even if the announcers remain mostly neutral, you’ll be subjected to 700 Longhorn-themed ads and in-game promotions. I wouldn’t worry about the financials too much. ESPN is simply shifting one of its ABC-allotted broadcasts to the Longhorn Network, so the opponent will get the same cut, regardless. It tells you something about just how much ESPN is investing in this thing that it not only gave up a network window, but, according to reports, basically made a trade with the conference’s cable partner, Fox, that will allow Fox to move a 2012 Big 12 game to its mother channel.
And that’s the part that should really be troubling not just to Big 12 fans, but to college football fans everywhere. From the moment this 20-year, $300 million deal was announced, it’s been astounding just how deeply the company is getting into bed with one of the schools it covers journalistically. Granted, conflicts of interest are unavoidable in sports media these days. This website is owned by a company (Time Warner) that holds the rights to NBA, PGA and NASCAR programming. But ESPN isn’t just testing the separation between church and state with Texas; there isn’t one. Case in point: The ever-popular GameDay crew (Chris Fowler and Co.) will be appearing live from Austin for the channel’s Aug. 26 debut. ESPN and Texas are now one and the same, and you can’t tell me it won’t affect the way GameDay, SportsCenter, Outside the Lines, et. al., cover Mack Brown’s program. In a sport where many fans already live in a constant state of paranoia that the media is propping up someone else at their expense … well, ESPN is flat-out doing it. It should make for some interesting signs the first time GameDay goes to Norman.
LikeLike
I’m more concerned with the Longhorn Network’s involvement in high school sports. How on Earth can the NCAA be okay with them showing high school football games and interviewing recruits? Does the BTN do any of that?
LikeLike
It’s a network owned and operated by ESPN. Why couldn’t they do that? Despite the branding, Texas is just a source of programming; they have no ownership stake in the network.
LikeLike
Don’t know anything for sure, but I believe when the Longhorn network was anounced I read where Texas is one of a few, if not the only state where this could happen. I believe it had stated something like the same governing body runs the HS’s and the State colleges.
LikeLike
The University Interscholastic League, you mean. Don’t see how that makes a difference. The rule is pretty clear:
NCAA rule 13.10.3 states:
A member institution shall not permit a prospective student-athlete or a high school, college preparatory school or two-year college coach to appear, be interviewed or otherwise be involved (in person or via film, audio tape or videotape) on:
(a) A radio or television program conducted by the institution’s coach;
(b) A program in which the institution’s coach is participating; or
(c) A program for which a member of the institution’s athletics staff has been instrumental in arranging for the appearance of the prospective student-athlete or coach or related program material.
In addition to using the school’s logo and colors, the network is going to be produced from an on-campus studio at UT, so I would be astonished if there wasn’t a member of the athletic department involved.
LikeLike
“In addition to using the school’s logo and colors, the network is going to be produced from an on-campus studio at UT, so I would be astonished if there wasn’t a member of the athletic department involved.”
It’s actually going to be produced in an office building a few blocks from campus. It appears that they just need to make sure ESPN or the Network arrange for the teams and they are fine (or at least make sure no one at UT is “instrumental” in arranging the game.
LikeLike
If you sublet an apartment from someone, you aren’t allowed to not follow the residence rules for pets, etc. because you rented from an individual, and not the apartment itself.
The idea that a school can rent their brand to a 3rd party and that 3rd party has no obligations to follow the NCAA rules that bind the school is an ethical disaster, and lousy legal precedent. ESPN Longhorn is now the biggest booster in the country (well, maybe number 2 after T. Boone Pickens), and it must be just as restricted as any individual in following those rules.
The NCAA needs to either enforce this rule or remove it from the rulebook altogether.
LikeLike
NBC-Notre Dame. ESPN has had plenty of favorites. They have deliberately dissed the Big 12 and Pac 10 in the past due to their originally going with Fox.
LikeLike
Has anyone ever said they thought NBC was anything but pro-ND? Does anyone consider NBC a major source of sports information outside of things they broadcast?
LikeLike
Most ND fans I know are quite critical of NBC’s coverage of the Irish. Point of fact, the most recent “ND” color man is now the AD at their longtime rival u$c.
LikeLike
I don’t if the Big Ten Network does, but other local channels have aired high school sports in Ohio. I was randomly flipping through channels one day in about March and actually saw a replay of that years Westerville North vs. Westerville South game.
LikeLike
@Eric – yes, high school games are on television regularly in Texas as well. Just before now there weren’t on channels branded with a University logo.
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/7/12/2272470/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-results-through-eight-rounds
The 8th round of the conference re-draft is over.
In order, the picks were: SC, BYU, Utah, ASU, TCU, UVA
It’s a snake draft, so the last conference picked UVA and then BC (their home school) to start the 9th round.
I think everyone did pretty well. SC and ASU were bargains. TCU gives good football and Texas access, and baseball for those that care.
LikeLike
Cool. I like that TCU made the top 48. And ahead of a couple of ACC teams – that’s a conference I wouldn’t mind being a part of someday. It’ll be interesting to see how we climb the revenue rankings once we move to the Big East and get our new stadium (with those lucrative suites and club seats) up and running.
LikeLike
TCU was ahead of several teams in every AQ conference. A decade of football success can do wonders. A few losses in the BE will kill TCU’s appeal, though. Everyone expects TCU to be like FSU when they joined the ACC.
The BE will clearly provide a TV money bump, but it will also expose the wasteland that is TCU hoops. Do you really expect BE teams to draw more fans at TCU than much of the MWC did, or would the expansion be equally successful in the MWC? Do WV and Pitt draw more fans than BYU or Utah did, or is trading Wyoming for Rutgers that helps? Unless the BE is held in higher regard in TX than I think it is, I’m not sure the move can help much with attendance. It’s not like most BE schools travel well or have a lot of alumni in TX.
LikeLike
It’s not an expansion, it’s an almost complete rebuild. The new stadium will actually have a slightly lower capacity than the old one. But it will have a heck of a lot more suites and club seats, and from what I’ve heard they’re having no problem moving them. More people put down deposits for the club seats than they could accommodate, and last I heard a month or two back there was only one suite left. I think they sold that one, too. It’s also going to have a lot of standing room, so we may still be able to squeeze in 50,000 or so for the big games. We’ll know for sure once the plans for the east stands are released.
And you changed sports kind of fast on me there. I definitely expect Big East teams to be a bigger draw in basketball. Not so much in football, but it won’t hurt. At least there aren’t any New Mexicos in the Big East. We had pretty good rivalries with Louisville and Cincy back in the CUSA days, so hopefully people remember those.
As for our basketball team … well, we had a decent recruiting year, and our 2012 class may be surprising. I also like our recent assistant coach hires. Somehow we stole former ASU head coach Rob Evans from Arkansas, where he was also an assistant coach, plus we got another guy with pretty solid local connections. And the women’s team is usually pretty salty.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just wanted to point out that more coverage isn’t always a good thing. Maybe the move will spur the AD to put more focus on hoops.
As for no New Mexico’s in the BE, that’s true. However, looking at 2001-2010, NM (55) has more wins than Syracuse (48) as well as several other AQs (KY, AZ, ISU, IL, UW, MS St, IN, Vandy and Duke) and is only 4 wins behind Rutgers (59). Granted, the BE teams have played some harder schedules, but still. NM is also ahead of fellow MWC schools CSU, WY, SDSU and UNLV.
Sure, NM was down the last 3 years (4-8, 1-11, 1-11) but before that they were decent. Syracuse was just as bad 5 years ago.
LikeLike
Recency bias. Also, to the astonishment of many, New Mexico continues to retain the services of Mike Locksley, despite his abysmal record and penchant for bar fightin’ with his assistants. So, it’s not looking like they’ll be improving in the near future. Though to be fair, I wouldn’t want to pay him $3 million to not be my coach either.
LikeLike
Are you sure, as a TCU fan, you want to site recency bias? Isn’t that what got TCU into the BE?
If I’m not mistaken TCU didn’t win more than 8 games between 1956 and 2000. In fact, NM won more games than TCU in that period (and more than UC, now a BE team).
LikeLike
BC Interruption has had pretty good wall-to-wall coverage of the re-draft. They probably haven’t drafted the strongest football conference, but they’ve drafted the most cohesive, and strongest all-around.
It’s fairly interesting to see what each team’s strategy has been. Some have been real head scratchers.
LikeLike
They’ve generally had the best coverage, but sometimes they go on hiatus. House of Sparky has been pretty good, too.
LikeLike
http://www.cowboyaltitude.com/2011/7/13/2268448/conferences-based-on-geography-the-tiny-big-10
The “new” B10 based on geography. The result is 13 schools from states that touch a Great Lake.
B10 – WI, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI, MSU
MAC – NIU, BSU, WMU, CMU, EMU
Indy – ND
Divisions:
West – WI, NW, IL, PU, IN, NIU, BSU
East – MI, MSU, WMU, CMU, EMU, ND
NE, IA and MN were taken earlier for the new B12. OSU and PSU are apparently moving east and/or south.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/43856/gt-hit-hard-by-ncaa-must-vacate-2009-title
GT got hit by the NCAA. They were repeat violators, had violations in 2 sports, had a student get $312 of improper benefits, knowingly played an ineligible player and failed to cooperate with the investigation (they warned a student about the scope of an NCAA interview after being told not to). They had to vacate the 3 impacted games (only 1 was a win – the 2009 ACCCG), were fined $100,000, got some recruiting restrictions in hoops and got 4 years of probation.
So why does everyone think OSU was so out of line with their self-imposed penalties? GT didn’t get a bowl ban or scholarship reductions.
LikeLike
re: GTech
The matter of degree is totally different. OSU had a systemic coverup of thousands(?) of dollars of benefits by at least five players, if not more. Tech had one player receive $312.
Comparing the two is a reach.
LikeLike
Maybe a stretch, but I don’t think Tressel knew about all 5 (maybe I’ve read that wrong, but I thought he was only e-mailed on Tressel and maybe one other) and I’d have a hard time calling Tressel signing the paper a systemic coverup. OSU’s case is probably worse because Tressel signed saying he didn’t know more, but I don’t think the differences are as large as the media coverage would indicate.
LikeLike
A “systemic” coverup? The final total is, I believe, 8 players (6 current, 2 former) and nobody but Tressel has been alleged to have known about any of them. Tressel didn’t know about all of them when he committed his violation, either. Most importantly, the NCAA has explicitly not charged OSU with a systemic coverup.
However, the details don’t really matter that much. Both schools knowingly played ineligible players (3 different people reported the issue at GT and he still played). Tressel lied to the NCAA but OSU was completely cooperative with the NCAA once they found the emails. GT violated a direct order from the NCAA in an attempt to impede the investigation. GT was a repeat offender and also had violations in another sport. OSU may or may not be treated as a repeat offender (long story), but no other sport was involved.
The NCAA punishment for the players would be the same – suspension for 4 or 5 games, restitution for the dollar value and vacating all wins while they played. That’s what they did at UNC, UGA and everywhere else last year.
I fail to see how OSU’s case is so much worse than GT’s, since the real issues are the coverups.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/43858/notes-from-ncaa-call-regarding-gt
A few more details from the NCAA here.
1. If GT had cooperated, it might have been secondary violations instead of major and thus the penalties would have been lighter.
2. The NCAA guy stressed that the committee doesn’t “make examples” of schools, that’s a media thing.
LikeLike
GT: “and said it was hindered by a school staff member who alerted a player — whom the NCAA did not identify — about potential eligibility concerns before his interview”
tOSU: HC knowingly signed an inaccurate compliance form, failed to report, etc. regarding multiple kids.
Look like different levels to me, but what do I know.
LikeLike
You left out the part about 3 different people reporting the player’s eligibility issues at GT but GT still chose to play him.
As for the hindering, remember that GT was explicitly told by the NCAA not to tell the player what they told him.
LikeLike
Oh, and don’t forget that the GT violations involved getting gifts from an agent and OSU’s didn’t. That’s a big difference to the NCAA.
LikeLike
GT’s was really minor. They object to the report. It was 1 player, $312. NCAA told AD not to tell anyone about the investigation. He took it as a suggestion and told the coach who asked the player. Paul Johnson (coach) said it was the 1st time in 32 years he had been involved in one of these things. NCAA was also upset they didn’t inform the players of the consequences of lying.
Instead of declaring the player ineligible ala Auburn & Newton, and asking for reinstatement, they assumed he was eligible. Then the real problem, was that their former attorney took a legalistic approach and wasn’t open. Per the President according to AJC, “Perhaps we should’ve done some things differently,” Peterson said. “He (in house counsel) didn’t have a great deal of experience in issues like this, and I believe if we had to do this all over again, we would’ve hired an outside consultant to advise us and serve as legal counsel.”
From what I’ve read, it was really trivial, except the NCAA got ticked off because the counsel wasn’t cooperative. The NCAA really looks stupid slamming schools for trivial things when they let major things go. And the NCAA holds grudges. GT went on probation in 2005 for using 17 academically ineligible athletes. I suspect that was also part of this penalty.
LikeLike
GT’s was really minor. They object to the report. It was 1 player, $312. NCAA told AD not to tell anyone about the investigation. He took it as a suggestion and told the coach who asked the player. Paul Johnson (coach) said it was the 1st time in 32 years he had been involved in one of these things. NCAA was also upset they didn’t inform the players of the consequences of lying.
Instead of declaring the player ineligible ala Auburn & Newton, and asking for reinstatement, they assumed he was eligible. Then the real problem, was that their former attorney took a legalistic approach and wasn’t open. Per the President according to AJC, “Perhaps we should’ve done some things differently,” Peterson said. “He (in house counsel) didn’t have a great deal of experience in issues like this, and I believe if we had to do this all over again, we would’ve hired an outside consultant to advise us and serve as legal counsel.”
From what I’ve read, it was really trivial, except the NCAA got ticked off because the counsel wasn’t cooperative. The NCAA really looks stupid slamming schools for trivial things when they let major things go. And the NCAA holds grudges. GT went on probation in 2005 for using 17 academically ineligible athletes. I suspect that was also part of this penalty.
Actually the NCAA did mention 2005 as part of the reason for the penalty.
LikeLike
I disagree. It would have been minor if:
1. It didn’t involve gifts from a person with business ties to an agent
2. The school didn’t go directly against an order from the NCAA (that’s the NCAA’s view of it, and that is all that matters – GT can object until the cows come home)
3. GT didn’t have violations in multiple sports
4. Gt wasn’t a repeat offender
My original point was that the alleged issues were similar to the OSU case (impermissible benefits, playing ineligible players, some form of coverup activity), but the perception is that GT got hit hard while OSU will get hammered. The difference between 1 and multiple players isn’t significant unless the NCAA says it is (usually by alleging Failure to Monitor or Lack of Institutional Control). The OSU players got more benefits per person, but there was no tie to an agent so that balances out to the NCAA (I think). GT was accused of hindering the investigation while OSU was open as soon as Tressel’s violation came to light, and Tressel lost his job over it.
I’m not saying the NCAA won’t add some penalties for OSU, but the lack of a postseason penalty or scholarship reductions for GT tells me that OSU probably won’t get crushed like USC did despite what the media seems to be calling for.
LikeLike
IMO the agent is a lesser problem. That’s an outside person. In OSU’s case, the boosters and fans were giving benefits. Its the difference between being effectively “paid” by the university vs. an agent trying to get a future contract. Now I haven’t followed the various penalties enough to know how the NCAA views those two types of issues. Logical application is not their strong suit, so I certainly wouldn’t try to guess. They may very well be more concerned about the “player” becoming a professional vs. the university running a professional sports franchise.
LikeLike
I don’t see where there’s any reason to distinguish. If a school doesn’t vigilantly keep agents away from athletes, then the top programs which get the top talent are at risk of benefiting from that benign neglect as agents, eager to snap up the top talent, help the school run a pro sports franchise even without the school’s active complicity. The NCAA can and should hold the school accountable for what the agents do in order to encourage the schools to aggressively keep athletes away from agents.
LikeLike
bullet,
The NCAA was pretty upset with the UGA player who got money from an agent for selling a jersey, or all the UNC players getting stuff from agents. I believe that is a bigger deal to them than the actual dollar value (within reason), but it’s just my impression. An agent is definitely a bigger deal to the NCAA than a fan (or a business man just looking to make a profit).
What would have made both cases worse would be if the money went to recruits and not active players. Then a fan or booster doing it might be worse than an agent, but an agent is worse to the NCAA once they are already at the school.
LikeLike
GT player strikes back:
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2011/07/15/tech-players-using-social-media-to-slam-the-ncaa/?cxntfid=blogs_georgia_tech_sports
Player accuses them of trying to show they have control by penalizing minor cases “despite lacking the ability and firepower to police the serious offenders and to protect the student-athletes whose interests you purport to have at heart.”
LikeLike
Didn’t see it in the on-line version, but the AJC has an article today saying that Ohio St.’s Tressel was rated “unacceptable” in a job performance in 2005-6 in terms of self-reporting violations. He was also warned that they needed to monitor player’s cars. He also had a reprimand for giving a recruit a Buckeye jersey (wasn’t clear if this was someone who had already signed).
LikeLike
bullet,
I don’t know about you, but I get sick of hearing these types of complaints against the NCAA. When the NCAA gives bowl bans or scholarship reductions, everyone complains that they are punishing the wrong people (the current players instead of those who broke rules). When they vacate wins and titles, everyone who was innocent complains that the NCAA is punishing the wrong people. Pray tell, how is the NCAA supposed to punish only the “right” people, especially if the offenders have left school? Do the school and team never suffer, only still eligible players and coaches that remain in college?
I hate to break it to Mr. Bedford, but football is a team sport. You win as a team, you lose as a team, you cheat as a team and you get punished as a team. He needs to direct his anger at the player(s) and staff who cost him his ACC title and not the NCAA.
As for only minor incidents being punished, everyone always says that about their team’s violations, too. They point out it isn’t a crime and somebody else did something worse. It’s like people who get a speeding ticket but complain that somebody else was going even faster – you still broke the law, so quit bitching about getting caught. Amateurism is a big deal to the NCAA, and it’s like pregnancy in their eyes. Either you are or are not an amateur, there are no degrees of amateurism to them. Taking $300 is as bad as taking $3000 to them, and rightfully so. You could make a decent argument for $3 and $300,000 being significantly different, especially because you could take $3 without realizing you were breaking the rules. Players know they can’t get free clothing from people, especially those aligned with agents, so they knowingly broke the rules.
The other complaint I hate is that the NCAA punishes smaller schools more harshly and babies the big names. Smaller schools have more problems because they have fewer compliance staff and often take borderline kids. The NCAA has punished big name programs many times, including recently. Tell USC and AL how easily they got off lately. GT got punished some, but not hammered. AU is still under investigation, but nothing has been alleged by the NCAA. If someone has any actual evidence the Newtons got paid, please present it. UNC is still twisting in the wind. OSU has some penalties already and may get more.
LikeLike
bullet,
Tressel was rated excellent in 10 of 12 compliance areas. He was rated unacceptable for:
1. Not “quickly” self-reporting rules violations
2. Not completing phone and unofficial visit logs “in a timely manner”
It’s not that he didn’t do these things, just not as fast as the compliance department wanted them done.
As for cars, all the coaches have been told to pay attention to them. The AD has been keeping track and monitoring cars all along. OSU had already investigated all the car purchases people tried to make a big deal about, but agreed to look again after the local paper claimed there were problems (many of which were quickly proven false). OSU still found no evidence of violations, and stepped aside during the investigation to let the state BoT investigate instead since there would potentially be tax implications. The state said the car values were all fair, and OSU accepted that verdict. There are no car issues alleged by any investigative body, just muckraking media members. Players can change cars all they want as long as they pay a fair price. Everyone made a big deal of Pryor having a new car when Tressel quit, but his mom proved she had just bought it for him.
LikeLike
Tiimeline of GT case:
http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/how-georgia-techs-ncaa-1020485.html
GT interview on eligibility on 11/24/09 is of some concern, but my personal take is the NCAA turned secondary violations into major simply because GT ticked off the investigator, combined with GT’s previous violations in 2005 that really were serious (numerous academically ineligible players). Making decisions because the investigator was mad is not the way a good organization should be run.
LikeLike
bullet,
All violations start out as major until the NCAA declares them secondary.
To me, GT knowingly violating direct orders from the NCAA not to tell anyone but the President and AD about an upcoming interview is a major violation. It’s like cleaning your house before the cops get there. There may not have been anything incriminating to find, but your actions make it impossible to know for sure and make you look guilty. I think that is why the NCAA made it a major case, not because someone got mad.
What would you have said if during the NCAA’s investigation of OSU it turned out that all of Tressel’s emails from 2010 had been accidentally deleted? There would have been no proof of anything beyond the few players, but it would look really suspicious. Wouldn’t you go nuts about the coverup and how it’s evidence of guilt? The coverup is always worse than the underlying crime.
I agree GT’s repeat violator status was a significant factor in the punishment, but playing players against advice and violating direct orders were bigger factors in my opinion. Still, they only got probation and a small fine. It’s not like they lost scholarships or got a bowl ban. I think the NCAA could have made it much worse if they wanted to punish out of anger.
LikeLike
http://gregg-doyel.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/5881996/30614157
Just to show I’m not completely alone in my thoughts about these two cases having similarities, Gregg Doyel from CBS blogged a similar opinion.
A partial quote:
Look what happened to Georgia Tech, for a similar scandal only with a much more nefarious undertone. While OSU coach Jim Tressel himself was the culprit in the ultimately unsuccessful Ohio State cover-up of violations, and that’s awful, the Big Ten school as a whole acted in an upright manner afterward:
Tressel was forced out, albeit more slowly than I would have liked. The school vacated every victory from the 2010 season. The best player involved, Terrelle Pryor, is gone even though he has eligibility remaining.
Compare that to Georgia Tech, which — like Ohio State — was guilty of using star players even after learning those players could be ineligible. And then, apparently, the Jackets made it worse by failing to cooperate completely with the NCAA’s investigation. Check out this ominous sentence from the Georgia Tech report by the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions:
“This case provides a cautionary tale of the conduct that member institutions should avoid while under investigation for violations of NCAA rules.”
End quote
LikeLike
The conduct is to avoid making the NCAA mad.
There are no specifics, but there seems to be no dispute that GT’s attorney was not cooperative.
With OSU it was multiple players, multiple occassions and the coach knew about it and lied to the NCAA. With GT, it was one player and the player denied the issue, saying it was a gift from his cousin. If GT had ruled him ineligible and asked for an opinion, he would have been cleared to play pending the investigation. The only real benefit to knowing there was an investigation would be if all the players got fake stories straight. And it ended up the issue wasn’t with the player the NCAA was initially investigating. The negative for GT was the apparent lack of cooperation, but noone ever lied to the NCAA.
I do agree with your earlier point about penalizing current players for prior players’ conduct. That’s the way it has to be or noone would get penalized given how long these investigations take.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There are no specifics, but there seems to be no dispute that GT’s attorney was not cooperative.”
There is also no dispute that despite what the NCAA said, the coach was told about the upcoming interview and he told the player (Burnett). Then, two days later, several GT employees had a meeting with Burnett to discuss what the interview would be about (again, against explicit NCAA directions not to do it). Shockingly, Burnett denied the allegations when he was then interviewed by the NCAA.
The NCAA visit somehow led to Thomas’s name coming out. When the NCAA interviews Thomas, he says the gift was from his cousin’s roommate (the roommate is tied to an agent). A few days later, the NCAA warns that GT will have to justify their decision if they continue to play the players. Following that warning, GT interviewed Thomas. This time, Thomas claimed the gift was from his cousin. Upon listening to a recording of the interview (18 months later), the NCAA determined it was designed to solicit the “right” answer rather than being probative.
Still, you claim the bad conduct was just making the NCAA mad.
With GT it was 2 players, not 1, but the second one couldn’t be proved after GT tampered with him. With OSU it was 8 players. With GT it was 2 sports, with OSU it was one. With GT it was multiple people disobeying direct orders from the NCAA (AD, 2 AADs, HC), with OSU it was the HC covering up allegations. With GT, it was the school accused of trying to cover up problems and improper behavior, with OSU it was total cooperation by the school after the info was discovered.
You make the huge assumption that the NCAA would have immediately reinstated the players if GT had asked. If so, why did GT ignore repeated warnings from the NCAA and not declare them ineligible and seek reinstatement?
As you say, the benefit to knowing there was an investigation would be having the time to get your story straight. Since the GT people told the player what the interview would be about, Burnett knew what was coming and could make up a plausible lie and/or prepare himself to deny, deny, deny without telling a lie he could be caught in. Just like Thomas conveniently changed his story from the one he told the NCAA to one that would keep him eligible when he talked to the GT people.
You also assume that nobody lied to the NCAA. First, that implies that Tressel signing a form is much worse than multiple GT people knowingly violating direct orders from the NCAA. I don’t see any substantial difference in wrongness there. Second, Thomas either lied to GT or lied to the NCAA. Since his story to the NCAA would get him in trouble and his story to GT kept him eligible, I’m guessing he lied to GT to keep his eligibility. Is GT soliciting a false story to keep a player eligible any better than telling the NCAA a lie?
LikeLike
Just because I feel like getting this conversation back to the original topic, here’s my somewhat serious proposal for MLB realignment:
NL West:
San Francisco
LA Dodgers
San Diego
Colorado
NL Central
Milwaukee
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis
Cincinnati
NL East
Philadelphia
New York Mets
Washington
Pittsburgh
NL South
Houston
Atlanta
Florida
Texas
AL West
LA Angels
Oakland
Seattle
Arizona
AL Central
Chicago White Sox
Detroit
Minnesota
Kansas City
AL East
Cleveland
Toronto
Baltimore
Tampa Bay
AL North
New York Yankees
Boston
Texas and Houston, Philly and Pittsburgh get to be division mates. And as a Rangers fan, I really wouldn’t mind seeing them switch leagues, especially if it meant earlier games and better rivalries. New York and Boston have their own division, which will make the TV folks happy because one of them is guaranteed a playoff spot every year. And the other AL East teams are finally rid of them and may get to win a division title occasionally. For playoffs, I’m thinking four division champs get in, no wild cards. Or maybe follow the NFL model with two wild cards, but I’m not sure how well a bye would go over in MLB.
LikeLike
Well if you’re willing to do that, go to the full ESPN alignment:
AL – Yankees, Red Sox
NL – everyone else
ESPN gets 162 NYY/BRS games, plus a 7 game playoff series.
LikeLike
And if they split the season series, 163!
LikeLike
I continue to feel that it would actually be in the long-term best interests of baseball not to have the Yankees and Red Sox in the same division. The sporting public gets fatigued with that matchup, which only contributes to the cynicism directed toward the national networks (especially ESPN). Putting them in different divisions of the same league would give you some games between them, but not too many.
LikeLike
That’s only relevant if you’re talking a total geographic realignment, though. The only plausible argument for it is to pool all of the AL and NL teams in the eastern part of the country so that there are enough to go around that you can create plausible alternative divisional alignments that have the two in separate groups.
LikeLike
An example of what’s in the back of my mind:
A1: Boston, White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto
A2: Baltimore, Mets, Yankees, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
A3: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington
B1: Cubs, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, St. Louis
B2: Arizona, Colorado, Houston, San Diego, Texas
B3: Angels, Dodgers, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle
One objection will be that the Red Sox and Yankees are in different divisions, but as noted, I think that’s a hidden benefit. Another will be that the White Sox and Cubs are in different divisions, which doesn’t make a lot of sense if you’re realigning geographically. However, the split accomplishes the likely need of keeping the Cubs and Cardinals together (unlike Yankees/Red Sox, it’s not my sense that the sporting nation is especially fatigued with this matchup). Splitting San Diego from the other California teams is another potential objection, but it doesn’t seem right to me to do a geographic alignment and put Seattle with other teams that are even further away.
LikeLike
You could really pick any of the SoCal teams; I went with San Diego because they’re an NL team and it would put them in a division with 3 other current NL teams. No real master plan beyond that.
LikeLike
If there is no switches between the AL and NL and no extended playoffs, I’ll be happy. I suspect that if they do these changes though, divisions will be back within a couple of years regardless of size of the leagues.
LikeLike
@Eric – I don’t mind them extending the playoffs, so long as they shorten the regular season a bit. That’ll never happen, though.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t want the regular season shortened unless it went back to its length pre-1960 (about 8 or 9 games shorter). Baseball is all about the regular season records and cutting back a lot would be hard to stomach.
LikeLike
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2011/7/16/2273438/the-price-of-a-victory-in-big-time-college-football
An interesting look at money in college football. Worth a read.
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/7/17/2280128/ncaa-conference-realignment-draft-nine-rounds-in-the-books
Round 9 of the conference re-draft is done.
Picks 49-54 were: BC, Colorado, OrSU, Boise, Vandy, GT
The first pick of Round 10 was Ole Miss.
I think there are some reaches here, as much as a 9th round pick can be a reach. There’s got to be run on B10 schools soon, with a MBB king and another power available. NW brings academics, solid football and Chicago access. MN has great hockey and solid MBB. NCSU, TT and USF also seem viable choices.
Teams still available:
ACC (2) — N.C. State, Wake Forest
Big 12 (4) — Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech
Big East (3) — Cincinnati, Rutgers, South Florida
Big Ten (4) — Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Pac 12 (1) — Washington State
SEC (1) — Mississippi State
Notable Non-AQs — Air Force, Army, Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Navy
LikeLike
http://www.backingthepack.com/2011/7/16/2279016/whos-winning-the-sbn-conference-re-draft
Someone has decided to determine who is winning the re-draft based on last year’s football and MBB teams. Their method is to use F/+ for football and Pomeroy ratings for MBB.
Conf – F/+ – Pomeroy
BCI – 51.7 – 36
BHGP – 37.4 – 67.7
TSK – 31.9 – 75.8
BECB – 21 – 46
HOS – 42.9 – 32.1
RCR – 18.9 – 93.9
While this method leaves a lot to be desired, I like the idea. I think using 5 or 10 years of data for each school would help. Also, you need to factor in other sports somehow (director’s cup?) as well as academics (USNWR, maybe).
Also, NCSU was the next pick.
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/7/17/2279165/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-scoreboard-watching
Here BCI explains their criteria and shows how the conferences rank on market size, revenue, USNWR and football attendance. They also explain the poor FB showing (it really was a bad year for TX and UGA).
LikeLike
I’m not sure how reliable this tweet about Texas A&M to the SEC is, but it is very interesting if true.
http://twitter.com/#!/InsideTide/status/93104760911175680
LikeLike
The A&M Regents meeting is to discuss the Longhorn Network:
“The execution session will be informational only, including concerning UT’s plans to air a Big 12 football game on the ESPN-owned network, and to potentially air high school games, the insider said. No action will be taken, the person added, the regents will simply be informed of the latest by lawyers concerning the deep-pocketed network.
The insider said A&M is committed, for now, to making a 10-team Big 12 work, and that the threat of a potential move to the Southeastern Conference is not in the immediate future.”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texasam/7659012.html
LikeLike
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/article_d924c1e4-ffb5-5889-83e9-3dd0c31ed301.html
The BTN payout to the B10 schools jumped from $6.5M to $7.9M this past year (up 21%). That compares to $8.2M from ABC/ESPN, and a total of $22.6M (for IL).
The BTN made $227M in revenue last year, with advertising up 22%. By 2015, the BTN is projected to make $333M.
LikeLike
i bought some wolf chili. maybe that helped.
LikeLike
I got some RoTel a couple of times, but I don’t actually watch the BTN. Maybe increased sales count anyway.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/19/legends-and-leaders-chapter-1-geographically-challenged/
First in a series on how the B10 split into divisions. This one discusses how geography came to be the third criteria, while competitive balance became #1.
Part 2 will discuss using competitive balance.
LikeLike
“Big Ten officials studied how other leagues divided themselves and saw how geography often deterred competitive balance.”
What is this “often”? There’s one example of it: the Big 12. Who is arguing that any other geographically aligned multi-divisional league ever had this problem? I guess I missed all of those legendary arguments about the MAC’s competitive balance.
LikeLike
And I don’t even think the Big 12 is a good example of the phenomena given how the North was more powerful in the early part of the conference’s existence.
I still don’t think how an East/West split would have been so awful in terms of competitive balance.
LikeLike
Frankly, the only year I really remember it being a problem was 2008. I’m sure there were other years that there was some level of mild imbalance, but that’s always a risk — the only year where it was a real mess was ’08. Where are all of these data about the negative experiences of other leagues that these guys are alluding to?
LikeLike
I wonder if they will just say it is to try to get the best TV ratings for the championship game. They split up the big four (OSU, PSU, Michigan, and Nebraska) to try to get two of them in the championship. If they went to a straight east-west split, the divisions look pretty good: OSU, PSU, Michigan, MSU, Indiana, Purdue vs. Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Northwestern.
LikeLike
The irony of that mindset is that, at least for me, the Big Ten’s value goes down if that’s what they want. It’s my feeling people are passionate about the Big Ten and their ratings are high precisely because they (at least in the past) have conducted themselves as though they don’t especially care about ratings. Things like not playing at night late in the year, sticking to a hard Saturday schedule for league games, and (during the 11-team era) basing the 2 “permanent rival” matchups for each school on actual rivalries rather than competitiveness (thus, Ohio State played PSU and Michigan every year), are not consistent with chasing ratings.
LikeLike
You mean games like:
2004 #2 vs unranked
2005 #2 vs unranked
2006 #8 vs #19
2008 #4 vs #19
2009 #3 vs #21
Is that the sort of mild imbalance you were talking about?
LikeLike
Craig Z,
No, the east/west divisions don’t look good (unless you are an IA or WI fan who likes to claim your school is the same as one of the 4 kings). They look skewed. Why do you think you know better than the people who actually sat down and analyzed the data and make a living doing what’s best for their schools and the B10? The ADs and conference people think competitive balance is more important than geography and the presidents signed off on it. It wasn’t even a contentious issue for them. It was obvious. What evidence do you have that they were wrong?
LikeLike
Because it’s an issue of values. They put business interests ahead of right and wrong unnecessarily.
There’s a moral component to college sports that doesn’t exist in the pros. What they did was Wrong™.
LikeLike
To expand on that: the schools have a fiduciary obligation to manage their business interests sufficiently to sustain the programs. After that, they have a moral obligation to do right by the history and traditions of the sport. That is what is entrusted to them as officers of institutions with a continuing history and tradition. (It is, incidentally, what separates this situation from Notre Dame’s — in the long term, the ‘Domers seem to expect the school’s administration to conjure up a sustainable business model out of thin air.)
LikeLike
Imbalance is imbalance. Why would it be better if the imbalance shifted from one side to the other?
The B12 CCG had 2 teams ranked within 10 spots of each other 5 years in a row (which is great), but only twice in the other 10 games.
LikeLike
Because by your own standards, we’re only measuring imbalance over time. You can’t guarantee balance any given season. If it’s possible to show that the balance of power in the Big 12 shifted between the divisions over time, that is sufficient to demonstrate that an East/West alignment would have been just as prone to evolution in the competitive dynamics.
LikeLike
So? Was the imbalance caused by a poor setup of the divisions or just a fact of how teams performed over time? The concept behind the Big Ten’s divisional setup is to try to make the divisions “balanced” but what the Big 12 clearly showed is that trying to rig the divisions that way is pointless because teams rise and fall in quality over time.
Sure the divisional setup of the Big Ten might work out great to have competitive CCGs. Or perhaps an East/West setup would do so better. My point would be that there is far too much variability to predict for years into the future, so it would have made more sense to set up divisions in the most logical geographical and rivalry oriented manner and just let the chips fall where they would in terms of competitiveness. I don’t think we’d have seen any problems with the CCG matchups.
(Ironically, an East/West split would have been similar to the SEC’s split IMHO — with PSU/UM/OSU being like Georgia/Tenn/Florida and Alabama plus LSU/Ole Miss being like Nebraska with Wisconsin/Iowa. And no one seems to complain about any competitive imbalance in the SEC)
LikeLike
Amen, SideshowBob. Amen.
LikeLike
I take somewhat a middle ground in this approach. On the one had, I think you can somewhat predict long term stronger vs. weaker divisions. No matter how strong the Big 12 north was when it formed, the end result was almost certain to be a Big 12 south that was stronger. The south had 2 of the 3 elite national names and the best name after that (Texas A&M). It had the big advantage in Texas recruiting too. Other than Nebraska, the north teams should have all been expected to slide back down in coming years.
With that said, I despise what we got from the Big Ten and would much rather have had geographic division than what we got. Was a little bit more competitive balance worth what we got?
Beyond that, I seriously question the notion that Iowa and Wisconsin had to be separated. Yes from a 1993 perspective they are one of the best 6. If the divisions are really supposed to last 50 years though, is there any natural reason to assume they are going to be better than say Michigan State or Illinois?
LikeLike
Eric;
#4 in the Big 12 was Colorado. They weren’t that far off their 1990 MNC and a couple of runs after that. A&M was #5.
And in terms of strength back in 1996, it was #1 UNL, #2 CU, #3 KSU. OU was down and Texas was a little down at the time. The Big 12 North fans were constantly complaining about how they were having to carry the South. The North had at least the two best teams for each of the first 3 years of the league.
I don’t think UNL’s or CU’s declines were inevitable. However, KSU was going to have a tough time repeating what Bill Snyder had done. And the Big 12 South has risen primarily because of Texas and OU. Secondarily because of Tech and Ok. St. A&M hasn’t really returned to their 90s form.
So I don’t think the imbalance was inevitable at all. UNL did fine for decades with limited Texas recruiting.
LikeLike
SideshowBob,
“So?”
So, what? I literally don’t know what that was directed towards, so it is unanswerable.
Yes, the imbalance was caused by a poor setup of the divisions. Based on winning percentage in the previous 20 years, the North got #1, 4 and 9-12 while the South got #2, 3, 5-8. Nebraska was at their peak and Colorado was still good, but all the other decent teams went in the South. All 4 teams with a losing record went in the North. There was no way that was going to work out unless NE stayed at their absolute peak, and even then that would have led to complete domination by 1 team in the North.
So, the previous 20 years said 4 of the top 6 were in the South. What did the B12 years show in conference winning percentage? 4 of the top 6 were in the South. Sure, individual schools moved in the pecking order but the general trend stayed the same.
There will always be some variability, especially on the individual program level. However, history shows that certain schools have built-in advantages that lead them to consistently be among the best programs over any period of time. The powers that be recognize this and took it into account. That’s why they decided to split the 4 kings equally, and the next pair equally too. They used other factors, like rivalries (which is closely related to geography), to determine exactly which teams went where but the 2+1+3 split was decided by balance.
Related to competitive balance is fan interest. The best teams tend to have the most fans. The king programs have more fans than the second tier teams, and the bottom tier teams generally have the fewest fans (NW is a semi-exception due to their smaller size). Concentrating the most popular programs in one division is bad for everybody, especially in the day and age when media contracts are so important to sustaining athletic programs.
I think people forget the history of football. AL, TN, GA, LSU, AU and FL are all top 20 programs in terms of overall winning percentage. FL is the only one of the 6 without 700 wins, but is #23 with 662 (the other 5 are top 13 in W’s). The point is, the SEC had several power programs on each side, so loose geography gave them balance. People also forget that there were balance complaints in the 90s, too.
The B10 has 4 top 6 programs in W’s, all in the 800 win club. WI is #33 with 624 and IA is #40 with 587. MN is #29 with 642 while MSU sneaks in at #32 with 628 and a higher winning percentage than WI, and Purdue is #43 with 579 while IL is #47 with 572. The point is based on history, the B10 clearly has 4 kings that need to be split and geography would not provide an equal split. The middle 6 teams historically are pretty similar, but clearly some have been performing better in the last 20 years than others. That is very different than the situation the SEC was facing.
LikeLike
Eric,
Why do you “despise what we got” for divisions? Is it related to “your” school (fan or alum) not getting what you wanted, or something else? I don’t think what we got was that bad, so I definitely think it was worth getting more balance.
I think you have to give serious weight to performance since 1993ish. That’s when the B10 went to 11, the Bowl Coalition had just started and the number of scholarships dropped to 85 the next year and NW was about to start playing football. It really was a new era in B10 football.
Looking at that period, WI and IA significantly outperformed the middle pack of MSU, PU and NW. WI and IA had better conference records, although IA and MSU were somewhat close. WI had 3 BCS bowls and IA 2, with IL the only other non-king with 2 while PU had 1. WI has been to 16 bowls and IA 13, versus 11 for MSU, 10 for PU and 8 for NW. Basically, WI and IA are ahead of everybody else on every criteria the B10 talked about using. I’d say WI is ahead of IA, too, but that gap is smaller than the gap to MSU. In other words, I think the B10 was justified
in splitting WI and IA as a requirement for the divisions but I can see the argument for not splitting them, too..
LikeLike
What a shock, you don’t agree about competitive balance.
Often – If there are only 2 conferences to really consider (SEC and B12), then look at how frequently a divisional championship game would be better than the conference championship game on paper. The B12 had suboptimal match-ups almost every year and a distinct dominance by the South lately. The SEC also had a period of divisional dominance and several years with a suboptimal match-up. That counts as often. Even by your metric, 1 of 2 AQ leagues had that problem. I’d say half the time is often.
As for the MAC, the East won 6 of the first 7 thanks to Marshall. With Marshall gone, the power is in the West. The West has had the only ranked teams and is 4-1 in match-ups of unranked teams.
CUSA has not been divisional long enough to know what patterns are there, just like the WAC which only had 3 CCG. The ACC didn’t split geographically.
AQ Imbalances:
B12 – North much higher ranked for first 4, South won last 7
SEC – East won 6 of first 7
LikeLike
And you know what? I don’t care. I find all of those games extremely entertaining. There is no sweetness to the underdog defeating the favored opponent unless it is a mountain to climb. The euphoria of the Dodgers triumphing over the Yankees, or the Americans over the Soviets, wouldn’t have meant nearly as much if the two were evenly matched.
Chasing balance robs sport of what makes it compelling. Of course, you’ll then say “so we should aim for imbalance”? Of course not; we should simply align on the basis of something that does not consider balance, up or down, but instead is based on something permanent and enduring.
LikeLike
Remember rocky 4? That was sweet.
I felt old when the russians faded away.
Now with the end of the space shuttle era, I feel like a relic. I can’t believe they are shelving this with no apparent succession plan. Sucks.
LikeLike
If he dies, he dies.
LikeLike
@jj
Weeb may be before your time, but I was reading “Johnny U” (great read) and it said Marichbroda (sp?) Ravens coach in 98 didn’t have a single team member who knew who Weeb Eubank was.
For those of you who don’t know, Eubank was winning coach in the 2 most important pro fb games of all time-58 Colts OT win over Giants in NFL championship and 68 Jets upset of Colts in Super Bowl III.
LikeLike
“B12 – North much higher ranked for first 4, South won last 7”
You are actually arguing against your case here. This illustrates that the imbalances were not due to intrinsic team setups but due to teams improving and declining over time. It’s not like one division was always the weak one and the other was always the strong one. In fact, it’s the perfect reason to not make some ad hoc set up because you don’t know when Nebraska/Colorado would be dominating versus Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 had tried to set up the divisions in some way to make them both equal, it could have easily still had the same imbalances in the CCG.
LikeLike
No, I’m not. My case is that imbalance is bad. The B12 usually lacked balance, in large part because it put the 4 worst teams into the North (KSU was playing way above its historical norm, but it was one of the worst 4 over the previous 20 years). It didn’t help that they had 3 kings to split, and there may not have been a great split to be had without knowing the future (I haven’t put in the work to see for sure), but combining ISU, KSU, KS and MO in one division seems questionable to me. They mostly kept the rivalries, but lost balance in the process. Losing OU/NE was really a bad decision in my mind, too.
LikeLike
“B12 – North much higher ranked for first 4, South won last 7”
This is arguing the other side’s brief. It demonstrates the unpredictability of trying to align the conference on the basis of balance. It shifted over time. No reason to think it wouldn’t continue to shift over time.
You conveniently omit that Missouri went into the 2007 game ranked 1st in the nation. Sure, they lost the game, but there’s an “any given Saturday” factor to consider. Would all of this talk of “kings” and “balance” have accommodated those Tigers in that season? Or would they have been lumped in with a couple of “kings” because they outperformed their historical averages that year? Or perhaps would they have been lumped in with a couple of other historical underperformers and then only one of them can emerge even when they both happen to put together good seasons that year? If you’re balance agnostic, none of that matters; you’re letting the chips fall where they may on the balance issue to accommodate other priorities.
LikeLike
And my point is that whether imbalance is bad or not, gerrymandering the divisions to try to create balance isn’t likely to work. And the Big 12 illustrates this point — because power shifted over time and the unbalance you are complaining about wouldn’t have been solved by them trying to artificially set up divisions.
The Big Ten’s division set up might not result in unbalanced CCG — or they might. We have no idea what the future holds. I don’t see it as really being able to prevent unbalance as the obvious East/West split would have done.
LikeLike
SideshowBob,
Please realize this is a back of the envelope effort, not the level of analysis that a conference could afford.
20 years pre-B12 conference winning percentages (B12 WP in parentheses):
1. NE 87 (66)
2. OU 78 (73)
3. TAMU 71 (53)
4. TX 70 (74)
5. CO 58 (49)
6. BU 56 (15)
7. TT 49 (58)
8. OkSU 44 (46)
9. MO 36 (48)
10. ISU 35 (28)
11. KU 33 (30)
12. KSU 27 (57)
Based on the past
B12N = 1, 5, 9-12 = a total of 48, with an average winning percentage of 46%
B12S = 2-4, 6-8 = 30, with 61%
Based on B12 results
B12N = 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 = 44, with 46%
B12S = 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 = 34, with 53%
Conclusion
Based on the past one would expect the B12S to dominate the B12N and they did.
Plausible divisions
Here’s a quick stab at a possible non-geographic alignment based on past success, travel and rivalries. Obviously there are many choices and I’m not saying this one is ideal. My plan was to emulate the B10 and split the top 4, then the next 2. As a result, I basically combined the KS schools (instead of the OK schools) with the TX schools. I’d lock a cross rivalry as well – OU/TX, NE/TAMU, CO/BU, OkSU/TT, ISU/KSU, MO/KS.
B12A = NE, OU, CO, OkSU, ISU, MO
B12B = TX, TAMU, BU, TT, KU, KSU
Based on the past
B12A = 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 = 34, with 58%
B12B = 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12 = 44, with 53%
Based on B12 results
B12A = 2, 3, 7-9, 11 = 40, with 51%
B12B = 1, 4-6, 10, 12 = 38, with 48%
Conclusion
Based on the past one would expect the B12A to be a little better than B12B, but not much (the rankings totals are deceptive here because so many teams come in success pairs). The B12 results show that’s what happened.
It would be easy to get more balance in the initial divisions:
B12C = NE, TX, BU, OkSU, ISU, KSU
B12D = OU, TAMU, CO, TT, MO, KS
Based on B12 results:
B12C = 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12 = 41, with 48%
B12D = 2, 4, 6-8, 10 = 37, with 52%
Lo and behold, the top 6 end up equally split again.
The point is, even with minimal effort I found more balanced divisions than the B12 did. The past proved to be a reasonable predictor of future success.
Talking about the B10, you said:
“I don’t see it as really being able to prevent unbalance as the obvious East/West split would have done.”
How would the E/W split prevent imbalance, or am I not understanding what you wrote?
LikeLike
I don’t think “preventing imbalance” is the standard, Brian — even your own methodology cannot “prevent” imbalance. It can, arguably, make it less likely, but it cannot be “prevented.”
LikeLike
Adam,
I didn’t say preventing imbalance was the standard. I asked him to clarify what he meant by that statement.
LikeLike
“Let’s create divisions using data that gets us to a point where we look at Division A or Division B and they’re really interchangeable.”
Here’s the problem with that data: it’s fluid. In fact, their priorities are in the exact opposite order of continuity. If you ordered them by stability, it would be:
1. Geography. No Big Ten school has ever moved or will ever move. This will never change.
2. Rivalries. Rivalries in the league are extremely stable. They must fluctuate somewhat more than geography, simply because geography has no physical possibility of ever changing, while rivalries can, at least at the margin, be affected by social circumstances like the competitiveness of the rivalry over time (I’m thinking of something like the Illibuck fading in prominence).
3. Competitiveness. Relative to 1 and 2, this is all over the map.
In short: geography never stumbles on hard times because of NCAA violations, or a key coach dies (Hoeppner), or any of the myriad other ways that a program’s competitiveness can fail to live up to expectations. There are identifiable trends, but there’s no guarantee that anybody’s present performance lives up to expectations gleaned from the “data.” The geographic data set never changes, and the rivalries data set almost never changes.
LikeLike
You know, aside from the ridiculous names, I don’t see the problem with the Big Ten divisions. TOSU and PSU are in one division, Michigan and Nebraska are in the other. Do I, as a non-Big Ten fan, need to know anything else? The ACC’s had divisions for six years, and I still can’t remember anything aside from Miami and FSU are in separate divisions. Don’t ask me for the division names.
The Big 12 may have had some problems, but if you had been drawing up the league back in ’95, how would you have done it? That conference had three “kings,” so one of the divisions was going to be stronger over time than the other. Perhaps they erred in not making OU-Nebraska an annual match-up, but other than that I think it was split up pretty reasonably.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/20/legends-and-leaders-chapter-2-balance-of-power/
Part 2
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/21/b1g-chapter-3-sweet-home-chicago/
Part 3
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/22/legends-and-leaders-chapter/
Part 4, about rivalries
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/22/b1g-chapter-5-wisconsins-melancholy/
Part 5, about WI’s sacrifice (and IA’s, too)
LikeLike
The fact that Michigan/OSU is not a divisional game is the greatest crime of the alignment. That Wisconsin won’t be playing Iowa annually is the 2nd.
And, just in typing that, I’m left wondering whether I put those in the wrong order.
LikeLike
I would say losing IA/WI is worse than splitting OSU/MI, but opinions vary on that.
From the B10’s point of view (I know you don’t subscribe to it), though, splitting OSU/MI almost had to happen. Keeping them together meant pairing the two newbies, PSU and NE, that are also the geographic extremes (travel would be a bear for that division). The other 8 schools all seemed to want either OSU or MI (or both) in their division, too. The only way to satisfy the other 8, and probably PSU and NE too, was to split OSU and MI.
It is unfortunate that The Game won’t be for a division title, but it does still provide the opportunity to spoil the other team’s chance at the CCG. I don’t really look forward to back to back OSU/MI games, which I suppose may happen every 5 or 10 years on average, but for now I’m glad The Game stayed at the end of the year. At least this way OSU and MI have a chance to play for the conference title (that’s a good thing for OSU and MI fans, even if other B10 fans don’t like it).
As for losing IA/WI, it is sad. However, part of the problem is the overabundance of rivalries in the west. Once they decided to split IA and WI, that rivalry had to move to the back burner to preserve WI/MN instead (the most played rivalry ever). I feel pretty confident that if/when a 9th game is added to the schedule, WI/IA will be back for good.
What people have to remember is that change was unavoidable. An E/W split has issues, too (and yes, I know you never narrowed your preferences to E/W specifically, but most people still complaining about the divisions want E/W instead):
E/W Issues:
1. Do you lock rivals?
If so, OSU (IL) and MI (MN) have a western rival. I’m assuming MSU/NW since MSU was adamant about Chicago access. So does PSU get NE? Does that leave WI/IN and IA/PU? Why do NE and PSU get stuck playing another king while all the other top 6 teams get bottom half rivals? Will they accept that, or see it as punishment for being the newbies?
If you don’t lock rivals, you lose Illibuck and the Little Brown Jug and MSU loses its Chicago access. The conference loses a locked king/king match up for TV, too.
2. Does NE really feel welcome if the other 3 kings are kept away from them?
3. Do the fans get more belligerent as it becomes East versus West, rather than A versus B?
4. Do IA, MN, WI, NW and IL accept losing annual access to either MI or OSU (they may get one, both or neither), especially when IN, PU and MSU get OSU, MI and PSU every year? Do they consider NE annually and a rotating schedule sufficient to make up for it?
5. Are people willing to accept an imbalance in media coverage of the two divisions?
There are probably more that haven’t come to mind yet, too.
LikeLike
>E/W Issues:
>1. Do you lock rivals?
>If so, OSU (IL) and MI (MN) have a western rival. I’m assuming MSU/NW since MSU was >adamant about Chicago access. So does PSU get NE? Does that leave WI/IN and IA/PU? Why >do NE and PSU get stuck playing another king while all the other top 6 teams get bottom half >rivals? Will they accept that, or see it as punishment for being the newbies?
>If you don’t lock rivals, you lose Illibuck and the Little Brown Jug and MSU loses its Chicago >access. The conference loses a locked king/king match up for TV, too.
I would note, first, that neither the Illibuck nor the Little Brown Jug nor MSU/Northwestern are currently guaranteed games, so you wouldn’t necessarily “lose” those in an East/West alignment. However, yes, I would lock rivals. The SEC shows that it works and it would let us keep more rivalry games than we even are guaranteeing today.
As for your observation about NE and PSU “stuck” with each other, that seems like a fairly minor competitive inequity in the grand scheme of things. OSU played Michigan and PSU annually since PSU joined. Certainly an inequity vis-a-vis OSU’s top rival (which got MSU as their 2nd game — generally a step down from PSU), but worth it to keep the rivalries alive. I don’t see how it could plausibly be construed as “punishment” given the manifest other priorities that are being satisfied.
>2. Does NE really feel welcome if the other 3 kings are kept away from them?
Osborne’s comments in that series made it sound like he wanted to be with Iowa and Wisconsin, so I don’t think their feelings would be too bruised on this account.
>3. Do the fans get more belligerent as it becomes East versus West, rather than A versus B?
No idea. This doesn’t really seem like a problem to me.
>4. Do IA, MN, WI, NW and IL accept losing annual access to either MI or OSU (they may get >one, both or neither), especially when IN, PU and MSU get OSU, MI and PSU every year? Do >they consider NE annually and a rotating schedule sufficient to make up for it?
Never thought that this really seemed like a problem either.
>5. Are people willing to accept an imbalance in media coverage of the two divisions?
I certainly am. I care about the teams, not their media coverage.
LikeLike
Adam,
I left the issues in to make this less confusing.
>E/W Issues:
>1. Do you lock rivals?
I’m aware OSU/IL, MI/MN and MSU/NW games aren’t protected now, but they are starting this fall. By arguing to change from the current divisions to an E/W split instead, one is trading those games to gain others like IA/WI. I’d value IA/WI over all 3 of those games combined personally, but it seemed only fair to point out that to gain a rivalry game for 2 teams, other teams were going to lose one.
While you may view it as “a fairly minor competitive inequity,” that doesn’t mean NE and PSU do. Many OSU fans don’t like the fact that OSU gets stuck playing 2 kings every year when the other 2 don’t (it’s not like OSU/PSU or PSU/MSU were pre-existing rivalries, either), but it’s hard to complain too much coming off a run of conference titles. If OSU and MI start winning their divisions a lot, don’t you think a lot of fans (and maybe administrators) would start looking at that locked NE/PSU rivalry as an issue designed to keep them down and help the Big 2? People see conspiracies to help OSU and MI in every decision the B10 makes, but they might have cause with that one.
>2. Does NE really feel welcome if the other 3 kings are kept away from them?
Osborne wanted IA (border state and fan favorite) and MN (most frequent B10 opponent). He said, “We also probably would have some interest in Wisconsin.” The article makes it clear he was mostly basing that on proximity, though. I do seem to recall an outcry when people thought the kings would be split with OSU and MI together and PSU and NE together, though. People said it was punishing PSU, and NE too, for being new.
>4. Do IA, MN, WI, NW and IL accept losing annual access to either MI or OSU (they may get >one, both or neither), especially when IN, PU and MSU get OSU, MI and PSU every year? Do >they consider NE annually and a rotating schedule sufficient to make up for it?
You may not think it’s a problem, but it was an issue for some of the ADs according to many reports.
>5. Are people willing to accept an imbalance in media coverage of the two divisions?
You may be, but I think you’re in the minority. Look online at the complaints from B10 fans about School X getting more coverage than their school.
I didn’t even bring up whether or not the alignment would impact future TV revenues (partially because I don’t know if it will or not), but that’s another issue.
LikeLike
Almost all of your objections get to what people would say or complain about because of this or that policy stance on alignment. And my point is this: if the league refuses to acknowledge such griping, and aligns the league on the basis of something timeless, it can sit and stare at such people while they shout until their faces are purple, and then proceed to keep on truckin’. It’s when you acknowledge the legitimacy of such criticism and try to address it through ridiculous gerrymandered divisions that you empower those critics in the first place.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank!
Its been a month since your last post and its July so sports news is slow. Post something new!
The good news is we are a month and a half from real college football.
LikeLike
@greg – I know – it’s been too long since the last post. I’ll likely have something new up in the next few days.
LikeLike
@Frank
Good to hear you have something coming.
SEC meetings are going on and here is the first nugget of fun:
“I could get to 16 [teams] in 15 minutes,” [SEC commissioner Mike] Slive said later, semi-boastfully.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15337947/prep-games-on-longhorn-network-could-drive-aggies-to-sec
LikeLike
That statement, by itself, doesn’t mean much. Any of the BCS conferences could get to 16 easily enough with semi-respectable programs.
The question is, which desirable teams are ready to bolt without thinking? Clemson was reported earlier. The Aggies aren’t in that category, at least not yet. Who else? Missouri? Virginia Tech? Florida State (who was reportedly blocked by 3 SEC teams last summer)?
Or perhaps he’s talking about combinations. Maybe Oklahoma has said it will come if OSU gets to tag along.
LikeLike
If everyone’s dying for content, I could share my amusing thoughts on how the college conferences are like houses from Game of Thrones. It’s gold, Jerry. Gold.
LikeLike
I am on song of swords. Don’t ruin it.
LikeLike
SEC TV Deal
“Obviously when we did our deal we set the pace, and in our contract we have a concept called look-ins,” Slive said. “At periodic points during the life of the contract, we can sit down with ESPN and take a look-in and look at the status of television, technology, all aspects of television, and at that point make adjustments that the parties agree are appropriate to make sure that everything that we intended to achieve with the contracts would in fact be available to us.”
Are we wrong in thinking this is Slive’s veiled attempt at asserting that, yes, they will be asking ESPN for more money? That once that “status of television” has changed, the “look-in” will give him the opportunity to renegotiate the deal?
We don’t think so. And if that’s Slive’s intent, it could make for some very interesting discussion at these “look-ins.” Because when asked to comment on the SEC’s contract in June, ESPN official Burke Magnus didn’t sound particularly open to altering the basic terms of the contract (emphasis added):
“We knew when we made a 15-year deal that time was not going to stand still so we purposely built in these look-ins,” Magnus said. “They don’t reopen the deal. There’s no outs. It’s an opportunity for both of us to really take stock of where we are and see what we could be doing better.”
There’s a lot of wiggle room in both of these statements, of course, even before we account for the possible game-changer that would be SEC expansion. Slive could simply be referring to digital distribution or kickoff times on ESPN2 or any of a dozen other things. Magnus could simply be indicating that the SEC won’t be jumping to another network, not ruling out his network giving the SEC a raise. But the plainest reading, we think, is that Slive is going to want some fundamental monetary change to the contract … and that ESPN may dig in its heels against “reopening the deal.”
LikeLike
source:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/30738737
LikeLike
IMO, this is the main reason why A&M can’t go anywhere. Why would ESPN agree to renegotiating its TV deal with the SEC for adding the Aggies when it shelled out a boatload of money keep the Aggies home in the Big 12. ESPN has already proven that its not ready deal with superconferences; removing A&M puts the PAC-16 back in play.
LikeLike
The thing to remember is that 17.1 million doesn’t include tertiary rights. Many of the schools are making $5 million or more. So they are likely still ahead of the Pac 12’s $21 million/school/year deal. They’re in a good spot financially.
LikeLike
True, but the Pac still has their P12N to add in the future. Which, unlike others, is essentially a junior first tier rights partner with first or second pick of games in seven of thirteen weeks.
LikeLike
From Sporting News talking about OU and aTm again considering SEC:
“Now that the network will include televising high school games in the state of Texas, the dynamics of the Big 12 (and the SEC) could still change. Slive said that he is “comfortable” with the current 12-team SEC, and that it would take a “paradigm shift” for the SEC to expand.
Texas A&M and Oklahoma looking for a new home would be that kind of shift. Moreover, Slive said the SEC’s television deals with CBS and ESPN have clauses that allow them to renegotiate if the conference structure changes.”
LikeLike
Do you have a link? I would like to read the article!
LikeLike
Google: “Oklahoma, Texas A&M may look at moving to SEC”
aol link was the one I looked at.
LikeLike
For some reason I was unable to get the link to paste and post successfully. Sorry.
LikeLike
Sporting News links have never been able to be posted here. I don’t know if it’s a WordPress issue or FtT specific.
LikeLike
Haven’t seen anyone post anything similar, but HS games and at least 1 Big 12 game are now pending on LHN until Big 12 and NCAA review. This was in the papers yesterday, before A&M’s board meeting.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/longhorn-network-programming-plans-put-in-limbo-1634258.html
LikeLike
A&M’s move to the SEC is just a matter of time at this point. Most insiders believe 2013 will likely be the year with an announcement coming after the completion of this football season. If the LHN continues pursuing multiple B12 games and HS football games (once the “Beebe” freeze is lifted) that time frame will accelerate.
I made these same comments on Frank’s earlier post describing A&M as being in jail. That post was a Texas point of view (almost exclusively – and read like a Peter Bean/BON article). This is not the case and hasn’t been the case. A&M wanted some time to upgrade the talent on its roster and to launch a Kyle Field refurbishment and expansion project and wasn’t ready to leap last summer. The school is ready now and the recent rumblings are just the public launch prepping the state media, politicos and the like for the move.
LikeLike
Not necessarily a paradigm shift, but certainly interesting enough to force the question of what will this mean in the near future?
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2011/07/20/penn-state-to-earn-record-big-ten-payout/
Basically, the B1G is already making as much from the BTN as ABC/ESPN (albeit with old contract) and more than the SEC with its new contract (caveat of course to the lack of inclusion of local media contracts). Obviously this isn’t real news as we’ve been guessing these types of numbers for quite some time, but its certainly interesting to see concrete numbers.
LikeLike
Maryland athletics $83M in the red. May cut sports teams.
“According to financial reports, the athletic department lost more than $64 million from 2005 to
2010 on the 24 sports other than football and men’s and women’s basketball. The athletic
department lost more than $13 million in the fiscal year 2009-10 — the most recent report
available — on those 24 sports.”
“In April, Maryland Athletic Director Kevin Anderson said in the past two to three years, the
school’s athletic department has lost between 2,000 and 3,000 donors, adding to the
department’s financial problems.
The commission appointed by Loh this week could conclude that 27 varsity sports are too many
to maintain under Maryland’s current financial conditions. Although Anderson said in a telephone
interview July 9 that cutting sports is “not something that we’re looking at,” a member of the
university’s Board of Regents, speaking on condition of anonymity, described such a move as
“inevitable.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/a-closer-look-into-the-finances-of-marylands-athletic-department/2011/07/20/gIQAvsHmQI_story.html
LikeLike
Brian,
Responding to your post earlier. If the Big Ten was East-West vs Legends-Leaders, the main switch would be trading Michigan and Wisconsin. Starting in 1993 Michigan has a winning percentage of 0.694, has won or shared 6 conference titles, and has been to 5 BCS bowls (including the time pre-BCS). Wisconsin has a winning percentage of 0.696, has won or shared 4 conference titles, and has been to 4 BCS bowls. Yes, Michigan is better overall, but not overwhelmingly so. My point is competative balance was not as much of a factor as name recognition and conference game ratings. The Big Ten wants Nebraska/Michigan vs Ohio State/Penn State as much as possible. Wisconsin and Iowa aren’t the big names nationally or even regionally like the other four.
LikeLike
I agree with this analysis, but it’s why I find this so outrageous. It is a flagrant disregard for the “constructive equity” which is so laudable in the league’s prior operations. (By “constructive equity,” I mean the sense that the league goes (or went) to some lengths to maintain the fiction that all of the schools are equal.)
It does not offend me that, for example, Michigan/Ohio State had always been guaranteed a game on the final weekend of the season, or that the league was willing to accommodate Michigan’s desire for no night games at any time during the year. It does not offend me that our broadcast partners pick the popular schools for the prime time slots more frequently than the schools down the ticket. But it very deeply offends me that the league would organize its entire competitive structure around something as crass as brand names. We’re above worrying about Q Score.
LikeLike
There is an article linked to above about the record payout to the Big Ten schools by the Big Ten Network. If this does not point to the importance of “brand names” and organizing a competitive structure around that, I don’t know what does. If college football is an arms race then the Big Ten appears to be doing a great job putting together their own “army” (BTN) and will have, in future, tremendous leverage against the “mercenaries” (ABC/ESPN). Remember ultimately this means better facilities, etc. which will permit Big Ten schools to compete more effectively for recruits with other schools such as members of the SEC.
“Constructive equity.” I believe the link was elsewhere above, not sure, but I remember recently reading about the formation of the Big Ten divisions and even the ADs such as Barry Alvarez made it clear that they considered the four “heavies” to be Michigan, Nebraska, OSU, and PSU. Wisconsin and Iowa were considered just a cut below. My point is that when the ADs themselves do not buy into the “fiction that all of the schools are equal” then I see no way to maintain that fiction.
Personally at this point the biggest problem I have are the “Legends” and “Leaders” monikers, but otherwise I am about 95% happy with what the Big Ten has done with the divisions.
LikeLike
My point here is that the ADs have lost their way. The fact that there’s widespread buy-in from them points up how pervasively the league’s willingness to sell its soul has suddenly showed up.
What attracts me to the Big Ten is tradition and the sense that we do things our way regardless of what the TV networks would prefer. If that means that OSU’s annual rivalry games are PSU and Mich, so be it — sure, it’s something of a disadvantage to them than if they had Mich and Indiana or something, but everyone’s willing to put up with that for the sake of tradition. What I wanted to see out of this process was the Big Ten leveraging that to send this message: “It doesn’t matter how we set up the divisions, there is and will always be overwhelming demand for our product. So you can go piss up a rope if you think we’re going to gerrymander our divisions to create some media-friendly, hype-able CCG matchup. That may be what other leagues may worry about, but it’s beneath us.”
The fact that they did not send that message, and instead acted as though they are beholden to what a marketing executive thinks is the best arrangement, leaves me disinclined to spend any further dollars on game tickets. It’s just not a system I care to support.
LikeLike
Adam, its only your assumption that they took their directives from a TV marketing executive. Word leaking out after the split showed that ADs didn’t want UM/OSU in the same division because it would negatively affect the home schedules of those in the West Division. All the teams wanted to continue to host one of the big names on a regular basis. The divisional split is just fine, and only those who like to tilt at windmills continue to complain about it.
LikeLike
Any divisional split that is not guaranteed to be just as wise in 60 years as it is today is not just fine.
LikeLike
I don’t know Greg. Reading Big Ten boards, I still don’t see a lot of love for the alignment. I’m sure we’ll grow accustomed to it, but if I was a Wisconsin fan I’d still be demanding they relook at these asap. As an Ohio State fan, I hate the alignment and would have preferred any alignment that kept us with Michigan.
LikeLike
I am not a straight geography guy, incidentally. I see 5 blocks of teams:
1. Nebraska*
2. Ohio State-Penn State-Michigan-Michigan State
3. Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin*
4. Northwestern-Illinois
5. Indiana-Purdue
*-some would put these together as a single 4-team block, but I think that’s just the power of geography talking; Nebraska has no real rivalry with those programs
Any alignment which kept those groups of teams intact is fine by me. There’s no reason that the Indiana schools need to go with the eastern block of teams, for example.
LikeLike
Update from part 9 of that series: http://thegazette.com/2011/07/27/legends-and-leaders-chapter-9-scheduling-overhaul/
It’s astonishing to see what kinds of pretzels they’ve tied themselves into (even though they claim this is what they want for themselves). Brian asks whether we’re making Nebraska feel “welcome” if we went with a straight East/West arrangement, but Osborne’s comments sound less than satisfied here.
In fact, almost everybody’s comments sound less than satisfied here.
What this reminds me of is someone in a bad marriage, or who is engaged to get married and is having second thoughts. They’ll insist they’re happy and that this is the right decision for them, and rattle off a series of high-concept/abstract benefits, even while expressing unhappiness with the visceral details of day-to-day life with this person. In much the same way, the ADs have all slapped on this happy face about “this is what we want! balance!” even while there is all kinds of resentment about the various decisions that the divisional alignment has necessitated in scheduling.
LikeLike
And other absurdities from part 10: http://thegazette.com/2011/07/27/legends-and-leaders-chapter-10-whats-in-a-name/
“’I think this something we’ve done for the long term,’ Rudner said. ‘These divisions are in place. We’re not talking about when things change. Teams have ebbs and flows, ups and downs. You can’t react to an ebb or a flow with such changes.'”
So, the competitiveness data generated from 1993-2009 is permanent and unchanging, and isn’t biased by any ebbs and flows, or ups and downs.
Jesus Christ, it is astonishing to me that the Big Ten has gotten where it has with these people. It’s like it has succeeded in spite of them.
LikeLike
Reading part 9, really makes me think they made a bad choice. There was clearly a lot wrong with the process with a lot of people unhappy. There’s too choices they had there, a) keep going knowing that no one is going to be truly happy regardless and accept the issues that are there or b) scrap what you got and start over. I think b was the better option. I know the season was about to start and they wanted thing settled before then and I know it would have meant a lot of work was down the drain, but really think about where they were:
a) Ohio State and Michigan fans were in an uproar and the choices were to either seriously upset them (and cause damage that would have been long term) or agree to season ending crossovers that will definitely result in some back-to-back games eventually and dim some the divisional competition late in the season.
b) They had Wisconsin without anything that it really wanted and it’s fan were going to remember that for a long time.
c) They had Nebraska AD upset about what looks like a very bad draw to start conference play.
None of these even get into longer term issues like putting the two biggest recruiting lone state schools in the same division.
I know starting from scratch would have been hard and unpopular, but the results almost certainly would have been better and have avoided at least some of issues they ended with.
LikeLike
Eric:
Well, I think Michigan and OSU had to be split because the rest of the B10 wanted one of those 2 in their division (Nebraska would make an adequate replacement for the western schools but PSU wouldn’t for the other 8). However, separating Wiscy from it’s western brethren was a really poor decision.
Even if MSU needed to play Northwestern, they could have set up the interdivisional rivalry games like this:
PSU-Nebraska
OSU-Michigan
Northwestern-MSU
Illinois-Iowa
Purdue-Wisconsin
Indiana-Minny
Then no rivalry game of any significance would have been missed and I think the divisions would still have been pretty balanced because, IMHO, OSU & PSU have the most natural advantages of any B10 school.
LikeLike
Richard,
I agree with you about why OSU and MI were split. I’m still undecided on the issue itself, but I agree that the other schools seemed to demand it.
I’m also not a big fan of splitting the western quad except that I think higher priorities forced it. If competitive balance was important, then keeping the west together would almost require the E/W split. Unfortunately, that would make the east more difficult and much more media friendly, both things people didn’t want. Also, it doesn’t fit with the other schools wanting to split OSU and MI. They had to make a choice, and they chose balance and splitting OSU and MI over keeping the western quad together. Alvarez even said he supported that decision, so I’m sick of seeing complaints from WI about the results.
Your split:
PSU-Nebraska
OSU-Michigan
Northwestern-MSU
Illinois-Iowa
Purdue-Wisconsin
Indiana-Minny
No rivalries “of any significance” would have been missed, but PSU/MI, PSU/MSU, PSU/MN, IL/MI and IN/MSU all would be gone. Plus, at least PSU and NE would complain about the locked rivals being so much easier for WI and IA since they aren’t preserving any rivalries. The right 6 would complain about their division being harder since 4 of the bottom 5 in terms of balance data are all on the left. Several teams on the right would complain about no access to OH, PA or IL/Chicago, too.
You seem to be high on PSU, but many/most people seem to believe they are due for a fall when JoePa leaves. Also, I don’t expect IN, IL, NW and PU to be anywhere near equivalent to WI, IA, MSU and MN, but NE and MI should always be similar to OSU and PSU. Reasonable people can disagree about that, I suppose.
LikeLike
Um, none of those matchups you noted, besides IU-MSU, are preserved in the current setup anyway.
LikeLike
Richard,
I didn’t mean to imply that those games were preserved now, but instead meant to show that saying no rivalries of any significance would be missing in your plan still leaves a lot of “rivalries” missing. They aren’t IA/MN, but some of them have value to the schools involved.
LikeLike
Wisconsin is a top 15-20 program, largely underrated by most outside the midwest and probably in the midwest still too.
LikeLike
Wisconsin might be, but is there really an inherent reason to guess that Iowa is going to be any better than Illinois or Michigan State over the next couple of decades? Even if this result still came about, I think the logic of needing to separate Iowa and Wisconsin was very short term and look foolish in the future.
LikeLike
On what basis do you say that?
I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing at this point. I’ll reserve judgement until you clarify your terms. Top 15-20 historically? Over the past X number of years? Based on wins, conference titles, bowls, BCS bowls or what?
LikeLike
The conference winning percentage since 1993 is MI 0.674 versus WI 0.608. Don’t let WI’s traditionally weak OOC slate fool you.
I agree that MI also has well-earned king status, and that it was important to split the 4 kings for more than just competitive balance. I don’t agree that TV concerns trumped balance, they just happened to be aligned. WI was a clear #5 and IA a clear #6. Even Barry Alvarez acknowledged the need to split the top 6 equally. He would have liked to keep IA for rivalry reasons but recognized it was better for the B10 to split them.
LikeLike
Michigan is renting the big house for weddings. 6k an hour. This is what happens when a pizza dude takes over the AD job.
LikeLike
Not sure what the problem is. We hold graduation there, and it’s not like anyone suffers for allowing weddings to take place there. It was considered for the World Cup, had the U.S. won the bid, why not be used for things other than football related activities?
Not sure I see the gripe here.
LikeLike
Seems tacky to me. They don’t need the money that bad.
LikeLike
So they should turn away free money that doesn’t impact anybody not involved in the wedding just to not offend your sensibilities? It’s not like they started to show advertising in the stadium to make a quick buck.
LikeLike
Yes. The entire university should heed my sensibilities.
LikeLike
I think you’re supposed to get paid for them heeding your sensibilities. Catch-22? They need the wedding money to afford to pay you to tell them not to take wedding money?
LikeLike
I’m just saying I find it tacky as an alum. This isn’t vegas.
And the price is outrageous. If they want to do something for the fans, then don’t operate as such a ridiculous enterprise. Do a lottery or something. Not too long ago you could just walk on that field whenever you wanted. Then some butthole cut the m up and they locked it.
LikeLike
Decent news for tOSU:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6794305/ncaa-agrees-ohio-state-buckeyes-football-findings
Wasn’t part of USC’s problem phrased “should have known”? Is this something that shouldn’t/couldn’t have been known? Seems quite a few people knew for quite a while. Whatever. Good for them.
LikeLike
It’s great news. It shows ESPN and SI have been talking out of their asses for months, just like OSU said.
LikeLike
Somewhere, but I didn’t read it, I saw a headline about Tressel notifying someone else at Ohio St. about what he heard in December. Might have been SI. Anyone else see that or read that? It is the opposite of what this article says.
LikeLike
It is a report from a local TV station I think, but it is directly refuted by OSU and the NCAA for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
I thought that I would return to the old board to see if there was outrage over the feckless OSU decision by NCAA. Instead I read that it is “great news” that OSU uses a defense that the single most powerful person in the football program could operate in such a completely unfettered fashion that the entire 2 year scandal could be orchestrated by him alone — and the NCAA says that this does not reflect a lack of institutional control.
I sent Emmert an email with this link a few minutes ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson
It is impossible to make unauthorized trades for 650mm and have it not reflect a lack of institutional control and accountability. Tressel was reprimanded by Geiger in 2003 for a “lack of attention” to following NCAA guidelines. The response by OSU — to apparently provide less oversight of Tressel. This is the definition of a lack of institutional control. In fact, it is institutional abdication. I am really happy Brian that you believe that your institutional abdication is a great thing that vindicates your institution.
LikeLike
First, the truth isn’t a defense strategy. Everyone wants to believe that Tressel must have told people at OSU about this, but he didn’t. The tattoo guy had the memorabilia in his possession, so how was the university supposed to know about it? They often chase down eBay sales and such, but they can’t be expected to be omniscient. Yes, players had tattoos. Look around on a college campus. Lots of kids have them. There isn’t really a Kelly Blue Book OSU could use to find out the fair price of a tattoo anyway, and that’s assuming they found out the real price the players paid.
Second, why would a high level official automatically have all of his email read by someone else unless he requests that? That’s the only way Tressel’s violation could have been caught by OSU. I don’t consider having some level of privacy for his email account to be letting him run unfettered, not is it a lack of institutional control. Tressel admitted he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he kept it hidden. Are all schools required to adopt NSA levels of spying on all employees in your world?
Third, Tressel was reprimanded in 2 of 12 areas for not doing the tasks quickly enough to appease the compliance folks. He was rated excellent in the other 10 compliance areas. It’s not ideal to be slow to turn in some paperwork, but it’s not a violation either. It also wasn’t in any way related to issues that would make a reasonable person think they needed to read his email from now on to help him comply.
Your problem is that you do not understand the definition of a lack of institutional control, at least not as used by the NCAA. Based on the violations found, charging LOIC would have been ridiculous based on all prior NCAA investigations.
I think the NCAA allegations vindicate OSU’s position after the violations came out that it was a limited number of players and that the coach kept it to himself. It’s not a vindication of Tressel or the players, but a fair representation of what happened compared to the bile that ESPN, SI and other media outlets have been spewing.
So yes, it was great news that the truth won out over rumors and innuendo.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
LikeLike
Hey Frank:
On NHL. You’re a Chicago man. Why doesn’t the league just put the original 6 plus one other, say Ottawa or nj in an eastern division? If the wings go east there is basically no chance that there will be original teams playing for the cup anyway. I think it’s worth considering getting the old band together, so to speak. The other divisions can build their own value. It’s not up to the older guys to carry everyone forever.
LikeLike
College hockey coming to Versus?
LikeLike
I had heard rumors about Versus being interested in broadcasting the new Big Ten conference right around (maybe even before) PSU announcing they were starting a team. I even heard Comcast would be potentially willing to held fund expenses as Big Ten schools (such as arena construction) to help establish and solidify the conference. No idea if that was true.
There’s also been rumors that the newly formed NCHC which features a bunch of powerhouse (for college hockey) has been talking to Versus to carry games.
So, basically, I think this is true. We’ll see how it ends up.
In terms of the Big Ten, I could see them putting hockey games on the BTN mostly on Fridays (with some occasional Sunday games and maybe Saturdays after hoops) with Versus getting a Saturday heavy package — since Saturdays are typically packed on the BTN with basketball. Would even give Versus (and NBC) a connection to the Big Ten if they want to bid on the next football and basketball rights when they come up.
LikeLike
So………., what is everyone thinking concerning Tim Brando’s reporting that A@M, OU, OK ST, and MO are being considered for SEC expansion?
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire………….Visiting the A@M board, the locals are hot to trot for the SEC…..about 90% I’d say. They’ve finally had their fill of Texas……..So, I think A@M to the SEC is going to happen this time…….in a year or so.
If so:
Who joins them? One would think OK would be ready to jump, but llosing the TX rivalry would be huge there………..last year they seemed to be joined at the hip with TX.
IF OK does go, I think OK ST would tag along. They wouldn’t particularly add anything the SEC really wants, but that would be the price of getting OK. They’d be good for the SEC in that they’re not terrible at football, but they’re not great either…and with A@M and OK added there would be plenty of great programs in the SEC.
So does MO win a pass out of the Big 12, ot does the SEC go after Clemson or WVU?
MO + the other 3 seems like the cleanest deal. I would think the Clemson fan base would be split, and the academics would be against the move.
SO…..assuming ND won’t budge……does the BIG respond to such an expansion? If so……………..how?
LikeLike
1: Would the SEC sacrafice possibly adding another eastern power (markets, TV’s, fan base) by inviting OkSU, a 2 for 1 deal? I doubt they feel that pressured, or pressured at all.
2: Mizzu has been mentioned a few times. aTm and Mizzu plus 2 easterns makes more sense, but I don’t think that is the direction MU wants to move.
3: Could ESPN have truely believed a UT alone network would be viable? Or was the morphing into the Big12ish network for the price of one school the actual intent? and will OU,aTm, MU fall for it?
4: Have the media now become the absentee landlord of college FB, our makeup and direction to be decided in Bristol? (it’s certainly now being greatly influenced)
LikeLike
As to #1, the problem I see with going East is that there will be pushback if they try to take anyone other than WVU. Va Tech or Clemson, for example, will not be easy to steal away from the ACC. Even if the fans want it, the academics and administrations may not. On the other hand, the 4 mentioned from the BIG 12 would jump at the chance (TX politics aside).
As far as OK State goes, the SEC cares a lot about cultural fit. OSU wouldn’t give them any problems there….and you can’t have anymore powerhouse teams if you take OK and A@M….
As for MO, overall they’d probably prefer a BIG invite, but they’re pretty desperate about their situation now….a lot of fans would see SEC football and potential trips to Florida et al as attractive. There’s no doubt in my mind they’d accept an invite if one was not coming from the BIG. And by taking MO, the SEC would definately be poking the BIG in the eye….
On the other hand, would SE schools like Florida and SC want ALL the new teams to be from the west? Possibly not………
LikeLike
‘shroom – If all 4 expansion teams came from the Big XII-2, then Bama & Auburn would most likely go to the Eastern Division.
According to ESPN’s all-time prestige rankings, here’s what this new-fangled SEC would look like:
SEC East
#6 Alabama
#12 Tennessee
#14 Georgia
#15 Florida
#21 Auburn
#69 Kentucky
#83 South Carolina
#119 Vandy
SEC West
#1 Oklahoma
#13 LSU
#19 Arkansas
#20 Texas A&M
#24 Ole Miss
#36 Mizzou
#65 Oklahoma State
#81 Miss State
LikeLike
Miss and MSU might not be too thrilled with that, but their opinion wouldn’t count much. Otherwise, it’s a pretty attractive arrangement, imo.
MO is a strange case. They rank dead last in the Big 12 for championships won. They’ve never won an NCAA championship in any sport, as I recall. How they could have been so inept over the years is beyond me, because in most respects they look like an Illinois or an Iowa…..
I’m pretty pro-MO because as an IU fan they would fit culturally….there are a TON of Cardinal fans in southern and western IN, for example. That said, I realize that MO is like a plain jane GF that you keep on a string hoping that something better will eventually come along…….Also, in the BT’s case, MO would be the next-to-lowest ranked school academically, ahead of only NEB. If the BIG were to add MO, imo, you’d need a big time academic school like Pitt or ND to balance things out…….
LikeLike
MO has 2 national titles, baseball (’54) and indoor track (’65).
LikeLike
The question you need to be asking is how will A&M divorce Texas? The instant the Aggies make their move Texas will muster their allies (and Tech’s and Baylor’s) in the legislature and wreak all kids of havoc for Aggies plans on the way out.
The SEC may want A&M. A&M may want the SEC. However, I haven’t seen a viable scenario that will keep the politicians out. Unfortunately, for A&M they are an 800 pound gorilla chained to their 1000 pound gorilla neighbor.
LikeLike
Legislature meets every 2 years and they just ended this year. I doubt they want a special session over college athletics, especially if they aren’t calling for one to deal with problems in this economy.
UT/ESPN seems to be driving this wedge into existing cracks. There must be an endgame they have in mind.
LikeLike
-Most A&M fans on the internet seemed ready to leave for the SEC ever since last summer, so not much has changed there. However, a couple of different people have recently reported that school officials were now considering it more seriously. I think it’s premature to say it’s better than a 50/50 chance, but it certainly wouldn’t be a surprise.
-When I was reading some Big 12 articles recently around the web (not just ones concerning realignment) I noticed in the comment sections that there is a lot more interest from OU and OSU fans in moving than there was this time last year.
-That said, I’d still be surprised if Oklahoma State got invited to the SEC, even if it was the only way OU would move.
I said last year that one problem with A&M moving was that the general public hadn’t even considered the possibility of the Big 12 breaking up, so A&M would get blamed for breaking up a seemingly permanent status quo (even though the conference was less than 20 years old). I also said that opinions would change over time. With the constant reporting of rumors, some people are starting to see it as inevitable (even though it isn’t, at least in the next several years). That change will make the move much easier if they decide to make it. The negative press the Longhorns have received with their network recently will also help A&M avoid backlash.
LikeLike
m(Ag):
I’m curious as to what the ramifications of “being blamed” would be. I don’t think anyone outside the Big 12 would assign more than partial blame, if that, to aTm performing an escape act. Most of those within may resent/regret it happening but could certainly understand. Yes, UT would assign blame away from themselves, but if aTm is getting out of that shadow perhaps they should be less concerned whether UT blames them or not.
LikeLike
The only ramifications could come from voters and politicians in the state of Texas. While some have speculated A&M would face vast cuts to its funding, I thought they could have moved last year without any real damage, only the great discomfort of being called out by legislators who would see a spectacular chance to get on TV. Remember, there were hearings that would have been held if a deal had not been struck to stay in the Big 12. Any hearings now would be easier, as the legislators wouldn’t have as much public surprise and anger behind them.
LikeLike
The whole idea of cutting funding because of athletics issues is asinine to the highest degree. But then again, the concept seems oddly appropriate because it kind of reminds of what Jerry Tarkanian once said about the NCAA, except that I’d have to change some of the names… Just imagine: “The Texas state legislature was so angry at Texas A&M athletics for violating the University of Texas’ demands not to go to the SEC that it cut out A&M’s nationally-renowned veterinary school funding.”
LikeLike
Perhaps MO is willing to set things in motion and “take the blame”?
http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/behind-the-stripes/2011/jul/25/pinkel-theres-just-no-common-sense/
LikeLike
I don’t see the SEC wanting OSU or MIzzou. But let’s say it happened and the B10 felt compelled to respond.
I see only 3 options and none involve the ACC b/c I still think you need to get a cultural fit or tradition and it’s just not there. PSU is still a little bit weird 20 years later.
1. ND & whatever that takes to happen (pitt, bc, navy, whatever)
2. Ky & Tenn (could combine with 1).
3. cal, ucla, stanford and usc
break into a 4 by 4 pod structure
*cali
*neb, iowa, minn, wis
*ill, msu, um, nw
*osu, psu, in, pur
make the rose bowl the championship game.
LikeLike
I think that OU is such an extremely attractive program that getting them would neutralize any negatives of taking Ok. State.
Ten out of 12 SEC schools don’t hold a candle to OU when it comes to prominence, popularity, viewership, or, most notably, value that they bring to a conference–and that’s saying an awful lot about OU because the SEC is loaded with valuable programs, a fact which ESPN likes to remind all of us about over and over and over again.
Take your pick among LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, and maybe even Arkansas or South Carolina, and imagine any one of them in Big East. It would instantly become that league’s signature program, the one that garners enough headlines to make up for an otherwise overlooked, underachieving league, much in the way that FSU functioned in the ACC throughout the 90’s. Yet I can’t imagine anyone would reasonably argue that Georgia–even with its growing population, the city of Atlanta, and fertile recruiting grounds–is more valuable than OU, Same goes for LSU and Auburn, in spite of their recent achievements, or for Tennessee, in spite of its historic appeal and sizable fanbase.
On top of LSU et. al., OU would add a third program to the SEC (along with UF and Bama) that has an equivalent or greater national appeal to the Big Ten’s “big four” of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, & Nebraska. Then, when you also include Texas A&M, which would be a lot like the ACC’s addition of FSU as far as adding a huge, fertile state’s second-most popular school, the SEC probably would scoff so much if getting them also meant taking Oklahoma State. Ok. State wouldn’t be so bad, anyway. It’s a solid athletic program with a lot of money. It would be another South Carolina or Arkansas.
I kind of doubt that the SEC would want Missouri, though. It would likely set its sights on Miami, FSU, or Va. Tech–whichever one bites first.
I hope that it doesn’t come to this, though. I do not like the idea of schools scrambling to get into a good conference all because ESPN overpaid for the Longhorn Network. I would rather see my team, FSU, win national titles as an ACC school and bring a dose of humility back to the SEC schools, without being left behind in a conference that becomes a shell of its former self. I’d like to think that A&M, OU, and others would think of it that way, too.
LikeLike
At this point a school like MO has to jump jump jump at the a SEC opportunity. As the Nubs proved, long term stability is the real key now. SEC provides that on the same level as the Big Ten. The real question then becomes, is Mizzou one of Big Ten’s desired 16 as MU once believed. If so, will SEC movement in direction of 16 force anyone’s hand. I personally don’t believe any of the Big 12 schools (not named UT or OU) will play games at all. First offer on the table is the one that gets accepted.
How likely is it that some SEC presidents have pooled their vetos (S. Carolina x’s Clemson, Florida x’s FSU/Miami, Georgia x’s Geo Tech). The Carolina schools that the SEC covets don’t seem to be in play. And Va Tech may not be as much of a no brainer to accept SEC offer as some believe.
Wouldn’t that scenario make A&M, OU, OSU & Mizzou very plausible?
LikeLike
If I was the President of the U of MO, I’d prefer a BIG invite. That being said, if I got an SEC invite I’d call Jim Delaney and say “Jim, we just got an SEC invite. If you’re interested in us, you’ve got 24 hours to issue an invitation”.
LikeLike
I think it’s very plausible and it is probably what Commissioner Slime was referring to when he said he could ‘have 16 teams in 15 minutes’.
LikeLike
I would agree that the SEC would probably prefer FSU or Va. Tech to MO, but I doubt either would go. Same for Clemson.
I doubt Miami is as attractive due to their small fan base. Above all, SEC fans value enthusiasm…….
MO is probably more attractive to the SEC than to the BIG because its completely virgin territory for the SEC……It pokes the BIG’s eye and there wouldn’t be resistence from the academic types.
LikeLike
big ten could care less about missouri, want nothing to do with them
LikeLike
The B10 certainly isn’t worried about getting MO, but that might change if the SEC was sniffing around them. MO would bring several border rivalries and a decent market, and their academics are OK. The B10 won’t expand just to get MO, but they’d certainly consider them as part of an expansion (with ND or 3 eastern teams if 16 was the magic number).
LikeLike
I do not believe the SEC is interested in Missouri. However, if Missouri were in play, the Big Ten would move quickly to lock them up as Missouri is a natural fit in many respects. The Big Ten is unlikely to make the first move but if the pieces start moving, the Big Ten will grab Missouri and one of Notre Dame (in the unlikely event ND saw their independence being in jeopardy) or (more likely) Pitt or Rutgers.
LikeLike
I don’t see the B10 taking Mizzou in any circumstance (and I don’t think they should).
LikeLike
If this SEC takes Oklahoma and A&M, therefore opening up the SEC’s contract with ESPN for an enormous pay increase, it would be awfully difficult for FSU, Va. Tech, and/or Clemson to then turn down an invitation. By 2016, Big 12 schools could be making 40% more than ACC schools’ locked-in average of $13M/year, Big Ten schools 60% more, Pac-12 schools 80% more. Even the Big East, whose contract is up for renegotiation next year, could be paying its members more than the SEC in a few years because of what turned out to be bad timing for the ACC… An SEC with OU and A&M could offer 100% more, and even more than that with an FSU joining.
I agree that FSU & co. may not take interest in joining by themselves, but I think they’d be much happier to be in a conference where their revenue is not too many miles behind their neighbors. They especially would welcome an SEC invitation if their current league were under the threat of having some strong members poached away only to be replaced by Big East schools that the Big Ten and SEC didn’t want.
LikeLike
I don’t see how/why you think UK & TN are a better cultural fit than any of Maryland/UVa/UNC/Duke. They certainly would be a worse academic fit.
The game theory behind this is interesting. If Delany has eyes on the core of the old ACC but has an inkling that the SEC wants OU & TAMU (along with OKSt. & Mizzou along for the ride), it would behoove him a lot to wait for the SEC to complete their raid before trying for UNC, Duke, UVa, & Maryland. If he waits, VTech & NCSU would have to settle for an inferior conference (unless the SEC is willing to go beyond 16, which is hard to imagine), which would give the B10 a stranglehold on the populous, growing states of MD, VA, & NC (instead of having to share the latter 2 with the SEC).
So if those 2 dominoes fall, what else happens? The ACC would try to replenish with Pitt, WVU, maybe Rutgers, and one other.
The P12 would still covet Texas (who would bring TTech), but Texas may go independent.
LikeLike
Hello Richard:
I’m cool with where we’re at with 12. But l like to play what if.
This is what I think tn & ky gets you. And outside of something with nd I see no other tandem that gets you anything close to this.
1. The last mega stadium in fb and a true fb powerhouse with great history.
2. An top 5 bb program with natural rival In, among others.
3. The premier college athletic programs in some pretty good sized markets.
4. Geographic proximity.
5. An easy ticket home for wisc. Tn and ky go to leaders and wisc goes home.
6. Big “state” schools.
7. A poke in the eye to your main competitor.
They are more valuable together. Ky would do it in a second. Tn would be the harder sell.
It is obviously a step down academically from the ACC core. But I cannot see the ACC going away or being split up.
LikeLike
I don’t think KY or TN would even consider the move, and I don’t think the B10 would either. Both are tied much too strongly to the SEC and the south in general and miles away from the B10 culturally.
LikeLike
I doubt it as well. But nothing else out there seems remotely interesting. Does anyone really want rutgers? Or The ACC quad is ok, but not really a fb needle mover and it eats up 4 spots. The cali 4 is a needle mover. Kills the PAC though, which would be sad.
LikeLike
KY & TN are about as unlikely as the P10 quad and maybe even more so than the ACC quad.
I also don’t think UK is as interested in the B10 as you think. Why would they be? There’s basketball, but
1. They have a lot of history in the SEC
2. They consider themselves southern
3. They consider the football there superior.
Even in basketball, right now, UK dominates the SEC (with occasional challengers to the throne). Why would they give that up and the history to enter an unknown where the money & brand aren’t really better?
LikeLike
I think ky would go for:
1 bb is far better
2. They could compete better in fb, they have zero chance right now
3. Better academics
4. As probably the quintessential border state, they can more align themselves as northern and it wod be a tough call, but I suspect they’d go that way. They have more in common with Ohio and indiana than fla, bama, miss. I can recall getting beat to hell on this board when I called it a southernish state.
In no particular order.
LikeLike
So if those 2 dominoes fall [Missouri, Oklahoma, Okie State and Texas A&M to the SEC; Duke, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia to the Big Ten], what else happens? The ACC would try to replenish with Pitt, WVU, maybe Rutgers, and one other.
Or the ACC goes into 16-member mode as well with a wholesale pilfering of the Big East — Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Rutgers, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville and Texas Christian. (South Florida is likely the odd one out, probably more so from Florida State’s opposition than Miami’s.) Or how about a 20-team, 2-division ACC, also adding Iowa State, Kansas, K-State and either Baylor or Texas Tech (should the latter not go Pac in partnership with Texas)?
Following depletion, the Big East can finally return to its basketball-oriented roots, replenishing by taking in Memphis and a few of the Atlantic 10’s stronger programs.
LikeLike
Assuming the ACC sees added value in the extra schools, which is a big “if”.
LikeLike
Okay, Richard, how about the ACC taking in West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh and Syracuse, and the remaining Big East football members merging with what’s left of the Big 12?
LikeLike
Sure, go for it.
LikeLike
Brando seems to have backed off his statements a little, or at least made it sound less imminent.
LikeLike
The CCHA to raid Atantic Hockey?
http://niagara-gazette.com/sports/x1241072570/Niagara-exploring-move-to-CCHA
LikeLike
Those Atlantic Hockey schools have all pushed to increase the scholarship limits to the full amount allowed by the NCAA, but the conference has collectively not allowed it. They feel it is limiting their ability to compete nationally (which is certainly accurate). Niagra and Robert Morris used to give the full amount of schollies when they played in College Hockey America, so it’s not like it would be something new for them.
The CCHA would allow those schools to increase the scholarships and still maintain an autobid to the NCAA tournament and the geography is fairly decent too. It’s actually a pretty good fit and wouldn’t hurt Atlantic Hockey that much — they’d still have 8 teams and actually end up more compact geographically (though RIT kinda gets screwed by losing its nearby conference opponents).
My big question is whether Alabama-Huntsville gets invited as well. The CCHA + Atlantic Hockey four would be an ideal group to join for UAH but given how they are a geographic outlier, no one seems to want them.
LikeLike
For about a week I’ve been kicking around ideas for how the College hockey realignment is going to go by poking around the college hockey blogs, news sites, message boards, and rumor mills since the NCHC was formed. As near as I can figure, it once again all starts with Notre Dame. I saw that Versus rumor, too, and figure that the best Non-BTHC league will get the contract. Since ND already has a relationship with ND/Versus/etc., where they end up (except the CCHA unless something super-unexpected happens) will likely get that deal.
We are fortunate that it looks like Minnesota State-Moorhead should be joining at this time. They would make a nice even 60 teams in Div. I and that should get Alabama-Huntsville in somewhere…I hope.
Factions within ND seem to be arguing about our eventual landing spot, and I expect that’ll continue until the mid-August CCHA league meetings. I think realistically, ND has two choices: Hockey East, or the NCHC.
If ND goes east, I think HEC will probably get RPI from the ECAC over another midwestern team. With a slot open, the ECAC will be talked into picking up UAH, which is a good landing spot for them. The WCHA will probably pick up MSU-Moorehead, and raid the CCHA for LSSU, to get a nice round number and a nice travel grouping in the UP. The CCHA will then be down to four so they will give an offer that RMU, Niagara, Canisius, and Mercyhurst can’t refuse. The good news is the CCHA will want all four at that point, and supposedly it’s all four or none as far as the four schools are concerned.
At this point, all the non Big Ten conferences will be stable and each only have a single geographic outlier. This decision may or may not be in ND’s best interest, but it does please my sense of symmetry.
If ND goes west and joins the NCHC, the Eastern hockey conferences will likely stand pat…except I still think those four schools from the AHA *will* take the opportunity to join the CCHA. Notre Dame and Miami will want a Great Lakes school as a travel partner, and I think that means the NCHC will end up inviting WMU. Bowling Green is of course a possibility, But I can’t see the NCHC taking them over the Broncos. The WCHA will probably reload with MSM and Lake State as in the other scenario. With only three schools left from before and the new additions from the AHA, the CCHA will take UAH, but who knows what the long term prospects will be for a league where there’s only one full-time Div I member and stretches from the heart of Dixie to the last frontier.
LikeLike
If ND goes east, I think HEC will probably get RPI from the ECAC over another midwestern team. With a slot open, the ECAC will be talked into picking up UAH, which is a good landing spot for them.
Count me in as a skeptic regarding Alabama-Huntsville and the ECAC. Without RPI, the ECAC would have a 6-5 Ivy membership edge, and I think they would be reluctant to bring in a public college, particularly a southern public institution. (Yes, Vermont at one time was a member before leaving and being replaced by Quinnipiac, but at least UVM had a geographic tie-in and made a good travel partner with Dartmouth. For the ECAC, UAH would be its Alaska.)
LikeLike
Totally. But here’s the thing: who else would they get? I don’t think any Hockey East team is looking to get back into the ECAC. The 4 AHA teams that are looking to go full scholarship look like they want to stay together, and the ECAC is only looking to add one. A 16-team conference is more ridculous in hockey than football. Is UAH a worse option than BGSU in ECAC eyes? Is the ECAC that much better for Bowling Green than the new CCHA? I don’t know those last two answers, but it seems to me that the simpler solution is that the AD offices will get guilted into taking UAH much like the Alaska schools got picked up years before.
Then again, the ECAC might just as split in two: Ivy and not, and who knows what the non-Ivies are looking for in a travel partner. I don’t see that happening tho’.
LikeLike
With the Big Ten forming a six-member hockey league, why shouldn’t the Ivies follow suit? The non-Ivy ECAC members might prefer that setup, as it would give them a bit more flexibility in both scheduling and in bringing in other schools (e.g., UAH) to bolster the league.
LikeLike
As near as I can tell, the Ivies have no financial reason, and the fact that leaving will just make it harder scheduling when they already have the self-inflicted shorter season to deal with. As for the others, who would you rather hang with: Ivy League or UAH and a group of AHA schools?
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/25/purdue-drops-two-future-games-vs-cincinnati/
It sure looks like the ninth B10 game is coming in 2017.
LikeLike
Is this another sign that further expansion is in the works?
LikeLike
I don’t think so. Adding a ninth conference game has been discussed for a couple of years. Many ADs don’t like the rising cost of buying home games and think it would be better for them to have another B10 game instead.
LikeLike
http://blogs.indystar.com/purdue/2011/07/25/big-ten-9-game-schedule-coming/
According to the Purdue AD, a second locked rival is not being talked about right now.
Maybe they just lock WI/IA and everyone else goes to a quicker rotation. I’d be a little surprised if they didn’t throw a bone to WI and lock the IA game, too. The faster rotation would mean every opponent is played 4 times in 6 years anyway. Are there really any other games that need to be locked?
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/article/20110725/SPORTS06/110725049/1054
Some good nuggets from Michigan:
1. No more OOC road games except ND and special neutral site opportunities.
2. No UM/MSU night games because they don’t think they could control the crowd.
3. UM/ND is a 4 year rolling contract, so either school can get out with 4 years notice. I hope they take occasional breaks and schedule a different national power instead.
LikeLike
on point 2, that’s just total bs. i’ve been to about a dozen of these at both stadiums, including at least 2 at night, and the crowd is fine. they’re never really hostile.
it is an intense game, but i’ve never seen one fight or anything i would really deem out of control – except maybe rich rod’s crying.
LikeLike
JJ, by “control the crowd”, I bet they mean “keep the drinking under control.” I agree that rivalry games such as that one can drive more drinking, it certainly seems true for Iowa-ISU.
LikeLike
I think they are negotiating something. This game has been at night several times. This is some kind of dance. I like both of these ADs. They are up to something. I suspect msu wants something weird and um is holding out.
LikeLike
When has it ever been a night game? Michigan is only playing it’s first-ever night game this year, and I can’t remember it being a night game at MSU either. And where does it say that in the article, anyway?
LikeLike
the one i really remember was at msu when um was ranked 3 or something. late 90s?
LikeLike
I cannot remember that game ever being anything other than noon or 3:30.
LikeLike
#1 sickens me. The trend of big schools not going on the road is awful for college football. The NCAA needs to mandate a balanced home/road schedule.
LikeLike
yeah, i agree that this is weak. um is not alone here, but this is a bad trend.
i’d like to see a 2 year b10 sec challenge in the OOC. that would be great.
LikeLike
It makes total sense for MI to only play 1 road OOC game. They would lose millions by playing a second one, and that cuts into the bottom line. 7 home games is what lets them add lacrosse teams and refurbish facilities.
Conference challenges in football would be great for fans, but are highly unlikely. Playing 10 AQ teams every year is a recipe for a mid-level bowl while people with an easier OOC schedule go to the NCG.
LikeLike
I think it’s weak, too. Give me more Ohio State-Miami, Oklahoma-FSU, Iowa-Arizona, Nebraska-Va. Tech, etc.
LikeLike
It only makes financial sense to play 1 road OOC game (maybe a 2nd neutral site if the payday is huge).
Still, there are more big OOC games than people think. This is the CFN top 20 for 2011:
LSU-OR, FSU-OK, PSU-AL, OSU-Miami, TAMU-Ark, BSU-GA, FL-FSU, WV-LSU, AU-Clemson, USC-ND, MO-ASU, TX-UCLA, MI-ND, AZ-OkSU, BYU-TX, MSU-ND, TCU-BYU, ND-Stanford, SC-Clemson, GT-GA
The only prominent team with no decent OOC game that comes to mind is VT.
LikeLike
Nebraska. They’re really the only “king” amongst the top dozen who isn’t on that list.
LikeLike
It is a rarity, though, for Nebraska and VT to have no major non-conference games. NU has had series with Notre Dame, USC, VT, Pitt, and Washington in recent years. VT, in ’09 alone, played two kings in its non-conference schedule, Nebraska and Alabama, not to mention a very good ’09 ECU team. They’ve also played USC and LSU in non-conference games recently.
LikeLike
Richard,
#24 Nebraska-Washington
Also, #27 WI-OrSU and #34 TN-UC. #46 is VT-ECU, which is between Oregon-Nevada and MN-Miami (OH).
LikeLike
Yeah, well, I wouldn’t consider either Nebraska-Washington or VTech-ECU to be marquee games. No shame for Nebraska as they probably didn’t expect Washington to be where they are now when they scheduled, but those games aren’t must-see-TV.
LikeLike
Richard,
I didn’t necessarily disagree with you, I just pointed out those games for completeness. I didn’t want to be accused by anyone of cherry picking data by stopping at 20.
Like you say, I at least give NE credit for scheduling an AQ with a solid history of success although they are clearly below their norm now. The bowl loss last year adds a little spice to the game.
The fact that VT’s best game barely makes the list speaks volume for their schedule this year.
LikeLike
I swapped emails with Michigan Athletic Director David Brandon after I read that article and a similar one in annarbor.com with his quotes about not play non-conference road games other than Notre Dame.
What he wrote to me was that as long as the eight game-conference schedule was in place, Michigan would continue to play at least three home non-conference games per year with the fourth non-conference scheduling slot being the home-and-home series with Notre Dame. UM would not schedule a second home-and-home series (outside the current deal with UConn, which is being looked at right now) because Brandon wanted to optimize the use of Michigan Stadium. Like any other AD,he’s looking to maximize his revenues and since UM is projected to get $41M from the sale of football tickets for eight home games in 2011 (this doesn’t include PSLs or lease suite revenue), you can see why he wants to do exactly that.
Brandon also added that if the Michigan-Notre Dame football series is cancelled or curtailed in any fashion, Michigan would replace ND with another major BCS program and play a home-and-home series with them. I didn’t ask him which teams that would be because I knew he wouldn’t tell me, but I suggested to him the usual suspects–FSU, Miami,FL and V Tech from the ACC; UT, OK and ATM from the Big XII and six SEC teams (Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, Alabama). I didn’t put any Pac 12 teams on the list because UM has played Oregon, Utah, UCLA and Washington during the regular season in the last ten years, but hasn’t played a non-conference game against any of those teams listed above in awhile. (Michigan opens the season with Alabama next season, but among the teams listed above, I think the last regular season game between Michigan and any of them was the 1991 game with Florida State).
Brandon’s also been on the record that he doesn’t want to continue playing Notre Dame, Ohio State and Nebraska either all at home or all on the road each season. The schedule sets up that way this year and thru the 2014 season. If the Big Ten doesn’t split the Nebraska and Ohio State games on Michigan’s schedule so that one’s home and one’s away, then the Notre Dame series is in jeopardy. Brandon would cut the cord with ND and schedule another major BCS program in a home-and-home series to replace the Irish. Notre Dame, I’m sure, could find a perfectly adequate replacement for Michigan in its schedule, especially since that would open up a date in September. Right now, Notre Dame has Michigan home and USC away and they’d like to keep it that way–this is the reason why there might not be much wiggle room right now.
Brandon wouldn’t confirm if the Big Ten is going to a nine-game conference schedule. No surprise there because the league office would want to announce that first. My guess on the nine game conference schedule is that if it’s adopted, Michigan would see Wisconsin and Penn State two years on, two years off with the remaining teams from Leaders Division (Illinois, Indiana, Purdue) playing UM four times over a six-year period. If the article on Purdue clearing its 2017 schedule is correct, then the Big Ten won’t have a second cross-divisional rivalry game. Brandon also has been on the record that he wanted to maintain the rivalry with Penn State, so I imagine he’d be loobying to keep PSU on the schedule as much as possible.
If all this transpires, then Michigan will have three major conference games (Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State/Wisconsin) plus one major non-conference game (currently Notre Dame). I suspect Brandon would want to have two of those games in Ann Arbor and two on the road each season. If Michigan and Notre Dame can’t synch up the schedule to accomodate that set up, then once again, I can see Brandon notifying Notre Dame that the series would end and scheduling another major BCS program to take ND’s place.
If there was a nine-game conference schedule in place right now, this is probably what Michigan’s 2011 slate of games would look like with the home game against San Diego State being replaced with an away game at Wisconsin or at Penn State:
Western Michigan
Notre Dame
Eastern Michigan
At Wisconsin or At Penn State (Leaders)
Minnesota (Legends)
At Northwestern (Legends)
At Michigan State (Legends)
Bye Week
Purdue (Leaders)
At Iowa (Legends)
At Illinois (Leaders)
Nebraska (Legends)
Ohio State (Leaders)
This schedule has seven home games with three of them being non-conference (Western Michigan, Notre Dame, Eastern Michigan) and four in conference. The four conference games include two in the Leaders Division (Ohio State, Purdue) and two in the Legends Division (Nebraska, Minnesota).
The five away games are all in conference with two in the Leaders Division (At Wisconsin or At Penn State, At Illinois) and three in the Legends Division (At Northwestern, At Michigan State, At Iowa).
If the Nebraska game was played in Lincoln and the Iowa game played in Ann Arbor, that would probably accomodate the kind of balanced home/away schedue Brandon would be looking for with the conference in order to accomodate the current setup with Notre Dame. ND, Iowa and Ohio State would be home games with Nebraska, Michigan State and PSU/Wisconsin on the road.
We’ll see what transpires as the Big Ten works through the 2015/16 conference schedules and ultimately decides on adopting a nine-game conference schedule starting in 2017. But the bottom line is this–Michigan will continue to play one major non-conference game per season as part of a home-and-home series with Notre Dame. If the ND series is cancelled or curtailled, another major BCS program will be contracted with for a home-and-home series.
Finally, if the opportunity exists, Brandon will look at playing a neutral site game in a major metropolitan area. My guess is we’re talking about the northeast, the mid-Atlantic and possibly the southeast–especially Atlanta. Jerry Jones and ESPN are paying a lot of money for Michigan to open next season in Dallas against Alabama and a similar deal would have to be put in place for UM to play another neutral site game in the future.
LikeLike
The NCAA wouldn’t (I don’t think they could get the votes) and shouldn’t mandate a balanced schedule. A mandated balanced schedule would drive the biggest schools out of the NCAA, because they would lose too much money.
FBS stadium capacities
10 are 90k-110k
10 are 80-90k
11 are 70-80k
16 are 60-70k
20 are 50-60k
12 are 40-50k
28 are 30-40k
12 are 20-30k
1 is <20k
Why make a rule that pretends that what is right for schools with the smallest stadiums is also good for schools with the largest stadiums? Everybody loses money if you force more home games in smaller stadiums. Schools with smaller stadiums can build a fan base over time and expand their stadiums. That will increase the number of schools willing to play them home and home.
The other possibility is it creates further separation as the top schools only play each other OOC and the smaller schools lose their payday games. That would basically force a split into divisions again, BCS and non-BCS. I don't think the smaller schools want that, either.
LikeLike
http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/time_warner_btn_reach_agreement.html
Time Warner has caved on providing the BTN to Nebraska.
LikeLike
Still have 3 to go including Cox, which has a near monopoly on Omaha, Nebraska’s largest city by far.
LikeLike
Frank,
I saw some Nebraska fans discussing Time Warner’s decision to move the BTN to basic carriage. Someone said when they spoke to their provider the technician said the BTN was getting 1.20$/month. Is that about what you were expecting for rates in Nebraska?
LikeLike
The numbers thrown around for the BTN carraige rates are 85 cents a month, that is an average for all carriers in all states. It varies carrier-to-carrier, state-to-state…
LikeLike
Yes, my question was whether the supposed 1.20$/month in Nebraska was about what people were expecting for the state of Nebraska, considering how passionate they are for Cornhusker football.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/24/legends-and-leaders-chapter-6a-culture-shock-for-nebraska/
Part 6A of the series about the B10 splitting into divisions – culture shock for NE
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/24/legends-and-leaders-chapter-6b-cornucopia-with-iowa-nebraska-football/
Part 6B – IA/NE game (it is an Iowa paper after all)
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/25/legends-and-leaders-chapter-7-heavyweight-headache/
Part 7 – scheduling The Game
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/26/legends-and-leaders-chapter-8-dollars-and-sense/
Part 8 – $$$
LikeLike
Here is a link that has all 8 parts on one page:
http://thegazette.com/tag/b1g/
LikeLike
The other thing of note with thegazette.com link is the story about an Iowa-Nebraska trophy being announced Friday, with hints that Kinnick is involved. Last week it was announced that the terrible Iowa-ISU Cy-Hawk trophy is being retired for something cooler. So we’ll have two new trophies, and the Heartland Trophy with Wisconsin was invented in 2004.
Mark me down as a hater of these marketing department-created trophies. Floyd of Rosedale is awesome because it happened organically, like the other great trophies. Modern sensibilities ruin everything.
LikeLike
Doubt it has any legs, but just foi there is a rumor that Utah State has been invited to the Mountain West.
Mountain West commissioner has already said they aren’t in talks, so I’d be shocked if true, but thought I’d post anyway. Is there any real reason for the Mountain West to expand again? They are at 10 for football which seems like a pretty good number, especially without any really good expansion candidates out there right now.
LikeLike
Pac-12 Network announcement forthcoming at 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
LikeLike
Network is a partnership with Time WarnerCable, Comcast, Cox and Bright House are partners. 1 National network with 6 regional networks. Pac-12 is retaining ownership.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I totally understand how this is working. Are they putting two teams on each of the regional networks, and you have a choice within those regions to purchase the national network in your sports tier or just keep your regional tier?
How does that work with game involving each network, they get to show the same games? How much will companies pay for advertising on regional networks knowing that there is a national network showing the same thing. In addition, can two schools fill up a regional network enough to merit companies wanting to keep it on basic carriage? Maybe I am more confused than I should be, but it seems like this comes with some obstacles with advertising and programming.
LikeLike
All that’s known right now is that all FB and MBB games will be broadcast nationally and that the regional networks will have academic content. No words on how they will split the non-revenue content.
Also, according to CFT, Scott plans to have the networks up and running by next August.
LikeLike
I will say I think the academic/campus lifestyle approach is a good idea. I’ve thought for some time the Big Ten should try and get more into its academic strengths. The conference is so well-known for top tier research that it should not be hard to show some really interesting stuff on the BTN. Getting people to tune in for more informative/news-like programs could help the BTN increase its advertising revenue and overall viewership.
LikeLike
@Ross – I think that the regional “networks” are really regional feeds of the overall network. Each market will get one Pac-12 Network channel that carries all of the “national” programming plus local sports and programs from that market’s schools. It’s similar to how Fox Sports Southwest is one network, but has separate feeds for Dallas, Houston and San Antonio to account for pro team TV territories. Some programming gets carried across the entire state of Texas, while the local feeds show the local teams (i.e. Houston gets the Rockets, Dallas gets the Mavs, San Antonio gets the Spurs, etc.).
I’ll put up a longer post on this soon, but this was a smart move by the Pac-12. The Pac-12 doesn’t have the region-wide support of the Big Ten and SEC (so it would’ve difficult to get carriage like the BTN with the same programming nationwide), but each Pac-12 market has fairly strong support for their local schools. Having local feeds is a great way to solve this issue.
LikeLike
The regional networks will be carried in Pac-12 markets on expanded basic cable; the national network in Pac-12 states will be shown on digital basic, and the national network will be seen on digital sports tiers, which require extra fees, in non-Pac 12 states and markets. So far, the conference has signed the cable operators Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cox and BrightHouse to carry the networks, and expects to add satellite and telephone companies.
That’s from here:
LikeLike
Assuming that one of the six regional feeds will be designed for Utah and Colorado in Salt Lake City and Denver, this could also have positive effect on accelerating the redevelopment of the CU-Utah rivalry. The schools haven’t played each other in such a long time that, in most fans’ minds, it’s as though the schools never had a rivalry at all, at least not one they can naturally get worked up about.
But consider this: If fans in Utah are “forced to sit through” (so to speak) just as much Colorado programming on their local Pac-12 network as they do Utah programming, it’ll get pretty annoying to them… but that’s a good thing! Same goes for Colorado fans “being forced to watch” a bunch of content about the Utes.
LikeLike
Most importantly, you have to be in the footprint of 1 of the 4 cable partners to get the network. They’re working on getting satellite distribution, but don’t have it yet.
LikeLike
Larry Scott: Texas won’t join Pac-12
Also:
Scott also said he’s watching the Longhorn Network’s progress with the prospect of televising high school games, saying that if it’s officially given permission by the NCAA, the Pac-12 Network will broadcast high school games as soon as the network goes live.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6809451/larry-scott-longhorn-network-keep-texas-joining-pac-12
LikeLike
It’s been reported that Butch Davis is out at UNC. Might those phone records have something to do with it?
LikeLike
Let’s just say there’s quite a bit of chatter on local sports talk radio about that subject today…
LikeLike
Any explanation as to why they waited until late July?
If they did this in December, they could have a new coach by now if someone was willing to risk the NCAA sanctions. If they did this in spring, at least the interim coach would have had time to settle in. Now everything is up in the air with practice about 10 days away.
LikeLike
After all the histrionics about OSU, where is all the bitching about UNC and their response? Even for a basketball school in a basketball league, I’m surprised UNC kept Davis this long. He was neck deep in parts of this and UNC takes their academic reputation very seriously.
LikeLike
Tidbit: UNC got 2 new trustees on Wednesday and elected a new chairman of the BoT.
Perhaps the pro-Davis supporters got outvoted?
LikeLike
Bingo! That’s exactly what happened, and I’m surprised Andy Staples et. al. didn’t dig a little deeper to find this out instead of writing long columns about, “Why now?”
LikeLike
I’m sure most people were on deadlines. It took me a while to find a source that mentioned the BoT changes. It’s not like it was common knowledge nationally that the UNC BoT was changing.
It still seems strange to me, though, since the old BoT had to know what would happen as soon as the changes took place. If they knew months ago that the new BoT would fire him, why not just do it earlier and give another coach more time to take over?
I wonder if they’ll give Mike Leach a shot? He has a clean bill with the NCAA and has been pretty desperate for a job. RichRod is available, too. Do you need defense in the ACC?
LikeLike
Boise State will not be allowed to wear their all blue uniforms in the MWC, according to SN.
LikeLike
Msu has been doing the same thing for years. Go green!
LikeLike
The color match isn’t nearly as close at MSU, though.
LikeLike
From the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/sports/ncaafootball/pac-12-conference-to-create-seven-tv-channels.html?_r=1
Pac-12 Conference to Create Seven TV Channels
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: July 27, 2011
The Pacific-12 conference, which has made no secret of its desire to create a network to showcase its newly expanded league, announced Wednesday that it will create six regional channels and a national one.
There will be a network for each of the six regionsthat have two schools: Washington, Oregon, Northern and Southern California, Arizona and Mountain. All will carry national programming, including 35 football games, more than 100 men’s basketball games and 40 women’s basketball games, as well as the Olympic sports at each school that traditionally have gotten little or no television exposure.
The regional networks will be carried in Pac-12 markets on expanded basic cable; the national network in Pac-12 states will be shown on digital basic, and the national network will be seen on digital sports tiers, which require extra fees, in non-Pac 12 states and markets. So far, the conference has signed the cable operators Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cox and BrightHouse to carry the networks, and expects to add satellite and telephone companies.
“It’s such a unique opportunity,” said Larry Scott, the Pac-12’s commissioner. “We’ve had a national brand, but the tribal nature make college sports every local. So this is an attempt through the unique structure of our conference and the cable industry to super-serve fans in a hyper-local way.”
The conference recently expanded to 12 schools through the addition of Colorado and Utah.
The Pac-12 carved out enough marquee football and basketball games from contracts that it signed with Fox and ESPN earlier this year that will pay it $3 billion over 12 years.
“This was part of the original vision,” Scott said. “Our networks will have some amazing games.”
The creation of the Pac-12 networks — which will begin next year — follows the creation in 2007 of the Big Ten Network and the start-up next month of the University of Texas’s Longhorn Network.
END OF ARTICLE
******
The creation of this network with its regional channels is setting up another round of conference realignment with the Pac 12 setting the stage for this to happen. I have to suspect that the athletic departments in College Station, TX, Norman, OK and in other B12 towns (like Lubbock, TX and Stillwater, OK) stood up and took notice when this announcement was made earlier today.
If Texas is determined to go through with the Longhorn Network, and Texas A&M plus Oklahoma think they’re at a recruiting disadvantage because of it (and that’s what we’re hearing out of the Big XII media days), then the Pac 12 now becomes a possible realignment destination for ATM and OU because the conference would be in the position to offer a Pac 12 Channel Texas or a Pac 12 Channel Oklahoma (or should that be Pac 16 Channel Texas and Pac 16 Channel Oklahoma) that can do the same things as the Longhorn Network, but with the addition of a national Pac 12 (16) Network Channel with it–someting the LN doesn’t have at this moment.
Don Beebe must be crapping in his pants right now. I don’t know what they’re thinking in Austin right now, but it will be funny as hell when the Pac 12 Network broadcasts its first Texas high school football game on its national channel.
LikeLike
I don’t think he’s too worried. A&M wants the SEC, not the Pac-12. I think A&M would rather continue losing its mind dealing with Texas in the Big 12 than join the Pac-12. And with A&M not in the Pac-12, there’s no Pac-12 on basic cable in Texas and probably no high school football games on the network, either. OU’s not going out west on its own.
A much more sensible alternative would be for OU and A&M to take the lead in creating a network with the other seven schools.
LikeLike
I disagree with your statements. The Longhorn Network has talked about broadcasting out of state high school football games on the LHN that have perspective UT recruits playing in them. I see no reason why the Pac 12 Network couldn’t return the favor and televise Texas high school football games even if there’s no Pac 12 channel in the state. I’m sure there are Pac 12 schools that recruit in the state of Texas, so there’s every motivation for the Pac 12 Network to do it. That 22 August meeting with the NCAA on this issue is going to be very interesting.
The Pac 12 made overtures to Oklahoma and Texas A&M last year–I have no doubt Larry Scott is positioning his confernce in such a way that he can do this again as the opportunity arises. For OU and ATM, this now provides them another option in addition to the SEC when conference expansion rears its head again.
In addition, if you’re OU and ATM, the Pac 12 Network with regional channels piggybacked onto a national channel is going to be a much better setup for them then anything they and the seven remaining Big XII members could put together for themselves. Heck, it’s a better arrangement than the Longhorn Network which will only air in one state. Plus the Pac 12 Network will have all the equity within the conference (unlike the Big Ten Network where the conference has 51% equity). Are the nine members of the Big XII going to be able to put together something comparable to that?
We’ll see what shakes out here, but if the Pac 12 Network has a successful launch in 13 months, then you can rest assured that a select number of schools in the Big 12 will be paying close attention.
LikeLike
Still, A&M is soooooooo much more interested in the SEC. Their administration would have to be willing to make almost all of their fanbase, pro-SEC and pro-Big 12 folks alike, if they decided to go to the Pac-12 without UT or any of their historic rivals. I just don’t see them going out there, not after last summer.
Maybe the Pac-12 could get OU to join, but then again, if you’re OU, why would want to? You love being in the same conference as UT, and you depend very heavily on Texas recruits. A few Texas high school football games on your league’s network wouldn’t be enough to make up for losing ties to UT and possibly all the Big 12’s Texas schools. On top of that, OU likely can’t go anywhere without Ok. State, whom the Pac-12 doesn’t really want, and without UT or any Texas schools, the Pac-12 might not think they’re worth adding.
An interesting curveball (and I’m just thinking out loud here) would be if Scott sees TCU as a viable backup partner to help convince A&M to go west…
LikeLike
Second sentence should say, “Their administration would have to be willing to make almost all of their fanbase angry, pro-SEC and pro-Big 12 folks alike, if…”
LikeLike
I don’t think this moves A&M much closer to the Pac 16. From the information given, the regional networks are only on ‘expanded basic’, and only get the leftover sports that don’t make the national tv package on ABC/Fox/ESPN or the Pac 12 network, along with some academic programming. I would guess A&M could probably create its own network to put on ‘expanded basic’ in Texas, which they have the right to do in either the Big 12 or SEC.
A&M has been working to put this sort of programming on the internet. With TV merging with internet anyway, I’m not sure the non-premium channels off ‘basic cable’ are going to be more profitable than internet sites with advertising.
LikeLike
Is anyone else wondering when the other Big 12 schools are going to get their crap together and come up with a joint network of some sort? It just seems like there would be enough smart people in the other 9 universities to realize that none of them could get enough distribution for a single-school network to approach anywhere near what UT will be making off the Longhorn Network, not even OU or A&M. But if they all pooled together, they could get much wider distribution not just within their own states but also nationally.
For instance, an OU network may not get picked up by cable carriers at all in the state of Florida or New York or wherever, not even on premium sports tiers because it’s still just one school from a small state. On the other hand, a network of nine remaining schools ought get distributed everywhere at least as an optional package, just as the Big Ten network is outside of its footprint.
I just think those schools need to figure something out. Texas will make more money than the rest of them no matter what, but the longer they go without either a combined network or individual school networks, the more Texas’ lead on them will grow at an exacerbated rate.
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering that since rumors of the LHN leaked. OU and TAMU could form decent networks, but I think 1 school would generally struggle trying to fill the time and get viewers. 9 schools should do pretty well, though. You’ll get KU and some other solid squads playing hoops. ISU, MO and OkSU wrestling. Baylor WBB. Some solid baseball for spring. A football game or 2 from each team, plus spring games. With 3 Texas schools, that should get pretty broad coverage, plus all of OK, KS, MO and at least part of IA.
LikeLike
LHN still struggling with carriage. I doubt any single school can support much more than a local/regional net.
LikeLike
Here’s part 9 of the series talking about divisions. (Note: this one is not listed with the others for some reason at this time and is only by itself). http://thegazette.com/2011/07/27/legends-and-leaders-chapter-9-scheduling-overhaul/
LikeLike
I like how it shows the mature approach of serious adults tackling issues. Nobody got everything they wanted, but everybody got something they wanted. In fact, I don’t think any school could have gotten everything they wanted because every school has conflicting desires (especially within fan bases).
WI wanted to also lock in IA. IA might also have wanted that. The downside is that IA would have played IN, IL, PSU and OSU only twice every 8 years (also WI versus MI, NE, MSU and NW) and maybe the league and those other 8 schools weren’t thrilled about that. Do IA and WI really only want those 4 schools 25% of the time versus 40% with 1 locked rival? Are those 8 schools also OK with only seeing IA or WI 25% of the time instead of 40%? Are PU and MN happy to have a top 6 team locked in every year when IN, IL, NW and MSU don’t?
PU’s AD wanted his team to play at every other school in a 4 year span so no player would miss a venue. That conflicts with locking any rivals, let alone locking 2.
Everyone agrees that keeping the Heartland Trophy would be great in isolation, but I don’t think people have thought through the consequences in the current alignment. Adding a ninth game would make it much easier as teams would play at least 50% of the time versus 60% with one locked rival.
NE worried about the difficulty of their schedule and it certainly was rough. However, it also gets all the top match-ups with NE on TV in the first 2 years. The bright side for them is that in the next cycle, they won’t have OSU or WI, but 2 of IN, PU and IL. They shouldn’t see OSU and WI again until the next 10 year cycle (except for the upcoming change to 9 games after 6 years). NE’s locked rival (PSU) puts them on a level playing field with OSU, MI and PSU, so no complaints there. WI, MSU and IA are the ones that benefit the most there.
IL’s AD doesn’t like that The Game has been locked as the final game for years, saying it makes for unfair schedules. I’m not sure how locking the two powers in the final game hurt other teams in previous years, but clearly he felt it. I understand complaints about locking it now as it could be a repeat in the CCG, but the ADs knew that was the probable consequence of splitting OSU and MI. You don’t mess with a great rivalry if you don’t have to.
As a result, though, they got 3 power match-ups plus a main rivalry the last week when everyone is paying attention. The weekend would have had less juice without The Game. There are great games every week, but especially in the last 2. That will build excitement and keep the divisions up for grabs longer. That should be a great prelude for the CCG. They also spread the trophy games throughout the season rather than bunching them into early October and early November. I think that’s a great way to let all those games have a share of the limelight rather than fighting each other for attention. It also means better options for TV viewing.
I’m glad to see a room full of powerful adults sit down and hash out a reasonable compromise that is probably best for everybody but ideal for nobody.
LikeLike
Once the divisions were ironed out you are probably right Brian. There were a lot of tough choices.
That said, I think the best thing they could have done once getting to that point was look again at the divisional alignment itself. Those conversations really shouldn’t have been isolated from the scheduling discussions like they were. As it ended up, compromises they came up with probably made the overall alignment less desirable than it seemed when they weren’t looking at schedules.
LikeLike
I think they did look again and didn’t change their mind. Every alignment would cause problems just as bad if not worse, I’m guessing. I also doubt the scheduling issues were completely separated from the division discussion. Once you decide to split OSU and MI the most obvious question is what do we do about The Game? I think the other schools decided that always playing at least one of OSU and MI trumped the issues the splitting them solved.
You said above you didn’t like the process because everyone was unhappy. What makes you think any other alignment would have been different about that?
E/W would have the whole east mad about the harder division. MSU also would be mad with no NW. Deciding who gets locked with NE would aggravate one of the big 3. Much of the west would be mad about getting less attention, being labelled the weak sister and/or not always getting OSU or MI.
Responding to other points you made:
The ADs agreed that competitive balance should be the top criterion. That forces WI/IA to not be locked (WI and IA must be split, only 1 can be with MN, the other would have locked the MN rivalry, a second locked rivalry causes too big of a gap in other series), but Alvarez supported it. He doesn’t get to come back and cry about it later. Either WI or IA was going to be in that position. IA shares a border with NE and WI doesn’t, so clearly IA was going to be paired with NE. NE also wanted MN for proximity and history, and MN wanted that too.
Of course OSU and MI fans were upset about moving The Game up. The ADs told everyone it wouldn’t fly. It would take the best rivalry in the nation and kill it. True rivalries are the last game of the year unless history dictates otherwise (TX-OU). They could have kept OSU and MI together to avoid the problem, but many schools had an issue with that as well. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I disagree that playing The Game last will dim the divisional races. A loss is still a loss. PSU/WI and NE/IA are both that same weekend, as are MSU/NW and IL/MN, so odds are the division races are still up in the air at that point.
WI wanted competitive balance and got it. That decision forced the current schedule. A simple look at a map tells you IA was going with NE, so WI wasn’t. WI/MN had to be locked, so WI/NE and WI/IA couldn’t be since a second locked rival means playing the other 4 teams twice in 8 years. I suppose they could have moved MN east despite both MN and NE wanting to be together for proximity and history reasons, but that would have still left WI/IA unlocked because IA/MN would have gotten priority and PSU/NE would have prevented WI/NE. So what Alvarez really wanted is to trade places with IA and eliminate NE’s only border rival.
WI did get NE’s first ever B10 game, though, which is no small boon. They also earned some good will which will help them in future scheduling discussions. Who knows what might happen with 9 games or future expansion? Maybe they can get special permission for a November night game at home?
NE got a hard first two years, but that’s just part of the cycle. The next 8 years wouldn’t have both OSU and WI on the schedule barring changes due to going to 9 games. The whole point was to get the best games on TV the first 2 years while NE in the B10 was still a novelty. That’s just smart planning.
Splitting OSU and PSU wouldn’t greatly impact recruiting in the B10. Everyone else already recruits in OH and PA. The players will still prefer the closest schools so their families can come to home games.
Starting from scratch wouldn’t have been hard, but I fail to see how the results would have been likely to be better. Every alignment has major problems. They just would have had a different set of issues.
LikeLike
I suppose it would be better to say I wouldn’t hate the issues with other alignments as much. Even assuming OSU/UM has to be separated, there were ways to make the western half of the conferences pain more evenly distributed.
I mentioned this on another board and I really think the hang up in the west was a direct result of deciding Penn State and Nebraska had to be crossovers. If you eliminated that, then the divisions could have given us Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa split in two and with a crossover left each team with no more than one team it wanted to play being left out. Wisconsin could have played Minnesota and Iowa in that scenario (2 of the 3 it wanted), Iowa could have played Nebraska and Wisconsin in that scenario (2 of the 3 it wanted), Nebraska could have played Iowa and Minnesota (both of the two Osborne mentioned), and Minnesota could have played at least Nebraska and Wisconsin and potentially Michigan (2 or 3 of the 4 it wanted, putting Michigan in would require either a OSU/UM division or a UM/PSU division though). This would have much more evenly spread around the sacrifices in the west rather than dumping them all on Wisconsin. Here’s both a simple switch to the divisions:
Nebraska—-Minnesota
Iowa———–Wisconsin
Michigan—–Ohio State
Michigan State–Penn State
Illinois————-Purdue
Northwestern—-Indiana
Only disadvantages of this setup over the one we got is that Ohio State and Michigan have the toughest crossover, but Iowa-Wisconsin coming back makes Wisconsin’s schedule tougher which makes that change mostly a wash compared to what we got. Also, the Illibuck doesn’t remain a yearly trophy, but oh well.
If we are willing to separate Ohio State and Penn State (even if not Ohio State and Michigan which would work out better) we could get this. Only big flaw with it is the bottom teams in the first division are a little weaker.
Nebraska-Minnesota
Iowa——-Wisconsin
Ohio State—Michigan
Purdue——–Penn State
Indiana——-Michigan State
Illinois——-Northwestern
Looking at interdivisonal games at the end of the season, there are two aspects of having OSU/UM the last week in different divisions that aren’t helpful (although I still prefer it to moving it up in any scenario). One aspect is the immediate potential for a rematch of OSU/UM or less likely Northwestern/Illinois (which after the first two years looks to be the other crossover on the last week). The other is that it’s much less likely that any one game will decide a division. OSU/UM in the same division or OSU against PSU or Wisconsin (again I’m not advocating this, just pointing out) would be much more likely to directly determine who goes on that an out of division race that is more likely to be only one piece.
I also think having Ohio and Pennsylvania recruiting advantages in one division is going to be bad long term. Anyone in the east/Leaders can claim they are going to go home twice in four years. Only Nebraska and Michigan can always make that claim in the west/legends and they can only make the argument in one state each.
LikeLike
@Eric – I think Richard had suggested once that if the Big Ten wanted the divisions to look a little bit less gerrymandered, it could just swap Northwestern and Wisconsin, which would’ve created 2 divisions where all states within them are contiguous (remember the U.P. borders Wisconsin) and would’ve protected the Wisky/Minny/Iowa triangle of rivalries. That would’ve been more palatable to me. That would certainly change the competitive balance in today’s terms, but as Adam has pointed out, that changes over time.
LikeLike
Eric,
You may make it better for one fan base, but it’s mostly a zero sum game. It’s just shifting pain around. It’s easy to do, but doesn’t mean the end result is better overall.
Your divisions and locked rivals:
NE/MN
IA/WI
MI/OSU
MSU/PSU
IL/PU
NW/IN
First, you directly counter the concept of competitive balance by locking OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, NE/MN and WI/IA. OSU, MI, PSU, WI and IA would all have a problem with that, and so would the networks. Second, you are killing IA/MN (Floyd of Rosedale, man) to save WI/IA. Third, MSU would object to being locked with a king while NW and PU get bottom feeders. Fourth, NW would prefer PU over IN. Fifth, you still have the same OSU/MI issues. Sixth, WI still doesn’t get NE or NW.
If you switch the locked rivals to:
MI/OSU
NE/PSU
IA/WI
MSU/IN
NW/PU
IL/MN
you’d prevent problems 1 and 3, but lose NE/MN which would upset NE and MN some. The end result is you’ve upset almost everybody to save WI/IA, including killing another major rivalry in IA/MN. MN football will suffer much more from losing an important rivalry than WI football will. In the current divisions, WI plays only MN while IA and NE get 2 of 3 and MN gets all 3. I understand that. One major rivalry was going to die by going to divisions with WI and IA split.
The eastern teams had similar issues with OSU, PSU and MI. Only 2 of the games could be locked once the decision was made to split them. OSU/MI had to be kept, and PSU wanted OSU. That meant MI/PSU had to go. The balance argument also meant PSU/MSU had to go.
Your scenario 2:
NE/MN
IA/WI
OSU/MI
PU/PSU
IN/MSU
IL/NW
Basically you traded NE for PSU and IA for WI, then changed the rivalries.
Again, you anger OSU, MI, WI, IA and PU with balance issues. PSU would be livid at losing their only border rival, and OSU wouldn’t be thrilled with that either. MN is mad about losing MN/IA. NE would prefer MI or PSU over OSU based on history or lack there of. I fail to see how this is a vast improvement.
Once the ADs decided on balance, the die was largely cast. WI supported the idea of using balance first, and they knew they were a second tier team with IA. WI knew NE and IA would be together, which means WI knew they would be split from NE and IA. At best 1 of those games could be locked, so WI/NE was never in the cards. MN was going to one group or the other, but geography and history said they should go with NE and IA. That meant either WI/MN or WI/IA would be locked. WI/MN is the most played rivalry ever and MN needs to keep the rivalry more than IA does, so WI/IA drew the short straw.
Yes, WI made some sacrifices. They also got WI/MN as a locked rivalry which gives them by far the easiest schedule among the top 6 as well as a great rivalry. They got acknowledged as a top 6 program and treated as such. Perhaps their sacrifices were the price they paid for their success. Would they trade places with MN if it meant swapping success as well as schedules?
Inter-divisional games the last week
Nobody likes the possibility of a rematch the next week, but like you say the alternatives were worse. Thus, people should quit complaining. Other schools wanted to split OSU and MI, but they also knew OSU/MI is by far the most valuable TV property the B10 has. Moving it earlier hurts the value and the rivalry and would have caused riots. They were aware of all of this when they decided to split OSU and MI, so they need to quit complaining. Based on history, a rematch should only happen about once every 6 or 7 years on average to give a rough idea.
I don’t agree with your second point. Why is it bad that any one game is less likely to decide the division? This means people need to watch multiple games instead of just one. You already have PSU/WI and NE/IA on the last week, and OSU/PSU and MI/NE the week before. Would a slate of OSU/PSU, NE/MI, IA/MSU and WI/PU really be better for you? The only way the top 6 could all play each other was to have a crossover game, and OSU/MI is it. That gives you a Black Friday game, 12:00 on Saturday and 3:30 on Saturday to decide both divisions (with some of the other 3 factoring in, too, depending on the year). That seems great to me, especially since these are all can’t miss games even if they don’t impact the division races (which is quite possible with NE/MI and OSU/PSU the previous week).
OH and PA recruiting
First, there are several levels of recruits. The top programs fight for the best of them, but both OH and PA produce more than enough to fill out the middle and lower teams, too. NE is a king and is used to recruiting out of state, so I think they’ll do fine. MI has always recruited OH and PA and done fine. IA does decently in OH now (~10 players on the roster), but focuses on IA as well as going national. MSU has always recruited OH, generally taking that next level of player OSU doesn’t have room for or doesn’t fit the plan but sometimes getting top guys. NW has always recruited a special type of player with OH as only one source. MN also picks up a few from OH but mostly looks elsewhere. How is any of this going to change with divisions?
An OH prospect generally looks at B10 schools in this order – OSU/MI/PSU/NE/MSU/WI/IA/other (obviously it depends on scheme and personal favorites, I’m just talking in general)
Divisions will not make of a difference in this age of every game being on TV (the BTN is cheaper than trips to the school). Maybe WI gets a few more from OH than IA, but I’m betting IA gets plenty of MI kids instead. A more realistic concern might be IL recruiting, with OSU and PSU potentially getting an edge over NE and MI, or WI getting an edge over IA. I don’t think it will have much impact, but it’s possible.
The thing is, winning cures all ills. If western teams start winning more, they’ll get more/better recruits from wherever they look.
LikeLike
Frank,
Yes, swapping WI and NW would look a little better on a map. The balance gap would be huge, though. WI is #5 and almost level with the 4 kings in performance since 1993. NW is #9 and between the third and fourth tier teams. WI has almost 40% more conference wins over that period (24 more).
It would protect the western rivalries, but punish NE, MI, IA, MSU and MN with the harder division. What are the locked rivals? OSU/MI, PSU/NE, NW/WI, IL/IA, IN/MSU and PU/MN? You get balance problems here, too. How long would NE be happy playing MI, PSU, WI, IA and MSU every year and also getting OSU and PSU on occasion since they complained about their current schedule?
Basically what you are saying is that they should stress geography over balance. If they were going to do that, why not go pure E/W?
LikeLike
Brian:
1. Northwestern doesn’t care about playing (or not playing) PU (or IU) or one instead of the other at all.
2. The biggest problem with all those setups is that UM-UM don’t meet yearly. I don’t think killing off the Little Brown Jug rivalry game would go over well.
3. The reasons for why I’d prefer my plan over simple E-W:
a. OSU & Michigan are split, as the rest of the B10 would prefer.
b. 3 of the kings in the east and UNL in the west really isn’t tenable.
Finally, you’re assuming that the current setup is “balanced”. It certainly was in the past 18 years or so, but that doesn’t mean it will be in the future. I think balancing based on potential makes more sense, and on potential, I’d split the tiers thusly:
1. OSU & PSU
2. Michigan & UNL (maybe 2a. Michigan & 2b. UNL)
3. Wisconsin, MSU, & Illinois
4. Iowa
5. Northwesterm & PU (maybe Minny)
6. IU (maybe Minny)
Put Minny in the bottom, add up the points, and you’d have 21 points for the east and 20 points for the west.
Can we really expect PSU to keep on underacheiving after their octogenarian who’s worldview is a tad different from the players he recruits nowadays retires, considering that they’re the sole premier college football brand in the Northeast (an area that contains almost 20% of the country’s population) and that they are the sole B10 school that is close to fertile southern recruiting grounds (in greater DC & Virginia)? Likewise, can we expect Iowa to keep on overacheiving considering that they have to consistently import star football players from out of state in order to remain competitive? For that matter, the changing football landscape isn’t going to be kind to UNL either; they’re Iowa with a better brand.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m going to quote parts of your post so my reply makes more sense. I think you are replying to multiple posts of mine, so I’m trying to accurately parse which post your individual comments refer to. Let me know if I get one wrong.
“1. Northwestern doesn’t care about playing (or not playing) PU (or IU) or one instead of the other at all.”
I’ve seen/heard other NW fans indicate otherwise. Not that they really care much about either team, but that given the choice they would choose PU over IN. That’s all I said above. It wasn’t meant as a major critique of his plan.
“2. The biggest problem with all those setups is that UM-UM don’t meet yearly. I don’t think killing off the Little Brown Jug rivalry game would go over well.”
Those were Eric’s divisions, not mine. I was just pointing out some of their problems. I should have made a point to mention MI/MN more.
“3. The reasons for why I’d prefer my plan over simple E-W:
a. OSU & Michigan are split, as the rest of the B10 would prefer.
b. 3 of the kings in the east and UNL in the west really isn’t tenable.”
For those unfamiliar, your plan is taking the current divisions and swapping WI and NW. I agree that both your points are advantages over pure E/W. However, I think the swap makes such a big change in balance that you make it harder to justify not going E/W which so many fans want. They said balance is #1 and E/W is more balanced on the field (not so much in the media) than your plan. And remember, I’m saying this as an OSU guy that would love to play IN, IL, NW and PU every year. However, the Northwest division would object to having 4 of the top 6 in division, especially since MI and NE have a king as a locked rival.
“Finally, you’re assuming that the current setup is “balanced”. It certainly was in the past 18 years or so, but that doesn’t mean it will be in the future. I think balancing based on potential makes more sense, and on potential, I’d split the tiers thusly:
1. OSU & PSU
2. Michigan & UNL (maybe 2a. Michigan & 2b. UNL)
3. Wisconsin, MSU, & Illinois
4. Iowa
5. Northwesterm & PU (maybe Minny)
6. IU (maybe Minny)
Put Minny in the bottom, add up the points, and you’d have 21 points for the east and 20 points for the west.”
I assume the current setup is balanced for ’93-’09. Based on running the numbers, history shows these divisions have remained balanced for a very long time. I do fully realize that past performance does not guarantee future results, but the past has done a fairly good job of predicting the present.
All else being equal, your plan requires swapping NW and WI to either improve the balance or at least be equivalent. What have you seen from NW that indicates they can achieve a bunch of 10 win seasons, considering NW has 1 in history? WI has 4 in the past 6 years. Are you assuming WI will fade or that NW will improve?
As for your potential rankings, I’ll point out that IL has been failing to live up to their potential for a very long time. At some point, it must mean their potential isn’t quite what we think it is. As long as tiers 1 and 2 are very close, I don’t have a problem with those. Similarly, I wouldn’t put IA far behind tier 3.
In your next paragraph, you talk more about potential. You think PSU has been underachieving and IA has been overachieving, and even hint at future problems for NE. Most fans seem to think PSU will fade when JoePa leaves, but you think he’s holding them back. I tend to agree with you (with a short adjustment period, probably), but they can’t improve all that much since JoePa has been doing pretty well lately. As for IA, their program is based on hard work and overachieving and it has worked for 30 years and two coaches. I think in the modern era of 85 scholarships that they will be fine, since this leaves more quality players from big states available. I also don’t see NE having major problems. Their brand is sufficient to let them recruit nationally.
LikeLike
As a Badger fan, I don’t think it is correct to say that “WI wanted competitive balance and got it. That decision forced the current schedule.” There’s no way Wisconsin was the decision-maker on this, seeing as it probably has the biggest gripe about the new setup. The fact that UW was given Nebraska’s game #1 tells me that UW was able to win a little compensation for being placed out east. (but FWIW I think a one-game “sop” is really not worth much of anything).
In short, I’ll agree that given the overarching framework of sticking to #1 (at least short-term) competitive balance and #2 geography, someone out west was going to draw the short straw, and UW possibly makes the most sense of the 4 western teams to ship out east. But let’s not pretend that Alvarez sought out the short straw.
LikeLike
As a Badger fan, I don’t think it is correct to say that “WI wanted competitive balance and got it. That decision forced the current schedule.” There’s no way Wisconsin was the decision-maker on this, seeing as it probably has the biggest gripe about the new setup. The fact that UW was given Nebraska’s game #1 tells me that UW was able to win a little compensation for being placed out east. (but FWIW I think a one-game “sop” is really not worth much of anything).
In short, I’ll agree that given the overarching framework of sticking to #1 (at least short-term) competitive balance and #2 geography, someone out west was going to draw the short straw, and UW possibly makes the most sense of the 4 western teams to ship out east. But let’s not pretend that Alvarez sought out the short straw.
Some further thoughts (while acknowledging that the decision has been made, so a lot of this is probably just crying over spilled milk):
1. I do not understand how the MSU-NW angle means much of anything in these discussions. These teams are not major rivals, and to the extent MSU wants Chicago exposure, well, so does everybody else. In any case, I’d consider UW and NW to be closer rivals, and that game was killed off.
2. Along those lines, the Little Brown Jug game should not be given much weight, if only because both Minny and Mich are already getting most of what they wanted. At best, that game is the third-biggest for both teams (Minny has Iow and Wis, and Mich has OSU and MSU). Meanwhile, Wisconsin got its #1 rivalry game punted to non-divisional status, its #2 rivalry game (Iowa) killed off, its probable #3 rivalry game (Nebraska) killed off, its #4 rivalry game (NW) killed off, and its #5 rivalry game (Mich) killed off.
3. Brian, I think you are overestimating the problem of “balance” as it pertains to locked rivals. I don’t think anybody is crying over PSU having to play Nebraska every year. But if they really want to give up a guaranteed national TV game every year to make the schedule a tad easier, I’m sure other B10 schools will line up to take on one of those teams. And FWIW, if the B10 ends up going to 2 locked rivalries at some point, Alvarez would be crazy not to lobby for UW-Iowa. Rivalry games define college football!
So anyway, to sum up, I think Alvarez has talked a mean game about how things worked out, but this is a combination of #1 saving face, #2 recognizing that UW was going to get the short straw given the considerations at play, and #3 looking at the silver lining of being in an easier division for the immediate short term.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
I don’t think anybody said WI was the decision maker. However, Alvarez agreed with the other ADs that balance should be the top priority. That collective decision forced what followed, and many of the end results should have been easy to foresee (WI and IA getting split, IA staying with NE, etc). I think everyone agrees WI got the short straw in the alignment, but the question is what alignment would have been better after deciding to use balance as the top criterion?
As to your further thoughts:
“1. I do not understand how the MSU-NW angle means much of anything in these discussions.”
MSU’s AD has made clear one of the main things he fought for was to get paired with NW for regular Chicago access. It’s not a major rivalry, but MSU has a ton of alumni there and he wanted games there. This only factors in because if an AD really wants something, then you have to factor it in as part of the deal or as a sacrifice not to get it. I think we all assume the goal was to achieve balance and then maximize as many of the desires of the various ADs as possible.
“2. Along those lines, the Little Brown Jug game should not be given much weight,”
I agree, but I don’t think anyone has given it much weight. However, you can’t just ignore it as it is one of the more famous trophy rivalries.
“Meanwhile, Wisconsin got its #1 rivalry game punted to non-divisional status, its #2 rivalry game (Iowa) killed off, its probable #3 rivalry game (Nebraska) killed off, its #4 rivalry game (NW) killed off, and its #5 rivalry game (Mich) killed off.”
I don’t buy the argument that playing an inter-division rivalry is somehow less than playing it in division. It’s still an annual game. They split OSU/MI, so it can hardly be considered a punishment.
“3. Brian, I think you are overestimating the problem of “balance” as it pertains to locked rivals. I don’t think anybody is crying over PSU having to play Nebraska every year.”
You are, of course, welcome to think that way but it goes against what ADs have said. Tom Osbourne’s main criticism was having a tougher schedule than everybody else. Plenty of OSU fans didn’t like having MI and PSU locked when MI and PSU didn’t have 2 kings locked. Lots of fans noticed that WI got MN locked while the kings got each other. Clearly WI ended up with the easiest schedule on average. Fairness is very important to people.
Alvarez wouldn’t even have to lobby if the B10 went to 2 locked rivals. WI/IA is guaranteed to be the first one that would get locked. He tried to lobby for it to happen this time, but that meant 4 other schools would only play WI twice in 8 years which is unacceptable. Despite people saying the ninth game won’t bring a second locked rival, I think it will at least lock WI/IA.
LikeLike
What it shows me is that a bunch of people can talk themselves into wanting something in the abstract, and then be too proud to admit that what they’ve invested a lot of time and effort into building isn’t actually what they wanted.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2011/07/27/legends-and-leaders-chapter-10-whats-in-a-name/
Part 10, discussing the division names.
It still is not clear to me why they discarded all geographic terms. The SEC isn’t truly split E/W, but the names work. NW/SE (or NNW and SSE to be more accurate) would have worked fine with WI being the only outlier. Lakes and Plains would be inaccurate, but much less pretentious than the current names.
They point out that 3 of the 4 winningest programs are in the west now, but the data is a touch incomplete (the next 4 are in the east):
Total wins since 2001
OSU 106, WI 88, IA 85, NE 84, MI 79, PSU 79, MSU 66, PU 63, NW 60 (1st with losing record), MN 59, IL 47, IN 41
This shows what we already knew, that the leaders had more bottom feeders but also the top program lately.
Top 6 – Equally split, with OSU as the outlier favoring the east. The other 5 are pretty similar with MI and PSU a 1/2 win per season behind the other 3. Leaders 273, Legends 248.
Bottom 6 – 2 clear tiers, with MSU, NW and MN in Legends versus only PU in Leaders and both IL and IN in Leaders. Legends 185, Leaders 151.
Total – Leaders 424, Legends 433 That’s pretty close, especially since OOC games are involved.
Total conference wins since 2001
OSU 66, MI 50, IA 50, WI 47, NE 47, PSU 45, MSU 37, PU 37, NW 35, IL 28, MN 28, IN 17
Very little changes when looking at conference games only. The top 6 are shuffled with WI dropping and MI improving, and MN drops while IL improves to make 3 tiers in the bottom 6. This shows the impact of OOC scheduling and bowl game opponents.
Top 6 – Leaders 158, Legends 147
Bottom 6 – Leaders 82, Legends 90
Total – Leaders 240, Legends 237
LikeLike
There were some bad names considered. I couldn’t come up with any combination worse than legends/leaders that I thought would have seriously been considered, but try to imagine Scholar and Athlete or Academics and Athletics as division names.
LikeLike
Every time I see that map of the current Big Ten, expansion comes to mind. I still think basic expansion of the footprint is the best approach if acceptable schools are nearby. If/when forced to go to 16, common sense and a map points towards Notre Dame, Missouri, Kansas & Syracuse. Those last 3 are somewhat close in culture (big, state, schools) and all three are at least acceptable academic schools. Not a lot of football brand there I know, but neither is there in Rutgers, Maryland, UVA or really even Pitt. I still think K.I.S.S. will be the way this goes if 16 becomes reality. A conf with UT or OU or some combo of ACC schools from N. Carolina is just too radical.
Keep it simple and break your divisions down the IL/IN border and you’ve got yourself a dynamite conference imo.
LikeLike
ND is an obvious geographic fit, but hell might have to freeze over to make it happen. MO is also an obvious geographic fit and would be eager to join, but something has to change to make further expansion valuable. KS could fit, and I’d love to get their hoops, but how many schools from small plains states with borderline (for the B10) academics do we want? Plus, I suspect KU would come with baggage (KSU) and that’s unacceptable.
PSU is really the school that needs friends and neighbors in conference, so I’d think Pitt and Syracuse move up the list. PSU also brings Rutgers and MD into the equation, but I don’t think MD would leave the ACC without a lot of prompting. Going east has the added benefits of adding population and more TV households for the BTN.
LikeLike
For Maryland, the prompting would be $$$$, especially given the athletic department’s financial struggles of late. It would make far more money in the Big Ten (thanks largely to the football brand) than it ever would in the ACC.
LikeLike
I think MD is so strongly attached to the old ACC core that it would take more than the current financial gap to sway them. The bigger hurdle is convincing the B10 to expand anyway.
LikeLike
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/penn_state/126232267.html
Something ugly brewing in PSUland? I sure hope this doesn’t hit JoePa in any way and tarnish his legacy.
LikeLike
http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/7/27/2293069/sb-nation-conference-realignment-draft-results-10th-round-11th-round
The 10th round of the re-draft is done and the 11th is under way.
IN, MN and PU went 59, 60 and 61. I think they were undervalued.
Remaining AQs:
ACC – WF
BE – Rutgers
B10 – NW
B12 – Baylor, ISU, KSU
P12 – WSU
SEC – MS St.
LikeLike
it appears no one wants rutgers. while much ballyhooed, its a non-starter and I can’t imagine it ever happens.
LikeLike
Everybody has realized the NYC is essentially unattainable on basic cable. Maybe if ND, MI, PSU, Duke, Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, St. John’s and Seton Hall were all in a conference together, but not for any current conference.
Without NYC, Rutgers is great academics, bad sports and the NJ market (no tiny, but also not devoted).
LikeLike
Not so sure about Purdue, but Minnesota and Indiana, yeah. They certainly should have been ahead of USF, who gets a whole lot of credit for simply being in Tampa Bay. Fellow Big East member Rutgers brings in more football revenue, and is close to a much bigger media market, than the Bulls. Heck, UCF pulls down almost as much as USF, and without the benefit of Big East (and BCS AQ) membership. And I can’t value a team too highly that can’t build their own stadium. Even FAU has an on-campus facility now. Texas Tech seems undervalued as well – yes, they’re in Lubbock, which is a hole, but many of their alums and fans live in DFW and Houston. They have a much stronger following in major Texas cities than, for example, Okie State.
Purdue might be BCI’s first real miss of the draft. Tech would have provided a rival for Texas, and if he really wanted a Big Ten team, Northwestern would have been a better choice.
LikeLike
Purdue is a tier above MN and IN in football. PU also has solid history in MBB, from John Wooden being the first 3 time consensus All-American to Gene Keady to now. They have an old national title (pre-NCAA), 2 final fours and 9 sweet sixteens. They aren’t a king by any means, but they’ve done pretty well. They have the 23rd best winning percentage of all time.
TT gets downgraded because most people think it’s UT or nothing in TX.
As for NW, they have lower value than PU. Their inability to sell tickets hurts their revenue totals a lot. It’s not like they deliver Chicago, either.
LikeLike
Purdue is last in the Big Ten in football revenue. Indiana basketball may not be what it once was, but it’s a brand. Despite whatever success Purdue might have had in hoops, they’re not an elite or storied program. Minnesota is at least the flagship college in their own state, something Purdue can’t claim. As for NW, academics and desirability of location were criteria in the draft. Plus they’re not so shabby at football.
And most people in Texas definitely don’t think that way about college football teams.
LikeLike
Those revenue numbers are skewed due to different accounting methods. I believe PU is one of the few B10 schools that doesn’t put any BTN money into football but reports it all as non-sport specific. That makes a huge difference (the standard split is 65% fb, 35% other). They also have fielded a team of exploding ACLs the past year or two which doesn’t help sell tickets.
I didn’t compare PU hoops to IN hoops. I said PU is a tier above in FB and better than expected in hoops. MN is a flagship, but they suck at FB and have been decent at hoops.
Academics and location could be considered in the draft, but the weighting is up to the individual. NW is in Chicago, but doesn’t deliver Chicago. PU also has great academics, they just are focused on engineering and science. NW FB is on par with PU, but the MBB is far behind.
I’m not saying Texans think that way, but that is the common sentiment outside of TX based on comments on the various blogs of these new conferences. Many people see no point to getting any TX teams after UT, TAMU and maybe TCU.
LikeLike
“Minnesota is at least the flagship college in their own state, something Purdue can’t claim.”
Actually, they can. Purdue and Indiana are equally the flagship institutions for the state of Indiana. Purdue offers a number degrees you can’t get at IU, and vice versa. The only thing Minnesota can claim is it’s the ONLY flagship institution in its state.
LikeLike
Its hard to find Tech alums in Houston. Its a VERY long way from Houston to Lubbock (about the same distance to Birmingham or from Chicago to Memphis). On the other hand, Tech does draw a lot from DFW.
LikeLike
Tech was a non-starter because of academics. They almost lost their accreditation a few years back.
LikeLike
Continuing the discussion from above, if I was the B10 I would have approached the division alignment and scheduling issues differently after getting on the same page by deciding competitive balance was the top criterion. First, I would have asked all the AD’s to submit the following:
1. A list ranking the other 11 teams in descending order of desirability to play, with a score on a scale of 0-10 to weight the list and with a brief explanation of each score.
2. The ideal divisional alignment from their POV, both with and without locked rivals, with explanations of any variation from the prior list.
3. The best alignment from the overall perspective, again with and without locked rivals.
4. Suggested scheduling plans for each plan above, listing when certain games or types of games should or shouldn’t be played including any exceptions. Special attention would be paid to rivalry games involving that school, since they know better than anyone if specific timing is important.
I would have used the lists to help maximize the utility of the final alignment. It would provide a better gauge of the importance of certain games from both sides. The ideal alignments would show me what sacrifices each school would choose to make and might have to make in the final configuration. The most interesting part would be the plans from an overall perspective. What rivalries would they keep, what sacrifices would they make, what sacrifices would they force from others and how would they tackle the thorniest issues (OSU/MI, etc)?
The main reason I would ask for these plans is to force the ADs to really think through the issues in advance. I suggest every B10 fan here try it, too. First, rank the 11 other schools in terms of your desire to play them annually. Second, come up with ideal divisions for you both with and without locked rivals. Third, come up with a plan that takes the desires of all 12 schools into account. Fourth, decide on all the scheduling issues for your plans. I’m guessing even the fans of each team don’t agree, let alone fans of various schools.
Here’s my version:
OSU:
MI 10, PSU 8, NE 7, IL 6, MSU 6, IA 5, WI 4, IN 3, PU 2, MN 1, NW 1
Ideal for OSU:
No locked rivals – OSU, MI, IN, IL, MN, NW vs PSU, NE, WI, IA, MSU, PU
1 locked rival – OSU/MI, IN/MSU, IL/NE, MN/WI, NW/IA, PU/PSU
These alignments differ from the most desirable list because winning titles trumps everything but playing MI. IN, IL, MN and NW present the greatest chance to go 5-0 in the division without sacrificing playing MI. With a locked rival, PU replaces MI in the division to make it easier and MI becomes the locked rival. The other rivalries are designed to keep some current rivalries and make it hard for anyone else to win the division.
As for scheduling, everyone should play their top rival the last week (OSU/MI, NE/IA, PSU/MSU, WI/MN, IL/NW, IN/PU) regardless of divisions. Other trophy games and rivalries should be equally spread during the season.
Best overall:
No locked rivals – OSU, MI, WI, MSU, NW, MN vs PSU, NE, IA, PU, IL, IN
1 locked rival – OSU/MI, PSU/NE, WI/IA, PU/NW, IN/MSU, MN/IL
2 locked rivals – swap WI &IA and MN&IL, then lock IA/NE and IL/NW
As for scheduling, everyone should play their top rival the last week (OSU/MI, NE/IA, PSU/MSU, WI/MN, IL/NW, IN/PU) regardless of divisions. Other trophy games and rivalries should be equally spread during the season, with the second best games played in the next to last week to build momentum for the B10 late in the year.
My ideal plan for OSU is terrible for half of the schools at least. My overall plan is close to what the B10 ended up with. With 1 locked rival, the only alignment difference is IL and MN being swapped. As for locked rivals, WI/IA, PU/NW and MN/IL replace WI/MN (same division), PU/IA (WI/IA is more important) and NW/IL (same division). Locking WI/IA provides for better balance in the schedule among the top 6, too. What’s lost are 3 MN rivalries (IA, NE and MI) and Illibuck, so I’m mostly moving the pain from WI to MN. That’s why I’d prefer the 2 locked rivals model. It keeps NE/IA, NE/WI, NE/MN, WI/IA, WI/MN and MI/MN, so WI and NE keep all 3 games, MN keeps 2 plus MI and IA keeps 2 plus IL and PSU.
LikeLike
http://www.multichannel.com/article/471636-Time_Warner_Cable_DirecTV_Dish_Will_Launch_BTN_s_Authenticated_Streaming_Service.php?rssid=20076
BTN is offering their version of ESPN3 starting in the fall. If you get the BTN, then you can also stream any BTN game on your computer or phone.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6812558/oklahoma-sooners-admit-two-major-violations-seeks-two-more-years-probations
Oklahoma has admitted to 2 major violations in MBB while on probation from previous violations in MBB, FB and gymnastics. They want more probation among other things and not to be treated as a repeat violator. That’s going to be a hard sell since it’s the same sport in less than 5 years.
LikeLike
Per Mark Silverman Cox (Omaha) and Charter have signed carriage agreements for Nebraska. That pretty much locks up the Nebraska cable operators.
LikeLike
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2011/Jul11/DBJuly28.html
Phil Steele’s calculations of home field advantage for everybody. I think he puts too much weight on winning. OU beating ISU at home isn’t home field advantage so much as it’s a team advantage. OU is also helped by never playing TX at home, so they don’t face a potential home loss there.
My preference is to compare home and road conference winning percentages. I’d include OOC home and homes but I don’t know an easy way to do it. That should get you an equal balance of teams, and all of them are familiar with the team and the stadium.
The top 10 by me for the past 10 years:
Ark St .420
UConn .417
TT .334
Rice .325
Marshall .317
KSU .303
CO .300
ISU .291
Akron, UTEP and UVA .275
OU only drops to 15, but others high on Steele’s list drop more like OSU going from 4 to 70.
LikeLike
Brian,
You think the top 10 home field advantages are almost entirely occupied by small crappy stadiums?
Teams like Ohio State have such a high road winning ptg, they can’t do that much better at home.
LikeLike
Oh, I’m aware it is flawed by top teams having less room for improvement at home. The problem is finding the right way to correct for that. Still, OU ranked #15 so good teams can do well. OSU has been so dominant in conference lately that they are negatively impacted, and Boise the same way.
I think it is quite possible that bad teams taking long bus trips get a bigger benefit from playing at home than elite teams that fly everywhere and stay in 4 star hotels the night before the game. Call it the road field disadvantage factor.
My problem with his method, is how does OSU beating Akron at home attest to OSU’s home field advantage? The talent level is so much different that the location and crowd are irrelevant.
LikeLike
Greg,
If you look at Steele’s system, it has several problems. He uses 9 categories over 3 years, with older years weighted less, plus his personal opinion. All groups are rated from 0-6.
1. Stadium size
2. Attendance
3. % of capacity
It’s redundant to use all 3. Any 2 can tell you the third one. I would drop stadium capacity, and cap % of capacity at 100%. That gives you 2 useful values, the raw size of the crowd and how full the building is. That’s about the best you can do from public info, but it still doesn’t tell you much. How much of the crowd was rooting for the visitors? How much of the crowd was sitting quietly? How well does the stadium trap sound? How much actual impact does the crowd have?
For example, the Big House was renowned for being fairly quiet. So the 110,000 people and 100+% of capacity really didn’t have much impact. The talent and coaching at MI had a huge impact, however, and they always won lots of home games. By the first 3 criteria, MI would get a 6. Before RichRod, they would have done well on the last 6, too. However, the RichRod years reduced MI’s HFA to a 4.25 out of 6.
4. Last year’s home W/L record
5. Past 3 years’ home W/L record
6. Past 5 years’ home W/L record
7. Last year’s home W/L record against the spread
8. Past 3 years’ home W/L record against the spread
9. Past 5 years’ home W/L record against the spread
The ATS records gets half the weight of the raw home record.
There is even more redundancy here as more recent home records get counted multiple times. Then he looks at all the same things from last year and the year before, so the home record from 2008 gets counted 9 times (6 straight up and 6 more times against the spread, but those 6 get half weight).
While the home W/L is important, it clearly is lacking context. How does the team do on the road? How tough are the opponents? OU gets high marks for not losing at home, but that must be partially related to never facing Texas, their peer rival, at home. Great teams will always win a lot. How does that relate to home field advantage as opposed to just being a better team?
The real question, to me at least, is how much playing at home helps you win. That’s what home field advantage means to me. Elite teams won’t do as well in my version because they win so much on the road. They actually don’t benefit as much from playing at home as lesser teams. I use conference games only to reduce the impact of complete mismatches like I-AA or Sunbelt teams versus the SEC. Because I use conference games, I think my results are best for giving a relative comparison of HFA within a conference rather than national comparisons.
LikeLike
Iowa-Nebraska to play the “Heroes Game” where they announce citizen heroes from both states.
http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072911aab.html
The institutions plan to honor one citizen of Iowa and one citizen of Nebraska prior to each Heroes Game for their extraordinary act. These heroes will be nominated by friends, neighbors or co-workers and will be guests of the two teams at the game where they will be honored on-field during game day. Each will also have their name and hometown etched on the to-be-created Heroes Game trophy.
The beneficiary of the efforts initiated in support of the first two “Heroes Games” will be the Iowa and Nebraska chapters of the American Red Cross.
LikeLike
I hate this word, but this is retarded.
LikeLike
How can the same league that shows the innovation and foresight to create the Big Ten Network and to expand with Nebraska also be so out of touch that it would think “Legends and Leaders” and “Heroes Game” would be good ideas? It’s baffling.
LikeLike
Be fair. The B10 had nothing to do with this. This was all Iowa and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Man, I get what they were trying to do, but it just seems like any time the Big 10 tries to name something it comes up with something that sounds like it came from a committee meeting of out of touch octogenarians and not particularly talented junior marketing executives.
There is something to be said for allowing a rivalry to grown on its own and earn its name, hopefully from something generated by the students, rather then immediately throwing something out there from the focus group and seeking corporate sponsorship for it.
LikeLike
SuperD, I agree. I don’t like to preemptively decide that Iowa-Neb is a “trophy game” and invent a bunch of crap around it. Iowa-Nebraska will be defined by the series and the fanbase interaction, not by a committee deciding on a trophy.
I didn’t like it in 2004, when it was decided that Iowa-Wisconsin needed a trophy. The game was great for what it was, a hard earned battle of similar programs from similar states. It didn’t need a trophy to define what it was. That trophy is kinda cool, but its still lame that they collectively decided to invent one.
LikeLike
At least they didn’t invent if before the first game.
LikeLike
CBS writer’s take on Pac 12 Networks.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15367320/with-unique-network-deal-pac12-goes-from-stale-to-cuttingedge
LikeLike
Don’t care for the trophy either. It’s nice to respect “heros” of the states, but when are talking about getting up for a game and playing for a trophy, it doesn’t seem to add excitement. Instead it kind of draws attention to the fact that there are more important things than what is going on the football field, which isn’t a good way to build up a game.
LikeLike
I like the trophy idea, not sure why people are hating on some good will on the football field.
LikeLike
Because it’s a football game?
OSU/MI always has a student blood drive competition (or maybe a food drive now, I don’t keep track) in the week leading up to the game, but nobody has ever suggested a giant needle trophy for the O Positive Game.
Honoring heroes at halftime is great. What does it have to do with the game, though?
LikeLike
I think a trophy is fine. This, while obviously well intentioned, is dumb. Why not just a golden corn cob or something?
LikeLike
Major realignment news! The Southwest Conference is Back!
From an email I got today:
With collegiate rugby conferences realigning, the Rice team is moving back up to Division I this year, joining the new Southwest Collegiate Rugby Conference, along with Texas, Baylor and Sam Houston among others.
LikeLike
How long until SMU joins and then gets busted for buying players?
LikeLike
Some B10 media days tidbits:
The Legends champion will be the home team for the 2011 CCG
Several coaches are advocating moving B10 games earlier in the season. I expect this may get bundled with the decision to go to 9 games but start 2 or 4 years earlier.
Delany said he wouldn’t be opposed to bringing back TV bans as an NCAA penalty.
LikeLike
Don’t like the idea of moving conference games earlier in the season at all. I’ve always preferred to play all non-conference games first before getting into conference play. Those random games against Bowling Green, Toledo, etc in the middle of the conference slate always feels out of place and I don’t want a big name team to focus on when our attention should be focused on winning the Big Ten. I could see how this might be ideal if you had a permanent rivalry with someone like Notre Dame though.
LikeLike
What I foresee is that the first 2 weeks of conference play will be staggered so that nonconf games would be interspersed with league games in late Sept/early Oct, but the last 6 conference games (and the bye week) will be in the last 7 weeks.
LikeLike
I don’t like it either, but they have to move 1 week earlier if they go to 9. I hope they never play B10 games in week 1, because I think everyone should get at least 1 game to settle in before starting conference play.
One possible consequence of moving conference games earlier is the loss of major intersectional home and homes. You generally have to schedule those a long time in advance (a decade or so). You won’t know your conference schedule that far in advance unless the B10 changes its methods, so it poses several problems. Can an OOC game contract force the B10 to make that week available for a team? Will schools take the risk of playing an OU or USC and then find out they have to play NE the week before or after that?
LikeLike
Well, if I was Commish, I’d change the method. Once the conference is stable (say at 16 schools with a 9-game schedule), you can easily designate which schools/division/pods always play conference games in weeks 2 & 4 (leaving weeks 3 and 5 open) and which schools/division/pods always play conference games in weeks 3 & 5 (leaving weeks 2 and 4 open). Plus, you’d always know that week one is open for OOC games.
Not sure what the old fogeys in Park Ridge would do, though.
LikeLike
The latest rumors from Texas:
TAMU and MO to the SEC, leading to OU, OkSU, TT and maybe Baylor in the P12 and KU and KSU in the BE, while UT goes independent. No word on ISU.
The supposed cause is that ESPN is pushing forward on HS football games in the LHN despite the B12’s cease and desist order.
LikeLike
Do you mean from Texas, as in UT, or the media in Texas?
LikeLike
I mean from the state of Texas. I hesitate to call bloggers the media.
LikeLike
That the Big 12 could be killed over an ESPN decision to air high school football is really hard to bye. If it really came to a choice of stopping that or letting superconferences form against their will, I would see ESPN stopping it.
LikeLike
NCAA is having a meeting in August. It really isn’t ESPN’s decision. UT, BYU, BTN and others are meeting to discuss the issue of youth sports being on college networks. I imagine the Pac12 is thinking about doing the same thing. They have a lot of time to fill.
LikeLike
Well, if I’m the P12, OU isn’t worth taking in OkSt, TTech, AND Baylor. OK, maybe TTech would add as much value as Utah, but OkSt. & Baylor as well?
Oh, and what would the new SEC divisions look like? You could keep them the same, but add Mizzou to the East and TAMU to the West to form NE and SW divisions (with Florida, hilariously, in the NE).
LikeLike
Oh, and FSU and VTech or Clemson to go to 16?
LikeLike
Baylor is a nonstarter for the Pac. If they were acceptable they could have taken aTm’s spot last year and the Pac would be at 16 now. Instead Utah got invited, and now there are 4 remaining spots… Its like a musical chairs game.
LikeLike
Put Auburn in the East and make bama/Auburn the cross over game.
LikeLike
You must not follow the SEC too deeply. I somehow doubt either Alabama & Tennessee or Auburn & Georgia would be willing to sacrifice their respective rivalry game. As illogical as it may seem geographically, if the SEC adds only TAMU & Mizzou, putting Mizzou in the east (and making Mizzou/Arkansas & SCarolina/TAMU the crossover games would be much more to everyone’s liking.
LikeLike
It would not effect Auburn/Ga, but Bama/UT would be a problem. FWIW, I’ve been to the Bama\UT game; its big, but I think now LSU/Bama and of course Auburn/bama are bigger.
LikeLike
Whoops, didn’t see you said Auburn to the East.
In any case, I seriously doubt either ‘Bama or the Vols would let that game lapse. Mizzou in the East encounters fewer roadblocks.
LikeLike
From Bama’s perspective, UT is a historical rivalry, but they are not in a key recruiting area, and not that great right now (or for the foreseeable future). Bama would trade the UT game for a trip to Texas every other year, and enhanced recruiting there. I think they would do it.
UT would not like it, but I think games with Eastern rivals GA and FL are more important from a recruiting standpoint, and they still have a game in AL at least every other year (Auburn).
FWIW, I live in Alabama, but don’t claim to be an SEC expert.
LikeLike
“UT may not like it” is probably enough to kill your proposal, considering, again, that just putting Mizzou in the East faces few roadblocks. Also, if Mizzou is put in the East, ‘Bama would still go to Texas every other year, so why would they favor your proposal over mine?
Basically, what would make your proposal more enticing to the existing SEC members than mine?
LikeLike
I don’t see the Bama/UT game nor the Bama/auburn game going away. They may put some sort of 2 cross-divisional game rule into place. Now that 2 cross-divisional game may end up just applying to Bama, but I don’t see any way that they kill either the Bama/UT or the Bama/auburn games.
LikeLike
With 14 teams, 2 permanent cross-divisional rivalries is pretty much impossible, since 6+2=8 conference games right there. With 16 teams, it _is_ impossible.
LikeLike
Do you have a link? I would love read the story!!
LikeLike
I think this is the article Brian is referring to. It’s based on fourth hand information which makes me even more skeptical.
LikeLike
From Aggie Websider David Sandhop: if UT/ESPN don’t back off, change could be weeks away.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/1090643.html
LikeLike
Would the Pac take OU & OkSt? That’s the big question. They may stop at 14, or they may also take TTech & Mizzou (they probably like Kansas, but taking KSU as well would kill that package). The SEC may be willing to take Mizzou, though if they can coordinate with the B10 to split the ACC, TAMU, FSU, VTech, & NCSU sounds better than TAMU & Mizzou.
LikeLike
Or, if the Pac rejects the OK schools while the SEC and B10 split the ACC (leaving Miami, GTech, Clemson, Wake, & BC), the ACC leftovers may band together with OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and Mizzou to form a better version of CUSA. With OU, Miami, & Clemson (and GTech, OkSt, & Mizzou), that would still be a power conference in football while the basketball would be good too.
However, the Pac probably think they can get distribution in at least northern Texas if they take the OK schools along with TTech & adding on Mizzou would get to 16. Amazingly, the new Pac16 would stretch from the Pacific to the Mississippi but still be contiguous.
LikeLike
I said rumors. Is that not an accurate description?
LikeLike
Don’t buy it for one second. Baylor is a non-starter for the PAC-12 and Oklahoma is really not worth taking on TTU and OSU.
I could maybe see this happening if Larry Scott thought he could pull of Oklahoma and Kansas, but KU and KSU share a board of regents so they are likely stuck together.
Plus, the SEC really really doesn’t want to expand.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that. There’s no reason for the SEC to “really, really” not want to expand. If they could get TAMU, FSU, VTech, & NCSU (or maybe Mizzou in there instead somewhere), for instance (Maryland, UVa, UNC, and Duke to the B10), would they do it? I’d say the answer is “yes”.
Would the Pac take KSU & OkSt. to get OU & KU? Probably not.
LikeLike
If all that actually happens, it will be interesting to see if the people running the Big 12, SEC, Pac 16, and Big East can get together with the networks and agree to dissolve the Big 12 after next season. Otherwise that would be 2 awkward athletic years instead of just 1.
That said, I agree with others that Baylor would have little appeal to the Pac 16. TCU would be better if they had to have a 2nd Texas school (TCU+TTech+Ou+OSU=they would pretty much have to get Dallas coverage), but Missouri or Kansas (if they could separate) would be better. Of course, that would make the regional networks awkward; the 2 Oklahoma schools would have to be together and the other 2 schools would have that state in the middle.
In any event, I don’t think the Pac 16 would come out much ahead on a per school basis, though the former Big 12 schools will be quite happy to finally be stable and secure.
If this happens, and the Longhorns go independent in football, does the Big East give them a Notre Dame-like home for their other sports? I think they’d be foolish not to. They would get a lot of publicity and provide a traveling partner for TCU. We know the folks in Austin were willing to send their sports teams to play in the Big Ten last year, and the western half of the Big East isn’t any further.
LikeLike
On the subject of the TV networks, I wonder if ESPN and Fox would really be willing to renegotiate the PAC-1X’s tv deal since they they just combined to pay the conference substantially more than either thought it was worth.
I also wonder if if NC State would really leave the ACC. I always got the feeling the four tobacco road schools would stick together no matter what.
LikeLike
They wouldn’t pay more than it was worth. I believe that they were not concerned about worth so much as neither had the ability, by themselves (with all their other broadcast commitments) to broadcast all that the conference was requiring. Combining reduced broadcast window requirements by half. I’d bet with the right adds they will be more than willing to add to the contract. And if the B 12 does implode there will certainly be broadcast time available for both.
LikeLike
As I understand it, neither ESPN or Fox thought the broadcast rights in and of themselves were worth $3 billion, but they felt it was worth overpaying in order to box out Comcast.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how you divorce the marketplace from the price of a product, unless you have only one bidder for all sporting events. Certainly trying to prevent comcast’s entry was a factor-designed to improve position and profit-especially having just lost NHL to comcast.
From:http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/05/09/Media/Pac-10.aspx
“Prior to that call, executives from ESPN and Fox were resigned to losing the Pac-10’s media rights to Comcast, which had told the conference weeks earlier that it would bid $225 million per year to pick up the rights for Versus and NBC. Neither of the current partners, ESPN nor Fox, had the shelf space to bid that much individually.”
LikeLike
Well, there’d be new inventory if (say) OU, OSU, TTech, and Mizzou come aboard. I’d bet that the current contract only covers games that take place within the footprint of the current P12 schools. If ESPN & Fox are unwilling to negotiate their deal (and I’d expect Fox, at least, to, since the B12 makes up a big chunk of their programming), the P12 could, worse come to worst, put the games taking place at the new eastern school up for auction.
As for the NC schools, that would depend. If all of the ACC schools stay, then sure, the NC schools would all stay, but if FSU and Maryland get peeled off (and VTech and Virginia), then all bets are off.
LikeLike
It doesn’t work like that. The PAC-12 has agreed to give FOX/ESPN rights to so many games in a certain order. While more games will mean there are extra to sell, they will not be strictly the eastern teams, but the bottom layer.
Example: If Fox or ESPN decides it wants Oklahoma-Oklahoma State as its first pick for a week, they would have the right to take it. This might bump one of the bottom games off Fox/ESPN though and the PAC-12 could either sell that bottom layer or put them on the PAC-12 Network. That said, those games don’t have anywhere near the value of the top games and probably wouldn’t be worth the extra mouths to feed.
LikeLike
Eric: don’t forget that the P12N has first or second pick 7 of the thirteen weeks. It is esentially a first tier junior partner.
LikeLike
The Big Ten got ABC/ESPN to pay more in the short term when Nebraska joined.
The Pac 12 commissioner spent all last summer saying expansion was on hold, but not over. They certainly left clauses in their contract that deal with expansion.
They’ll get more money if they expand, but I’m sure the amount depends on who they add. It might not be worth it to add schools like Tech and Oklahoma State without the Longhorns.
LikeLike
The Big Ten did not get ABC/ESPN to pay more when Nebraska joined. All increases for the Big Ten come from the Big Ten Championship game (not part of the old contracts and they could sell it separately) and the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Ten did get to boost its ABC/ESPN deal when they added Nebraska. They didn’t just get money, however.
“Commissioner Jim Delany said in an interview that part of renegotiating the league’s TV deal with ABC/ESPN after Nebraska got invited was to allow the Big Ten Network to broadcast games that start at 2:30 p.m. and in a night slot at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m.”
….
“Nebraska’s entry into the Big Ten put the league in position to create a football championship game, which Fox has won the rights to. Also, the Big Ten’s current deal with ABC/ESPN was reshaped.
“We have more assets because we have more games with Nebraska in,” Delany said. “There is an increased number of games and an increased value of games.”
How much more valuable?
“A little bit more,” Delany said.”
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110608/BIGRED/706089799/395
The lawyers that make these deals aren’t foolish enough to leave no clauses concerning changes in league membership.
LikeLike
Well, if they get OU, OSU, TTech, and Mizzou, I’d imagine there’d be one regional network for OK+Texas (really, they’d be likely to get distribution only in western and northern Texas) and one for MO. They won’t have 2 schools per regional channel, but c’est la vie.
LikeLike
Isn’t Comcast a reasonably large provider in Texas?
LikeLike
Only in the Houston area, I believe. Probably a lot of homes given the population density, but not necessarily a wide geographical area.
LikeLike
Comcast is big in Houston, but not the rest of the state. They got out of DFW a few years back. Here’s a handy map:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/12/picture-1000-words-us-cable-provider-map/78308/
LikeLike
Cool map. Thanks.
Looks like the combination of Comcast and Time Warner covers a fair bit of Texas.
LikeLike
. . . .but not really north or west TX (or OK), where the strongest interest in OU, OSU, & TTech would be.
LikeLike
Charter is also pretty big in the DFW area, although its hard to tell by that map. And it isn’t shown on the map, but AT&T and Verizon both have a very strong presence in Texas – AT&T is based here, and some of Fios’ test markets were in Texas.
LikeLike
Richard:
I’m not sure I am following you. At first you say they will likely (future tense) “only” get distributed in the N and W, but when it turns out that there is already distribution in other areas – that is a negative? You feel further distribution is unlikely? Even if the conference was, at some point, to include a team or more from the region?
LikeLike
I didn’t look in to the details of the P12 deal, but I was under the impression that the P12 channels would get distributed on the basic tier only in those areas/states that had P12 teams and would be on the sports tier elsewhere. Correct me if I’m wrong.
To clarify, under that assumption, I’m saying that adding OU, OSU, & TTech would get the P12 channels on the basic tier only in north and west Texas (remaining on sports tier elsewhere). I may be wrong, but that’s my prediction.
LikeLike
Richard – you could be right, but I think it’s a moot point. The Pac-12 was only going to add Tech to get Texas. No way they take them on their own, and the Red Raiders don’t help them get OU. They might take just OU & OSU without the Longhorns. That alone would probably get a Pac network onto a basic tier in DFW. After all, BTN is on the most basic tier on my Uverse service.
Also, when we say North Texas, we mean the DFW area and environs. TW has quite a strong presence here, particularly in Dallas. It’s not a big spot on the map, but it’s a lot of households.
LikeLike
Hi Jake,
The BTN is on basic tier because of the deal the B10 made with AT&T. The BTN got DirectTV and UVerse to put it on the basic tier from the get go (DirectTV was owned by Fox; not sure why AT&T decided to do it), which was used as leverage to get the BTN on the dominant cable carriers in B10 country. The P12 has pursued a different cable strategy (they got the PTN on the dominant cable carriers in P12 country from the beginning, but as I read somewhere that the P12 won’t get as much money from their channel as the B10 from theirs, despite owning 100% of it as opposed to 51%, they must be accepting a substantially lower carriage fee than the BTN).
In any case, you’re probably right that TTech isn’t necessary.
LikeLike
Richard:
Yes, although details aren’t yet available that is what I expected. I thought you were saying that it would be unavailable. I didn’t have a problem paying a bit more to get BTN.
Larry Scott months ago said not to expect a large, immediate financial return. Something along the line of (paraphrasing) ‘We aren’t going to run from it (money), but that isn’t the primary concern here.’ He did say, post P12Nets anouncement, that it is guaranteed to be profitable in the first year in spite of startup costs.
LikeLike
On your last question, I think the answer would largely depend on the structure of the Big East when all the dust is settled.
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M were all programs that Pac 12 commissioner Larry Scott courted last year in his attempt to set up a Pac 16 Conference. Outside of Texas not being part of that group as the fourth program, has anything changed so that he wouldn’t be tempted again to approach those three schools with the prospect of a Pac 16 Network Texas and Pac 16 Network Oklahoma being part of the package? What would be the fourth school in the mix–Texas Tech or Texas Christian or perhaps some other member of the current Big XII?
I have to imagine there’d be a bidding war between the Pac 12 and the SEC for Oklahoma and Texas A&M. Both have a lot to bring to the table and those two programs would not only improve the brand of the two conferences, but it’d give them their first toeholds in the state of Texas. Exanpanding a conference’s geographic footprint along with the number of television sets within the confernce have always been prime drivers behind conference alignment.
But going back to my first paragraph, you have to wonder what sort of shape the Big East would be in if one or two 16-team super conferences were formed around the SEC and Pac 16. By extension, I suppose that same statement could be made of the ACC if Florida State or Miami-FL or Virginia Tech or some other school from that conference were SEC bound. Would the remaining members of the ACC look at the Big East (again) to get it back to a 12-team conference ? Keep in mind that Syracuse was an ACC expansion target back in 2003–has anything changed to take them off an ACC expansion list alongside Pittsburgh or Connecticut or some other Big East school like Louisville?
I don’t know if Texas would have a viable home to put its non-football teams in, but it’s possible. There are teams in the state in Conference USA as possibilities or there might be a MWC/Big XII survivors conference set up for programs like Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State where UT could get games on its non-football team schedules.
Obviously, all these possibiities have to be looked at to see if they’re realistic or not in terms of dollars and cents, etc. The prospect of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M moving to the Pac 12 and/or the SEC is the most likely scenario behind any conference realignment at this time. But does it really make business sense and can all the stakeholders realistically get behind it?
LikeLike
I see no indication that Larry Scott wanted OkSt. except solely because it was needed to take them to get OU. I also see no indication that TAMU has any interest in the Pac if the SEC wants them.
As for the ACC, they may raid the BE if they lose only a school or 2 to the SEC, but if we start seeing ACC schools leave, I think it’s more likely that the B10 and SEC split up the ACC than that it replenishes with BE schools. The ACC either stays together as it is, or (if a school or two defects), it will fall aprt.
LikeLike
GT’s planning on appealing their penalties. ACC commish Swoffod, in an AJC article 7/25 (couldn’t find it on their website today, so no link-it might be there somewhere) titled “Swofford expects rules compliance”, named the GT President and AD as people “committed to doing things the right way.” “Somewhere along the lines, things got a little of out whack (in Tech’s dealings) with the NCAA….Some of it may have been timing, some of it may have been (Tech’s) perception of the particular situation compared to the NCAA’s perception of it.” He also said about the 100k fine, “I will say it’s the biggest fine that I’m aware of that the NCAA has levied,” he said, “And the fine, relative to what actually occurred in terms of the players, was big.” Also in the article he said the NCAA should focus on serious rules violations instead of “jaywalking” and to consistently apply penalties.
I think its significant when you have commissioners, rather than just school people, questioning things.
Also in the article he supported studying including the full cost of attendance as Delaney suggested last month and also the possibility of multi-year scholarships.
LikeLike
He’d have a point if the fine was for the player’s violation, but that’s not what happened. The fine was for what the GT administration and coaches did. I’m not saying the value was correct, but saying it was related to the $312 of clothes is pure misdirection.
LikeLike
They decided that the fine was not going to be appealed, but they want to keep their title.
LikeLike
They played an ineligible player. How do they plan to get around that?
LikeLike
Seems like they would have a better chance on the fine.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
On the B12 implosion and A&M to the SEC chatter:
1) I think this HS FB on the Longhorn Network is a real sticking point, and the NCAA should step up to the plate and call it what it is. A pure unfair recruiting advantage. If they can nail IU for texting, then how can they keep a straight face by putting future “possible” recruits on a network owned by a college sports team?
2) The only reason I do not feel this whole thing is credible is that A&M would be paired with A&M. If we go to 16, why would Slive take a B1G reject? In realignment if you have limited slots, you are going to want to get the best, lest your competitor get the better teams? If Slive got Missouri, but lost UNC in the process my guess is he would not jump first!
The B1G hit a home run with UNL, why would Slive settle for a single with Missouri? I think Brian and I discussed this earlier in the “shared” history. I think Missouri has no real history with any team in the SEC. Look at past realignment teams and each had ties to at least 1 team in the conference they joined. In the B1G UNL had a history with the teams in the conference going all the way back to the start of college football. Arkansas had a history with SEC West teams, and USC had a history with the eastern teams. PSU felt like a B1G team long before they were a member. Sure the PAC picked up Utah and CU, but former PAC members Idaho and Montana looked less appealing than current members AZ, ASU, CU, and UT. I often feel that if the PAC 12 could go back to the PAC 8 they would be quite happy.
LikeLike
I think the chances of the SEC getting UNC are the same as them getting the Longhorns (between slim and none), but would they value Mizzou over FSU, VTech, or NCSU? I wouldn’t. (well, maybe NCSU)
LikeLike
Duffman,
There is a clear line between breaking the rules (IU) and doing things that should be against the rules but aren’t (Cecil Newton trying to sell his son, LHN airing HS football). The NCAA should get ahead of this, but the issue has blown up in a very short time. The NCAA can’t be expected to react instantly.
LikeLike
BTN is apparently airing HS football as well. But they’ve never had an official of the network comment on how good it would be to see on TV “Player X” who was a Big 10 recruit. That guy was not thinking.
I think we’ll see some decision out of the August meetings. BTW, Cam would now be ineligible. NCAA decided a relative can be classified an agent, so shopping him would make him ineligible. That only took them about 9 months. I think the current NCAA president is serious. Its just a question of whether he can get the Presidents to go along with him.
LikeLike
In some ways it seems less bad for the BTN to air high school games, since that’s an entire conference rather than just one school and there isn’t as clear of a recruiting advantage to be gained. On the other hand, the conference owns half of the channel, as opposed to LHN, which is technically just another ESPN with a UT logo. Either way, this has to stop. If it’s not against the rules it should be.
LikeLike
The BTN does not show high school games nor does it have any plans to.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/29739/delany-btn-wont-air-high-school-games
LikeLike
Brian,
I agree, but what I am trying to point out that punishment does not fit the crime. If the NCAA is the “think tank” of college sports, they should be ahead of the curve. I was trying to point out the difference more than anything else.
texting = low
250,000 to Bush = high
college “owning” high school broadcast rights = red alert
If we were debating this HS / ESPN thing on here awhile back, and we are a collective of fans playing armchair quarterback, then what should hobble the NCAA who is in the business to figure this stuff out.
As example, the second this hit the news, the NCAA should have issued an immediate moratorium before anything else could happen. It is instant, decisive, and sends a clear bow shot prior to any hostilities. There is nothing about this who HS broadcast thing that seems any way to pass a smell test for the average fan.
LikeLike
The organizational structure of the NCAA prohibits them from doing what you want. Emmert doesn’t have the power to declare a moratorium, just to convene meetings to discuss the issue. Any proposed change has to be voted on by a committee and then passed by the whole body. These people are college presidents, so they do have other things to worry about, too. In general, the NCAA is a reactive body with limited power to respond quickly to much of anything.
LikeLike
“NCAA decided a relative can be classified an agent, so shopping him….”
Source?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6804635/ncaa-panel-proposes-broader-definition-agent
Proposed.
LikeLike
The folks down in texas are saying there will be a showdown tomorrow on the Longhorn Network and it being the conduit for HS games.
LikeLike
From CBS Sportsline at http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/31025781
Texas A&M goes to NCAA on Longhorn Network
Posted on: July 31, 2011 6:53 pm
Edited on: August 1, 2011 7:49 am
Texas A&M is urging the NCAA to use a 17-year-old rules interpretation that it believes would keep the Longhorn Network from airing high school games.
CBSSports.com obtained documents that show A&M wants TLN classified as an “institutional publication”, per bylaw 11.2.3.4, which would make it an “athletics representative of the institution.” The 1994 interpretation dealt most mostly with what was, at the time, an explosion among specialty print publications. Several newsletters, magazines and weeklies sprung up in the 1990s that covered individual schools’ sports. Several of those publications reported recruiting news in varying degrees as part of their coverage.
They were, in essence, what could interpreted as print versions of what the TLN is attempting to become in 2011. A&M is asking that the NCAA apply that Nov. 1994 ruling — regarding those print publications — to video-based publications.
If not, the school said, “the NCAA, in allowing institutions to create video-based publication agreements without any restriction on content, is opening Pandora’s box.”
A&M even uses a quote Texas AD DeLoss Dodds to drive home its point about TLN being an “athletics representative.”
“This is yet another step leading up to our launch which will offer viewers unprecedented access to our sports programs …” Dodds said in a January press release.
All of it means that Monday’s Big 12 AD meetings in Dallas to discuss “institutional networks” could be the most significant for the conference in more than a year. During the 2010 spring meetings in Kansas City, the seeds were planted for Nebraska and Colorado to leave the conference. During those meetings, Texas reaffirmed its desire to start a network.
“Our goal is to keep this together,” A&M AD Bill Byrne said. “I don’t see anything contentious about it.”
The league recently agreed to a lucrative 13-year, $1.2 billion deal with Fox for its secondary rights. It figures to score another windfall when its ABC/ESPN rights expire after 2015-16. But cracks already are beginning to appear nationally and in the Big 12. Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott reiterated last week what he told CBSSports.com in May.
” … It’s my view there will be further expansion down the road,” Scott said during the Pac-12 media days.
Texas A&M appears to have leverage with a potential move to the SEC. That could lead to a tsunami of conference realignment if other conferences are forced to react within the marketplace.
Texas has long been speculated to become an independent if it isn’t happy with the Big 12. (Although it has never been addressed what would happen with Texas’ highly-competitive minor sports.) The school came within a heartbeat of joining the Pac-10 in 2010. A portion of Texas’ contract with ESPN states that if Texas is not a member of a conference, ESPN would have 60 days to make an exclusive deal for those TV rights. It would have 48 hours to match any competing offer. That information was reported by the Austin American-Statesman after a Freedom of Information request.
Given the potentially shaky Big 12 partnership, a school like Missouri suddenly would have multiple options in perhaps the SEC, Big Ten, Big East, even the Pac-12. There is every indication, though, that the current situation will be resolved. That still doesn’t mean the Big 12 is a long-term proposition.
The growing controversy over broadcasting high school games seems to have only two resolutions. Either it will happen or it won’t. Texas and ESPN officials have said they are fine if the NCAA restricts the airing of high school games. Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe has put a moratorium on the practice until the issue is resolved.
Also at issue is Texas’ intention to broadcast a conference game on TLN. That raises issues as to whether a conference member would be helping promote the network by its participation.
What you don’t hear at the moment is Texas and ESPN backing down on their own on the issue of high school games. Technology, at this point, is moving faster than the NCAA’s ability to react to it. Texas’ intent to show high school content via broadband distribution and a coming Longhorn application has Texas A&M and others concerned.
Adding to the confusion is that Texas, the Big 12, NCAA and ESPN are all in a symbiotic relationship. Texas is a member of the Big 12 which is a member of the NCAA. All three have financial relationships with media giant ESPN.
Texas and ESPN announced the 20-year, $300 million partnership in January.
The Longhorn Network is the first individual school-centric endeavor on a major network (ESPN). It is launching Aug. 26 but not before having somewhat of a national referendum on the future of such businesses — and possibly the Big 12 itself.
After a much-hyped, regents meeting earlier this month Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin said TLN’s intentions create “uncertainty,” in the Big 12. Missouri coach Gary Pinkel said last week it is “common sense” that Texas not air high school games. While proclaiming solidarity among conference members, commissioner Dan Beebe said, “Any time there is any kind of perceived crack, there’s going to be a lot of vultures in the air.”
The issue has attracted the attention of the NCAA which has called an Aug. 22 in Indianapolis to discuss the issue. Among those invited include Texas, Notre Dame and the Pac-12. All three have networks or aspirations of forming one.
At issue is whether the ESPN/Texas partnership creates an unfair recruiting advantage. In early June, TLN chief Dave Brown specified in a radio interview that the network intended to show up to 18 high school games as well as travel to other states to show the games of players who had committed to Texas. That’s where A&M, and others took notice.
Texas A&M is lobbying the NCAA hard to the point that ruling in favor of Texas “may cause more than simply discussion and consternation among the NCAA membership. It may lead to undesirable developments, a fear of creeping recruiting advantage that compels members to try to create situations for themselves similar to the Longhorn Network …
” … then the next step,” A&M states to the NCAA, “could easily be an initiative to broadcast nonscholastic events during the otherwise slow collegiate sporting event summer period and it does not take much of an imagination to target men’s and women’s basketball summer tournaments/camps as being of interest to sports fans.”
The NCAA already has its hands full with controlling the influence of those non-scholastic events. Basketball is rife with abuses. The association’s enforcement department is working diligently trying to control non-scholastic third party influences in football.
College athletics is watching the TLN situation closely. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Thursday that the Big Ten Network is not interested in televising high school games at this time. That could change, he added, the NCAA allows it.
In that case, he said, “we’ll probably have to take a look at it.”
At the time the original legislation was passed in 1993, 24/7 networks dedicated to one school didn’t exist. Texas A&M argued to the NCAA that “the intent and spirit of the rule was that these type of outside/independent entities … have greater flexibility in conversations with high school-aged individuals …”
Dodds said Texas would be not involved in selecting high school games to be broadcast.
“We’ll just have to let the process work itself out,” ESPN’s Brown said last week. “We would have liked to have done them [high school games], one game a week, two games a week. If we have to go in another direction we will.”
Coach Mack Brown said last week that high school coaches and players would be hurt most through lack of exposure if their games weren’t broadcast.
LikeLike
QUESTION:
Is the LHN a non-starter for future Big Ten expansion and the University of Texas?
In other words, did they go from having a “Tech” problem to a “LHN” problem in the eyes of the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Maybe the “Tech” problem was a reference to the LHN and not Texas Tech, as we all had surmised.
LikeLike
After reading my previous post, I realized the need to further explain my thought.
When the email from OSU president Gordon Gee to Jim Delaney regarding UT’s “Tech” problem became public knowledge, everyone assumed Gee was referencing Texas Tech. Well, instead of Texas Tech, maybe Gee was actually referring to the LHN and the technical issues that would need to be worked out with the LHN’s regional coverage vs. the BTN’s national coverage (assuming UT truly was interested in joining the B1G).
Potentially, this technical issue with the BTN is what drove UT to almost join the PAC12, where the LHN would more closely align with the new Pac12 Network which includes both regional and national coverage.
It’s just a different perspective to view the email.
LikeLike
Doubt it would destroy any chances. I think way more is being made of the Longhorn Network than is being warranted.
LikeLike
You don’t subscribe to equal revenue sharing, one for all …, etc?
LikeLike
I think it’s overrated in these discussions. No conference shares all the money teams bring in and all conferences share most of the national TV money. The differences between conferences models is overstated at the very least. The issue got played up because last year with teams moving away from less equal revenue sharing conferences to greater revenue sharing ones, but I think that’s mostly a red hearing in all of this. The Big Ten, PAC-10, and SEC aren’t more stable because they have more equal revenue (and PAC-10 couldn’t even say that last year), they are for historic reasons. Granted its easier to get more equal revenue sharing in those circumstances (since there is less fear the big schools will bolt), but I don’t think it makes a conference any more stable long term.
What I do buy is that contracts will be an issue. The existence of the Longhorn Network itself isn’t a problem. Working a framework between it and the Big Ten Network might be difficult though given the same rights are probably assigned to both and with neither network fully owned (or in the case of Texas at all owned) by the schools, that might be an issue. In the end though, I think those could be worked out if Texas wanted to come. The Longhorn Network is already at a tier lower than the Big Ten Network for the most part (otherwise they’d have more than one Longhorn game that ESPN didn’t have to pay extra to get). It probably would keep a game like that and some of the smaller rights, while the Big Ten Network would get the rights to most of the games Fox Sports Net has the rights to with Texas in the Big 12.
All of this said, Texas isn’t coming, so it’s not an issue.
LikeLike
The Longhorns wouldn’t be allowed to have a separate network in the Big Ten. However, I’m sure the conference would willing to buy out at least some of their investments in order to get the Longhorns to join the conference. The conference would make it back in the long run.
If the Big Ten would go to 14 or 16 schools, they would certainly either add a 2nd Big Ten national network, or add multiple regional networks like the Pac 12. The more interesting Longhorn programming would still be on the air.
LikeLike
I think everyone is going to look at the PAC 12 model. BTN expanded tier could include NE/IA, MN/WI, IL, IN, MI and perhaps an OH/PA regional network. Or you could do 4 with NE/IA/MN, WI/IL, IN/OH, MI/PA. You would simulcast local games and have separate content when not picked up by BTN.
LikeLike
It’s much harder to do the regional model in B10 country. In the west, you essentially have urban clusters plopped down over vast distances separated by oceans of nothing (deserts, mountains, and forests).
The Midwest isn’t like that. You have a lot of population on the edges of all the states, and you have plenty of Ohioans in greater Detroit, plenty of Illinoisans in Milwaukee, plenty of Wisconsinites in the Twin Cities, and plenty of everybody (except maybe Pennsylvanians) in Chicagoland. The BTN may need a second channel, but not a regional model.
LikeLike
Richard,
The P12 isn’t quite that pure. I’m pretty sure the LA and SF markets have a lot of overlap of P12 alums and fans.
The first issue is I’m not sure how much demand there would be for BTN Regional. How much more stuff is there that people want to see?
A BTN regional model might work, but it wouldn’t form neat pairs like the P12. If I was the B10, I’d start with 2 regional networks – East and West. If they prove successful, I’d start splitting them into smaller groups. The East should prove successful pretty quickly and can be split into PA, OH/IN and MI pretty quickly.
The West might need to stay in bigger chunks due to smaller populations, or the strong fan bases may carry them just fine (I don’t know the financial model well enough to say which is true). I’d go NE/IA and WI/MN/IL first, with NE and IA splitting next if fanaticism is enough to sustain a channel. If things go well, I could see WI/MN supporting one and IL being split off to join IN (four schools in one to boost desirability).
So, they could start with 2 networks and switch that into as many as 7 if there is demand. That slow growth means they would meet demand but not exceed it.
LikeLike
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/aggies/2011/08/uncertainty-aggies-are-clear-regarding-longhorn-network/
And, because of that, I know plenty of SEC-loving Aggies who are crossing their fingers the Longhorn Network presses on with its plans.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner on Texas
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/08/01/actionreaction-pac-12-expansion-options-or-lack-thereof/
LikeLike
I’ve said before that I expect A&M and UT to continue playing in all sports even if they go there separate ways because the people in charge will stay calm and recognize the value of the rivalry, and there will be a lot of people in the state that would speak up if it ended. I still think that way, but I’m a bit less sure now after reading this:
“Sources confirmed that while his peers kowtowed to the Longhorns during a recent ADs meeting, [A&M AD] Byrne engaged in a heated debate with Texas AD DeLoss Dodds about the Longhorn Network.
When a sportswriter asked Dodds last week for a comment on Byrne, he received a three-word response not suitable for family newspapers”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=202&articleid=20110731_202_B1_TEXASO143462&rss_lnk=93
LikeLike
Noone knows what discussions have been going on behind the scenes, but the public approach Byrne is taking, going to the NCAA, makes it look like someone with buyers’ remorse about the Big 12 rather than someone who is trying to work things out.
I don’t think the Aggies have freedom to go where they want. While Texas wouldn’t be happy, its the Tech and Baylor people who would be afraid they would be left behind. I think they would declare war. In times of reduced budgets, it would be very risky to tick off a significant part of the legislature.
LikeLike
Isn’t the legislature in a down period so they couldn’t block it right now? Granted, they could punish them later but I think there won’t be a lot of stomach for that. If UT is seen as the root problem and TAMU the one that wouldn’t put with it, who gets punished and how much? How much are they willing to hurt their top universities because of a sports issue?
LikeLike
The counter argument is how much A&M values sports vs. academics and how A&M leaving might hurt other schools (Tech and Baylor). I don’t think they would be able to block it, but they could certainly make it painful. The first one to leave will rightfully get blamed, especially if A&M were to take OU with them. You also have to understand that the current governor and the people he listens to don’t value research. There’s a big battle going on.
LikeLike
Wilner’s mind isn’t flexible enough to consider the combination of OU&OSU (or the OK schools + TTech & Mizzou?
I don’t think there’s any chance TAMU would choose the Pac over the SEC, but I could definitely see the SEC passing on OU if they have to take OkSt to get the Sooners.
LikeLike
Revisiting the PAC 16:
Early in the discussion last year I suggested the PAC going to 16 with the following adds:
UT
TAMU
OU
oSu
KU
CU
Later Larry Scott later announced:
UT
TAMU
OU
oSu
TT
CU
He got:
CU
UT
Back then I expressed grave reservation about UT because of their history of ego and inability to share and share alike. History has now shown my initial assessment was pretty much spot on. Now the college world all knows how toxic UT can be. All this chatter about TAMU to the SEC has given me cause to suggest an alternative solution for Larry Scott that would free Delany long term. Jim has said the B1G is done for now, and all along Slive has said they would only react. So what is the best thing that could happen to help Delany without him being the first to act?
Have Scott be the first to 16 with the following ads:
#1 Oklahoma + #1a Oklahoma State
#2 Kansas + #2a Missouri
before you say NO WAY.. consider the following:
a) UT is not going to play nice
b) TAMU seems hell bent that if they go, it is the SEC
c) TT / BU are lesser dogs with fleas
d) TCU to the PAC just does not seem to have the numbers
Go back to my “brand” theory for football (FSU/Umiami/UGA/etc = *near brands)
IND = ND = 10%
B1G = UNL + UM + tOSU + PSU = 40%
B12 = UT + OU = 20%
SEC = BAMA + 1 (UTn/UF/LSU) = 20%
PAC = U$C = 10%
and my “brand” theory for basketball (UCLA/Duke/UL/MSU/Uconn/oSu = *near brands)
B1G = IU = 25%
ACC = UNC = 25%
B12 = KU = 25%
SEC = UK = 25%
* my near brands are classified as such due to multiple coaches and fan support (for Frank, everybody was a Bulls fan when Jordan was there, but how many fell by the wayside after he was gone). As I have said before, nobody doubts Wooden or coach K, but what is their passion long term. The Dean Dome, Rupp, Assembly + Indy, Allen all have fans that travel. UL has YUM, and SU has the Carrier Dome. Pauly still only seats 13K in one of the largest markets in the whole USA. Cameron (and I have been there) is a dump while UNC has 22K seating and NCST has 20K in RBC. Duke is closer to ACC basketball powerhouses VT and Miami when it comes to traveling fan support. I know I catch flack for this, but I have said all along that in the future it will be weighted to the BIG state schools with large numbers of alumni being produced each and every year. Duke is popping out say 1,000 to 2,000 undergrad degrees a year while tOSU may be pumping out 10,000 – 15,000 in the same year. It would take Duke a DECADE to produce the alumni tOSU can in a year!
Now back to my thoughts, and using the poker theory of winning many small hands vs 1 big hand to win a tournament (and it is all about winning) 🙂 Sure Texas is the “big pot” but what would Scott get by going for the “multiple little pot” theory?
#1) What that PAC had ==> US Senators
CA + WA + OR + AZ = 8
What they could have ==> US Senators
CU + UT + OK + KS + MO = 10
net gain = 10 (over 100% growth)
============================
#2) What the PAC had ==> “brands”
football = U$C = 10%
basketball = UCLA
What they could have ==> “brands”
football = U$C + OU = 20%
basketball = UCLA + KU
net gain = 1 in each sport (at least 100% growth)
============================
#3) What they had in rivals
U$C vs UCLA
Cal vs Stanford
Oregon vs OSU
Wash vs Wash St
AZ vs ASU
What they could have
U$C vs UCLA
Cal vs Stanford
Oregon vs OSU
Wash vs Wash St
AZ vs ASU
CU vs UT
OU vs oSu
KU vs Missouri
============================
#4) what they had in footprint
A West cost concentration
What they would have
A conference that started at the Mississippi River and ran all the way to the Pacific Ocean unfettered by rival conferences (the B1G, SEC, ACC, BE and CUSA all overlap each other if the 16 team model becomes the norm).
Sure they lose the state of Texas and about 25 million people, but with the above adds they pick up about 20 million, so they are really only giving up about 5 million (which is somewhere between Alabama and Minnesota). The upside is they to not have to deal with UT’s inability to get along, and more importantly they do not have to deal with Texas political entanglements! 😉
What is less obvious are some of the following:
a) Shifting AZ and ASU to the “new” side of the conference, They in essence get back the old PAC 8 and their little club
b) In football your CCG every year has a high probability of being U$C vs OU
c) In basketball your tourney every year has a high probability of being KU vs UCLA
d) In baseball the CWS becomes “home court” for the PAC 16 teams
e) In the B12 only UT sleeps well at night, so Missouri and Kansas should be stoked to go to a conference together (not likely in the B1G or SEC) and they keep all their historic rivalry intact (unlike the break between OU and UNL). It also means for the first time in their lives they will not be the redheaded stepchildren as they will get an equal stake in the PAC
f) OU / oSu / CU / KU / Missouri all have history so you can keep all that intact
Now why would I suggest all this? Lets go out long term….
a) PAC goes to 16
b) Slive has the excuse to expand and picks up TAMU (where they seem to want to be)
c) Delany adds Rutgers (I still think Pitt is the best add, but I know Frank says no overlap)
d) Slive adds Va Tech (to open an ACC attack)
e) Delany adds Maryland (courtesy of Slive)
The PAC now has 16, The B1G and SEC are at 14 and all stops
f) ACC restocks with some BE schools (maybe UC + Uconn)
A decade from now either ND and UT still have egos, and B1G adds UVA + Pitt, while SEC adds UNC + NCST
OR
B1G adds a “subdued” UT & ND while the SEC adds 2 ACC teams
B1G wins!!
**** so does the PAC, because it would be hard for them to add any current BE or ACC teams from a travel and logistics standpoint ****
The End 🙂
LikeLike
ps, here is an interview with Loftin:
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/aggies/2011/08/r-bowen-loftin-transcript-on-big-12-sec/
deals with the network and the SEC
LikeLike
You really think Delaney would respond to the SEC adding TAMU and Va Tech with adding Rutgers and Maryland?
The SEC would be picking up Texas and Virginia. Nobody can prove that Rutgers is worth a damn, and, while Maryland is nice, it’s not as nice as Virginia or Texas. I can’t see Delaney, the guy who started all this expansion stuff, sitting back and letting the SEC and Pac-12 get such big gains while the B1G makes such conservative moves. If Slive were to pick apart the ACC, I have to imagine Delaney would go after UVA, UNC/Duke, Maryland, or some combination of the four, and then try to get ND one more time before closing ranks at 16.
I really don’t think New York will ever be won by college football. College basketball has a chance there, simply because basketball is such a big sport in New York, and there was a time when college basketball essentially drew its largest support from NYC (until CCNY was caught in its massive point-shaving scandal). Of course, college basketball might not even do it, as one reason it’s so popular there is you have *so* many big name college teams with fans in the region (UConn, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Michigan, PSU, Georgetown, UNC, Duke, etc.), but there’s no one team to capture it all.
I ultimately don’t see the SEC or Big East aggressively pursuing any Big East teams save for maybe WVU and Pitt. If any of the teams were truly a financial windfall I have to think the ACC, B1G, or SEC would have already poached them.
LikeLike
Quick follow-up…
I’m still not sure why the B1G wouldn’t be proactive about Texas A&M if A&M really is looking for a new home. If UT is a non-starter due to the LHN, then A&M is the next best sports entity in Texas. It would seem unlikely that they would seek preferential scheduling treatment (as was rumored with Texas joining the B1G with ND), and the B1G already makes more than the SEC.
Plus, I have to think A&M would think winning the B1G would be easier than capturing the SEC crown.
Of course, there are cultural considerations, as well as the question of a 14th team (possibly 15th and 16th as well), but wouldn’t it at least be due diligence for the B1G to pursue A&M?
LikeLike
I would think packaging MO and TAMU would be interesting to the B10. At least something to think about.
LikeLike
And only have one add left, assuming you still hold one and wait on ND?
LikeLike
@ rider:
yep. that’s a pretty interesting route to 14. If its on the table, which it appears to be, it’s worth a look. I think ND will forever be independent and it looks as tough TX is headed that way. I can’t see many pairs that bring a lot of value. MO & TAMU is somewhat compelling. Not saying I’d do it, but I’d think about it.
LikeLike
I don’t want the B10 to expand again, and I don’t think it is looking to expand.
However, if TAMU was adamant about leaving the B12 I’d definitely talk to them. They are a geographical and cultural outlier, but bring TX markets (huge for BTN and recruiting) and good academics. MO would be a natural bridge that fits in really well with the neighboring states and provides TAMU another familiar face. MO is the perfect complementary addition. TAMU would appreciate being treated as an equal in the B10, too.
Despite all that, my sense of the situation is that TAMU would go to the SEC first, and would probably choose to stay in the B12 rather than join the B10.
LikeLike
I agree that Miz and TAM would be interesting but I’d only pull the trigger on TAM if I were the B10. As has been mentioned quite a bit, there is not nearly as much incentive to go above 12 as there was to get to 12 because 12 gets you a championship game. So the question is who adds enough value. There’s no way Miz does. My though is that TAM would because of the Texas markets, but also because you put yourself in a position as a Longhorn-friendly option in the future. Times and technology change; I think most of us agree that a B12 implosion might very well lead to UT independence, but some day perhaps conference affiliation becomes more attractive. Whoever lands TAM will be in the best position to land UT. And let’s face it, the B10 can afford to be choosy (and there are only so many more schools that can be added). There are no backsies, and Mizzouri does not move the needle. The B10 can afford to work on Notre Dame and/or wait for other slam dunk possibilities that have or haven’t even been imagined yet.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
Going to 13 makes no sense, though. You need equal divisions. MO would help provide a bridge to TAMU while not being a big drag financially or academically. I think you have to consider the value of the pair, and I’m not sure anyone pairs better with TAMU than MO (except UT, of course). As for TAMU leading to UT, I think the conference with OU has an equal if not stronger claim.
Without the NCAA/BCS changing the rules for the football postseason to require conference membership, which seems unlikely to me, ND is never going to join a conference. If UT goes independent, they won’t come back either.
LikeLike
The 12-team 2-division round robin rule is something than can be worked on. There’s too much money in college football to be weighed down by rigid rules. Particularly if big money teams try to figure out ways to make more flexible scheduling. And let’s face it, half of the talk on this board is about who conferences would add to get to 16. If that day ever comes, there will be a lot of pressure to update scheduling and divisional rules.
So I think 13 can work so long as it’s a slam dunk candidate, which I think TAM is.
Also, never say never about ND or anybody else. Who knows what the changing landscape will look like in 10, 20 years or more. No reason to settle.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
I agree the rules may change, but 13 is still a bad number. You need equal divisions for scheduling.
Div A = 7 teams, Div B = 6
A gets 6 divisional games and 2 interdivisional games.
B gets 5 divisional games and 3 interdivisional games.
A needs 14 interdivisional games (2 * 7) while B needs 18 games (3 * 6). To make a balanced schedule, division A can’t play a full round robin. That’s not acceptable for the B10 to me.
How do you lock rivalries? Does 1 team in A get nobody or does someone in B get 2?
Half of B will get only 2 divisional game sat home. Are they OK with that when the other 10 teams get 3 divisional home games?
As for ND, they have made it very clear. They will only join a conference for football if the rules change to require conference membership in order to compete for the national title. And if UT can’t make it work in the B12, they aren’t going to join the B10 where they have to share equally and can’t bully people.
LikeLike
1. The SEC isn’t getting Texas. If the B12 implodes, Texas goes independent (may put second-tier sports in the BE, where they’d at least get Eastern media exposure).
2. The SEC would WANT VTech over UVa, as VPI is the bigger school with more fan support.
In any case, the SEC isn’t going to get the academic bluebloods at Texas, UNC (or Duke), and UVa.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m pretty sure he meant the state of Texas, via TAMU, just like the state of Virginia via VT.
LikeLike
OK, got it. Then I agree. If the SEC can pry any school away from the ACC, the B10 is going for the bluebloods of the ACC, not Rutgers & Pitt.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s what I meant.
LikeLike
I was clear that the SEC would get VT and 2 ACC adds
I like Pitt over Rutgers from the start but Frank kept talking about not overlapping markets
I think the first two ACC schools to the B1G would be MD (because they seemed positive on their boards back when all this was swiriling about the first time) and UVA, because with VT gone, that would free UVA.
LikeLike
Nice, Duff.
I hadn’t considered KU with Mizzou, but that makes sense, since Boone Pickens can get OkSt. in with OU, but KSU doesn’t have that advantage (and KU is more desperate than OU).
However, I think you got the B10 expansion all wrong. If the B10 goes to 16, after the SEC takes VTech and TAMU, the B10 takes the academic high flyers in the core of the old ACC (Maryland, UVa, UNC, & Duke). SEC would likely pick up FSU and Clemson/NSCU as well.
LikeLike
If the SEC goes to 16, it probably takes in Texas A&M and Missouri from the west and Virginia Tech and N.C. State from the east (in a scenario where the Big Ten adds Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke). Clemson and Florida State would likely draw a cool reception as expansion candidates from South Carolina and Florida. Another advantage: None of the current SEC members have to shift divisions, and Missouri and A&M don’t have the potential “tag-along” problems that Oklahoma and Kansas would face.
LikeLike
Passing FSU by in favor of NCSU or Mizzou is tough to take, though. If that happens, the ACC and B12 leftovers would still be formidable in football with FSU, Miami, & Clemson along with GTech, BC, and Wake. Can they take TTech and poach TCU? Would they be able to snag OU & OSU if the Pac turns away? Likely KU & KSU if they want them. If they take all 6, they’d have a 12-school conference again, neatly split east and west.
LikeLike
Oh, and the championship sites would be no-brainers, alternating between Jacksonville and JerryWorld.
LikeLike
I think people are taking the poaching of ACC schools much too lightly. Sure, the new ones would be easier pickings but the old guard have strong ties.
So, let’s say VT goes. I think it would be hard to pry NCSU out of the ACC. They aren’t as obsessive about football as the SEC and it would mean losing UNC, Duke, UVA and MD for hoops. I don’t think that’s an easy decision for NCSU.
To me, FSU makes much more sense. Yes, they don’t add a specific market but that isn’t as important for the SEC anyway since ESPN and CBS are everywhere already. The B10 needs markets to drive BTN subscriptions, but the SEC doesn’t work that way. Also, FSU brings tons of fans in the state that don’t like UF. I’m not sure FSU wants to join the SEC, though. This is a classic example of the academics versus the AD. I don’t know who wins with the new administration.
As for the ACC core leaving for the B10, I think it’s a pipe dream. If they lost 2 teams to the SEC, the ACC would probably replenish by raiding the BE again, probably trying to fill in the gap between BC and MD (Syracuse? UConn? Rutgers? Pitt?). They could also look at USF or UCF, but I don’t think they are ready yet academically.
Even if NCSU was gone, which I doubt, I still don’t think MD, UVA, UNC and Duke would abandon WF and Clemson, or even GT.
If everything you speculated did happen, that leaves FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, WF and BC floating. BC would best fit in the BE, but good luck with that. The other schools could invite USF and UCF to make a Southern Division of Miami, USF, UCF, FSU, GT and Clemson. The North could be WF, ECU, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn and BC (or drop WF and ECU and take WV and Pitt). They wouldn’t actually separate that way, of course, but instead mix 3 from the north and 3 from the south I assume.
LikeLike
richard,
I am still not sold on duke, but I have said all along that MD and UVA would be good adds for the B1G. I think KSU is going to have to accept that ISU would never get the B1G either. A new SWC emerges that picks up all the lesser children so KU can follow Missouri to the PAC. ISU and KSU are already stuck to UT, so they are still covered, and tech and Baylor will fall in their as well.
ND has a long history and can not remember about MD, but if you are really holding a slot for ND, I think Pitt is a good faith move.
I still say it is about new markets, so if the B1G goes to new states, why do they want Clemson and FSU? The SEC already plays them OOC (as does UGA with GT) so why cannibalize the market?
LikeLike
Duke provides a ton of MBB value, and is necessary to get UNC. Plus, someone has to lose some football games and I’m sure IU would appreciate some company in the permanent cellar.
I think there is a trade off between Pitt and Rutgers. New markets only help the BTN if there is demand for the BTN. NJ is big, but not very loyal to Rutgers from what I can tell. How many systems would agree to put it on basic cable? Would enough people complain or switch to satellite to make it necessary? Remember, many of these people are PSU fans and may already be paying for the BTN so there would be no net gain. Also, would people watch the BTN?
Pitt has a better name, better history and better fans. They almost all are already paying for the BTN, so no money from that, but they seem more likely to actually watch the BTN. More viewers means more advertising revenue, which would help shrink the gap between the two choices. Adding PSU/Pitt would be great for the TV contract, too, not to mention another top notch basketball program. Taken all together, I’m not sure Rutgers makes more money for the B10 than Pitt despite the overlapping market.
Remember, markets mean different things to different conferences. The SEC is on CBS and ESPN, so carriage is a non-factor. The SEC doesn’t make more money by being in more markets except when they renegotiate their deals. If Clemson and FSU fans are more excited about the SEC than VT and NCSU fans, that may well be more important.
LikeLike
I think the key to breaking apart the ACC is picking off the outliers. For example, if the B1G were to make overtures to Maryland, while the SEC did the same to Clemson, FSU, or both, you put the other ACC schools in a state of uncertainty. Would the ACC really be willing to add three of the Big East teams? And if they did, that doesn’t mean the ACC is any more stable…those three teams would still be outliers.
Plus if the B1G can pick off Maryland, it can offer the core ACC schools (Duke, UNC, UVA, Maryland), minus NC State, the ability to stay in a conference together.
LikeLike
Ross,
The rest of the ACC would have to believe MD would go on their own for them to worry. I just don’t think anybody in charge really believes MD would leave. As for taking the ACC core, that means the B10 has given up on ND. I’m not sure Delany is ready to give up on them, though.
LikeLike
Given the potential windfall from Big Ten membership, athletically (leaving a conference with essentially no football brand for one near the top), academically (consortium!) and economically, College Park officials would jump to the Big Ten in a heartbeat, especially considering its current athletic department woes. It would be a major ascension in the collegiate firmament.
LikeLike
Vincent,
I don’t disagree about all the benefits. I’m just not convinced that it’s that simple. The emotional and cultural bonds are strong, and I don’t think MD would just bail at the drop of a hat. It’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
The bonds to the ACC at Maryland — a more urban campus that really doesn’t see itself as “southern” aren’t quite as strong as they are at UVa or UNC. Maryland would go on its own, but Virginia wouldn’t go without North Carolina (a longtime rivalry, albeit more so from the perspective of Charlottesville than Chapel Hill) and North Carolina wouldn’t go without Duke (even taking the “basketball brand name” out of the equation, UNC has long viewed Duke as more of a rival than N.C. State, which until the mid-sixties had a 20,000-seat football stadium and thus always played UNC in Chapel Hill. So if the Big Ten also wants Virginia and/or UNC, it has to invite both, and Duke as well.
LikeLike
Alright Frank, it’s time to put up another writeup, this time about the most recent aTm/LHN dust up. I’ve been reading a lot of the aTm sites and the majority of the folks on those sites seem to think that aTm will be in the SEC by year’s end. You’ve got to have an opinion on this one.
LikeLike
You can find some of his thoughts here…
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=505701
LikeLike
I think Frank is waiting for aTm to accept some give and more promises and return to the sand box where they can kick sand castles down. He then can just direct readers to https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/you-cant-always-get-what-you-want-aggies/ .
LikeLike
NBC announces Versus is now NBC Sports Network. I’m sure the Big Ten will be talking to them in a couple years.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/43966021/ns/sports/
LikeLike
So will the Big East.
LikeLike
Geography still matters. Therefore, I don’t think you’ll see MO going to PAC 12, at least until they’ve exhausted ALL possibilities of the BIG and SEC.
Realistically, MO belongs in the BIG, and the BIG just ought to go ahead and admit it………..
LikeLike
MO belongs but they can’t carry their own weight financially. They are the perfect complementary addition if another big name (ND, UT, TAMU, etc) decides to join, or if the B10 decides it needs 14 or 16 teams.
LikeLike
Geographically, the new P16 East (AZ schools, Utah, CU, KU/TTech, Mizzou, OU, OSU) isn’t much different from the old B12, and that is where those schools would play the vast majority of their games.
LikeLike
shroom,
from a location status missouri fits in the B1G better
from a cultural status missouri fits in the B1G better
These are not the problems, the problem with missouri is the numbers are not so good, and why they would not work in the BE along with Kansas
Kansas & Missouri in B12 = slow death
Kansas & Missouri in B1G = not gonna happen because 2 slots are valuable
Kansas & Missouri in BE = far away, and a step down
Kansas & Missouri in SEC = no cultural fit tho UK vs KU basketball would draw
Kansas & Missouri in PAC = most sense, as CU is already there and it keeps the Border War intact so it does not go the way of UNL and OU, if Scott can land OU and oSu you would have 5 of the old Big 8 back in the same conference again. UNL is not coming back, and part of the deal could be KSU stays in a reformed B12 but protects the KU games as OOC for all sports, maybe they could do the same for ISU, but it has not hurt Iowa to be in the B1G, and maybe that is just the way it has to fall out so at least 1 state school makes it to a power conference.
LikeLike
The numbers for MO aren’t good, but they aren’t bad either. MO is a great complementary addition (academics are OK, cultural fit is fine, geography is great, sports are solid, markets are good) if the B10 wants to add another big fish, they just don’t justify expansion on their own. Unless things change dramatically, the B10 would need a very valuable school to join to financially justify expansion. Perhaps expansion elsewhere would convince the B10 that size matters, or maybe markets and a new TV deal can make going to 16 pay. They have a few years to decide before they negotiate that next TV deal.
LikeLike
My prediction is that that school-based networks, whether they’re devoted to individual schools or to conferences, whether fully-owned by schools (Pac-12 & BYU) partially-owned, (Big Ten), or not owned by the school at all (LHN), won’t be allowed to show high school games. Allowing so would open up conference armageddon that could potentially decimate not just the Big 12 but also the ACC, since either the SEC or Big Ten would raid that league.in a rush to get to 16. If this one issue could cause that much damage, there’s no way it’ll be allowed.
I’ll say once again that the smart thing for A&M to do would be to team up with its other conference brethren to create a Big 12 Network, minus UT.
LikeLike
I don’t see the problem in LHN televising Texas HS football games if they aren’t showcasing just Longhorn recruits and as long as the owner, ESPN is selecting the games. Now going out of state is different (as the ESPN official suggested). Showcasing recruits is different since they aren’t officially signed until February.
LikeLike
The ESPN family already broadcasts HS games, and could certainly skew their selections to help their partners (assuming they don’t already). I think the NCAA would be wise to prohibit the whole practice by any national entity.
LikeLike
Big 12 just decided to ban HS games on networks for the next year to let the NCAA work out a policy. Big 12 conference games can be on the LHN if the conference approves.
LikeLike
The NCAA doesn’t have that right though. They might have some leverage on the Longhorn Network, but they sure have no power over ESPN or high schools wanting to sign with them.
LikeLike
Eric,
All the NCAA would have to do is declare anyone who has a HS game broadcast regionally (local broadcasts of the state playoffs should be OK) or nationally as ineligible. That would stop it in its tracks.
LikeLike
Ineligible for what? Maybe this could work on the Longhorn Network (although if Texas can stop ESPN at this point is debatable), but how could the NCAA tell ESPN they couldn’t broadcast high school sports on any other network. They have zero control over ESPN itself and there is no way that they prevent the schools from dealing with ESPN.
LikeLike
Eric,
Ineligible. As in can’t play NCAA sports.
The NCAA doesn’t need to control ESPN. What high school would agree if they knew it meant making all of their students ineligible?
LikeLike
That sounds to me like the NCAA overstepping its boundaries. I’d argue it doesn’t or at least shouldn’t have the right to make that decisions for high schools.
LikeLike
They don’t say what can be done, only the consequences if done.
LikeLike
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/01/bmurphy/report_boise_state_scuttled_mountain_west_expansion_effort
Apparently Boise was instrumental in the MWC not expanding to 12. Maybe after they get denied AQ status they’ll reconsider, but they may be hoping to pick up anyone left behind if the B12 implodes.
LikeLike
With the new league qualification rules (6 team for years is no longer required), there is no chance of that. Any remaining B12 schools will simply cherry pick MWC And CUSA.
LikeLike
Depends on the numbers. If the B12 loses all but 3 or 4 members, the other conferences would have leverage to say they are adding B12 teams rather then the B12 adding them. Besides, there is no guarantee all the B12 remnants would or want to stay together. It’s not like ISU and Baylor have any real ties.
LikeLike
“Any remaining B12 schools will simply cherry pick MWC And CUSA.”
I don’t see ISU, KSU, Baylor, and TTech convincing anyone to join their little club . . .
LikeLike
The Mountain West is in a good position if the Big 12 implodes. Current BCS rules give automatic qualifier status to the top six conferences. If the Big 12 no longer exists, the MWC moves up to the #6 spot. They were already challenging the Big East for that spot, which was why the BE had to steal TCU.
The MWC also can offer Oklahoma or more likely Kansas something that the other conferences would be hesitant to offer: a spot for OSU or KSU. They could easily expand to 12 taking both schools. That might play well in either state. I think Oklahoma might think the MWC is beneath them, but I can see Kansas and Kansas State going to the MWC if they were believed it would be a BCS conference with them.
LikeLike
However, it’d still be a steep downgrade financially for those schools that end up in the MWC. KU would be a major catch, but I think they will manage to escape to the Pac with Mizzou and the OK schools. TTech would be a good catch, and for number 12, I think they’d want a stronger presence in Texas with either Baylor or Houston. Would they take KSU or ISU? Doubtful.
LikeLike
I don’t think any Big 12 members other than Iowa State, Baylor, and maybe K-State would not get picked up by other current AQ conferences if the league were to break up. The Mountain West is dreaming if it believes it could get anyone other than those three, under any circumstances.
A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (thanks to politics) will land in a great spot no matter what. The Big East would take KU, Texas Tech, or Missouri in a heartbeat.
Heck, in an environment where the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12 are swelling up to 14-16 members, the ACC will feel pressure to grow, too. KU and Mizzou would be every bit as good an addition for that league as pretty much any of the Big East members that the Big Ten wouldn’t take.
But I think it’s all moot. The NCAA will ban high school games on school-based networks, and A&M will be left to figure out a way to team up with the rest of the league to get revenue that can compete (somewhat) with Texas’ network.
LikeLike
Josh,
If a conference goes away, the BCS contract has to be renegotiated. They may or may not elevate a sixth conference to AQ status. My guess is they would wait until the next evaluation period, at the earliest, and may just change the tests to reduce all the explicit numbers by one (top 5 instead of top 6, etc). The original numbers were based, in part, on there being 11 BCS conferences. If it goes to 10, they could easily justify dropping the number to top 5. On the bright side, that means more at large bids available although a third bid would probably come into existence if leagues grew to 16.
LikeLike
Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force, Nevada, Hawaii, SDSU, Colorado St. You can throw Fresno in there too. Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and KU are all at a higher level with more name recognition and bigger fan bases. Boise is ahead only in football strength. Same things goes for the entire CUSA.
LikeLike
ISU, seriously? Over AFA and Fresno?
Also, UNLV (18th nationally) and UNM (22nd in the country) draw higher average basketball attendance than any B12 other than KU and Texas. This while not having the benefit of playing in a BCS conference.
LikeLike
ISU averages 45k pretty consistently for fb. UNLV considers 25k a good year. UNM occassionally gets in the 30s, but hasn’t been there since 2005. Both are terrible in fb and are the two biggest reasons the MWC doesn’t meet the AQ criteria. While they draw very well in bb, I don’t recall either making any waves in the NCAA since the early 90s.. Air Force generally averages around 40k and, of course, is non-competitive in basketball. And they would not be as consistently competitive as they are in fb if they were playing in an AQ conference.
LikeLike
I agree. Even if just one Big 12 school is left, it could very easily be the Big 12 that survives. Think about it like this. The BCS tag probably won’t immediately be revoked, the teams probably won’t be leaving the Big 12 all at the same time (at least a year difference is likely), exit penalties might be in place, and some portion of the Big 12 contract might still survive as long as the conference does (or might not, there has to be provisions for an exodus of that magnitude). While it might defactoly be the Mountain West schools agreeing to take on left overs, realistically they might decide to all officially join the Big 12 instead to gain some of those advantages.
LikeLike
Drop back to defcon 2.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=205235905
The last paragraph intrigues me. Do the aggies cave to this? Or do they insist on UT honoring of the agreement that held the conference together last year, meaning the Longhorn Net AND its limitations (1 OOC FB game, etc.)? Just because there have been contracts entered into following that agreement that may be legal, doesn’t preclude them from being in breach of a prior agreement.
Welcome to the “LONGHORN’s big12 NETWORK”
LikeLike
Well, they can always lobby the other school and the league office to say no.
LikeLike
richard,
PAC gets to 16 with:
OU
oSu
Kansas
Missouri
SEC gets to 16 with:
TAMU
VT
UNC + NCST
B1G gets to 16 with
MD
UVA
+
RU / Pitt
or
UT / ND
============================
The “original ACC” from 1953 was:
South Carolina (now in the SEC)
MD/UVA (go to B1G)
UNC/NCST (go to SEC)
leaving only these 3
Clemson/Duke/Wake = 1953
Ga Tech = 1978
FSU = 1991
miami = 2004
VT = 2004 (picked up by SEC)
Boston College = 2005
============================
Clemson/Duke/WF/Ga Tech/FSU/miami/BC
which merges with the BE, and the lowest teams get fed back to the B12 as it becomes the new SWC
Compared to the B1G and SEC, the ACC is still a “young” conference, with many teams having less than a generation to form bonds that the B1G and SEC have over generations.
the problem with UNC and NCST is they are joined by the same state system, so they will have to go as a pair.. If you put UNC in the B1G it means putting NC ST in as well
if you only have 4 slots open in the B1G are you will to give one to NC ST if it means you give up ND or UT?
long term, we are entering a new era, where the value will be in the bigger schools. Chicago had one of the best football programs in the country, but gave it up to focus on academics. Duke football is a dog, and they do not have the population numbers that a state school does to support it. They may go the way of Gtown, and go where they can get by with just a basketball program, but a basketball only school will not fly in the B1G or SEC.
UNC and UK in the same division in both football and basketball could draw the better long term numbers as both have big venues they can fill and both fanbases travel well. I am fairly sure neither will be a perennial threat to dominate SEC football, but I think they will sell well when they play each other in football.
LikeLike
Duff:
1. I don’t see UNC ever joining the SEC.
2. If you need to take NCSU to get UNC, then take NCSU instead (Duke won’t be joining the SEC). Waiting for the pipe dreams of ND and/or Texas is idiotic because the Domers will never join and Texas will always angle to make advantages for itself and jump to a better spot at the first opportunity.
LikeLike
duffman,
I know you didn’t direct this at me, but I’m replying anyway.
“PAC gets to 16 with:
OU
oSu
Kansas
Missouri
SEC gets to 16 with:
TAMU
VT
UNC + NCST
B1G gets to 16 with:
MD
UVA
+
RU / Pitt
or
UT / ND”
Taking your version of the P16 as a given, I still don’t see the rest happening. VT might go the SEC, but I really don’t think UNC and NCSU would. Their ties to MD, VA and Duke are strong.
If we go further and assume your version of the SEC is also correct, then the B10 might chase MD and VA. I’m not sure they want both, so it might just be MD (sort of like KU and MO). Since both UT and ND are non-starters unless the NCAA (or its replacement) changes the football post-season to require membership in a conference, then Pitt and Rutgers seem reasonable choices. They might throw in Syracuse instead.
“if you only have 4 slots open in the B1G are you will to give one to NC ST if it means you give up ND or UT?”
Yes, especially since ND and UT will never join the B10 unless the NCAA change the FB postseason to require conference membership.
“Long term, we are entering a new era, where the value will be in the bigger schools.”
The value has always been and always will be in the winners. Brand trumps size. MN is a huge school and so is ASU. Are they really valuable? ND is fairly small, and they are still one of the most valuable schools.
“a basketball only school will not fly in the B1G”
You do live in Indiana, right? Please explain how IU is not a MBB-only school in any meaningful way.
LikeLike
Indiana is a soccer school first & foresmost. Duh! 😉
LikeLike
IU is grandfathered in
It is a basketball school
It is a state school
It already is CIC
Not meaning to be the voice for the basketball minority, but I feel sometimes that if all IU had was a basketball team and they were trying today for entry into the B1G, I am not so sure they would get in. If IU had better football history, it would help, but lordy not with what it has been. 😦 I am not self loathing, I just can admit that football is not our sport, but it is more important to the majority of the conference than basketball is. I look at KU sitting there with AAU status, and an undeniable basketball heritage with no shot at B1G membership because of football. Trust me, better KU than IU, but I do have great empathy for the plight of KU.
Winning is a part of the equation, but USC and UK football are living proof that losing teams that can fill large stadiums. TAMU does not have the MNC’s of their B12 fellows (UNL included) but if you can sell out Kyle, it makes you more money than a winning school with half as many seats. It would take 3 decent Duke football games to equal 1 average Kyle game. Duke just does not have the numbers to support the massive bodies that a state school can when it comes to pumping out alumni. A guy may have spent 1 year at Michigan, but he will bleed maize and blue for the rest of his life.
UNL is out of the AAU, but in the B1G – KU is in the AAU, but out of the B1G
can you really say football and basketball are equal in the B1G?
maybe I am all wrong, but if this is the list, and the B1G can only pick 2, I would bet heavily that both schools chosen would be ACC schools, and not B12 ones. I would also bet the B1G would not split and take 1 from each.
Missouri
Kansas
Maryland
Virginia
I really feel that all along, UNL was the one and only B12 the B1G would go after if they never got UT or TAMU.
LikeLike
the comment above was supposed to attach to brian’s comments, but nice touch muck! 😉 if the Tan One can not bring it back, I will really begin to worry at the list in the IU basketball ship.
LikeLike
duffman,
“IU is grandfathered in”
Ok, I was just checking.
I fully agree that IU would be a tough sell to the B10 if they weren’t already a member. They bring no football and no market, and even hoops has been down lately. There isn’t a lot of value there.
I also felt bad for KU last summer when it looked like they might get stuck, but MBB just doesn’t bring in the money that football does and their FB sucks. Kansas is also a smallish state, which hurts from the BTN perspective, and has borderline academics for the B10. They could get in as a partner for someone bigger, but not by themselves.
There are a few outliers, but generally winning leads to money. Football beats basketball, too, generally. However, the top MBB teams are ridiculously profitable. These are the ones that made over $10M last year in profit, with their national rank among all teams:
21. UL
29. Duke
31. UNC
33. AZ
34. OSU
41. Syracuse
42. WI
For comparison, B10 football teams were:
3. MI
4. PSU
13. NE
14. OSU
15. IA
16. MSU
22. WI
25. MN
30. IL
45. IN
56. NW
63. PU
So if Duke hoops can bring as much profit as IL football, why can’t they join the B10? IU hoops is #46 and only about 2/3 as profitable as Duke ($14.4M versus $8.9M). And don’t think it’s because MBB is cheap, since Duke’s revenue and expenses are in line with the FB teams around them. Imagine what they could do with the BTN.
“can you really say football and basketball are equal in the B1G?”
Of course not, and I didn’t try to. FB > BB in the B10 due to historic success and the financial impact. The NCAA tourney kills the value of MBB for the B10 schools by profit sharing with the smaller schools.
“maybe I am all wrong, but if this is the list, and the B1G can only pick 2, I would bet heavily that both schools chosen would be ACC schools, and not B12 ones. I would also bet the B1G would not split and take 1 from each.
Missouri
Kansas
Maryland
Virginia”
Given those 4, I’d assume the B10 would take 2 from one conference as well, assuming all 4 are equally obtainable. MD and MO are the same size, but VA is bigger and KS is much smaller. Unfortunately, VA isn’t full of VA fans, especially not in FB. The ACC duo easily win the academic comparison, but the B12 duo win on cultural fit. I’d give very serious consideration to taking MO and KS over MD and VA, but the academics might overrule me and go with the ACC pair.
LikeLike
brian,
see, that is why I have been happy with Pitt all along! Education standards, but I am an old guy and that still matters. That is why I thought UVA + MD was the easy choice over KU + MO. I just think Pitt + UVA + MD was an academic coup (and with Pitt’s historic ties to ND, who knows) 😉
You and I keep going around about Duke. I agree that with coach K they are a cash machine, but I am not sold on Duke in a post K world (I would say the same about PSU and JoPa). PSU is already in the B1G so it is not the same as Duke. With no real football in the modern era, what is their long term worth? I just see another WF sans basketball. Who knows what the future holds, but just going through this drought with IU makes one’s awareness acute to the coach transition issue. You do raise a point I have been watching for some time in UL. They have made the smooth pass from Crum to Ricky AND built 22,000K YUM! If UK flanks one side, and UL eats away another, and Butler gaining ground, it is time now for IU to gain some traction. If 10 years from now soccer is all IU has, I will be sad indeed.
I guess as I am older and remember NC ST basketball, I just am not sold 100% that Duke will catch lightning twice. The tip top all draw from the same source. Look how entwined UK, KU, UNC are when it comes to coaches and players and where their roots all tie back to the same place. Wooden, NC ST, IU have that same gnarled roots. Sure UCLA still holds power, but not like before. We will have to wait and see.
ps, were those profit numbers from the Kristi article, or somewhere else? Link?
LikeLike
duffman,
I’m not against Pitt. I wouldn’t expand just to get them, but I think they provide good value despite no new market. I think the education standards should be kept high, but I also think most systems undervalue large state schools in rural states. They can’t be as selective, so their grad rates are lower, and they have a lot of agricultural faculty which hurts their research status. You shouldn’t punish them for having a different mission than more urban schools.
The academics are better for MD and VA, but to me the cultural fit is just as important. I think KS and MO are much better cultural fits than the MD and VA. That’s why I think it’s a tough call. I also happen to think the ACC won’t be torn apart easily, so MO and KS seem more obtainable. I want to point out that I would expand just to get KS and MO, though. You’d need something to sweeten the pot, like TAMU or ND or UT. Expanding to the coast might justify going for VA and MD, but I don’t think the B10 would do that without a forcing factor.
I talk about Duke in the now because I have no basis for what they will be. The other hoops powers seem to find a stream of good coaches, so I’m guessing Duke will too. I think you are overly pessimistic about them. Besides, there is no reason they can’t become average in football if they tried. Cutcliffe is bringing them back to decent, and he’s not a miracle worker. Let’s agree to discuss it again in 20 years.
Yes, those numbers were form one of Kristi Dosh’s articles.
LikeLike
With all this realignment talk, I figured I’d throw out the ESPN prestige ranking (for 1936 through 2008) for all the involved teams. While not precise, it gives some measure of the achievement of different football teams. It isn’t completely up to date and doesn’t consider anything but football, but still has some value. The whole list is at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4369664.
ACC:
9. Florida State: 1,110
10. Miami: 1,109
18. Georgia Tech: 610
22. Clemson: 486
T-31. Maryland: 352
37. Virginia Tech: 303
38. Duke: 297
40. Boston College: 280
41. North Carolina: 277
58. North Carolina State: 152
66. Virginia: 101
T-95. Wake Forest: 9
Not a shock to see Miami and FSU so high, but how about Duke? Apparently they were good from 1933-1962. A lot of solid programs here, despite not being as strong lately.
BE:
27. Pittsburgh: 444
29. Syracuse: 407
35. West Virginia: 315
59. Louisville: 146
82. Cincinnati: 58
87. South Florida: 22
90. Connecticut: 17
101. Rutgers: minus-6
As expected, the BE is missing a power team at the top. The bottom is hurt by USF and UConn being new to I-A football.
B12:
1. Oklahoma: 1,986
7. Texas: 1,494
20. Texas A&M: 584
36. Missouri: 314
42. Texas Tech: 267
63. Baylor: 129
65. Oklahoma State: 115
T-69. Kansas: 86
76. Kansas State: 66
114. Iowa State: minus-53
No real surprises here except maybe for MO being 4th. Half the conference is below the national average, and only some of those schools have redeeming features (like KU hoops). OkSU should be climbing based on the past few years while Baylor slides.
Other:
4. Notre Dame: 1,579
25. Brigham Young: 476
T-31. TCU: 352
54. Boise State: 172
119. Vanderbilt: minus-73 (last place)
Boise is low based on being new to I-A and the past few years not counting.
B10 (just FYI):
3. Ohio State: 1,655
5. Nebraska: 1,553
8. Michigan: 1,332
11. Penn State: 1,088
26. Michigan State: 454
30. Iowa: 368
33. Minnesota: 341
34. Wisconsin: 317
49. Illinois: 219
50. Purdue: 210
80. Northwestern: 60
102. Indiana: minus-8
NW has finally started to earn some prestige so they’ll be moving up while MN drops since WI is moving up quickly, too. IN is stuck in the cellar.
LikeLike
this data is a good illustration of why the acc is not going anywhere. the core will not break unless some giant wad of literally crazy cash showed up. even then, cash alone might not do it.
LikeLike
KU = 69
IU = 102
A very clear indication of how IU would fare from the discussion above!
thank god for already being in!
LikeLike
And think how bad ISU feels knowing they don’t have a king revenue sport to get them into a conference. They had a chance at the B10 in the early days and didn’t make it, but now they’re screwed.
LikeLike
The thing to remember is how much it is a “what have you done for me lately” world.
Minnesota is about on par with IU, not 33rd. Not many people remember their MNCs.
Duke is certainly not #38 and VT is a lot higher than #37.
This is probably a good list for what it does, but in terms of what TV and conferences value now, it has too much old data.
LikeLike
Yes, that was one of the major flaws with their list. They also did lists based on shorter time spans. I think weighting recent years more but counting all of them would have been ideal, but oh well.
LikeLike
bullet & brian,
that is why I look at things by era
I) Early history = beginning till WW II
II) Post War = 1946 – 1978 (The Big 3 – NBC/CBS/ABC + rise of state schools)
III) ESPN = 1978 – ???? (transition to business)
IV) ???? ???? = right about where we are now – pure business and privatization
Duke football is the classic steam engine being passed by the new diesel train. Duke is looking more like Tulane football and their fall from power
These are not necessarily true break points, but just how it feels as a fan, and the whole college football experience. My youth was about football for the sake of football, but now they are the modern jousting tournaments with too much activity going on inside and outside the stadium that has nothing to do with the game. I am also old school and am sad when folks are at a live game and have such short attention spans and poor communication skills that play games on their cell phone than engage folks around them, or actually watch the game.
LikeLike
I view the mid-60s as the modern era as that’s when Bear, Darrel, Woody, Joe, Bob, etc. cemented the position of a lot of the current powers. It was also the last time an Ivy made the rankings and the last time MN and IU won the Big 10. Of course, since I started following football then, I may be a little biased. But when you look at the top teams of the late 60s it pretty much matches now except for the FL schools. That’s where your ESPN era comes in.
Per NCAA records book-top 10 winning % in 50s-1. OU, 2. Ole Miss, 3. Mich St., 4. Princeton, 5. Georgia Tech, 6. UCLA, 7. Ohio St., 8. Tennessee, 9. Penn St., 10. Maryland. Among the other “kings” Notre Dame was 14. Noone else in top 20.
In the 60s, 1. Alabama, 2. Texas, 3. Arkansas, 4. Ole Miss, 5. Bowling Green, 6. Dartmouth/Ohio State, 8. Missouri/USC, 10. Penn St. UNL was tied for 13 with LSU, Florida was 20 with Miami (O.) and Tennessee. And after MN was the poll champ in 1960, the poll champs in the rest of the 60s were 61-Alabama, 62-USC, 63-Texas, 64-Alabama, 65-Alabama & Michigan St., 66-Notre Dame, 67-USC, 68-Ohio St., 69-Texas.
Then with the decline of the Ivies, Minnesotas and Mississippis in the late 60s, the 70s looked pretty familiar: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Alabama, 3. Michigan, 4. Tennessee St., 5. Nebraska, 6. Penn St., 7. Ohio St., 8. Notre Dame, 9. USC, 10. Texas. The top 10 included 1 small school and all 9 kings not in Florida.
LikeLike
The Big East is meeting in Newport, and the New York Post’s Lenn Robbins has an “exclusive” saying four members could be dropped:
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/big_east_roulette_CWbgW0JtI8LKJ1SzIRr2uO
Of course, Robbins is merely quoting a TV exec’s conjecture. And if a 2003 Post story had been accurate, Syracuse and Notre Dame would now be members of a 14-team ACC. Rupert’s rag has never been known for its college sports coverage.
Conferences don’t kick out anyone unless there are drastic rules violations or matters to that effect, and that certainly doesn’t apply here. More likely, what happens is the football members finally wise up and break away for an all-sports conference of their own.
LikeLike
It feels like there is a very big misunderstanding of what conferences are sometimes. The member schools own the conference and the contracts are set-up to be permanent (note: this is for normal full members, not affiliate members who are only playing a sport in the conference, not actual full conference members).
Dropping schools is almost impossible which is why we’ve seen teams bolt (WAC-16, Southwestern Conference, old Southern Conference), but rarely kicked out (only when the set-ups are designed temporary (Temple) or maybe severe infractions).
LikeLike
Back to one of the original subjects of this post, pro sports realignment, there is a newly-specific indication of instability on the NHL’s horizon: http://espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/story/_/id/6823432/long-island-voters-reject-400m-plan-arena
LikeLike
not a big deal or shock. sad to see them go, but they’ll be in quebec or ontario before long – which is probably better in the long run. the NYI, NJ, NYR triangle seems like too much concentration sometimes. thanks for the post though.
LikeLike
Princeton Review has just released its annual college survey results.
So give a click to see how your favorite school ranks in such categories as Students Study the Least and <a href="results“>Best Campus Food. And find out who is packed with Birkenstock-Wearing, Tree-Hugging, Clove-Smoking Vegetarians and what school is turning out Future Rotarians and Daughters of the American Revolution.
(If you don’t want to register for the site you can just use bugmenot to get in. EMAIL “letmein@please.com” and PW “prettyplease” works).
For the record my alma mater (and Frank’s) the University of Illinois ranks in the top 20 in the Lots of Hard Liquor, Party Schools, Major Frat and Sorority Scene, and Refer Madness. Surprisingly it also comes in at 12 in Students Pack the Stadiums and 13 in Best Athletic Facilities.
More importantly, as the school gets further away from the nightmares of the TA strikes and faculty furlough days, U of I no longer ranks #1 in the Professors Get Low Marks category have dropped all way to #3 (suck on that New Jersey Institute of Technology and US Merchant Marine Academy!)
LikeLike
Unsourced “inside” info. Texas A&M doesn’t want the SEC, yet skillfully used the media to get what they want.
http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=7142451
I post for discussion.
LikeLike
It’s one man’s opinion. However, I did hear things from outside TAMU about the SEC being possible. They may have been hearsay and rumors, but I heard them.
LikeLike
Seems like a reasonable scenario. A&M Prez. Lofton didn’t seem nearly so concerned as the Aggie boards. I never saw anything that didn’t ultimately go back to Aggie bulletin boards, so I never took it very seriously. Its hard for non-Texans to understand how obsessed with UT some Aggies are. But I think their administration is not going to cut off its nose to spite its face.
And I don’t think anything about the LHN is new to OU and would cause them to do a dramatic about face. They were more supportive of the B12 staying intact than Texas or Texas A&M.
Of course, I could still be surprised as many of us have been in the last 15 months.
LikeLike
A BYU board? Not my idea of any more credible than the overly excitable on the aggie board. BYU plays UT 3 times in the next 4 years…..
LikeLike