Consensus by Committee: A College Football Playoff is Almost Here

Posted: June 20, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Football, Sports
Tags:

After some apparent hiccups in the college football playoff formulation process last week, it was back on like Donkey Kong today in Chicago.  The BCS commissioners plus Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick* came to a “consensus” that they would recommend to their respective bosses (the university presidents) a 4-team seeded playoff with the “best four teams” to be chosen by a selection committee (using criteria such as conference championships and strength of schedule) and the semifinals to be played among the existing BCS bowls.

(* If anyone doubted that Notre Dame is anything but irrelevant in today’s college football world, note that every news story about the college football playoff today referred to “the BCS commissioners and Notre Dame AD” and Jack Swarbrick was the spokesman for the working group in front of the media.  Plus, Swarbrick got to bat down an Orangebloods report about Notre Dame “likely” moving its non-football sports to the Big 12, but that’s an issue we’ll explore for another day.)

Here are a couple of instant reactions about what finally appears to be the new college football playoff format:

(1) A Committee to Form the Committee – I have long been an opponent to the use of a selection committee for various reasons, such as the concern that only one or two people could end up swaying the fate of a particular team.  The random rogue committee member scares me much more than a handful of idiot sportswriters (cough, Skip Bayless, cough) that might be voting in a larger poll. However, I’ve been coming around to the thought of it where it’s at least palatable in the sense that it’s a way for the conference commissioners to kick the can down the road regarding the selection process.  Some years, it might make sense to have 4 conference champs playing in the playoff.  In other seasons, 4 SEC schools might be the 4 best teams in the country.  Maybe #5 Pac-12 champ Oregon should have gotten into the playoff over #4 Stanford in 2011, but #5 Big Ten champ Wisconsin shouldn’t have gotten into the playoff over #4 Stanford in 2010 (or vice versa).  There’s so much variability from season to season that any prescribed requirements (e.g. conference champs only, 3 conference champs plus 1 wild card, taking the straight top 4 in the BCS rankings, etc.) would have all yielded unsatisfactory results in certain seasons.

This is the dilemma.  We, as college football fans, generally want to have concrete criteria in terms of determining the national champion.  However, most of us also care about the practical outcome, where putting 4 teams into a playoff that the average fan can plainly see are not the best 4 teams in the nation is bothersome, as well.  I’ve long said that what fans really want is an objective computer program that spits out the exact same result as a subjective human poll.  We hate the thought of using the results of a human poll because of the perception that there might be bias, but we generally agree with the results of that same human poll because it reflects what we have seen with our own eyes.  When push comes to shove, the general public (and the powers that be and TV networks) cares more about the output (the outcome of which 4 teams are in playoff) than the inputs (the criteria in choosing such teams).  The use of a selection committee is a further extension of the output-focused approach.

There are few suggestions that I have for the use of a selection committee:

  • Appoint one representative from each FBS conference to the committee along with having a pool of 10 or so “at-large” representatives.  This would make the committee compact enough that there can be in-depth discussions among its members, but large enough to mitigate the vote of a representative that has eaten too many paint chips.
  • Do not allow committee members that have a conflict of interest (e.g. an SEC representative discussing an SEC school) to discuss or vote on the applicable school.
  • Similar what the NCAA Tournament does, allow the mainstream media to participate in an extensive mock session of the selection process so that the public can understand what exactly happens in the war room.
  • Make all data that the selection committee will use in the selection process, such as computer rankings and strength of schedule calculations, available to the public every week throughout the season.

I’m still a little bit skeptical about using a selection committee, but I can wrap my arms around the concept a little bit better today compared to last month.

(2) Where the Rose Bowl Stands – Big Ten and Pac-12 fans had a bit more interest in the actual logistics of where the semifinals would be played because of the potential implications on the Rose Bowl.  While there was initially a plan to slot the semifinal games according to bowl tie-ins (e.g. a #1 Big Ten team would play the #4 team in the Rose Bowl), it appears that flex option is unlikely according to Brett McMurphy of CBS Sports.  Instead, the semifinals would rotate among the BCS bowls on a regular basis.  (Note that no one should be surprised if 1 or 2 other bowls, such as the Cotton and/or Outback, would get elevated and become part of that rotation.)  When I asked Teddy Greenstein about this last month, he indicated that this was also the preferred course of action for the Big Ten athletic directors.

It initially surprised me that the Big Ten didn’t support the flex option, but it makes sense if you think about the downside risk.  Many people have been focused upon the prospect of a top 2 Big Ten or Pac-12 team always getting slotted into a semifinal in the Rose Bowl, which would actually enhance the stature of the game even more than today.  However, there’s the flip side that a non-semifinalist Big Ten or Pac-12 champ could get kicked out of the Rose Bowl.  If USC were to go on a run like it did in the early-2000s, for instance, the Big Ten champ could end up outside of the Rose Bowl for several seasons in a row.  My longstanding general theory about the thinking of university presidents is that they about maximizing their take in the worst case scenario more than shooting the moon in the best case scenario, and this guarantee that the Rose Bowl will be a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 affair (even if they might not be conference champs) fits such thinking.

Personally, I hope that there will at least be a provision that a Big Ten and/or Pac-12 semifinalist will get slotted in the Rose Bowl whenever the semifinal is being hosted there.  The same would go for the Big 12 and SEC with their “Champions” Bowl (which will hopefully be the Sugar Bowl) when it’s a semifinal host.

There will still be further critical details to be hammered out such as the revenue distribution (where it appears, as expected, that the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will keep the lion’s share of the money by applying plausibly justifiable on-the-field criteria) and where the Big East stands in relation to the power conferences, but it’s nothing short of amazing that a 4-team playoff has gone from a pipe dream 6 months ago to possibly a week away from approval.  Considering that it took over 100 years for college football to institute a #1 vs. #2 national championship game, we’re moving at warp speed.

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

(Image from Christian Science Monitor)

Comments
  1. Richard Cain (@Rich_Cain) says:

    I would never want to see all four teams from one conference no matter the conference. I don’t think that would be too popular for most of the country. Only die-hard “best” four absolutists would want that. Most people are not absolutists.

    No playoff is meant to determine a so-called best team. That isn’t possible without a full round-robin schedule. Most sports entities can’t schedule a true round-robin given all the other considerations like number of teams vs. number of games on the schedule. A playoff is used to determine a champion, not the “best” team. I think if college football fans would think about a playoff in those terms, they might avoid conniption fits when one or two of their perceived “best” four teams are left out in favor of a conference champion.

    Like

    • Jericho says:

      Agreed, if for no other reason that no one really knows how good individual conferences are. There’s a perception that certain conferences are better (SEC, Big 12, Big 10, etc…). And most years that perception is probably right. But perception does not always equal reality. And with so few meaningful out of conference games, it’s difficult to truly know how a conference stacks up against another one in a given year. I’d generally recommend erring on the side of caution and inviting teams from more conferences than loading up on one conference.

      After all, LSU proved on the field it should be selected over Alabama last season. Alabama being picked over OSU or Stanford/Oregon was purely conjecture. It was an educated guess at what the rankings should be, but at the end of the day a guess nonetheless. Even educated guesses can be wrong, so providing more access (within reason) makes sense.

      Like

    • AnthonyD says:

      Absolutely correct. I don’t even know what “best” team even means. Its an unanswerable question. I think, for a lot of people, the “4 best teams” essentially means “4 SEC teams.” And we all know who I am talking about there.

      Like

    • ChicagoMac says:

      I’m struck by the wisdom here, particularly when contrasted with the lack of it on display by the group of commissioners.

      I think they’ve devised a system that is most likely to magnify the weaknesses of the current system while at the same time minimizing the benefit from revising the postseason in the first place.

      Like

      • greg says:

        How are the commissioners showing lack of wisdom? By defending their best interests? Its easy for people not involved to set up a 4 team bracket like you are playing a stratomatic tournament in your basement. Basically every commissioner has fought for what is best for their group of institutions. Just because it doesn’t align with your desired playoff doesn’t indicate a lack of wisdom.

        Like

  2. weavergm says:

    Your suggestions are good, although I disagree in calling a 22-person committee “compact.” 12 seems more likely, and to me more desirable. If a group is too large, no one owns the decision, so bad decisions are more likely.

    Any idea how they might calculate schedule strength? I keep reading RPI, but that formula is owned by the NCAA and this is not an NCAA tournament.

    Like

    • Aaron says:

      The actual RPI formula is a secret owned by the NCAA, but other individuals and organizations, including ESPN and news websites, have derived their own take on the formula and used it without getting sued by the NCAA.

      Also, the original BCS formula had a strenth of schedule component that was calculated from RPI.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        There is an improved version of the RPI out there that corrects some mathematical problems with the RPI. As we all know, the RPI is 25% your W%, 50% your opponents’ W% and 25% your opponents’ opponents’ W% (with some weighting for home vs road games – 1.4 and 0.6 for hoops, 1.3 and 0.7 for baseball). The problem is that the formula only takes out overlapping games from the W%, not the other 2 categories so a team can can elevate themselves by smart scheduling. The corrected formula fixes this and does a better job of matching ranking methods.

        http://sebaseball.kislanko.com/PASOS/present.html

        I’m not saying they are going to use this, but it might be a decent idea. I’m sure they’ll find a way to pick something less accurate, though. If I had to guess, the NCAA will let them use the RPI or they’ll develop their own version of it.

        Like

  3. weavergm says:

    I like your suggestions for the committee, although I disagree that a 22-person committee is “compact.” In a large group, no one owns the decision, so a bad decision is more likely. 10-12 seems reasonable and still large enough to have meaningful discussion.

    Any idea how they may calculate schedule strength? I keep reading RPI but that formula is owned by the NCAA and this is not an NCAA tournament.

    Like

  4. Penn State Danny says:

    Will the polls still exist? Should they?

    Like

    • frug says:

      The AP will almost certainly continue, while Harris will be discontinued since it will no longer have any purpose. The coaches’ poll will probably go away except for possibly a final end of the year ranking.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Coaches poll is sponsored by USA Today. Its not going to stop. Harris should go away.

        Like

      • It’s more of a matter of whether any polls will actually be used as part of some official formula similar to the BCS rankings. The AP and coaches’ polls will continue to exist (just like they do in basketball) as they are administered outside of the BCS itself, but the latter may not be used in any official calculations anymore. The AP poll hasn’t been used in official calculations for several years, anyway, so there’s no reason why it wouldn’t continue. Ultimately, no one has any authority to tell the AP to stop taking a poll (and if someone tried to do that, it would probably just make the sportswriters more determined to fight back to carry on with it). The Harris Poll only existed for the purposes of the BCS rankings as a replacement when the AP poll dropped out of the calculations, so that will likely go away.

        Like

        • frug says:

          I actually wouldn’t be shocked if they asked the coaches to discontinue their poll (or at least delay its publication). The coaches work for the presidents who have ultimate authority (that is why they were able to mandate that the coaches vote for whichever team wins the BCS NCG number 1 in the final rankings).

          Like

          • Brian says:

            In which case, the USA Today will take some of the the retired coaches from the Harris poll and continue to have a coaches poll.

            Like

  5. bamatab says:

    Roll Tide!

    Like

  6. […] and/or a larger block of representation on the playoff participant committee. Late yesterday, Frank the Tank actually gave readers a smart list of some of the items to pursue and avoid, when it comes to a […]

    Like

  7. greg says:

    Go Hawks.

    Like

  8. texmex says:

    I posted this at the very end of Frank’s ACC post, however since there’s a new thread here, I will post it. In some ways, would it make more sense if the Rose Bowl were not part of the semi-final rotation to increase the chances each year it will be a PAC 12/Big 10 matchup?

    If the Rose Bowl were not in the playoff rotation, these would have been the matchups going back to 2004. Some very attractive matchups that wouldn’t take away from the lure of the Rose Bowl at all. I think 2010 and 2011 would have been great matchups.

    2011: Stanford vs Wisconsin
    2010: Stanford vs Ohio State
    2009: Oregon vs Ohio State
    2008: USC/Utah vs Penn St (USC/Alabama toss up for 4th playoff spot)
    2007: USC/Illinois
    2006: USC/Wisconsin (Polls had USC #7 that year..it’s doubtful committee selects them)
    2005: Oregon vs Notre Dame (Penn St and Ohio St both make playoff, ND is replacement team at next Big 10 team was rated #18)
    2004: California vs Michigan

    I don’t know…I think a good solution for the Rose Bowl is to have the playoff semi-finals take place the 4th Saturday of December….leave the Rose and future Champions Bowl out of the rotation and have those two games headline New Years Day. Play the championship game sometime in early January.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I don’t think the Rose Bowl would want this. It would permanently leave them as the #4 bowl of the year (behind the national championship and semi-finals). It might work with the semi-finals in December, but I don’t think they are likely to end up there.

      Like

      • @Eric – Agreed. It’s as much about the Rose Bowl’s elite status as it is about a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup. Ultimately, if you want to be an elite bowl in this new playoff world, you’re going to have to be a semifinal site. I think that as long as Big Ten and/or Pac-12 semifinalists get sent to the Rose Bowl in the years when it’s a semifinal host, everyone would be about as happy as they could be in this system.

        Like

  9. Denogginizer says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  10. […] Consensus by Committee: A College Football Playoff Is Almost Here (Frank the Tank’s Slant) […]

    Like

  11. bullet says:

    The fits last week were kind of interesting. From the reports that were coming out about a month ago, I posted this exact same result as it appeared there was pretty much a consensus on this. Perhaps last week was negotiating ploys on the revenue allocation.

    I suspect the committee will be like the basketball committee and evaulate where to send teams. In a year the Rose Bowl is a semi-final and say, USC is #1 and Ohio St. is #3 or #4, they will seed Ohio St. #4 and send both to the Rose Bowl.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, that’s going to be an interesting thing.

      I mean the discussion has always been about determining the #4 team.

      But that’s not the only thing to determine, who’s #2 relative to #3. How does that affect bowl slotting.

      McMurphy can say that they’re not going to use the flex plan, but isn’t the choosing of seeding actually the flex plan? Especially since there may not be a BCS poll system or anything like that anymore?

      Like

  12. jcfreder says:

    Now, instead of all of us expecting the BCS poll to spit out a result that matches the polls, we’ll expect the committee to match the polls. Virtually any deviance from the polls is going to be extremely controversial, so we’ll see how much the committee is willing to run counter to the poll rankings we’ve had thrown at us all year long.

    Interesting decision on the host bowls. Let’s hope the Rose Bowl can host a #1-#3 or #2-#4 Big Ten-Pac 12 semifinal. If 4 bowls are part of the rotation, the Rose is seldom going to get a “true” Rose Bowl pairing, particularly if you force 1-4 and 2-3 matchups. If 6 bowls take part, at least the Rose is out of the semis 67% of the time.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I’ve read the news a little different than Frank on this point. While there may eventually be new BCS bowls, it’s sounded to me like the rotation will through the 4 existing bowls. Even if we get 2 new bowls, I suspect they won’t be part of the rotation.

      I agree that the selection committee is going to very closely follow the polls most years. They’ll by pass a few who lose their conference, but don’t expect anyone outside the top 6 ever to make it.

      I think a pure seeded playoff is much less likely than a semi-seeded one. Beyond preserving the Rose Bowl, the committee is going to need the ability to avoid rematches and hopefully encourage more regional games. In that light, I think they’ll be able to switch 2 close teams. Last year for instance we probably would have had #1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #3 Oklahoma State, and #5 Oregon in. I think the semi-finals would have varied depending on the bowls used.

      Orange Bowl: LSU vs. Oklahoma State
      Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Alabama

      or

      Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. Oregon
      Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma State vs. Alabama

      LSU was the clear #1, but the rest were pretty close so it really wasn’t a big deal switching them around a little. In scenario #1, LSU stays in the southeast and Oregon gets its traditional tie-in with the Rose Bowl. In scenario #2 LSU gets its traditional tie-in with the Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma State it’s with the Fiesta.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        The bigger issues arise when there are multiple conflicting things you are trying to do. The worst case scenario I can come up with is something like this:

        #1 Notre Dame
        #2 Ohio State
        #3 LSU
        #4 USC

        Let’s say the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl are the 2 in the rotation that year (although practically I suspect that they’ll separate those 2 as they are the biggest). The results (if I’m right in how they’ll do this) would probably be:

        Sugar Bowl: #1 Notre Dame vs. #3 LSU
        Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #4 USC

        In this set-up, the #1 team in the nation essentially gets a game that feels a lot like an away game (and actually so does the #2 team, although that’s a little different). This is one reason I don’t favor locked in semi-finals (if they were based on tie-ins, Notre Dame could have an agreement with some other BCS bowl to host them here). If the Rose and Sugar were locked in though, it would be difficult to set-up anything else. Ohio State vs. LSU in the Sugar Bowl and Notre Dame vs. USC in the Rose Bowl would ignore tradition and still give you the traveling road issues (and a rematch issue to with Notre Dame and USC).

        Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          You accidently wrote Ohio State when you meant to write Michigan.

          Like

        • texmex says:

          Eric,

          In that scenario, I would hope the committee does the right thing and has Notre Dame play USC in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State vs LSU in the Rose Bowl. I think the manipulation of seedings to preserve tradition is not right and doesn’t make it a playoff anymore. It really makes it a plus-one. I think it’s an intersting scenario you brought up. I do think the top seed, as a reward for being the #1 seed, should be placed at a bowl site of their preference. So if Notre Dame is the #1 seed, and the Sugar and Rose Bowls are the rotation that year, thenND should choose which bowl to play in. If they select the Sugar, then everything else falls into play.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            It’s definitely not a plus one (with a plus one the bowl match-ups do not directly determine the next match-up, here they do).

            I have the opposite viewpoint overall. If you put USC and Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State and LSU in the Rose Bowl, then you preserved the 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3, but at a cost of a) tradition and b) geography (not a single school is anywhere near their semi-final destination), c) set-up a rematch of Notre Dame’s last game. A pure is 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 is not worth that cost.

            I know it’s all subjective so no one is right or wrong here, but to me we are talking about 4 teams who are relatively even. Keeping tradition with the bowls far outweighs the value of strict seeding.

            Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          I would hope/think that a #1 Notre Dame would not play a de facto road game @LSU for the semifinal. No, I think the Irish would make a triumphant return to the Rose Bowl, where the Four Horsemen capped their legend.

          In that scenario, I think it will be all fuzucked. ND will play LSU in LA to avoid a rematch and home site for the lower rannked team. Southern Cal will head to Bourbon St.. I think a LOT of treams will opt for the Rose if given a choice

          Like

      • bullet says:

        I suspect they will develop a football “RPI” like they have for basketball and they will go into the room with the AP & coaches polls, that RPI and a group of computer polls. And, of course, they will have the results of all the teams. It will probably take them about 5 minutes to get down to about a dozen teams that are ranked highly in one of their polls or systems and then they will go to work.

        Like

    • frug says:

      As I said before, if a selection committee is used they will probably just discontinue all the current polls used in the BCS to avoid the deviation problem.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Other than the Harris poll, none of those are specifically for the BCS. Sagarin has his ELO-chess model which is a modification of his normal model, but he is doing a poll regardless of the BCS.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          And having all of those models and keeping them public gives them a certain level of cover if they deviate, because these models will give some different results if the teams are anywhere close. I don’t see a committee picking Stanford over Oregon last year. It would be interesting to see how they evaluated Oklahoma St. vs. Alabama.

          Like

          • bamatab says:

            I’m guessing that the only evaluation Ok St vs Bama would be to evaluate which seeded spot they would get since both likely would be in the playoff. Ok St would probably have gotten the #2 seed, and Bama would’ve probably gotten the # 4 seed (I would bet that a committee would’ve tried to pair LSU and Bama in order to keep two SEC teams from playing in the final game) .

            Like

        • frug says:

          The question isn’t whether the computer models will continue to be published, it is whether or not they will publish their BCS rankings which drop out things like MOV.

          Plus, with no formal role in the process and no one to compile, adjust, and average them I suspect they will be little discussed.

          Like

      • texmex says:

        Polls will still exist for entertainment purposes if nothing else. There’s really nothing the conferences can do to stop that. The public will still read, watch, or hear about AP Poll rankings. While the poll won’t be formally used as a method of selection, it will still be there with regard to the court of public opinion.

        Like

  13. Craig Z says:

    Go Buckeyes.

    Like

  14. JMH says:

    My guess on where this is going: assuming that the “new BCS” (whatever it will be called) consists of just the national semifinals and the conferences can contract for bowl slots for the rest of the games, I think when all is said and done there will essentially be 4 tiers of bowls each season:

    1. Two national semifinals (2 of Rose/Orange/Sugar/Fiesta)

    2. The Big Ten #1 vs. Pac 12 #1 game and the SEC #1 vs. BIG Twelve #1 game

    3. Two New Year’s Day games featuring ACC #1 vs. ND or Big Twelve #2 and Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2.

    4. Everything else.

    So let’s say in odd years the semifinals are Sugar and Fiesta. Games could be as follows:

    Early games on January 1: Capital One Bowl (Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2) and Orange Bowl (ACC #1 vs. ND or Big Twelve #2)

    Mid-day games on January 1: Rose Bowl (Big Ten #1 vs. Pac 12 #1) and Cotton Bowl (SEC #1 vs. BIG Twelve #1)

    Late game on January 1: Fiesta Bowl

    January 2: Sugar Bowl

    In even years the semifinals would be Rose and Orange. Games as follows:

    Early games on January 1: Capital One Bowl (Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2) and Cotton Bowl (ACC #1 vs. ND or Big Twelve #2)

    Mid-day game on January 1: Rose Bowl

    Late games on January 1: Fiesta Bowl (Big Ten #1 vs. Pac 12 #1) and Sugar Bowl (SEC #1 vs. BIG Twelve #1)

    January 2: Orange Bowl

    Like

  15. JMH says:

    To clarify: #1 and #2 means choice of teams from each conference after the 4 national semifinal participants are chosen by the committee. If a conference’s champion is not one of the 4 national semifinalists it would be #1.

    Like

  16. loki_the_bubba says:

    So we’re swapping a beauty pageant with two winners for a beauty pageant with four. It’s still not a playoff.

    Like

    • Jake says:

      Loki – it already was a playoff, this just doubles the size. Baseball used to have a postseason that sent two teams to the World Series without any other rounds; was that not a playoff? Any time two teams meet on the field after the regular season to settle it all, you’ve got a playoff. But out of curiosity, what do you think college football would have to do to get a real playoff?

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        When baseball had two they were the teams that won on the field. Not two selected by the BBWA. Everyone knew that if you won your group you were in. D1A football will not have a champion until every conference winner is in a playoff.

        Like

        • Jake says:

          So all 11 (or is it 10 – does the WAC still count?) conference winners, plus some wild cards to round it out? I’d watch that. I don’t think that keeps it from being a playoff, though. A playoff is when two teams meet on the field in the post season to settle something that wasn’t settled in the regular season (or to settle it again, in the case of LSU-Alabama).

          Like

          • bullet says:

            BCS was a bowl game matchup. This actually is a playoff. Its just that not everyone gets invited to the party and the requirements to get invited aren’t ever going to be clear. In the FCS, until they did the expansion last season, not everyone was invited. For years, Division III only invited a handful of schools and even going unbeaten didn’t guarantee an invite.

            Like

          • vincent says:

            Bullet, it’s still a beauty pageant. If one of the “wrong teams” like an Iowa State or an Indiana wins its conference with no more than one loss, it might still be bumped from a playoff slot by a wild-card with more TV appeal. And it will be an even longer shot for a one-loss ACC conference champ that’s not a brand name.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          loki_the_bubba,

          “D1A football will not have a champion until every conference winner is in a playoff.”

          So we need a 15 team playoff (11 champs, 4 independents and no wildcards)? or are wildcards OK as long as all the champs are also in it? Why not go with the 128 team tournament just to be safe?

          Like

    • Eric says:

      How in the world is it not a playoff? They are taking the top 4 teams, having them play an elimination round, and having the winners face off. At the very least its a tournament and I don’t see how it could possibly not be a playoff.

      Like

  17. cutter says:

    It sounds like we’re getting a BCS Plus Two setup that has many of the same problems that the current Bowl Championship Series enjoys. While the door is open a bit more with four teams participating in it, we’re still going to see as high a level of controversy with the selections as we see with the current BCS.

    Any selection committee comprised of former college football coaches is going to be suspect, despite the transparency that’s being promised in the system. These coaches all have their own biases and conference loyalties along with their good old boy networks and coaching trees with former assistants who now have head coaching jobs. Fans throughout college football will look at some of these individuals and be able to point towards bias–real or imagined–in the decision being made. That perception only gets reinforced by the proposal to have the committee balanced by region and by allowing members to recuse themselves from certain decisions. If I were putting a committee together and wanted people who were knowledgeable about football, then I’d hire a bunch of former NFL coaches who are a long arm’s length away from the college game to pick the top four teams. I don’t want “insiders” doing it because we’ll have the same sort of finger pointing that we see in the current BCS system.

    I watched the BCS program on ESPN last night and was shaking my head at the assumption being put forward that teams would actually strengthen their non-conference schedules because they’d want to get a higher strength of schedule (SOS). Unless SOS was given a weight of 50% or more by the selection committee, then the best way to get int the BCS Plus Two is the same as the current BCS–win all your games. Now that conferences are larger than 1998 plus they’re playing more conference games plus most of them have a conference championship game, there’s actually no incentive to make the non-conference schedule more difficult. If the playoff was expanded to eight teams and/or some number of conference champions were given autobids, then you’d have the sort of positive motivator in place that would allow teams to play harder non-conference schedules.

    Take Michigan’s 2012 schedule. If UM had opened with Eastern Michigan instead of Alabama, but played Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State on the road plus games with Michigan State and Iowa and participated in the Big Ten Conference Championship game, then I’d be hard pressed to imagine a 13-0 UM team not being one of the four selected (that is, unless Phil Fulmer had the deciding vote on the committee and wanted to get revenge on Michigan for Charles Woodson winning the Heisman over Peyton Manning back in 1997).

    The only really positive thing I can take away from this is that we’re looking at another transitional step toward a larger playoff. Even Larry Scott acknowledged that the major controversies will continue until we get to an 8- or 16-team playoff. The fans and media will have the same problems with the BCS Plus Two as the current system and the conference commissioners will continue to get flack and pressure for additional change.

    I will laugh if the Presidential Oversight Committee doesn’t approved the seeded four-team playoff and tells the conference commissioners they want a Plus One instead. Not likely to happen, I suppose, but it’d be funny as hell.

    I’ll also laugh if New York City, Boston, Chicago or some other cold weather location with an outdoor stadium get selected as the site for the national championship game. That poor Alabama defensive tackle from Mobile that Nick Saban always talks about is going to have to play in the cold and possible snow in The Meadowlands, Gillette Stadium or Soldier Field. (Saban mentioned how it wouldn’t be “right” for this fictitious individuals to have to play a semi-final game at Camp Randall Stadium in Wisconsin in late December). If those locales were to put together the highest bid, would college football shrink away from the extra money and look for a warm weather location instead?

    Like

    • Jake says:

      @cutter – “we’re still going to see as high a level of controversy with the selections as we see with the current BCS.” Controversy, yes, but not as high as before. There’s controversy over the 64th (65th? 66th? 68th?) team in the basketball tournament, but it’s not very loud – no one thinks that team is going to win it all. The #3 ranked football team, however, just might be the best team in the country, so the controversy there is quite intense. The #5 ranked team might be able to make the same argument, but not quite as convincingly. Basically, the larger a playoff gets, the less griping there is about the last team in. So, controversy, but not quite at the same level.

      And a “BCS Plus Two” isn’t really the right way to describe it. That would imply that you would play the BCS bowls, re-rank all the teams, and THEN select your top four for the playoffs, which isn’t what’s happening. This is an expanded playoff.

      I agree that college football is missing out on something by not having cold weather post season games. If the SEC doesn’t want to go north in December, well, then they should have a better season and earn one of the top two seeds. On-campus playoff games would be absolutely off the hook. That’s my biggest gripe with this plan – not only do you keep the bowls involved, but fans of the teams in the championship game will now have to travel twice in the space of a couple of weeks.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        It’s like everyone’s forgetting that just a couple of years ago Oklahoma got pasted in the CCG and got into the Championship.

        There will never be a result that even comes close to the controversy from that under a selection committee.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Nebraska was the really controversial one. CU beat them 62-36 and Nebraska got in before CU or Pac 12 champ Oregon. Nebraska did have 1 loss vs. their two, but it was to one of them in the last game of the season. When #2 FSU got in ahead of #3 Miami who they lost to it was also pretty controversial.

          OU wasn’t a case of them not belonging (as was the opinion of Nebraska) as they had been dominant all season prior to that and were the only unbeaten. The controversy was whether LSU and USC deserved to be there more. OU had a bad game in a game most people were saying didn’t matter (and it didn’t-they still got in).

          Like

          • zeek says:

            There won’t be any choices as controversial as those under a selection committee choosing 4 teams.

            I realize that there’s a fear of smoke-filled backrooms, but the fact is that it’s likely to generate far less controversy because in most years the 4 teams will be obvious and the 5th or 6th teams that get left out won’t really have that much of a case.

            Not anywhere near the case that the #3 and #4 teams had in previous controversial years…

            Like

          • Jake says:

            And then there was 2004 Auburn. It’s amazing how little fuss that raised, considering that it’s the most clear-cut case of a school being wronged by the BCS.

            Like

          • @Jake: that one raised a lot of fuss, and was far from the most clear-cut example. Auburn had an atrocious OOC slate, and the SEC was way down that year (multiple bad non-AQ losses, SECE winner Tennessee lost at home to a .500 Notre Dame team, etc.)

            @zeek: The #4 team is very rarely clear-cut. See http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/21/3105594/college-football-playoffs-selection-committee . If anything the 1-2 tends to be clear-cut about half of the time, while 4-5 is very rarely clear.

            Like

          • frug says:

            And then there was 2004 Auburn. It’s amazing how little fuss that raised, considering that it’s the most clear-cut case of a school being wronged by the BCS.

            2008 Utah might have something to say about that. Hell, if you look at the numbers you can make a case that Utah was better than Auburn back in 2004.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, I agree with all of that, my main point is just that the argument over #4/#5 will typically pale in comparison to the previous arguments over #2/#3.

            As mentioned by many, we’ve had so many controversies over #2/#3 that are much much bigger than anything you can come up with over #4/#5.

            Undefeated TCU, undefeated Auburn, Oklahoma/USC, Florida/Michigan, etc.

            Those finishes are all going to look more controversial than anything we get in the future over arguments over #4/#5. It may not seem that way now, but it’s going to be fairly obvious that the leftout teams at #4/#5 teams are going to have a lot more flaws than the current situation arguing over #2/#3.

            Right now we’ve had situations where we’ve left out undefeated teams that looked worthy along with some seeming brain farts by the computers.

            Arguing over whether certain teams should be #4/#5 is going to be a lot less controversial because both teams will have a lot more flaws than the typical #2/#3 teams we’ve seen left out in the past.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            “Yeah, I agree with all of that, my main point is just that the argument over #4/#5 will typically pale in comparison to the previous arguments over #2/#3.”

            I disagree. The arguments over who gets in will be bigger because more teams can make a case for being #4. What will happen when a non-AQ gets left out despite being #4 in the polls? Or will the polls have a new, lower glass ceiling to keep them out entirely?

            “As mentioned by many, we’ve had so many controversies over #2/#3 that are much much bigger than anything you can come up with over #4/#5.”

            We had controversies at 2/3 because that was the cutoff. The 4/5 demarcation has often been fuzzier.

            “Those finishes are all going to look more controversial than anything we get in the future over arguments over #4/#5. It may not seem that way now, but it’s going to be fairly obvious that the leftout teams at #4/#5 teams are going to have a lot more flaws than the current situation arguing over #2/#3.”

            Bull. A team’s going to lose it’s last game and drop to #5 after being #1 most of the year and people will never let it go. There will be a large group of 1 loss teams with several getting left out and fans will howl. Fans bitch. That’s what they do. And if you thought non-AQ fans complained before, wait until they get screwed out of the #4 spot.

            “Right now we’ve had situations where we’ve left out undefeated teams that looked worthy along with some seeming brain farts by the computers.”

            We had 5 undefeateds 1 year. Feel free to explain how the team left out wouldn’t complain.

            “Arguing over whether certain teams should be #4/#5 is going to be a lot less controversial because both teams will have a lot more flaws than the typical #2/#3 teams we’ve seen left out in the past.”

            That’s pure assumption.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        It’s the BCS Plus Two because it continues an unsatisfactory selection process that substitutes a problematic poll system for a yet to be determined selection committee subject to individual biases, loyalties, etc. In that respect, it hasn’t changed.

        It’s the BCS Plus Two because it continues to be welded to the bowl system instead of having the games on campus sites. Again, it’s a continuation of what the BCS does right now.

        It’s the BCS Plus Two because it will essentially no consideration to conference championships outside of a set of instructions given to a committee with individuals who will interpret and/or weigh them in their own individual fashion. If one of the members wants Team A over Team B, he can come up with most any metric to justify his decision.

        Yes, they would probably not duplicate the decision that put Oklahoma into the BCS playoff that you mention. Common sense prevails. But would OU have been in a four-team playoff? Since being conference champion isn’t one of the paths for getting into the playoff, we can’t say yes or no on that point.

        If you don’t think there will be less controversy because we’re four teams instead of two, then I want to disabuse you of that particular notion. There’s no basis to think the relative margin between deciding between #2 and #3 compared to #4 and #5 is going to be any different. There are going to continue to be razor thin reasons, criteria, metrics, why Team A is #4 and Team B is #5. So instead of pointing at the BCS poll, the vox populi and the Fourth Estate are going to criticize the committee instead when the inevitable controversy rolls in.

        So yes, this is still the BCS Plus 2. Is it structurally different? Sure. Instead of picking two teams using a lousy selection process we’re going to pick four teams using a different, yet still lousy, selection process. Instead of having one BCS championship game at a bowl site, we’re going to have two playoff games at–wait for it–bowl sites. Callling this an expanded playoff is like saying the present BCS system is a two-team playoff.

        If you want a real expanded playoff, put it at eight teams, give some number of conference champions an autobid and make provisions for including the top at large teams. Let’s have a representative group of programs that are capable of making a national championship run in the pool. Let them play it on the field, preferably on campus sides. Make whatever committee or rating system as reasonable and free from perceived bias as possible.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Oklahoma definitely would have been in a 4 team playoff under this system. They were without a doubt one of the 3 best teams that year. Because there are usually 1 or 2 unbeatens, there just isn’t going to be significant controversy over the #5 team. 2008 would be the most controversial year in the BCS era. There were probably 6 teams with good arguments, but there really wasn’t much question before the bowls about who the top 4 were. There would be some mild controversy in 2007 where nearly everyone had 2 losses, but #6 Missouri and #5 UGA had their own conference champs ahead of them.

          Noone is saying there won’t be some difficult decisions. Just that the controversy will be muted vs. leaving out #3.

          Like

    • jj says:

      Cutter :

      We’ll see but I think you’re right. The controversy will increase as the pressure of leapfrogging “ugly” teams in this beauty contest for tv dollars will increase.

      Like

  18. […] proposal that will select the best four teams, regardless of conference affiliation.   As always, Frank the Tank has a great […]

    Like

  19. Mike R says:

    I hope the powers that be come up with something like this:

    1) Add the Cotton Bowl to the rotation of majors.
    2) Alternate the Big 12/SEC “Champions Bowl” between the Sugar and Cotton. If you can create a Big 12/SEC matchup from the chosen 4, that semifinal will be that year’s “Champions Bowl.”
    3) If you can create a B1G/Pac-12 matchup from the chosen 4, that semifinal will be the Rose Bowl
    4) Otherwise institute a fair rotation of the semifinals among the five majors.

    Like

  20. bullet says:

    I noticed that Swofford said in the ESPN article that they had agreed to the principles of how the additional revenues would be distributed. That is perhaps the most significant thing. That was a big hurdle. The CBS report is the only one I have seen that speculates on what those principles would be. And even that can be interpreted many ways-tiers, by team, number of teams vs. poll points.

    Like

  21. Jericho says:

    How will the Bowls work under this scenario? If the plan is to rotate the semi-finals in the Bowls, what then happens to those traditional bowl match-ups? For example, the Rose Bowl is normally a Pac 12-Big 10 match-up. In this hypothetical, the Rose Bowl is hosting a semi-final and the Pac-12 champ makes the playoffs. But the Big 10 champ does not. What Bowl does the Big 10 champ go to? If the other Bowls already have pre-determined match-ups, does that bump the Big 10 champ down the chain? Will there still be any kind of BCS like system for the major bowls not in the rotation?

    Like

    • Mike R says:

      We can protect the Rose Bowl’s B1G/Pac 12 matchup, either as a national semifinal or outside of the two semifinals.

      If both a Pac-12 and B1G team are among the chosen 4, then they are slotted into the Rose Bowl as a national semifinal. The last time that would have happened would probably have been 2005 with USC v. Penn State

      In all other cases, the most worthy Pac-12 and B1G representatives (either the champions or the next-best team not in the chosen 4) will be selected for the Rose Bowl.

      For example, in the 2011 season, assuming conference champion Oregon is selected for the playoff over Stanford, the Rose Bowl would get Stanford — as the highest-ranked Pac-12 representative — and Wisconsin,the B1G champion.

      Of course in 2010 things wouldn’t have worked out so well on paper. Assuming Oregon is selected as Pac-12 champ and Stanford as an at-large team, the matchup would have been unranked Washington (with USC bowl-ineligible) v. B1G champion Wisconsin.

      Taking it back a few years (I’m assuming a 3 champs + 1 at-large selection by the committee):

      2009 — Oregon (Pac-12 champ) v. Ohio State (B1G champ)
      2008 — Oregon (No. 10-ranked, with USC in the playoff) v. Penn State (B1G champ)
      2007 — USC (Pac-12 champ) v. Michigan (No. 18-ranked, with Ohio State in the playoff)
      2006 — California (No. 18-ranked with USC in the playoff) Wisconsin (No. 7-ranked with Ohio State and Michigan in the playoff)

      Like

      • Jericho says:

        I get that much, I was looking more at the other Bowls. For example, do the other major bowls (not in that year’s semifinal rotation) keep traditional tie-ins or do they fall under some so BCS-lite selection? If you have traditional tie-ins, it could leave a major conference looking on the outside. I was using the Big 10 as an example, but the Pac-12 might be a better example. If the Rose is a designated semi-final and the Pac-12 champ does not qualify for the playoffs, where does the Pac-12 champ go? Are they forced to go to the Pac-12’s second bowl (a significant step down from the Rose traditionally) or would some of the major Bowl slots be kept open much like the current system?

        One benefit of the current BCS system is the number of high profile match-ups, something not always true in the pre-BCS/Bowl Alliance days.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Nobody knows for sure.

          Months ago they talked about adding some bowls and staging a bunch of top games BCS-style so the non-AQs could still earn some big pay days, but there were no details.

          I’d like to see the B10 and P12 make an agreement with another bowl to take the Rose Bowl match-up in the years when the Rose is a semi. I don’t know if that would fit withing their system, but I think it would. If the Fiesta loses the B12 champ, I’d think they would jump at the chance to get B10/P12 every other year.

          Like

  22. Chris Ross says:

    Really thorough and well written post. However, I’m not quite as on board with the new changes as everyone else is. I think it poses some problems and more so than what other people think. More fair for sure but, as a casual college football fan, I don’t know if I’m quite behind the playoff changes. This is a big change and definitely will quiet down the BCS critics but it’ll be more interesting to see how this affects College Football over the next 5 or so years and if there are going to be even more changes down the road. Also, you think you could take a gander over at my latest blog post because I would absolutely love to hear what you have to say http://chrisross91.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/bcs-slippery-slope/

    Like

  23. Off topic, but since I’ve been a longtime member of Frank’s blog community, I wanted to share.

    My third book was released today. The greatest PSU games of recent times…and a mini-college football history book. http://www.amazon.com/Ring-Bell-Twenty-Two-Greatest-Victories/dp/1622870107/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340309870&sr=1-1&keywords=ring+the+bell+penn+state
    Kindle version should be out tomorrow (much cheaper, if you are into ebooks).

    Very relieved and excited!

    Like

  24. Brian says:

    Frank,

    “I’ve long said that what fans really want is an objective computer program that spits out the exact same result as a subjective human poll. We hate the thought of using the results of a human poll because of the perception that there might be bias, but we generally agree with the results of that same human poll because it reflects what we have seen with our own eyes.”

    I know you’ve often said that, but I think you’re wrong on several counts.

    1. I don’t know anyone that actually entirely agrees with any human poll. What people want is an objective computer program that agrees with them.

    2. It’s not the “perception that there might be bias,” it’s the knowledge that there is bias. Bias in terms of a preferred conference, bias in terms of friends/enemies amongst the coaches (from media and coaches), recency bias, brand bias, etc.

    3. Again, I don’t think most people actually agree with the human polls. They may be closer than the computer polls, especially early in the year, but most people have gripes about where non-AQs are ranked, too many teams from 1 league being so high, etc. People regularly trash the ballots of voters online. But the computers have been handcuffed, are secretive and spit out some odd results, especially before December, so people don’t trust them either.

    I’d like to see a conference devoted to creating better football polls where experts in statistics, math, programming and such get together with the current pollsters and football experts and develop several new systems that are as scientifically valid as possible given the constraints of many teams with few games. With today’s computer power, it should be possible to account for a lot more variable than the old systems. Whether that helps or not is unknown. Perhaps a neural network with hundreds of inputs could tell us how important each factor is and how best to combine them to get good results. Maybe a little of this huge new playoff TV deal could pay for some work to be done in the area.

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      I think it is impossible to use a computer to eliminate all concerns. Any ranking objectively using many characteristics has to inject a great deal of subjective determinations. In merely deciding which “hundreds of inputs” would be used, there would be subjective determinations.

      Even before getting to hundreds, people cannot agree on something “easy” like margin of victory. If USC beats Alabama by 28 we are impressed. If USC beats Alabama by 28, but runs up the score in the 4th quarter, that is less impressive. if USC beats Alabama by 28, but scores 2 touchdowns in the 4th quarter based on a punt return TD with 4 minutes to go and then an interception return with 45 seconds to go, what does that mean? And so on. The goal is to win, not win by 28+. Of course, instinctively, we know that a 28 point victory is more impressive than a 1 point victory. If Alabama beats USC 28-0, that is more impressive perhaps than Oregon beating USC 48-47 on a two-point conversation in triple overtime. As you start looking at 45-17 vs 28-0, not sure what conclusions, if any, can be drawn.

      Further, you then have to factor in the weirdness that can happen. Syracuse destroyed West Virginia. WVU was rather plainly “off” in that game. WVU destroyed Clemson. Clemson was rather plainly “off” in that game. Sometimes a win tells you more about the loser than the victor. How do you make a computer recognize that? And what about emotional issues? Oklahoma State losing post-tragedy. Penn State losing post-Paterno firing (i.e. what if Penn State won out after that game???). Are those losses equivalent to a team just not showing up? Better? Worse?

      You also can look at whether one team just has another team figured out. For whatever reason, Rutgers cannot seem to beat West Virginia. FSU struggles with Wake Forest. No real logic to it. If FSU loses to Wake Forest, it seems more reasonable than if LSU does. After all, Wake plays FSU every year and has a good idea of what they are going to face. LSU presents new issues that Wake is not as prepared for. The flip side is that FSU should be more prepared for Wake Forest, so maybe this is a non-issue. But is this one of the hundreds on inputs? Someone has to decide.

      There are just so many “objective” criteria that I do not think we’ll ever get to a consensus as to a computer program. We make subjective decisions as to what is important.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Agree.

        Someone supporting the MOV limitations on computer programs said teams shouldn’t be penalized for the type of team they had. A pass happy team like UH last year might win 70-28 over a team. A team like LSU last year might win 28-0. Which was a better win? Hard to say. There’s also the tendency of coaches (especially the Spurrier school-Spurrier, Stoops, Leach, etc.) to run up the score vs. others (Mack Brown) who don’t.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        acaffrey,

        “I think it is impossible to use a computer to eliminate all concerns.”

        Of course it is. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. That said, there is plenty of room for improvement over the current state of computer polls in my opinion.

        “Any ranking objectively using many characteristics has to inject a great deal of subjective determinations. In merely deciding which “hundreds of inputs” would be used, there would be subjective determinations.”

        That’s a positive. That’s why there should be multiple polls. Some will use a lot of inputs, others a few. Each would be different. The key is to see which can come closest to capturing what happened on the field. I’m guessing different polls would work better in different seasons.

        “Even before getting to hundreds, people cannot agree on something “easy” like margin of victory. If USC beats Alabama by 28 we are impressed. If USC beats Alabama by 28, but runs up the score in the 4th quarter, that is less impressive. if USC beats Alabama by 28, but scores 2 touchdowns in the 4th quarter based on a punt return TD with 4 minutes to go and then an interception return with 45 seconds to go, what does that mean? And so on. The goal is to win, not win by 28+. Of course, instinctively, we know that a 28 point victory is more impressive than a 1 point victory. If Alabama beats USC 28-0, that is more impressive perhaps than Oregon beating USC 48-47 on a two-point conversation in triple overtime. As you start looking at 45-17 vs 28-0, not sure what conclusions, if any, can be drawn.”

        Exactly. That’s why you need several models. One can ignore MOV while another emphasizes it. A third may give diminishing returns. A fourth can incorporate the time of each score and differentiate garbage points from comebacks.

        “Further, you then have to factor in the weirdness that can happen. Syracuse destroyed West Virginia. WVU was rather plainly “off” in that game. WVU destroyed Clemson. Clemson was rather plainly “off” in that game. Sometimes a win tells you more about the loser than the victor. How do you make a computer recognize that?”

        How do you make people recognize it? Everyone evaluates those things differently, and many people only see the score and some highlights, not the whole game. At least computers can give equal attention to every game.

        “And what about emotional issues? Oklahoma State losing post-tragedy. Penn State losing post-Paterno firing (i.e. what if Penn State won out after that game???). Are those losses equivalent to a team just not showing up? Better? Worse?”

        Don’t know. You can factor that in if you choose, just like injuries and finals week and trap games and anything else.

        “You also can look at whether one team just has another team figured out. For whatever reason, Rutgers cannot seem to beat West Virginia. FSU struggles with Wake Forest. No real logic to it. If FSU loses to Wake Forest, it seems more reasonable than if LSU does. After all, Wake plays FSU every year and has a good idea of what they are going to face. LSU presents new issues that Wake is not as prepared for. The flip side is that FSU should be more prepared for Wake Forest, so maybe this is a non-issue. But is this one of the hundreds on inputs? Someone has to decide.”

        Of course someone has to decide. That was the purpose of having more than 1 model in the first place.

        “There are just so many “objective” criteria that I do not think we’ll ever get to a consensus as to a computer program. We make subjective decisions as to what is important.”

        Agreed. I’m just saying that if we can model the decay of nuclear weapons as they sit in storage as well as their explosions without actually testing anything, we can probably improve on some computer formulas designed to run in a spreadsheet 15 years ago.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          To me there is a primary reason computer rankings are preferable to human/committee. Sure, the selection of which criteria/inputs will be subjective but once selected they will be applied objectively to all teams/games. Know the rules before the season and don’t move the goalposts during the season.

          Like

        • acaffrey says:

          I don’t have a real solid grasp on what the current computer models ARE, so I cannot comment on their flaws. I think the beauty of 4 teams is that it eliminates concern about #3. How we get to 4 is always going to be a problem. No matter how it is chosen or spit out of a computer.

          If there is a sense that the world wants Teams A, B, C, and D… at least human beings can make that happen. The computers might not. So a world where, like basketball, RPI is useful but not gospel is probably the best solution.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            acaffrey,

            “I don’t have a real solid grasp on what the current computer models ARE, so I cannot comment on their flaws.”

            Quotes are from their websites:

            Anderson & Hester (http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html):
            The Anderson & Hester Rankings are distinct in four ways:

            1. Unlike the polls, these rankings do not reward teams for running up scores. Teams are rewarded for beating quality opponents, which is the object of the game. Posting large margins of victory, which is not the object of the game, is not considered.

            2. Unlike the polls, these rankings do not prejudge teams. These rankings first appear after the season’s fifth week, and each team’s ranking reflects its actual accomplishments — on the field, to date — not its perceived potential.

            3. These rankings compute the most accurate strength of schedule ratings. Each team’s opponents and opponents’ opponents are judged not only by their won-lost records but also, uniquely, by their conferences’ strength (see #4).

            4. These rankings provide the most accurate conference ratings. Each conference is rated according to its non-conference won-lost record and the difficulty of its non-conference schedule.

            They don’t give out any details of their system.

            Billingsley (http://www.cfrc.com/Archives/Dynamics_08.htm):
            Let’s start from the very beginning and move through the system using the data included, in order of its inclusion in the formula, and then detail each of the components.

            #1-Starting position
            #2- Accumulating points
            #3- Strength of opponent
            #4- Instituting deductions for losses
            #5- Site of the game
            #6- Instituting head to head rules

            Accumulating Points- My system is the only one I am aware of that uses an “accumulating” value system. It was designed this way to emphasize a team’s most recent game as the AP and Coaches do. As a result, a team only gets credit for playing an opponent ONE TIME. Whatever happens to that opponent from that point forward is “water under the bridge.” … Each week a team accumulates or “earns points” based on the situation surrounding the current week’s opponent and nothing else. If a team is playing a #89 team, they cannot earn more points than a team with an equal record playing a #50 opponent, or a #10 opponent etc. If a team has a bye week, their rating does not change, with two exceptions. A special rule is in place (in the head to head section) that allows an undefeated team to ALWAYS be ranked ahead of every opponent they have beaten, and allows any team experiencing a bye week to remain ahead of a team they had just beaten the week before.

            Strength of opponent- This is another great topic of discussion. The value placed on the strength of an opponent is (as it should be) the core of most computer rankings. My system is unique in it’s calculation of strength of schedule as most models use wins and losses and I do not. I use an opponent’s RANK and RATING instead.

            Again, no details but he explains his basic process.

            Colley Matrix (http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf):

            The link goes to a 23 page PDF that fully explains his method mathematically.

            Colley’s matrix method for ranking college football teams is explained in detail, with many examples and explicit derivations. The method is based on very simple statistical principles, and uses only wins and losses as input—margin of victory does not matter. The scheme adjusts effectively for strength of schedule, in a way that is free of bias toward conference, tradition, or region. Comparison of rankings produced by this method to those produced by the press polls shows that despite its simplicity, the scheme produces common sense results.

            This method focuses more on “deservedness” to play in the national championship game than it does predictiveness, per se, which may be of more interest to some fans and bookmakers, who often consider margin of victory, injuries and other factors in assessing the possible outcome of a particular game.

            Massey ratings (http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm):
            Massey’s BCS ratings are the equilibrium point for a probability model applied to the binary (win or loss) outcome of each game. All teams begin the season rated the same. After each week, the entire season is re-analyzed so that the new ratings best explain the observed results. Actual game scores are not used, but homefield advantage is factored in, and there is a slight de-weighting of early season games. Schedule strength is implicit in the model, and plays a large role in determining a team’s rating. Results of games between well-matched opponents naturally carry more weight in the teams’ ratings. The final rating is essentially a function of the team’s wins and losses relative to the schedule faced.

            Perter Wolfe (http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/descrip.htm#three):
            The method we use is called a maximum likelihood estimate. In it, each team i is assigned a rating value πi that is used in predicting the expected result between it and its opponent j, with the likelihood of i beating j given by:

            πi / (πi + πj)

            The probability P of all the results happening as they actually did is simply the product of multiplying together all the individual probabilities derived from each game. The rating values are chosen in such a way that the number P is as large as possible. This is often called a Bradley-Terry model, and is described in papers listed at Wilson’s site (see Bradley and Terry 1952, Ford 1957, Elo 1986, Keener 1993).

            Sagarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system):
            He uses the same system as chess. The link goes to a description of that system that provides the math. Basically each team has a rank and the expected result of the game is compared to the actual result, and the better the team you play the more you rise. As with most systems, his is private.
            ___

            “If there is a sense that the world wants Teams A, B, C, and D… at least human beings can make that happen. The computers might not. So a world where, like basketball, RPI is useful but not gospel is probably the best solution.”

            That’s all I want anyway. But make the computer info as good as it can be. There is no good reason to use something as simple as RPI.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Interesting.

            I had never seen a description of the systems before other than Sagarin. They really are 6 different approaches, although Sagarin and Wolfe have similarities.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yes, and that was the idea. Find several objective ways to look at it and average them. Some care about when a game is played, others don’t. Some consider where a game is played, others don’t. They would differ on how to treat MOV, too. Most of them would benefit from being allowed to use actual game scores rather than just Ws and Ls, and they can do that again now that the BCS is dead.

            I’d add in a stats-based model like F/+ or something, too, to provide a completely different perspective. Throw those together, and you get a decent pool of polls.

            Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Actually, computers give no attention to any game until they are instructed to. And only then will they consider what they are being told to consider. So who decides what the criteria are and how they are weighed? People. And so you might see an SEC contingent opposed to MOV because they are defensive oriented, while the PAC-12 might favor offense, and so on.

          Given that all we are determining is the top 4 teams–and there are usually 1-3 teams that are no-brainers–is it worth it to create a purportedly perfect computer program?

          Either way, my heart will not be broken. My team needs to worry about bowls, not BCS/BS/playoffs.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            You can create multiple programs that weight things differently. The point is to provide the best possible info to the committee to help them make the best decisions possible.

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            ” The point is to provide the best possible info to the committee to help them make the best decisions possible.”
            I agree. I’m not sure the current BCS computer system gives that though. When two of the six computers publish essentially “alternate” models because they believe they are more accurate than what the BCS system allows them to judge I see a potential issue.

            Then we come to Richard Billingsley….

            ““I’m not a mathematician,” Billingsley said. “I’m not even a highly educated man, to tell you the truth. I don’t even have a degree. I have a high school education. I never had calculus. I don’t even remember much about algebra. I think everyone questions everything I do. ”

            Pretty interesting article on the BCS computer.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/sports/ncaafootball/17score.html

            I’m all for having computers involved to help a committee make the best decisions possible, and help sort out things like SOS that humans objectively don’t do well with. That said, I’m not sure the BCS computer system is the best way of doing this.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Nostradamus,

            “I agree. I’m not sure the current BCS computer system gives that though.”

            I’m sure the BCS system doesn’t provide it, but it did establish a framework that could provide it – multiple computer polls that use a variety of methods.

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            Agreed. And I agree with your sentiment that the variety in methodology is part of what it makes it good. I also like how the current system automatically eliminates the high and low rankings (something some times I wish human polls might adopt as well). I guess I’d still want to see some system that is peer reviewed or at least peer accepted among the statistical community. And as long as the justification makes sense, allow the guys to include whatever they want in their formula don’t handcuff them.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            And you’ve come back to where I started, saying I’d like to put the math guys and the programming guys and the football guys in a conference and let them come up with ideas they all agree are workable.

            Like

  25. greg says:

    I think the complaining about seeding will be larger than we can imagine.

    Like

    • Gil says:

      Not necessarily. It would be simple to brand the two semifinal bowls as “regionals.” The Fiesta and Rose Bowl could take turns as the West Regional, and the Sugar and the Orange as the East. The committee could declare two no. 1 seeds and assign them to the bowl sites according to proximity and conference affiliation. Then the other two unseeded teams play at the closest sites, avoiding rematches when possible.

      The two teams with the best regular seasons should be rewarded by playing close(r) to home, but beyond that there isn’t much difference between nos. 3-4. It’s not as if the last place team can’t beat you; no matter what, you are going to have to beat two very good football teams to win a championship.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Two No. 1 seeds? So, that won’t cause complains when the AP #2 is not a No. 1 seed.

        When #1 USC plays #2 Boise State in the Rose while #3 LSU plays #6 Texas Tech, people will be very happy about the outcome.

        Seeding allows endless permutations. Which means there are always going to be fanbases who feel shafted, which will result in endless complaints. People on this very board have said that #1/#3 and #2/#4 is a terrible outcome, when we all realize how imprecise rankings can be. How do you think the common man will respond?

        Like

    • jj says:

      I agree. I also think this just makes things worse. I really believe 3 slots should be reserved for conference champs.

      Like

    • No one will want two semifinalists from the same conference…everyone will understand the bowl alliances that are historically in place. I think it’ll be less controversial than you think.

      Assuming last year was LSU, Bama, OkSt, and Oregon…and assuming the four major bowls will rotate…assuming they’ll spread bowls out regionally (i.e. not Fiesta/Rose or Sugar/Orange in same year)…

      It could have been:
      Sugar–1 LSU vs. 3 OkSt
      Rose–2 Bama vs. 4 Oregon
      or
      Sugar–1 LSU vs. 4 Oregon
      Fiesta–2 Bama vs. 3 OkSt
      or
      Rose–1 LSU vs. 4 Oregon
      Orange–2 Bama vs. 3 OkSt
      or
      Orange–1 LSU vs. 4 Oregon
      Fiesta–2 Bama vs. 3 OkSt

      The biggest “gripe” I’d see would be 2 Alabama in the first scenario having to play in the Rose Bowl against Oregon. None of the others seem truly egregious to me.

      Like

      • greg says:

        You list four scenarios with all four handing the SEC the top two seeds, but you don’t think people will complain? Alabama had the least impressive resume of the four.

        Like

  26. jcfreder says:

    Put together the most sophisticated computer algorithm in the world, and if it spits out rankings that disagree with the polls, there will be controversy. This is because because the polls have perceived credibility; after all, they’ve been determining “national champions” much longer than the BCS. Also, the polls are with us all year long and are what people pay attention to as signalling who the best teams are. If the AP has been calling Alabama #1 all year long and then a computer (or a committee) calls Alabama #3, there will be some controversy. Although with a four-team setup, the possibility of cataclysmic controversy is lessened because arguing over say, #4, will not command as much attention as arguing over #2.

    Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      For better or for worse… this “playoff” appears that it will have just as much controversy (or argument) as the current system— this will not hurt college football– it just extends the time to get a more suitable 8 or 16 team playoff… I agree with several posters that this is just a bigger beauty pageant, 2 more girls in the dance… The prettiest ones win… Fair or not… ‘Tis why I am and always will be in favor of a larger playoff. Then maybe an ugly fantasy like the team in my backyard might have better than a snowballs chance in hell…

      NCAA football needs an infusion of new blood…

      Like

    • AnthonyD says:

      The other problem with the scenario you mention where Bama is #1 in the polls and the committee calls them #3: its gonna make the whole bracket suspect. I can just hear the talking heads now, “How can we trust who this committee put at #4, when they got #1 all wrong???”

      I think a couple of Cutter’s posts above are absolutely correct: This is at best a partial solution, if its even that. Problems and cries of bias will start from the very day the first bracket is announced.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      jcfreder,

      “Put together the most sophisticated computer algorithm in the world, and if it spits out rankings that disagree with the polls, there will be controversy. This is because because the polls have perceived credibility; after all, they’ve been determining “national champions” much longer than the BCS.”

      I don’t think the polls have nearly the credibility they used to. Plenty of people have disagreed with the published ballots of voters so that it’s become a cottage industry. The glass ceiling for the non-AQs, the inflated rankings for SEC and B12 teams (ask duffman), the traditional over-rating of ND and FSU and some other kings, etc have combined to erode the faith. At best they are viewed as a general guideline any more.

      Like

      • Jericho says:

        I think many have “seen the light” with the problems with the polls. Their credibility has weakened. But EVERY BCS “controversy” has been when the BCS rankings do not match the human polls. And virtually every year there was one of these “controversies”, the BCS formula was subsequently revised to try and avoid a similar result in the future. It got to the point where it is now, which is where the polls weigh so heavily in the BCS result.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Jericho,

          “But EVERY BCS “controversy” has been when the BCS rankings do not match the human polls.”

          I disagree. Some years it was because people thought a team was under ranked by the humans (Utah, TCU or Boise). Some years it was just having too many equivalent teams.

          “And virtually every year there was one of these “controversies”, the BCS formula was subsequently revised to try and avoid a similar result in the future.”

          They made a lot of changes in the early days, but not lately. Would it be better for them to keep a flawed formula?

          “It got to the point where it is now, which is where the polls weigh so heavily in the BCS result.”

          That’s because people don’t trust the computers, not because they agree with the humans. People don’t understand the computers and the codes are secret so they suspect something hinky.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            But do they program “beauty contest” into the computers, that it’s supposed to recognize Team A over Team B because A is a traditional power and B is not, even though Team B may have been a more impressive performer?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I doubt it, but 5 of the 6 are secret.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        Even the commissioners have been questioning the credibility of the polls. There is more disclosure of people’s ballots and more people seeing more games, so the flaws are more visible. I think the cutbacks in the newspaper industry mean when don’t have as many Tony Barnharts and Pete Thamels around. The sportswriters aren’t as good.

        Like

  27. Pablo says:

    ‘Best’ 4 teams is great progress towards creating more broad-based excitement and revenue from a college football postseason. The existing Bowl structure has too many limitations that make it hard to appeal to casual fans. This ‘Consensus by Committee’ recommendation means that conference commissioners are increasingly becoming sophisticated business people.

    Another hurdle that needs to be addressed is revenue distribution. I can see this going one of 3 ways:

    1) Go Free Market (maybe a 10% chance) – where conferences & teams get paid relative to what they directly contribute towards elite post-season play. The B12, especially UT/DDodds, would seem to be the likely sponsor of this approach. They have 2 kings (OU & UT), 3 princes (OkSt, WV & TCU) and a lot of other schools that make serious efforts with cfb; combined with a recent history of performance. The B12 may want to expand membership in the future; and a revenue disparity in their favor would be a helpful recruiting tool. Unfortunately for the B12, most conferences don’t operate under this business model. As UT has learned during the past couple of years, too much of a free market creates uncertainty where non risk-takers (see case studies of UNL, UM and TAM) seek refuge in more stable environments.

    2) Keep the Status Quo (maybe a 60% chance) – where conferences & teams get paid similarly to the BCS model of AQ v non-AQ categories. This model is promoted by 14 years of precedence, as well as a lot of analytics and consensus building by conference commissioners. The dilemma with this approach is how to classify the Big East. Since the late 1990s, the Big East has lost nearly every cfb founding member. Nevetheless, the Big East has some leverage:
    a) ND is affilitiated with the Big East and should object to reduction in revenue distribution to its fellow institutions. Unless ND wants to change conference alignment, it will be difficult to stay out of this quagmire.
    b) Boise State is a unique cfb school. Not at the level of the 15 year Bobby Bowden FSU teams, but a decade of consistent top 10 teams and exposure creates a positive reputation.
    c) Rutgers, USF, UL, UC & UConn have all improved over the past 5 years.
    If TPTB keep the current model, categorizing the Big East will create animosity. If the Big East is paid like an ‘AQ’, then the smaller conferences will be envious. If the Big East is paid like a weaker conference, then a few powerful institutions will be furious.

    3) Split the Difference (maybe a 30% chance) – in the previous ACC post, someone suggested to use the current payment framework…while also adding a third tier for the Big East and BYU payouts. A third tier to the current payment system addresses some problems and creates new issues:
    a) There could be a lot of candidates for a middle tier. Given their relatively weak performance over the past 5 years, the ACC and ND are most at-risk with a middle tier. In addition, over the life of the BCS, there is very little difference between the ACC and PAC. Only the SEC, B12 and -to a lesser extent- B1G seem imune from the downsides of a third tier.
    b) The third tier seems to promote the ‘Big Country’/football-only conference set-up that the Big East is using. Similar to the AQ label that the Big East has used to lure new members. Smaller conferences will perceive disadvanteges. The Big East will be used as a feeder when power conferences need to expand or contract.

    Conference commissioners will have to do a lot of work in the next several months to keep this consensus approach moving.

    Like

  28. frug says:

    Frank,

    It’s been three years since their reporting on the Clout List scandal at U of I, so I think you can lift the ban on posting links to the Daily Illini. I know they were one sided in their approach to the story, but I think it’s time,

    Like

  29. Brian says:

    For all the playoff proponents now complaining because the expected plan is not to your liking, remember that you asked for this. You knew who was in charge of CFB and how they make decisions, and you forced the issue. Traditionalists warned you that TPTB would screw this up. Nobody wants to hear you bitch now about how bad their decisions are.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I’ll admit Brian it really feels odd now to hear so many people complaining like this is nothing, when from my perspective it’s a huge change that is altering the bowl system in a way I don’t like.

      All perspective I guess.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Yeah. I just resigned myself to the sport being ruined a long time ago. My opinions haven’t changed, but I’ve accepted that this abomination is coming and I’m going to lose my favorite sport. On the bright side, it will free up a lot of time for me.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        I’m not complaining. Its not what exactly what I would do, but I like the direction its going and its about the best I could expect. And I understand the conservative approach and the interest in keeping some of what’s good about the bowl system.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Not everyone is, and it’s fine to point out potential problems and such. But there are people complaining, and nobody wants to hear it right now. Celebrate getting your abomination of a postseason and wait for it to actually have problems before complaining.

          Like

    • I’m not complaining. If you want to complain though, there is always something to complain about.

      I appreciated Frank’s tone in this post. He recognizes how OVERWHELMINGLY positive this thing is. If you read the major media coverage of this “consensus,” almost everything is positive. No one is saying it’s perfect, but if you want to make your sport a little better and not ruin what’s good about it, I think TPTB did a fine job this time.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I’ve seen several complaint-oriented articles in major media, but it has been mostly positive. Why wouldn’t it be since the media whined about the old system so much?

        Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Come on now, Brian… I’m guessing that most of us that provide input on this blog have careers that are totally unaffiliated with college athletics/academics/administration/sportswriting/etc… I’m guessing that there probably aren’t any of us on this blog that have direct influence on the powers that be in this particular collegiate football decision-making process. We may somehow have indirect influence via alumni influence/donorship/etc at the school or conference level—but, that is not direct power.

      Anyway, my point is directly related to the “prayer of serenity”—- I do not have the power (regardless of amount of courage) to change this decision-making. I have gained just enough wisdom (to be dangerous :) to accept whatever TPTB decide to do.

      Would my decision-making be different than my current opinion if I were in Delany’s or Slive’s shoes? Quite possibly… but, as it stands I am just a college football fan with an opinion or two, just like most of the other folks on this blog… I just happen to be wishful/hopeful for a multi-team playoff that is more than a beauty pageant… But, I’ll follow the Gophers and college athletics just the same tomorrow, as today…

      Thankfully, most who post on this blog are very civil, with pretty decent, and sometimes downright intelligent ideas and opinions (even yours sometimes ;) … I enjoy reading and participating in this blog because in general, it is very interesting and thought provoking… thanks to FTT for the forum…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        That’s all I’m saying. For now, at least, all playoff proponents should just accept what the system is instead of complaining about what it isn’t. They had to know they were unlikely to get everything they wanted out of it.

        There’s no reason for those who are anti-playoff to be happy or pretend that they are. If we want to point out the negatives of the new system, so be it. I don’t see much point in that now, though. We’ve had the discussions for months and we largely know where each other stands on these issues.

        Until details come out, stop complaining.

        Speaking of which, how is it a settled plan? We don’t know:
        1. What and where the Champs bowl will be
        2. What happens to the traditional bowl anchors when their game hosts a semi
        3. What will the top of the bowl structure look like
        4. When will the games be played, exactly
        5. How will champs and SOS and OOC SOS be weighted
        6. Where will the NCG be played
        7. How much will TV actually pay
        8. How the revenue will be split
        9. Who will be on the committee
        10. What info will the committee have at hand

        Like

  30. Mike says:

    ESPN being ESPN

    http://texastech.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=1377831

    Texas Tech’s Sept. 8 road game against Texas State may be broadcast on the Longhorn Network, an athletic department source with direct knowledge of the situation told RRS.com’s Chris Level and Aaron Dickens on Thursday.

    ESPN announced earlier this month that the game would be carried on one of its platforms, but did not specify which.

    Tech learned of this possibility several days ago, and according to the source, is “adamantly opposed to playing on the Longhorn Network” and is “putting serious consideration into canceling the game and playing an 11 game schedule” this fall.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      How much of a bribe will TT require?

      Like

      • Mike says:

        IIRC, they didn’t take 5 million + other concessions from ESPN last year to be on the LHN.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Are you sure it was $5 million? Kansas only got $500,000 for selling their UT game to the LHN.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            From 8/8/11

            http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-1711384.html

            1. The Longhorn Network’s hopes of televising live high school football games remain on hold for at least a year, but ESPN still would like to show a second Texas football game besides Rice this season. The network’s representatives have approached Texas Tech about the possibility of showing the Red Raiders-Longhorns game this year and, to make it worth Tech’s while, discussed showing other Tech games like Nevada and New Mexico over the next four seasons for $5 million, a high-ranking Big 12 school administrator familiar with the negotiations told me. So far Tech has declined. The next probable school ESPN would approach? Oklahoma State, the source said. He also said the broadcast of high school games will happen eventually.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Ok. I thought it was $5 million for just the UT-TTU game. But for multiple games that makes sense.

            Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          And they weren’t on the LHN. The football game was on FX. I somewhat sympathize with Tech, but what the in the hell are they doing playing at Texas State? When you play a road game, you fall under the home school/home school’s conference television contracts.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            I don’t know what Tech was thinking either, but this (from the rivals link above) is interesting.

            Contractually, the Western Athletic Conference, of which Texas State is a member, has the right to determine the broadcast partner for the game. Tech, however, has always expressed reservations about appearing on the Longhorn Network. Last year, ESPN approached the university about airing it’s conference game against Texas but Tech refused.

            Last year, the WAC recognized the Longhorn Network as an official ESPN platform after the network agreed to air all six of UTSA’s 2012 home games.

            I imagine when the contract was signed, Tech had no idea the LHN was even possible.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Yeah, this contract was signed awhile ago. Way before the LHN was a possibility.

            (That said, agreeing to play game at a WAC school is pretty weird. Are they getting a 2 for 1 maybe?)

            Like

    • frug says:

      I didn’t realize that the WAC had already agreed to let the LHN air all of UTSA’s home games. Anybody know if C-USA is planning on doing the same?

      Like

    • Merle Haggard says:

      Big 12 continues to take 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Bullying like this is why the Big 12 will always remain relatively unstable, as the divide between between the power schools and non-power schools will be much greater than in the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Its a road game. Tech doesn’t really have grounds to complain. Would a game with Texas State get on the air any other way? Not likely.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          If Tech knew when it signed the contract the LHN was an option then I agree they have no right. However, if they didn’t, I think they do have a right to complain, due to its unprecedented nature. Yes, Texas St does own the TV rights. However, this isn’t like having Tech fans buy a ticket from Texas St to see the game or paying for an exclusive web cast from Texas St. The airing of the game has a direct benefit to a third party team (Texas) that happens to be a rival in their conference. I can’t think of another instance where that happened.

          Like

        • glenn says:

          yeah, i’m sorry for texas state.  i’m sure they were really looking forward to some kind of air time for their first game.  too bad.

          someone speculated that texas and tech should try to get texas state and new mexico to swap games that weekend.  put texas and texas state on the lhn.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            glenn – Don’t feel too sorry for Texas St.

            ESPN announced earlier this month that the game would be carried on one of its platforms, but did not specify which.

            Since the LHN is the least available ESPN platform, Texas St. will get more exposure this way.

            Like

    • Mike says:

      That was fast.

      http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/22/report-texas-tech-could-cancel-game-on-longhorn-network/


      Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com tweets that the LHN/ESPN will not pursue the Texas State-Texas Tech game. Whether the game will be broadcast through another channel remains to be seen, but the “development” isn’t much of a surprise given the instant brouhaha.

      Like

  31. texmex says:

    So when are the two semi-finals gonna be played?

    Are they gonna aim for both to be played on New Years Day?

    Or on separate nights? If the Rose Bowl is definitely gonna be a semi-final, then I’m assuming it would remain in it’s New Years Day afternoon time slot.

    I’m assuming the pairings will be Rose/Orange and Sugar/Fiesta (keeping a pacific time zone bowl each year).

    If they do different days, that would place one of the semi-finals either on New Years Eve or January 1st. I have hard time believing TV would be okay with a New Years Eve bowl game due to the possibility of losing a lot of casual viewers and non-footprint fans.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Fiesta is Mtn time.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      I was guessing the same with the rotation. One west coast and one southern bowl each year makes sense. The Rose Bowl and Sugar being the most tradition laden also make sense to put on opposite years.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        The Orange Bowl is just as old as the Sugar Bowl. The tradition of the Sugar is dependent on the Champs Bowl being the Sugar Bowl. Otherwise, the Sugar isn’t special. I’d look at geography and take the Rose/Sugar and Fiesta/Orange pairings instead.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      texmex,

      “So when are the two semi-finals gonna be played? Are they gonna aim for both to be played on New Years Day? Or on separate nights? If the Rose Bowl is definitely gonna be a semi-final, then I’m assuming it would remain in it’s New Years Day afternoon time slot.

      We don’t know, obviously. Probably 1/1 and 1/2 at night, except when the Rose is a semi and then it may stay at late afternoon. Maybe when the Rose is one of them they’ll have a double header, but normally I’d expect 2 prime time games. That lets each game have a day to itself to dominate, which probably mean better total ratings.

      “I’m assuming the pairings will be Rose/Orange and Sugar/Fiesta (keeping a pacific time zone bowl each year).”

      That or Rose/Sugar and Fiesta/Orange. That assumes they don’t add the Cotton and/or another game that is the Champs Bowl, of course. Everyone is assuming the Champs Bowl will be the Sugar bowl, but nobody official has said that. They said it would be a new game and bid out. If so, the Sugar loses it’s luster.

      If the Champs Bowl is something new, I’d pair Rose/Sugar and Fiesta/Orange. That avoids territory overlap. The Fiesta and Sugar are closer together which would make it harder to find a neutral site for lower ranked teams from that general area.

      “If they do different days, that would place one of the semi-finals either on New Years Eve or January 1st. I have hard time believing TV would be okay with a New Years Eve bowl game due to the possibility of losing a lot of casual viewers and non-footprint fans.”

      1/1 at night is a guarantee. The other will either be 1/2 at night or maybe the Rose Bowl slot for the Rose.

      Like

      • Brian, I thought I read that New Year’s Eve was the other target date? A primetime NYE game wouldn’t fly but a late afternoon east coast game (early afternoon west coast game) (ala the Rose Bowl on NYE) might work as a regular fixture.

        Something like this
        4:30 Dec31 Semifinal One (either Fiesta or Orange)
        4:30 Jan1 Rose (whether it’s semifinal one or not)
        8:30 Jan1 Champs (whether it’s a semifinal or not)

        The Champs and Rose are both locked in to those time slots on New Year’s Day. The only other real way to make a spot for the semifinal is to put the other on NYE. I could see CFB slotting two bowls on NYE day…noon and 1pm…leading up to the first semifinal. Then, they’ll probably glut about 5 games from 11am to 1pm on Jan 1….leading up the exclusive Rose and then Champs spots.
        Put the rotating bowl game on January 2 primetime (Fiesta or Orange if not the semifinal) and call it a bowl season!
        You put the emphasis back on New Year’s Day…and back on the bowl phenomenon…while still setting up the hype for your January 10-14 championship game.

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          I think New Years Eve day is a dumb idea. Most people work on New Years Eve Day unless the calendar works out that it becomes a holiday. I think ratings would be incredibly low relative to New Years Day.

          Like

          • I think we’ll end up with one semifinal played in prime time on New Years Day and another one played in prime time January 2nd (provided that there isn’t an NFL conflict on that day, in which case it will move to the next closest date). Ultimately, there is one dominant reason why this playoff came together: TV money. It is very clear that TV interests want/need the semifinals and championship game played in January for them to pay maximum value. Honestly, if I were in their shoes, I’d insist upon the same since the week between Christmas and New Years is one of the lowest (if not the very lowest) rated TV weeks of the entire year. That’s why I’ve said for quite awhile that the squawking from university presidents about the championship game being too far from January 1st would end up subsiding. They’ll take the money and run on the championship game date issue (because there wasn’t much of a reason to create this playoff in the first place if they weren’t going to take the money and run).

            Like

          • 5pm EST would work for me. There is still time to go out and do something afterwards. Or, if it’s a house party, the party can center around the game.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          allthatyoucantleavebehind,

          “Brian, I thought I read that New Year’s Eve was the other target date?”

          I’ve heard a commissioner talk about taking back NYE, but I think TV will tell them no. That’s a bad time for a game and will cost them a lot of money if they insist on playing then.

          “A primetime NYE game wouldn’t fly but a late afternoon east coast game (early afternoon west coast game) (ala the Rose Bowl on NYE) might work as a regular fixture.”

          It’s called the Chick-fil-A Bowl, and it draws less than a 5 right now (similar to Alamo Bowl). Yes, being a semi would help, but many people aren’t free to watch a game on NYE afternoon.

          “Something like this
          4:30 Dec31 Semifinal One (either Fiesta or Orange)
          4:30 Jan1 Rose (whether it’s semifinal one or not)
          8:30 Jan1 Champs (whether it’s a semifinal or not)”

          I think they’d prefer:
          4:30 Jan1 Rose (whether it’s semifinal one or not)
          8:30 Jan1 Semi (if Rose isn’t, otherwise a BCS bowl)
          8:30 Jan2 Other semi (if needed)

          Prime time is ratings gold to TV, and they will dictate this.

          “The Champs and Rose are both locked in to those time slots on New Year’s Day.”

          The Champs isn’t locked into anything until they get a game set and sign a TV deal.

          “Put the rotating bowl game on January 2 primetime (Fiesta or Orange if not the semifinal) and call it a bowl season!”

          I’d bump that game to NYD at noon or NYE sometime.

          “You put the emphasis back on New Year’s Day…and back on the bowl phenomenon…while still setting up the hype for your January 10-14 championship game.”

          I don’t think the championship will be quite that late.

          Like

          • People don’t know that they need to stay home and watch TV until there is something to stay home and watch TV for. :)
            How many New Year’s Eve events are completely TV free? How many restaurants/bars don’t have TV? If something important is on, people will find a way to tune in. Wives and girlfriends might be ticked, but a national semi would be sweet.
            Maybe run the game at 7pm…and when the game is over, switch to cyber-DickClark in his block of ice to count down until the ball drops.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            5pm eastern is 2pm pacific. 8pm eastern is too late. The game might run to midnight. NY Eve doesn’t work.

            Like

  32. Eric says:

    I tried to map out how this new system would look if it had been in place since the start of the BCS. I’m assuming that the committee has some flexibility in moving around fairly equal teams, that the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls host in even years and that the Rose and Orange Bowls host in odd years. I’m also assuming the committee would only consider teams in the top 6 of the final BCS standings (although I suspect that will be replaced).

    Note: The numbers by the team in the semi-final games are their seed, not their rank. The actual ranking for the year are posted above.

    1998:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Tennessee 12-0 (SEC Champs)
    2 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
    3 Kansas State 11-1
    4 Ohio State 10-1 (Big Ten Champs)
    5 UCLA 10-1 (PAC-10 champs)
    6 Texas A&M 11-2 (Big 12 champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Sugar Bowl: #1 Tennessee vs. #4 Ohio State
    Fiesta Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Kansas State

    Kansas State didn’t win the Big 12 this year, but the Big 12 championship game was their only loss and they only lost by 3 to Texas A&M in double overtime.

    1999:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Florida State 11-0 (ACC Champs)
    2 Virginia Tech 11-0 (Big East Champs)
    3 Nebraska 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
    4 Alabama 10-2 (SEC Champs)
    5 Tennessee 9-2
    6 Kansas State 10-1

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Orange Bowl: #1 Florida State vs. #4 Alabama
    Rose Bowl: #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska

    2000:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
    2 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
    3 Miami (Fla.) 10-1 (Big East Champs)
    4 Washington 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
    5 Virginia Tech 10-1
    6 Oregon State 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington
    Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Miami (FL)

    In this year, the committee would have to think hard about whether or not it wanted to switch Miami and Washington. The current set-up works well geographically and follows strict guidelines, but Miami and Florida State already played once and I think they’d seriously consider putting Miami in the Fiesta Bowl instead. Since it wasn’t a conference game though and was earlier in the year (and would be an attractive game still), I left them together where things would be geographically better.

    2001:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Miami 12-0 (Big East Champs)
    2 Nebraska 11-1
    3 Colorado 10-2 (Big 12 Champs)
    4 Oregon 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
    5 Florida 9-2
    6 Tennessee 10-2

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Orange Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Nebraska
    Rose Bowl: #2 Colorado vs. #4 Oregon

    In this year, the committee would award Colorado as a higher seed than Nebraska since they won the Big 12. The #3 and #4 teams are switched to allow Oregon in the Rose Bowl and set-up a nice west coast feel for the game.

    2002:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Miami 12-0 (Big East champs)
    2 Ohio State 13-0 (Big Ten champs)
    3 Georgia 12-1 (SEC Champs)
    4 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
    5 Iowa 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
    6 Washington State 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Sugar Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Georgia
    Fiesta Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #4 USC

    In this year, USC and Georgia are switched. This gives both teams better geographic bowls, allows the SEC to stay in the Sugar Bowl and gives us a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 game (although not in the Rose Bowl).

    2003:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Oklahoma 12-1
    2 LSU 12-1 (SEC Champs)
    3 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
    4 Michigan 10-2 (Big Ten Champs)
    5 Ohio State 10-2
    6 Texas 10-2

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #3 Oklahoma
    Rose Bowl: #2 USC vs. #4 Michigan

    In this year, Oklahoma was on top of the BCS (although not the AP or Coaches), but since they didn’t win the Big 12 (actually got killed in the Big 12 Championship Game), are punished in the seeding as the #3 seed. They flip places with Michigan though so that we can have a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 Rose Bowl.

    2004:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 champs)
    2 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
    3 Auburn 12-0 (SEC Champs)
    4 Texas 10-1
    5 California 10-1
    6 Utah 11-0 (Mountain West Champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Fiesta Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Utah
    Sugar Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn

    Utah passes over runner-ups from the Big 12 and PAC-10.

    2005:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
    2 Texas 12-0 (Big 12 Champ)
    3 Penn State 10-1 (Big Ten Champ)
    4 Ohio State 9-2 (Big Ten Champ)
    5 Oregon 10-1
    6 Notre Dame 9-2 (Independent)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Ohio State
    Orange Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Penn State

    This is kind of an odd year with 2 Big Ten champs there. Penn State won the head to head over Ohio State so it would kind of make sense to switch them and Ohio State for the Rose Bowl, but since they were both Big Ten champs I left them purely seeded.

    2006:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Ohio State 12-0 (Big Ten champs)
    2 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
    3 Michigan 11-1
    4 LSU 10-2
    5 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
    6 Louisville 11-1 (Big East Champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
    Orange Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan

    2007:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
    2 LSU 11-2 (SEC Champs)
    3 Virginia Tech 11-2 (ACC Champs)
    4 Oklahoma 11-2 (Big 12 Champs)
    5 Georgia 10-2
    6 Missouri 11-2

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 Oklahoma
    Orange Bowl: #2 LSU vs. #3 Virginia Tech

    2008:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Oklahoma 12-1 (Big 12 Champs)
    2 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
    3 Texas 11-1
    4 Alabama 12-1
    5 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
    6 Utah 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 USC
    Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Texas

    Utah was undefeated, but I think the strength of schedule would still give it to USC. You could leave out Texas, but half the country thought they were the ones who should have been in the Big 12 title game (with a 3 way tie, decided by BCS rankings). If Utah’s out of conference had been just a little tougher, I would have put them in over USC, but as it turns out, USC didn’t have a single game against a non-AQ team all year and probably actually had a tougher out of conference schedule than Utah (in addition to a tougher one in conference of course).

    2009:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Alabama 13-0 (SEC Champs)
    2 Texas 13-0 (Big 12 Champs)
    3 Cincinnati 12-0 (Big East Champs)
    4 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)
    5 Florida 12-1
    6 Boise State 13-0 (WAC Champs)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Orange Bowl: #1 Alabama vs. #4 TCU
    Rose Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Cincinnati

    This is a year I don’t expect to duplicate soon given conference realignment, but it sadly would have left an undefeated Boise State out (that year they won every game but struggled in a lot in a weak WAC).

    2010:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 Auburn 13-0 (SEC champ)
    2 Oregon 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
    3 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champ)
    4 Stanford 11-1
    5 Wisconsin 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)
    6 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Sugar Bowl: #1 Auburn vs. #4 Wisconsin
    Fiesta Bowl: #2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU

    2011:
    Final BCS rankings:
    1 LSU 13-0 (SEC Champs)
    2 Alabama 11-1
    3 Oklahoma State 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
    4 Stanford 11-1
    5 Oregon 11-2 (PAC-12 Champs)
    6 Arkansas 10-2

    Projected Semi-finals:
    Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #4 Oregon
    Rose Bowl: #2 Oklahoma State vs. #3 Alabama

    In this year, Oklahoma State and Alabama are switched in seeds relative to their rankings since an emphasis is put on conference champions. It doesn’t matter though. Oregon would usually be in the Rose Bowl as PAC-12 champs in odds years, but that would either require a rematch in the Orange Bowl or the top 2 seeds playing and I think the committee would avoid that so this is a rare case of a Big Ten/PAC-12 team missing the Rose Bowl when it is a semi-final.

    Like

    • texmex says:

      Eric,
      Nice summary. I think it gives a good view of how things will look in the future. Two things i take from that

      (1) I get the sense that “seeds” will almost be irrelevant. They will just take 4 teams and pair them up based on traditional tie-ins and geographic location. I read that in a few of the articles today

      (2) Because of the above, I almost think the pairings/location will end up causing the biggest arguments as oppose to the selection of the final team.

      Like

    • Jericho says:

      I think it’s reasonable analysis, but you seem overly tied to the actual polls. For example, why any of the following:

      in 1998 – a non champion K-State over a champion UCLA, yet…
      in 1999 – a champion 2- loss Alabama over a one loss non-champion K-State
      in 2002 a two loss USC over a one loss Iowa (both champions)
      in 2004 – really anyone for the fourth slot over an undefeated Utah team

      These are just a few examples. Not saying your choices are wrong, but you seem to tie yourself pretty close to the polls, when the actual difference between the 4th, 5th, and 6th teams are likely pretty minor (and in some cases you chose non-champs over champs). I suspect a true committee may differ from the polls.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I did probably stick a little too close to the polls. I think the committee will actually stick pretty close there too (although in retrospect I should have used the AP instead of the BCS), but they probably will a lot less than I did here. With that said, my thinking was the following:

        1998: Kansas State was undefeated and clearly a top team. They lost the Big 12 Championship Game in double overtime and I figured it would be hard to drop them out entirely after that close a loss in their last game.

        1999: In this year, Alabama is both a conference champ and higher in the polls and I have a hard time seeing the committee put Kansas State in over them, one fewer loss or not.

        2002: I could definitely see a strong debate going on here. I gave it narrowly to USC since they are higher and since right or wrong, if a conference already has one team in, I think the committee is going to tougher on a 2nd team.

        2004: I could definitely see either California or Texas getting in over Utah, but given the preference on conference champions and the fact Utah is undefeated (and looked good the whole year), I think the committee would have given them the bid.

        Like

        • jokewood says:

          1998 would have been controversial. Like K-State, UCLA was undefeated going into their last game of the season – an OOC game at Miami that had been postponed from earlier in the season. Miami scored in the last minute of the game to win. UCLA was a conference champ. K-State was not. UCLA’s OOC schedule was Texas, at Miami, and at Houston. K-State’s OOC schedule was Northern Illinois, Louisiana-Monroe, and Indiana State.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            Thanks jokewood. I looked up the Big 12 Championship Game to see who won the conference, but didn’t look through the PAC-10 that season since I knew UCLA was the champ based on the top of the ranking automatically. I didn’t realize it was that late they lost too. Yeah it would have been tough there and that inclines me to put them in over Kansas State.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Good analysis
            The only year I would disagree would be 2004. I don’t think Utah had the respect to get in over Texas or California. I wouldn’t have any problem with that result as Texas and California both lost to teams ahead of them in the rankings and Utah was unbeaten. I just don’t think it would happen.
            I think KSU would have gotten it in 1998. They lost in double OT and UCLA got beat by a Miami team that wasn’t as good as most of the Miami teams of that era. And UCLA looked outclassed in that game even if it was close.
            In 1999, KSU just didn’t get much respect so I think it would have been Bama.
            2002 would have been close, but most people thought USC was better than Iowa even before they crushed them in the Orange Bowl.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Eric,

      “I tried to map out how this new system would look if it had been in place since the start of the BCS. I’m assuming that the committee has some flexibility in moving around fairly equal teams, that the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls host in even years and that the Rose and Orange Bowls host in odd years. I’m also assuming the committee would only consider teams in the top 6 of the final BCS standings (although I suspect that will be replaced).”

      I won’t challenge your assumptions except to say I think they’ll largely stick to the top 5. I appreciate the work you put in, and now I’m going to add some info and nitpick.

      Just to be clear, I copied Eric’s BCS top 6 and am replacing the rankings with new info. Most of the work was his, but it’s not really a quote to save space. Thus, I’m giving him full credit up front.

      I chose to add some SOS data since that’s supposed to be a factor. For lack of a better source, I’m using Sagarin’s final SOS ranking from after the bowls each year. It’s not ideal, but at least it’s consistent.

      1998:
      SOS:
      24 Tennessee 12-0 (SEC Champs)
      5 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
      56 Kansas State 11-1
      25 Ohio State 10-1 (Big Ten Champs)
      6 UCLA 10-1 (PAC-10 champs)
      3 Texas A&M 11-2 (Big 12 champs)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Sugar Bowl: #1 Tennessee vs. #4 Ohio State
      Fiesta Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Kansas State

      Kansas State didn’t win the Big 12 this year, but the Big 12 championship game was their only loss and they only lost by 3 to Texas A&M in double overtime.”

      I disagree. KSU had a weak schedule and didn’t win their conference. They’d get skipped by a #5 champ with a tough schedule.

      More likely:
      Sugar = 1 TN / 4 UCLA
      Fiesta = 2 FSU / 3 OSU

      Ideal:
      Sugar = TN/FSU
      Fiesta = OSU/UCLA

      1999:
      SOS:
      11 Florida State 11-0 (ACC Champs)
      43 Virginia Tech 11-0 (Big East Champs)
      18 Nebraska 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
      1 Alabama 10-2 (SEC Champs)
      14 Tennessee 9-2
      72 Kansas State 10-1

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Orange Bowl: #1 Florida State vs. #4 Alabama
      Rose Bowl: #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska”

      Seems right.

      2000:
      SOS:
      14 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
      12 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
      11 Miami (Fla.) 10-1 (Big East Champs)
      3 Washington 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
      31 Virginia Tech 10-1
      23 Oregon State 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington
      Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Miami (FL)

      In this year, the committee would have to think hard about whether or not it wanted to switch Miami and Washington. The current set-up works well geographically and follows strict guidelines, but Miami and Florida State already played once and I think they’d seriously consider putting Miami in the Fiesta Bowl instead. Since it wasn’t a conference game though and was earlier in the year (and would be an attractive game still), I left them together where things would be geographically better.”

      Under the old conference alignment, I think you’re right. It’s a close call, though.

      2001:
      SOS
      27 Miami 12-0 (Big East Champs)
      29 Nebraska 11-1
      4 Colorado 10-2 (Big 12 Champs)
      26 Oregon 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
      23 Florida 9-2
      1 Tennessee 10-2

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Orange Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Nebraska
      Rose Bowl: #2 Colorado vs. #4 Oregon

      In this year, the committee would award Colorado as a higher seed than Nebraska since they won the Big 12. The #3 and #4 teams are switched to allow Oregon in the Rose Bowl and set-up a nice west coast feel for the game.”

      I think the seeds would have been Miami, CO, OR then NE. The problem is that you don’t want a conference game, but you also don’t want to reward the lower seed with the home bowl. I’m guessing TV trumps fairness, so your pairs are what happens.

      2002:
      SOS:
      37 Miami 12-0 (Big East champs)
      30 Ohio State 13-0 (Big Ten champs)
      24 Georgia 12-1 (SEC Champs)
      1 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
      46 Iowa 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
      16 Washington State 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)

      Projected Semi-finals:
      Sugar Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Georgia
      Fiesta Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #4 USC

      In this year, USC and Georgia are switched. This gives both teams better geographic bowls, allows the SEC to stay in the Sugar Bowl and gives us a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 game (although not in the Rose Bowl).”

      I agree with your seeds, but I think they choose to make the lower seeds travel rather than let a lower seed have their anchor bowl. Maybe they don’t worry about that assuming fans should be about equal, but I’d consider it.

      Likely:
      Sugar: Miami vs USC
      Fiesta: OSU vs UGA

      Ideal:
      Sugar: OSU vs USC
      Fiesta: Miami vs UGA

      That keeps the Rose pairing but doesn’t give UGA the home bowl advantage or USC the travel edge either.

      2003:
      SOS:
      39 Oklahoma 12-1
      28 LSU 12-1 (SEC Champs)
      19 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
      36 Michigan 10-2 (Big Ten Champs)
      15 Ohio State 10-2
      47 Texas 10-2

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #3 Oklahoma
      Rose Bowl: #2 USC vs. #4 Michigan

      In this year, Oklahoma was on top of the BCS (although not the AP or Coaches), but since they didn’t win the Big 12 (actually got killed in the Big 12 Championship Game), are punished in the seeding as the #3 seed. They flip places with Michigan though so that we can have a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 Rose Bowl.”

      I’d make life simpler and just seed OU #4 for being a non-champ. Either way, we’d get the same games.

      2004:
      SOS:
      7 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 champs)
      13 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
      60 Auburn 12-0 (SEC Champs)
      28 Texas 10-1
      12 California 10-1
      67 Utah 11-0 (Mountain West Champs)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Fiesta Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Utah
      Sugar Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn

      Utah passes over runner-ups from the Big 12 and PAC-10.”

      I agree. I think a committee honors the undefeated season, especially since the SOS was about the same as Auburn’s. I’d switch bowls again, though:

      Fiesta: OU/AU
      Sugar: USC/Utah

      I think giving AU the anchor bowl advantage is much worse than making teams and fans travel. for a semi. Besides, OU deserves their anchor bowl.

      2005:
      SOS:
      8 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
      13 Texas 12-0 (Big 12 Champ)
      17 Penn State 10-1 (Big Ten Champ)
      2 Ohio State 9-2 (Big Ten Champ)
      34 Oregon 10-1
      14 Notre Dame 9-2 (Independent)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Ohio State
      Orange Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Penn State

      This is kind of an odd year with 2 Big Ten champs there. Penn State won the head to head over Ohio State so it would kind of make sense to switch them and Ohio State for the Rose Bowl, but since they were both Big Ten champs I left them purely seeded.”

      As historic as USC/OSU is, you’ve got to make it a true Rose Bowl instead. On the other hand, OSU and UT played OOC that year. What the heck. It was a close game and the Rose should be honored. Your bowls are probably more likely (to avoid the rematch since the Rose will still be B10/P12), but not preferred to me. Close call, though.

      Ideal:
      Rose: USC/PSU
      Orange: UT/OSU

      2006:
      SOS:
      38 Ohio State 12-0 (Big Ten champs)
      8 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
      12 Michigan 11-1
      20 LSU 10-2
      2 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
      27 Louisville 11-1 (Big East Champs)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
      Orange Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan”

      I’d consider UL over USC for the 4th seed, but trust the eye test and keep USC. The problem is game locations and rematches again. I think I’d switch games again to avoid #4 getting an edge over #1.

      Orange: OSU/USC
      Fiesta: UF/MI

      2007:
      SOS:
      53 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
      11 LSU 11-2 (SEC Champs)
      36 Virginia Tech 11-2 (ACC Champs)
      44 Oklahoma 11-2 (Big 12 Champs)
      23 Georgia 10-2
      25 Missouri 11-2

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 Oklahoma
      Orange Bowl: #2 LSU vs. #3 Virginia Tech”

      I’d actually seed LSU #1 and OSU #2 based on SOS and swap their opponents. That also gets VT out of their anchor bowl, which is better for the higher seed.

      My games:
      Rose: OSU/VT
      Orange: LSU/OU

      2008:
      SOS:
      7 Oklahoma 12-1 (Big 12 Champs)
      4 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
      14 Texas 11-1
      28 Alabama 12-1
      16 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
      56 Utah 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 USC
      Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Texas

      Utah was undefeated, but I think the strength of schedule would still give it to USC. You could leave out Texas, but half the country thought they were the ones who should have been in the Big 12 title game (with a 3 way tie, decided by BCS rankings). If Utah’s out of conference had been just a little tougher, I would have put them in over USC, but as it turns out, USC didn’t have a single game against a non-AQ team all year and probably actually had a tougher out of conference schedule than Utah (in addition to a tougher one in conference of course).”

      I think that Utah barely makes the cut, but it’s very close. Utah is a champ and UT isn’t. Utah is undefeated and UT isn’t. The SOS difference gives UT an edge, but I think they favor the undefeated team.

      My games:
      Sugar: #1 FL vs. #4 Utah
      Fiesta: #2 OU vs. #3 USC

      2009:
      SOS:
      2 Alabama 13-0 (SEC Champs)
      38 Texas 13-0 (Big 12 Champs)
      44 Cincinnati 12-0 (Big East Champs)
      60 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)
      15 Florida 12-1
      96 Boise State 13-0 (WAC Champs)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Orange Bowl: #1 Alabama vs. #4 TCU
      Rose Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Cincinnati

      This is a year I don’t expect to duplicate soon given conference realignment, but it sadly would have left an undefeated Boise State out (that year they won every game but struggled in a lot in a weak WAC).”

      SOS makes it obvious that Boise is the odd man out. I feel worse for a 12-1 UF that would make it any other year and had a high SOS. I agree with your games, although they could have swapped UC and TCU to get an all-Texas game as a better storyline plus reduce travel.

      2010:
      SOS:
      13 Auburn 13-0 (SEC champ)
      10 Oregon 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
      76 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champ)
      9 Stanford 11-1
      66 Wisconsin 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)
      70 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Sugar Bowl: #1 Auburn vs. #4 Wisconsin
      Fiesta Bowl: #2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU”

      I agree with you seeds and games, but this would be an interesting case. A 12-0 champ with a low SOS, an 11-1 champ with a low SOS and an 11-1 non-champ with a high SOS – pick 2. I think the 2 champs make it, especially since the non-champ’s champ is already in.

      2011:
      SOS:
      7 LSU 13-0 (SEC Champs)
      15 Alabama 11-1
      3 Oklahoma State 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
      36 Stanford 11-1
      35 Oregon 11-2 (PAC-12 Champs)
      20 Arkansas 10-2

      “Projected Semi-finals:
      Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #4 Oregon
      Rose Bowl: #2 Oklahoma State vs. #3 Alabama

      In this year, Oklahoma State and Alabama are switched in seeds relative to their rankings since an emphasis is put on conference champions. It doesn’t matter though. Oregon would usually be in the Rose Bowl as PAC-12 champs in odds years, but that would either require a rematch in the Orange Bowl or the top 2 seeds playing and I think the committee would avoid that so this is a rare case of a Big Ten/PAC-12 team missing the Rose Bowl when it is a semi-final.”

      Agreed.

      My point in all of this is to show that a reasonable committee may differ substantially on seeding and game sites depending on how they weigh issues.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196882.html

        And here’s Pete Fiutak’s look at the same thing without worrying about which bowl they’d play in. He disagrees with both of us on some teams (he puts in 2002 IA, for example).

        Like

      • Eric says:

        Thanks Brian. Adding strength of schedule added a lot there and that’s something they’ll be looking hard at. I agree with most of your changes. The only part of the process I think I disagree with is that I think with 2 pre-deterimined bowls, an effort will be made to put the #3 and #4 teams in their traditional match-ups too even if that gives them an advantage. It won’t trump the #1 and #2 teams being put in a traditional bowl or avoiding conference rematches, but I think with 2 games they are going to be a bit more concerned with traveling and do things like this to minimize lower crowds.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          It’s all speculation at this point. I’m just guessing they won’t want to give #3 or #4 any advantage. Maybe they’ll let a B10 team in the Rose because it’s not near home, but otherwise no. I don’t think they are worried about travel for the semis or the finals. I think the other major bowls will be much more geographical, though, because that’s where travel will be an issue.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        @Brian
        2008 (and 2002 with Iowa/Ohio St.) is another example of how people could look at even the conference champion criteria differently. Is it something black and white, or are there shades of grey? In both cases there was a tie for the title and head-to-head play didn’t determine the champ.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Yep. It’ll never be uniform from person to person. I expect them to view split conference titles as full titles with an edge for head to head but not to give as much weight to split division titles (call it a half, maybe). The division winner had to win the CCG after all and the other team didn’t.

          Like

  33. Carl says:

    Sandusky < 0

    Like

  34. OnrocK says:

    This article is an interesting look back on the years of the BCS and hypothetically subjecting them to the new four-team playoff model.

    http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/21/3105594/college-football-playoffs-selection-committee

    Like

  35. Mike says:

    Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman, the Big Ten’s representative on the Bowl Championship Series Presidential Oversight Committee, said Thursday afternoon he was “disappointed” with the consensus reached Wednesday by commissioners from every major BCS conference and Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick.

    When the Big Ten emerged from its conference meetings last month, the league’s presidents ranked their preferences for the future of the college football postseason, with a desire to keep the status quo of the BCS at the top of the list. Their second choice, Perlman said, was to adopt a plus-one format that would pit two teams in a national championship game following the conclusion of the bowl season.

    If those two options weren’t viable, only then were the Big Ten presidents interested in looking into a seeded playoff system.

    [snip]

    Perlman believes a plus-one model would serve the sport better because there would be more games each postseason that could implicate the national championship. “I’d rather have five exciting games instead of two exciting games,” he said.

    But Perlman, who served as the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee chair during the 2009-10 season, insisted he would come to Washington willing to be convinced as to why a playoff is a better option for college football than the plus-one model Big Ten presidents prefer. He will be particularly interested in learning more about a proposed selection committee and how the rotation of bowl games would work if they were to serve as the sites for semifinal games.

    “Clearly, that all the commissioners reached a consensus of some sort is a big step,” he said. “I think the presidents would be reluctant to overrule the people that actually work in the area unless there was good reason to do so.”

    http://huskerextra.com/sports/huskers/football/article_bfe5c8f8-4a95-5ee7-afa1-5ee0cf63ac41.html

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I have to admit, I like Perlman.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I applaud him for his honesty. He said he’ll keep an open mind and that’s all anyone should ask of him. I believe he’ll fully represent all 12 opinions from the B10 COP/C and not just his own view. I also believe more presidents share his opinion than fans would like to admit.

      His is a reasonable opinion and one that deserves a solid answer. Why is this better for the game and the players? Can they justify a money grab at the expense of the players? Is a plus one sufficient?

      I think the presidents will have serious debate about this before caving in to the fans.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        So you’re saying there is a chance…?

        Like

      • bullet says:

        The MAC commissioner said most of his presidents favored a +1. Scott probably favors an 8 or 16 team model, but his presidents don’t. I don’t think Pearlman is a small minority.

        I just have a hard time reconciling the arguments about the impact on the student-athlete with other decisions they have made such as the 12th game and the arguments they repeatedly make in every other sport (including non-revs) about how expanding championship competition is to the benefit of the student athletes. And Pearlman is not above misleading people in order to get what he wants.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          The 12th game was getting played some of the time anyway, and the schools needed the money to support all the Title IX sports, so it was for the student-athletes in a sense (just not the ones playing).

          Other sports aren’t as risky to the longterm health of the players as football, and they also don’t offer the media attention or non-championship postseason that football does. It’s apples and oranges.

          Like

  36. cutter says:

    For those interested, Michigan’s Athletic Department released its FY 2012 budget. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf

    The FY 2012 (ends 30 June 2012) Conference Distributions projection total is $23.9M from the following sources:

    Television (Football & Basketball) – $17.6M
    NCAA Basketball Tournament – $3.2M
    Football Bowl Games – $2.3M
    Other Miscellaneous – $0.8M

    It doesn’t break down the television revenue sources, but another article reported the BTN providing $7.2M of that total, so the remainder comes from ABC/ESPN and CBS (for basketball).

    The FY 2013 Conference Distributions numbers in the budget total $25.2M from the following sources:

    Television (Football & Basketball) – $18.7M
    NCAA Basketball Tournament – $3.3M
    Football Bowl Games – $2.3M
    Other Miscellaneous – $0.8M

    For FY 2012, Michigan has a projected operating surplus of $15.3M For FY 2013, the operating revenue is budgeted at $130.3M, operating expenses are at $124.5M and total operating surplus is $5.8M.

    The FY 2013 budget was presented to the Board of Regents yesterday. During his presentation, UM Athletic Director David Brandon outlined eleven new or renovation projects for non-revenue sports. He’s planning on spending around $250M on these projects over the next seven years with the most expensive items being started in FY 2015 thru FY 2017. No surprise there given the current debt levels for the athletic department (around $240M) plus the timing of the new post-season (FY 2014) and the television rights negotiations for the new contract kicking in at about the same time. See http://annarbor.com/sports/paint-the-big-house-u-m-athletic-director-david-brandon-announces-200m-construction-agenda/?cmpid=mlive-@mlive-wolverines

    Like

    • zeek says:

      He’s been adding sports too; probably going to be booking $3M+ in extra costs after men’s and women’s lacrosse get going at full gear on scholarships.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if he has the most building projects going on of any AD in the country. Of course, I’m sure they all can’t wait for the next contracts to kick in…

      Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      The Michigan conference distribution number is about $700,000 less than the $24.6 million Illinois reported to the St. Louis today. Seems odd.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Revenue sharing from football probably.

        2009 number from http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/20/big-ten-ticket-revenue/ :

        Contributions:
        Penn State Univ. $4,000,000.00
        Univ. of Michigan $4,000,000.00
        Ohio State Univ. $4,000,000.00
        Univ. of Iowa $3,700,000.00
        Univ. of Wisconsin $3,600,000.00
        Michigan State Univ. $3,600,000.00
        Univ. of Illinois $2,400,000.00
        Purdue Univ. $2,200,000.00
        Univ. of Minnesota $2,100,000.00
        Indiana Univ. $1,600,000.00
        Northwestern Univ. $1,200,000.00

        Distribution:
        $2,950,000.00

        Net:
        OSU, PSU, MI = -$1.05M
        IL = +$.45M

        Difference = $1.5M

        IL may make part of that up in hoops, and obviously the numbers vary every year except the $4M.

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          Brian,
          Thanks. I had a momentarily brain lapse there and forgot about the gate sharing for football and basketball games. It still is a bit weird though. The gate sharing is the most likely reason for the discrepancy. That said, looking at conference 1099’s, for 2009-2010 the Big Ten reported giving all 11 teams within $100,000 of each other. Obviously this isn’t the case with the gate sharing program. I guess it is possible that transaction takes place among the schools outside of the conference distribution, and Michigan reports the net while St. Louis Tribune numbers via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch report the gross distribution to the old 11.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            That was the first thing to come to mind, but I suppose it could be something else. Maybe it was a bonus for dropping Zook?

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            The gate sharing is the most obvious answer. It still just seems odd for the conference to report on their IRS 1099 forms that everyone is withing $100,000 of each other when we know this probably shouldn’t be the case. The other slight variance that you’d see between schools is bowl travel allotments. Those are the only sources of variances in the Big Ten model that I can think of.

            Like

  37. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Add. GEAUX (likely pre-season) #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Frank – thanks for the Jordan Jefferson pic. While I wish him well, I have never been so glad to see a Tiger complete his eligibility. Over the last four years with Andrew Hatch, JJ and Jarrett Lee at the helm, its a minor miracle that the Tigers won 41 games. Look for a few forward passes from the new Tiger QB this season.

    Like you, I do have reservations about the selection committee. While I always had some concerns about the BCS formula, at least it was transparent. Otherwise the announcement was a win for college football and a win for the airlines flying football fans around the country.

    Like

  38. bamatab says:

    Here is an article that I’m guessing a lot of the folks on this blog will disagree with in regards to the outcome of the commissioner’ playoff meeting. :)

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19393452/playoff-is-here-bcs-is-dead-and-sec-still-runs-the-show

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I’ll disagree. What Slive wanted wasn’t nearly as relevant as what ESPN wanted.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Dennis Dodd and Pat Forde have declared this a complete victory for the SEC (Forde here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–four-team-playoff-proposal-now-heading-into-the-homestretch.html )

      I don’t think we’ll know really who this is a complete victory for until we see the results. It’s a victory for pretty much everyone right now as long as the terms of the selection committee look nebulous.

      We need to see how the selection committee actually weighs the value of conference champions, strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc., we really won’t know who’s side won the debate on “conference champions favored versus top 4″.

      We just don’t know what the “best 4″ is going to look like until we see a couple of years of teams compared to the AP and Coaches polls.

      For what it’s worth, the Big Ten and Big 12 both favored that kind of nebulous approach.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Dodd and Forde both went to Missouri, so their SEC sycophancy is not surprising. They’ve both proven themselves to be blowhards in the past, so this is par for the course.

        Like

        • bamatab says:

          And Stewart Mandel?

          “After a series of compromises, the SEC — owner of six straight national championships — can be declared the victor. Again.

          Three months ago, Delany and his Big Ten athletic directors were the leading proponents of playing semifinal games on campus sites. Slive and the SEC didn’t like that idea. That idea isn’t happening.

          The Big Ten and Pac-12 have continually prioritized preserving their unique partnership with the Rose Bowl. While it’s unknown at this point how exactly the semifinal rotation will work (and even which or how many bowls will be involved), the Rose Bowl is going to have to accept the occasional LSU-Oklahoma game if it wants in. The SEC of course will be fine with that, seeing as two of the four current BCS bowls are played in the South.

          But the issue that caused by far the most hand-wringing was deciding which four teams should make the playoff.

          The SEC was adamant about preserving something as close to the status quo as possible — the top four teams, period. The Big 12 joined in that cause shortly after announcing the joint “Champions Bowl” between the two leagues.

          Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, on the other hand, had been vocal about emphasizing conference champions, with the ACC, Big East and others joining in. Delany also aligned with that stance, though, “I was never a champions-only advocate,” he said Wednesday. “It’s been reported that I was. I was never that.” Indeed, he’d long been pushing for some sort of hybrid model, so long as it included a more transparent selection process than the current BCS rankings.

          On that issue, he got what he wanted.

          In the end, the commissioners realized what many of us have been writing for some time: that they were never that far apart, and that a selection committee — endorsed recently by the Big Ten and Big 12 — best bridges their interests”

          Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/06/20/bcs-four-team-playoff-system/index.html#ixzz1yYWQE5ad

          Like

          • greg says:

            I admit that the B10 is the media’s punching bag. The SEC is #1 in football, baseball, obesity, tobacco usage, illiteracy, and low life span. The B10 is #1 financially and #1 academically (BCS).

            Let me start compiling every list I can to pump the B10 like the SEC homers do for all things SEC.

            Iowa hosted a Common Solutions Group meeting last week, a consortium of the nation’s leading R1 universities. BCS conferences represented: B10 (8), P12 (5), ACC (3), BE(1), SEC(0), B12(0).

            http://www.stonesoup.org/members.html

            Like

          • zeek says:

            In some weird way, I think this played into what the Big Ten wanted.

            The Big Ten put up a strawman argument for the status quo. Delany’s smart enough to know which way the wind blows (and it was a one direction tornado), and Perlman basically presented the strawman argument for the old system.

            The actual result if you look at the result is what the Big Ten and Big 12 both espoused. Neither wanted a BCS polling result or “Top 4″ polling system built in here. Neither wanted to just take the top 4 from the current BCS.

            Going with the selection committee is basically the idea that the Big Ten and Big 12 wanted. How it will actually weigh considerations like conference champions, etc. will determine whether it’s similar to the “top 4″ or the “3 conference champions + 1″ over time…

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            zeek…..you’re wrong. Big 10 got hammered yet agaion. Delaney sure seems to lose a lot of these fights, for being a genius and all………………

            Like

          • Brian says:

            mushroomgod,

            “zeek…..you’re wrong. Big 10 got hammered yet agaion. Delaney sure seems to lose a lot of these fights, for being a genius and all.”

            I think it’s unfair to blame Delany. He doesn’t get to decide the B10’s position on these issues, and I don’t know that he got clear guidance from the presidents.

            Like

      • bamatab says:

        In the end, I doubt that conference champs will be that much of a factor when it comes to how the committee selects the playoff births. It might factor into the discussion if they are choosing between two teams from the same conference, like Stanford and Oregon from this past year. But it won’t keep a team like Bama from this past year out of the playoff which is all that Slive/SEC cares about (Delany has even backtracked recently and said that Bama would deserve to be in the playoff).

        If you have a committee doing the selection, it will still be somewhat subjective to the individuals in that group, and there really isn’t a way to keep that from happening. I mean, does anyone think that they are going to give the committee a set equation for them to just plug number into? I don’t see that happening, especially considering the heat that the computer formulas have taken over the years. In the end I’m betting that the committee will be told to keep certain factors in mind (conference champs being one), but those factors aren’t a prerequisite in their determinations. So in the end, it’ll still be a somewhat subjective selection process.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I mean like the year before last though. Stanford at #4 in the BCS due to strong computer rankings (but #5 in the human polls), but Wisconsin #4 in both human polls but #5 in the BCS. Auburn, Oregon, and TCU would all be locks as undefeateds, but who’s the 4th team?

          My guess is a selection committee would take Wisconsin but I have no earthly clue.

          And the same scenario could happen for the SEC. You’re right that there’s situations where obvious 2nd teams from a conference would get in as the case for Alabama is, but I’m talking about a case where there’s an argument for a non-champ at #4/#5 versus a champ from another conference.

          Like

        • @bamatab – In effect, I think we’ll see conference championships being a tie-breaker between a non-champ #4 and conference champ #5 if #4 if they have similar profiles (same record, comparable SOS, etc.) or, in the case this past year, those two teams are actually from the same conference. I would think that fear of literally putting their lives in danger with a crazy result would provide an incentive to committee members to not go off the reservation unless there is something very concrete to justify having one team hop over the another compared to the final AP poll, but we’ve certainly seen college presidents and commissioners withstand a ton of heat up until now with unpopular positions, so who knows?

          Like

          • bamatab says:

            @Frank & Zeek – I agree with what you guys are saying when choosing bewteen the #4 & #5 teams. If you have a #4 & #5 that most everyone believes are close, then being a conference champ would likely be a deciding factor. But all I’m saying is that even in that scenario, there won’t be a written rule or formula, it’ll just be the people in the committee subjectively saying to each other “Well these two teams are so close it is hard to choose, but since this team actually won it’s conference let’s put them in over the other”. Even one of the points that Staples says will be approved in the article that Frank linked below was that “• The tournament will include the top four teams regardless of conference champion status”. But I agree that when deciding between two schools that have close to the same resume for that last spot, being a conference champ will probably factor into it.

            Like

          • ChicagoMac says:

            @bama, @zeek and @frank,

            I would think a conference champion with the same record and a similarly difficult schedule as a non-conference champ is always going to get priority. (Assume ND is treated as a conference champ).

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            @ChicagoMac – The problem will be in determining whether or not the two teams’ schedules are similarly difficult. Let’s say that you have a one loss Bama team whose only lose came to a top ranked UF in the SEC Championship game, and you have one loss VT who won their conference. I would bet that if Bama was ranked 3rd or 4th and VT was ranked 5th at the end of the regular season, they could still get in over VT since most perceive the SEC to be a tougher conference than the ACC. Again, it’ll come down a subjective decision as to how the teams compare to each other.

            Like

        • MiamiWolv says:

          Alabama would make any 4 team playoff. Besides, how would Delaney feel if Michigan didn’t make the field in 2006?

          Its not like the SEC will be the only league ever in position to get 2 bids.

          I think its a pipedream to ever expect three teams from one conference to make the field.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Even in 1971, when the Big 8 ended with the top 3 (the only time that has ever happened), Colorado was #7 prior to the bowls. In 2008, with the 3 way tie in the Big 12 South, Texas Tech was #7 prior to the bowls. Even if its possible, it is extremely unlikely.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        “Dennis Dodd and Pat Forde have declared this a complete victory for the SEC (Forde here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–four-team-playoff-proposal-now-heading-into-the-homestretch.html )”

        All the SEC shills have (Schlabach at ESPN, etc).

        “I don’t think we’ll know really who this is a complete victory for until we see the results.”

        The details about the committee and their instructions are really key here.

        “It’s a victory for pretty much everyone right now as long as the terms of the selection committee look nebulous.”

        No it isn’t. The traditionalists lost. Period. The B10 and P12 lost. Period. They wanted something other than a 4-team playoff and lost. There is no victory for them.

        “We need to see how the selection committee actually weighs the value of conference champions, strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc., we really won’t know who’s side won the debate on “conference champions favored versus top 4″.”

        Agreed, but that was just 1 battle in the bigger war.

        Like

    • cutter says:

      The real losers in alll this wasn’t the Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC or any other conference other than the SEC or the Big XII.

      The real losers are college football fans.

      No eight team playoff.

      No games on campus sites.

      No autobids for conference champions.

      No at large bids for the top non-conference champions.

      Nobody in the process particularly has shined. Interests were entirely parochial based on what’s best for my conference, but not for the sport. The decision arrow always pointed towards money, corporate sponsors and television. These guys had an opportunity to bring about another unique, golden age in college football and they blew it.

      So if Slive, Neinas and Bowlsby want to be considered “winners”, then congratulations to them. If you live in an area bounded from Texas to South Carolina (along with West Virginia), I hope you enjoy the college football playoffs brought to you by a cadre of former football coaches trying to pick the best four teams in college football based on some idea of strength of schedule with “consideration” towards a conference championship.

      Happily, though, Slive and Bowlsby (and Dodds) are old and Bowlsby is a former Pac 12 guy. Perhaps when we have the next iteration of this exercise, guys like Larry Scott will be one of the leaders at the lecturn and we’ll see a really interesting, really fan friendly format. Until then, we still have the same system, except now only three post season games matter instead of just one. I suppose that could be considered progress, but it’s hardly something to celebrate.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Larry Scott did what he was told. Which was fight even a 4 team model.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        cutter,

        “The real losers are college football fans.”

        Amen.

        “No eight team playoff.”

        Or no status quo. Or no return to the old bowl system. All three of those options had millions of supporters.

        “No games on campus sites.”

        True.

        “No autobids for conference champions.”

        I’m not sure most fans care about that.

        “No at large bids for the top non-conference champions.”

        They have the same thing – champs status isn’t required.

        Like

        • cutter says:

          Do you know the biggest opportunity that was lost in all this? The failure to make this a truly national event.

          If there had been autobids for the top five conferences, then that would have ensured representation from teams in conferences around the country. If you included the at large teams, then that representation would have been proportional based on the conference’s strength or programs that operate outside the major conferences but also have exceptional seasons (ex. TCU, Utah and Boise State from past seasons).

          What we have instead is a system that has only four teams in which two or more can come from the same conference. That’s not singling out the SEC because they’re the big dog now because we could have seen Michigan and Ohio State in 2006, for example, participating in a four-team playoff. But a larger playoff with conference champions getting autobids would have meant all have capitalized on the regional identity of college football by putting it on a national stage and having those teams play it out on the field.

          So, Brian, I do disagree with you about fans not caring about that. OTOH, I could see fans caring very much about this, with special emphasis on the conference championship games. Those particular games would carry incredible weight in determining how participated in the playoff–not only the teams getting autobids, but the ones jockeying for an at large berth.

          On a related matter, I was listening to a Bruce Feldman interview talking about the selection committee. He couldn’t think of a single person that he’d put on such a committee because of all the things we’ve identified earlier–perceptions of bias, personal relationships between former coaches, loyalties to teams and conferences, etc. He’s not the only one making that point because it’s a pretty obvious.

          How do you evaluate strength of schedule? Teams make up their schedules years in advance. In 2008, Utah went undefeated and won their opening game at Michigan. UM ended the season at 3-9, so how do you evaluate SOS in that circumstance? Utah had made an honest effort to upgrade their conference schedule and they certainly got a game against a high profile opponent. OTOH, the Wolverines that year were awful, so do you penalize Utah’s SOS rating because UM had a bad season.

          I swear this is going to be another shipwreck like the BCS. They’re going from a completely unsatisfactory selection process for two teams to another unsatisfactory selection process for four teams. The overhead expenses from the bowl system is going to need to be markedly reduced, otherwise we’re going to see the same problems and abuses with the current bowl system in terms of who pockets the money.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            You evaluate strength of schedule based on reality. That’s kind of obvious. You don’t base it on preconceived notions or preseason polls. That sort of thinking is one of the problems with the current system.

            One of the surest thing was that AQs would be done away with. That was very detrimental to the other half of FBS. A team shouldn’t get in simply because of what conference they were in. Even at 8 teams, there should not be any AQs. Maybe you invite the top X champions, but you don’t invite the top X conferences’ champions.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            cutter,

            “Do you know the biggest opportunity that was lost in all this? The failure to make this a truly national event.”

            I don’t think you have a solid basis for that complaint. Maybe if 3 teams from 1 conference get in, or 2 from 2 conferences, but most fans will accept any reasonable top 4.

            “If there had been autobids for the top five conferences, then that would have ensured representation from teams in conferences around the country.”

            Most years not all 5 deserve a shot at the title.

            “If you included the at large teams, then that representation would have been proportional based on the conference’s strength or programs that operate outside the major conferences but also have exceptional seasons (ex. TCU, Utah and Boise State from past seasons).”

            They have 4 at larges now.

            “What we have instead is a system that has only four teams”

            “Only” is in the eye if the beholder. I think that’s at least 2 too many.

            “in which two or more can come from the same conference. That’s not singling out the SEC because they’re the big dog now because we could have seen Michigan and Ohio State in 2006, for example, participating in a four-team playoff. But a larger playoff with conference champions getting autobids would have meant all have capitalized on the regional identity of college football by putting it on a national stage and having those teams play it out on the field.”

            What happened to the playoff ideal of earning it on the field. Why should all the champs be given a shot rather than having to earn a shot?

            “So, Brian, I do disagree with you about fans not caring about that.”

            I said most fans, and I stick to that. The majority have seemed to want a top 4.

            “On a related matter, I was listening to a Bruce Feldman interview talking about the selection committee. He couldn’t think of a single person that he’d put on such a committee because of all the things we’ve identified earlier–perceptions of bias, personal relationships between former coaches, loyalties to teams and conferences, etc. He’s not the only one making that point because it’s a pretty obvious.”

            Does he have a better alternative? Just computers has big issues. The human polls have worse issues than a committee. Champs only still requires a ranking or committee to pick which 4. I’ve been clear that my preferences would have been:

            1. The old bowl system
            2. The BCS with improved rankings
            3. The BCS
            4. A true +1 re-ranked after the bowls (must win to advance)
            5. A true +1 using the end of season rankings (must win to advance)
            6. Dropping CFB as a sport
            7. 4 team playoff

            Within a playoff, I’d prefer all champs with a committee to pick the 4. All that said, I know that’s not what the majority want or what will happen. My best hope was a 3+1, but even that seems to have failed.

            As a compromise that everybody would accept, I think top 4 from a committee was the best possible outcome.

            “How do you evaluate strength of schedule?”

            Look at who each team played, and how good those teams were. You can also examine OOC-only SOS as a tiebreaker between schools that are otherwise similar since it is the optional part of the schedule.

            “Teams make up their schedules years in advance.”

            So? That would only impact “attempted OOC SOS” which could also be provided to the committee (each school merely has to indicate when each game contract was signed and the committee can look at the previous 3-5 years for that school in AP rankings or something). SOS is who you play, not when you chose to play them.

            “In 2008, Utah went undefeated and won their opening game at Michigan. UM ended the season at 3-9, so how do you evaluate SOS in that circumstance?”

            They get a low SOS but a high attempted SOS. Luck’s a bitch sometimes. It also works the other way, though.

            “Utah had made an honest effort to upgrade their conference schedule and they certainly got a game against a high profile opponent. OTOH, the Wolverines that year were awful, so do you penalize Utah’s SOS rating because UM had a bad season.”

            Yes, because they played a bad team. Would they deserve less credit if the uniforms said SJSU instead?

            “I swear this is going to be another shipwreck like the BCS.”

            I hope it is. The playoff proponents deserve it.

            “They’re going from a completely unsatisfactory selection process for two teams to another unsatisfactory selection process for four teams. The overhead expenses from the bowl system is going to need to be markedly reduced, otherwise we’re going to see the same problems and abuses with the current bowl system in terms of who pockets the money.”

            Earlier they indicated they would be looking to drop the big ticket requirements for major bowls in exchange for lower payouts. They really haven’t said much about the other bowls for a while, though.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      I’ll agree that the SEC got more of what it wanted than anybody else, pending details on the selection committee and the instructions it will receive. Those details could change my mind.

      Like

  39. Some new additional details that we haven’t heard yet from Andy Staples about the playoff plan to be presented to the presidents:

    * 12-year agreement for the playoff

    * 2 more BCS (or whatever we will call it in the future) bowls will be added to have a 6 bowl rotation. Depending on how the Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl is treated (which is a point of confusion right now), the Cotton Bowl and Chick-Fil-A Bowl are mentioned as possible additions beyond the current BCS bowls.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/06/22/presidential-meeting-preview-playoff-plan/index.html

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I’m OK with most of that (to the extent I’m OK with any playoff), but I absolutely do not like the fact it specifically says it will be 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. If you could switch 3 and 4 on occasion, that would lead to no conference rematches, better geographic games, and make preserving traditional games easier.

      Hopefully if it’s not done formally switching the 3 and 4 will be done informally a little in the committee.

      Like

      • @Eric – I think that your last point will likely happen when this is put into practice. Who is 1, 2, 3 and 4 ends up being up to the committee, and just as the NCAA Tournament selection committee doesn’t seed simply by using a 1 through 68 ranking, there will probably be some years where they’ll adjust the seeding to get the matchups that fit the criteria that you’ve noted (provided that they’re not pitting the consensus #1 and #2 teams against each other in the semifinal round).

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree completely.

          Everyone seems to be forgetting that the #1, #2, #3, and #4 teams have to actually be selected.

          What happens in a year where the committee is unsure of who to make #3 or #4 because the teams are so equal? Why not just make it so that the geography matches or you get a Big Ten/Pac-12 Rose Bowl or whatever…

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I mean what happens if the human polls look like:

            USC (13-0)
            LSU (13-0)
            Michigan (12-1)
            Oklahoma (11-1)

            If the two bowls in the rotation are say Rose (#1/4) and Cotton (#2/3), why wouldn’t they seed Michigan at #4 if they thought the differences between Michigan and Oklahoma were negligible?

            That would make all the sense in the world to me. I don’t see why they can’t seed like that…

            Like

          • bullet says:

            And they do that sort of thing in basketball. Kentucky got paired against WKU and IU in the NCAA this year. I can’t believe that was chance.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Duke was also Kentucky’s 2 seed, setting up the EE rematch. There was clearly a good deal of intentional team placement in UK’s bracket.

            Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I disagree. If two from the same conference are in then they should have to meet in the semi, guaranteeing we don’t have a repeat of last year. I only watched a few minutes of it, and didn’t feel I missed anything. Why potentially have the biggest stage appeal to the smallest audience?

        Frankly I’d prefer, in order, plus one ranked/selected post bowls, skip it all together and return to bowls only, conf champs only in selection pool, and last this new revision of the BCS invitational.

        Like

        • bamatab says:

          I’m with you ccrider55. I figured most would prefer two teams from the same conference to play in the semi-finals, rather than having them playing each other in the final game.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            I’m the opposite. Don’t make a conference champion have to be a team it already beat until they have to. If you put them in opposite games, odds are pretty good one will lose anyway and if it doesn’t it won’t feel as bad as last year as they didn’t take someone else’s place for the “national” title.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I’m with Eric. I don’t want rematches if not necessary.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Other thing is, what happens when it’s “obvious” that two teams from the same conference are in the top 3?

            Like this past year, with LSU at #1 and Alabama at #2.

            At worst, you could have made the case in a playoff that Alabama was the #3 seed to Oklahoma State, but that doesn’t matter.

            No matter how you dice it, you end up with LSU vs. Oregon/Stanford and Alabama vs. Oklahoma State. Those matchups just make more sense because it seemed more obvious that Oregon or Stanford was at best the 4th best team in…

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I guess what I’m saying is since this whole thing is about maximizing dollars (and crowning a pseudo champ), worrying about who ends up “first runner-up” should not in any way be allowed to diminish the marketability of the marquis event.

            Like

    • Kevin says:

      I wonder how this idea of the Big 12/SEC keeping the revenue of the Champions Bowl will play out. Will the B1G/P12 keep all the Rose Bowl money? Do they get to recoup the lost revenue from the Rose that was shared in the BCS era? Does the Rose need to be in the BCS to be part of the semifinal rotation? Devil is definitely in the details.

      Like

      • frug says:

        It is going to depend on whether the new bowl is in the hosting rotation. If isn’t then it won’t have any effect on the Rose Bowl assuming the RB is. If the Champs Bowl is part of the rotation then they will have to either agree to share with the other semifinal bowls or allow the RB to keep all its revenue. No matter what, i don’t see anyway they get back the money they shared as part of the BCS.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Frank the Tank,

      “Some new additional details that we haven’t heard yet from Andy Staples about the playoff plan to be presented to the presidents:

      * 12-year agreement for the playoff”

      They said all along it would be a long deal. I wish it was longer to prevent the move to 8 teams for as long as possible.

      “* 2 more BCS (or whatever we will call it in the future) bowls will be added to have a 6 bowl rotation. Depending on how the Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl is treated (which is a point of confusion right now), the Cotton Bowl and Chick-Fil-A Bowl are mentioned as possible additions beyond the current BCS bowls.”

      They really need to decide some details on things like this. Nobody knows what’s going on with that bowl, and thus with the entire postseason. They also haven’t said what happens to schools when their anchor bowl is a semi instead. Maybe they are waiting for a presidential OK before deciding these things.

      On the bright side, 6 bowls means B10/P12 in the Rose 2/3 of the time plus any playoff match-ups.

      Another detail you didn’t mention:
      “Expect the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl to agree to host the same number of semifinals during the 12-year period. Big 12 and SEC leaders expect to have the Jan. 1 primetime television slot — immediately after the Rose Bowl — for the Champions Bowl. The bowls would host semifinals in the same years so as not to disturb their choice time slots.”

      That’s fairly important to most B10 fans. It leaves an obvious question though. When would the semis be played if the Rose and Champs aren’t hosting them? Would they go head to head with those games? Would they play one at noon on 1/1 and the other on 1/2 at night? Would they try 12/31?

      Like

      • Neinas said a few days ago that they want to capture NYEve and NYDay for CFB. To me, that means that one semifinal will be on NYEve and one on NYDay night. Connecting the dots a bit further…I could see the Rose and Champs alternating as semifinal sites (6 bids each in the 12-year cycle)…while the other four bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Cotton? Outback?) would get 3 bids each total. The other four bowls can be the 5pm EST game on NYEve on the year’s they get to host.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          allthatyoucantleavebehind,

          “Neinas said a few days ago that they want to capture NYEve and NYDay for CFB.”

          I know. But he has no say in anything, so who cares? TV will dictate to the schools that the game must be in primetime and not on NYE. CFB never owned NYE anyway. NYD was where CFB was king.

          “To me, that means that one semifinal will be on NYEve and one on NYDay night.”

          I highly doubt it.

          “Connecting the dots a bit further…I could see the Rose and Champs alternating as semifinal sites (6 bids each in the 12-year cycle)…while the other four bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Cotton? Outback?) would get 3 bids each total.”

          Not going to happen. The sites will get the semis equally. Otherwise the other conferences are making themselves second tier to the big 4.

          “The other four bowls can be the 5pm EST game on NYEve on the year’s they get to host.”

          It’s good to have a dream, but they’ll play 1/1 and 1/2 at 8:23 or so except maybe letting the Rose stay at 5ish.

          Like

    • texmex says:

      Reading over that Andy Staples article, the thing that still confuses me is when the semi-finals will be played. He indicates that the Rose Bowl and Champions would probably be part of the 6 bowl rotation and host the semi-finals together in the same years…when they host the semi-finals it would of course be on January 1st.

      But in the years they are not hosting, it still sounds like both bowl games will still have their January 1st timeslots. So in the years the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl are not the semi-final hosts, when do they plan to play these games?

      Like

  40. duffman says:

    An offshoot of the conversation above :

    Is it right for a big school to profit from a little school? The more I think about it this is a disturbing long term situation between Texas State and the University of Texas. Texas is part of the B12 so their content should be limited to teams they play in and out of conference. Texas State plays in another conference and their games should profit them. If suddenly the BTN started showing MAC or CUSA games instead of B1G content I would probably think that above and beyond the scope of what is reasonable and fair. Ohio State has plenty of money and it would be sad if suddenly they bought Ohio games just to squeeze out a minor fraction of their wealth. It would be a sad day indeed to see the Buckeyes entertain such a thought.

    Looking at this Texas making money off of Texas State seems equally lame. Maybe the NCAA or somebody should limit this the way they did the Texas high school issue last year. Let he other schools in other conferences get all they can and keep 100% than to be forced to surrender dollars to the elite schools and conferences as a toll. Lord, if they really wanted to be the good guys the LHN folks would have done the job “pro bono” and written it off as goodwill. That would probably be worth more long term that whatever pittance they are adding to their big horde of cash.

    if Texas State football is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Texas football program this can not be a good sign of things to come! Capitalism in a competitive marketplace is one thing, but greed is totally different.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I don’t see anything wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it’s probably a good thing. Texas State isn’t signing this deal to make Texas money. They are signing it because they stand to gain more from it than other available deals.

      The MAC would never sign a deal like that with the Big Ten Network (they value exposure over money, it’s a big reason so many are still I-A). If Youngstown State or someone though thought they’d benefit from being on the Big Ten Network and the Big Ten Network thought it would gain too, why not?

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Not sure what you are thinking happened here. Texas State gets paid for this.

      Texas State and UTSA would have almost no coverage. They have a deal with ESPN that gets their games on the air and they make some money off it. ESPN is the one who will benefit, not UT (except in a potential profit cut many years down the road). Its not dramatically different than if the Sunshine network showed some FAU games in addition to Florida gator games. Kansas agreed to a game on the LHN last year because Kansas benefitted from it.

      Like

    • frug says:

      I don’t see anything wrong with it. It would be one thing if Texas was benefitting at Texas St.’s expense or TexasSt. was being forced to do something against their will . But that’s not what is happening. Plut ESPN is the one profiting not UT.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Texas St owns the rights to its home games and the rights for that game were selected for broadcast under the WAC TV contract. The WAC, last year, recognized the LHN as an ESPN platform (making it in the WAC’s eyes no different than ESPNU). ESPN is still fighting for carriage for the LHN and knows the simplest way to get it in football mad Texas is to get more games on it. If ESPN can get a Tech game on the LHN then they are thinking maybe they could get Tech fans to also push for carriage for the LHN [notice how that worked out?]. In essence, ESPN is using Texas St. to make the LHN profitable, not Texas. Eventually the benefits will reach Texas, but I don’t think it’s fair to say Texas is owning any of its little brothers.

      That being said, I have no idea why Texas allows ESPN to use its network to show events that don’t involve Texas.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        “That being said, I have no idea why Texas allows ESPN to use its network to show events that don’t involve Texas.”
        Ultimately it is in Texas’ best long-term interest to see this network get carriage and succeed. They’re financially set this go around with the contract, but if they ever want to see the LHN renewed going forward things need to change. Thus far, showing a Texas football game or two alone some basketball games and a mixture of other things hasn’t been enough.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        It’s not UT’s network. It is ESPNUT. ESPN is finding out a single school network doesn’t have enough valuable inventory to make it work (even one as enticing as UT). Fortunately for them that is secondary to the already accomplished goal of keeping UT from joining another conference, for now. They are just trying to reduce the bleeding.

        Like

  41. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8087028/penn-state-nittany-lions-jerry-sandusky-convicted-45-counts-sex-abuse-trial

    Sandusky is found guilty on 45 of 48 charges, including 17 1st degree felonies that can each carry up to 20 years. Safe to say he’s getting life in prison, where he can re-live his fondest shower memories from the other person’s POV for a change.

    Like

  42. Brian says:

    http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2012/06/20/low-income-kids-get-free-spots-in-osu-football-camp.html

    A little reminder that CFB isn’t always a money grab (and I know plenty of schools do similar things):

    49 poor kids with good grades and active in their communities got a free week of OSU football camp (about $500 normally). You can only do it for kids in 8th grade or below, but it’s the experience of a lifetime for them.

    Like

    • I’m sure they’re all uncoordinated and run a 7.1 40-yard dash too. Right Brian? :)

      Like

      • Brian says:

        They did have to have a 3.0 or better, so that probably increases the average lack of coordination. Being about 13, I’d guess most run around 5 seconds for a 40. They had 50 possible slots and only 49 qualified, so I don’t think ability was a factor. Many would still have a major growth spurt coming so it would be hard to judge their future ability.

        Like

        • Totally joking. Fun jab from a PSU fan to an O$U fan… :)

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I wouldn’t put it past schools to try to turn it into a recruiting event, and neither would the NCAA. That’s why they can’t give scholarships to high schoolers.

            I just wanted to point out that the kids weren’t picked based on talent but grades and community service and such.

            Like

  43. Brian says:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/ohio-state-set-to-park-483-million-from-lease-deal-muni-credit.html

    An interesting look at the financial pressures at OSU. State funding has dropped from 15% to 7% since 2002. In response, OSU is looking to lease their parking operations for 50 years in exchange for almost $500M up front. They also have issued $500M in 100-year bonds. OSU has averaged 9% return on their endowment over the past 30 years. Analysis says OSU needs to average 7.75% over the next 50 years for this deal to turn a profit.

    Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      PSU has been in that boat for a while. I honestly think most states take for granted that a school can’t leave so they figure they can keep cutting funding without suffering repercussions since most ire falls on the university when tuition rises.

      I honestly think if it weren’t for federal research dollars being permitted for “related uses” many schools would have majorly scaled back in the previous decades.

      Like

      • Rich2 says:

        And in a nutshell, you have identified why the financial model for most Big10 schools is unsustainable. On Nov 7, if there is a new administration, there will be even more significant funding cuts for fed research. There will be even fewer dollars transferred to the states while the states will be asked to assume more responsibilities. If a State U faces shrinking revenues today from the fed and state, the trend could rapidly accelerate very soon.

        Chasing bigger tv rights is not the answer for this potential budget hole. As many have noted it is a drop in the bucket. The solution cannot be to grow more and more dependent on shakier and shakier sources of funding.

        Like

        • Rich2 says:

          Also, I know that this post will be unpopular and will really rankle some but the outcome of the Sandusky trial and the disclosures about PSU made public during the trial underscores how badly the Big 10 has misplayed this situation. First, let’s be clear, I am truly sorry for those who love PSU and how they must feel completely betrayed by their leaders for the past 15 years. Everyone on this board can empathize. Personally, in a similar situation, I would be heartbroken. However, Delany acted neither as a leader nor legend on this one. His smarmy and feckless responses to whether PSU should have gone to bowl game were a start. The continued silence, even today, compounds it. PSU has demonstrated a lack of institutional control. At this center of this LOIC are the leaders of the football program and the president. What is the Big !0 waiting to happen? For the day that Spannier is found guilty in a civil suit (I am not a lawyer — maybe a criminal suit)? That members of the BOT at PSU are similarly found guilty. I am fairly confident that the leaders of PSU will find themselves sued and in court someday. However, that could take years. If a similar situation occurred at Auburn, you would be all over Slive and the SEC, for example. How does the Big 10 govern itself? Or after reading for years how the Big 10 is the truest example of an integration of sports and academics, should this really be re-framed: the Big10 is an effective distribution system for tv money to its members, nothing more or less?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Its only peripherally a sports issue. If Sandusky were still a coach it would be a sports issue. IMO the Big 10 did not need to do anything more and is not anymore tainted by this than college sports as a whole. Of course, there is a taint on college sports as a whole and a bigger one on Penn St. But after the fact, there’s not anything that could be done by anyone but Penn St. to change that. Penn St.’s board IMO looked pretty bad in this.

            Like

          • yahwrite says:

            The Big Ten issued a statement when the scandal broke. I don’t recall what it was and I don’t feel like looking for it. However, back in November I did see comments on various message boards questioning the Big Ten, and now you are. I don’t think people on this board would be blaming Slive if a similiar scandal occurred at Auburn, but you are right that they would on ESPN and other sports boards. People are idiots. The Big Ten did announce that they were investigating as did the NCAA. They are waiting for the legal process to complete. Spanier has been fired, what is the Big Ten supposed to do to him? What is the NCAA waiting for?

            Like

          • Rich2 says:

            Here is a pertinent section of the NCAA Bylaws. I can’t help but believe that the Big 10 has a similar bylaw. I don’t understand why the Big 10 has to wait for the NCAA, the U.S. Department of Education (who will hammer PSU) and the US Department of Justice to file their lawsuits or produce a report before the Big 10 acts. Maybe you wait for the perjury trials for Curley and the other guy. What independent action will the Big10 take?

            Anyway the pertinent section:

            Rule 2.4 :

            For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program.

            Like

          • greg says:

            When is Notre Dame going to fire Brian Kelly for killing a student?

            Pretty rich when someone from a catholic institution acts high and mighty about pedophilia.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            So the B1G should have been hasty & leaped to take punitive action before the legal system had even begun to run it’s course?

            That’s a brilliant plan….If you want to get hammered in the inevitable lawsuit.

            Yes Happy Valley is a vile place tainted by it’s veil of secrecy but the B1G overreacting early in the process would not serve anyone in the end.

            Like

          • yahwrite says:

            Rich2,

            What exactly would you have done or said if you were Delany? I see criticism, but no suggestions of what course of action the Big Ten should have taken. Although it does look like you wouldn’t have allowed PSU to go to a bowl game.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Rich, you’re full of it. The Big 10 shouldn’t do a damn thing to PSU. It’s not an issue of competition, and everyone involved is going to be out of the picture when this is said and done. There will be plenty of piling on without Delaney sticking his fat ass into the picture.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        PSUGuy,

        I don’t think most people realize that at least 50% of every research contract goes to “overhead” and other nebulous terms that cover paying for running the school.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Brian:

          You’re no suggesting that is inappropriate are you? Equipment, facilities, and support staff seem essential in addition to the primary researchers.

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            Throwing my $0.02 in…I don’t think it unreasonable and in fact is necessary (I mean it does cost money to conduct research so research funds should be permitted to pay for that), but I have seen at PSU buildings built that have a research focus but with undergraduate uses…most notably the Millennium Science Complex that is mostly graduate level and research oriented, but also have undergraduate additions (student commons rooms and I have to believe undergraduate lab facilities).

            If there is a federal backlash against utilizing federal research funds in this manner (in effect using federal funds to pay for/subsidize undergraduate facilities by incorporating them into federal research endeavors) it could hurt greatly.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “You’re no suggesting that is inappropriate are you?”

            No, not at all. I just mean that most people have never worked in that environment and I think they assume all that money goes straight to the research, which is part of why they complain about how much research costs. They also think tuition alone pays to keep universities up and running.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      Texas similarly has had a drop in state funding. The President describes them as “state assisted” now rather than state funded. Don’t recall the exact %, but its under 30% and may be as low as 10%. I believe it was over 50% in the 70s, back when in-state tuition & fees was $200/semester. Schools are more and more having to rely on donations and tuition increases.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      I can understand funding tightens up, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for any the colleges (especially my Alma Matter). I drove by last week and construction is still non-stop at OSU. The new Ohio Union alone cost $118 million. Nothing its provides could possibly be worth a tenth of a billion dollars.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I think universities do need to take a hard look at their use of facilities. The vast majority of the time, most classrooms are empty. Each college and department is trying to have their own exclusive space. It doesn’t make financial sense.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          Maybe…maybe not.

          Any university with enrollment levels like that of most Big Ten universities are actually small cities. If you have an English Department like PSU’s …with 63 faculty at main campus plus admin plus support…it gets very easy to justify a new building. Especially when most facilities are already utilized due to the explosion of college attendance in the past two decades.

          As for classrooms, I’m going to have to agree with you in general. but disagree in specific. At PSU there were a lot of general purpose classrooms and they were ~80% occupied from 0800 to 1600. There was definitely surplus though. The problem I always saw though was the school was loath to build new “classroom only” buildings (Willard and Sackett are perfect examples of that type of building) and they tended to be ancient (I used to place a ball in the middle of the hall of second floor Sackett and watch it roll on its own) and in need of repair, but were used too much for extensive construction to take place. They got around this by building new buildings , like the Information Systems & Technology building, which not only housed a brand new department, but also included additional classrooms (most likely a selling point to faculty so they wouldn’t have to walk so far for teaching classes), as well as the much needed bridge across Atherton St (I almost got hit by cars on that trek too many times to count…surprised someone hadn’t died and had the university sued).

          What’s more, I can’t help but think this is the perfect time to do construction. Interest rates are nothing, land is cheap(er), and there is plenty of surplus material/labor looking to do work. In the end, that’s the thing I’ve hated the most about this whole situation…everyone wants to talk austerity and cutting back because “time’s are tough”, but the time to pay off debts is when times are good and you have plenty of money to do that and save up a bank roll for times just like these. Then you’re the guy with a wad of cash and the plans to get what needs done, done.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            I disagree about it being a good time to build, but that’s only because I think things are on the cusp of getting a heck of a lot worse economically rather than better.

            I won’t speak for all colleges, but in general there is a lot done that is simply overboard with building/maintenance costs. I’ll concede that for the colleges it’s probably easier to raise money for a new building than for scholarships (you can name it after someone after all), but I look at the major projects at OSU when I was there or just after I left and I know they were well overboard. $118 for the new Ohio (student) Union and a $105,000 million renovation of the main library were done at the same time! The Ohio Union was old, but not in bad shape and could have been used for a long time. The library looked older, but had no space problem that I could ever see (plenty of empty shelves).

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            I’ve actually been to that student Union building (went to the PSU v tOSU game in 2010). I can only say I agree totally with you. To me, that place was obviously set up as an “attraction center” with the idea of it being a “hub” for events and alumni. I honestly remember thinking where do the students do things (in comparison, Penn State’s Student Union building has huge open areas with tables / desks / couches for studying / eating / socializing)?

            If it is meant as some sort of “show piece” maybe the cost is justified in the increased donations / whatever the heck else they do there. Then again, more likely a wealthy donor(s) dumped a lot of money and wanted a “kick ass” place to show off what they bought.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        http://ohiounion.osu.edu/about_the_union/union_fee

        “Student Union Facility Fee Description
        The Student Union Facility Fee is a quarterly fee assessed to all students on the Columbus campus of The Ohio State University. The fee will directly fund construction and building renewal costs of the new Ohio Union. Construction costs for the $118 million project have also been funded through University central funds, Office of Student Life reserves, Ohio Union Reserves, contract agreements, and private donations.

        Why did we build a new Ohio Union?
        When the ‘old’ Ohio Union opened in 1951, it was considered one of the largest and best student unions in the country. For more than 50 years, the Ohio Union hosted significant campus events, long-standing Buckeye traditions, and the making of more memories than can be counted.. As the years rolled, however, the building became outdated and was unable to respond to the changing needs of students. For example, meeting space to accommodate student organizations did not exist and the building operated with 1951 mechanical units that did not provide for adequate heating, cooling, and ventilation.

        A feasibility study was conducted to evaluate three possibilities, including renovation of the existing structure, an addition to the existing structure, or the construction of a new building. After consultation with students, faculty, and staff, it was determined that a new Ohio Union was in the best interests of the University and its students. Throughout the planning, construction, and opening of the building, students have been actively involved in the decision-making process.”

        From http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/03/post_244.html

        “Of the $118 million price tag, student fees account for $90 million.

        Private donations and sponsorships make up $10 million. University general funds covered $11.5 million, and the Ohio Union used its own operating money to cover $6.5 million.”

        You make it sound like OSU paid for it out of tuition and built it for no reason.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          And now knowing that, if I went to OSU I’d still kinda be pissed. Its a gorgeous building I just don’t see how I, as a student, would use that building as anything other than a meeting place.

          If they wanted to make a $120 million “Alumni Hall” then just go ahead and say so (PSU did exactly that…though ours only cost $10 million and came from private donors).

          Like

          • Brian says:

            All the student organizations and student government have to have their offices somewhere. There also is a lot of meeting space and general use space for special events. There are a bunch of restaurants and shops, too. As a student I’d bitch because I never went to the old union, but who better to pay for it than the students that get the benefits of its presence? Taxpayers that never go there?

            Like

  44. Eric says:

    What do you guys think about the larger new BCS outside the semi-finals? There will be 12 bowls.

    1. Do the Big 12/SEC end up in the Sugar or Cotton Bowl or something else?
    2. Are most the places left open or do they sign conferences ahead of time?
    3. Any rules for selecting teams for open positions or can the bowls choose whomever.
    4. Will the new BCS bowls definitely be bigger than all outside bowls? Will the Peach Bowl for instance be able to get higher teams from the Big Ten and SEC if it becomes a BCS bowl than the Citrus Bowl (reverse from now)?

    Like

    • texmex says:

      I think a lot of the new tie-ins will be re-worked, however, I posted above I’m still confused about the Champions Bowl arrangement. The original informal agreement was that it was to be played outside of the semi-final structure but the Andy Staples article is indicating otherwise. Then the Austin American Statesman article quoted Chuck Neinas that the Champions Bowl could very well become an existing bowl like the Cotton Bowl. So that leads me to believe they may work it in the rotation. For the sake of argument, let’s say it becomes the Cotton Bowl

      For non-playoff BCS bowls, i think it has to be exclusive to the top 12 teams in the country. Part of the reason the Fiesta and Orange bowls lost their luster is cause too many fringe top 20-25 teams were playing. If a tie-in does meet a top 12 criteria, then it becomes an at-large spot. I think conferences will have a backup tie-in if their host bowl is in the semi-final rotation that year.

      Year 1
      Orange Bowl (Semi-Final#1)
      Fiesta Bowl (Semi-Final#2)
      Cotton Bowl (Non Playoff SEC vs Big 12)
      Rose Bowl (Non Playoff Big 10 vs PAC 12)
      Sugar Bowl (Non Playoff At-Large vs At-Large)
      Chick-Fil-A Bowl (Non Playoff ACC vs at-large)

      Year 2
      Sugar Bowl (Semi-Final#1)
      Chick-Fil-A bowl (Semi-Final#2)
      Orange Bowl (Non-Playoff ACC vs At-Large)
      Fiesta Bowl (Non-Playoff At-Large vs At-Large)
      Cotton Bowl (Non-Playoff SEC vs Big 12)
      Rose Bowl (Non-Playoff Big 10 vs PAC 12)

      Year 3
      Cotton Bowl (Semi-Final#1)
      Rose Bowl (Semi-Final#2)
      Sugar Bowl (Non Playoff SEC vs Big 10)
      Chick-Fil-A (Non-Playoff At vs At-Large)
      Orange Bowl (Non-Playoff ACC vs At-Large)
      Fiesta Bowl (Non-Playoff Big 12 vs PAC 12)

      Tie-Ins
      SEC: Cotton (1st Tie-in), Sugar (backup tie-in)
      Big 12: Cotton (1st Tie-In), Fiesta (backup tie-in)
      Big 10: Rose (1st Tie-In), Sugar (backup tie-in)
      PAC 12: Rose (1st Tie-In), Fiesta (backup tie-in)
      ACC: Orange (1st Tie-In), Chick-Fil-A(backup tie-in)

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I think the rules become pretty loose and if there are any rules of open spots, it’s just that they are top 20 or top 25. Bowls want as many options out there as they can get (they want the ability to both choose a top otherwise less attractive team and to choose a lower team who is better followed).

        I think we get one extreme or the other with these. Either a) no conference can have more than 1 tie-in and most the spots remain open or b) conferences can have as many tie-ins as they want and only a few truly open spots remain.

        Like

      • @texmex – Good post. I was thinking along the exact same lines where each conference has a “backup” bowl for its when its top bowl is a semifinal.

        The one thing I’ll say is that it’s presumptuous of the SEC and Big 12 to say that the Champions Bowl will be played in prime time on New Years Day no matter what. If the commissioners are serious about “taking back New Years Day” (as Chuck Neinas himself said), then one would think that at least 1 semifinal game is going to need to be played on New Years Day and the TV interests likely want it to be played in prime time. If there isn’t any semifinal on New Years Day, then it’s really just more of the same as today (or even worse since the Rose Bowl is at risk of being even more watered down in the new system).

        A compromise would be to do the opposite of what was proposed, which is to make sure that the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl NEVER host the semifinals in the same year. We’ll assume that the Rose Bowl will be on New Years Day every year no matter what as a priority. Let’s also assume that they end up playing only 2 BCS bowls on New Years Day just as now (one of which will always be the Rose Bowl). The Champions Bowl could still be on New Years Day 2 out of every 3 years: in the years when it’s holding a semifinal and the years when the Rose Bowl is hosting a semifinal (where the Champions can be the 2nd BCS bowl game on that day).

        Like

      • I like your tie-ins a lot…except for the Big Ten in the Sugar. I think the Big Ten has enough SEC affiliated bowls already (all on their home turf, no less). To sign up for the Sugar on TOP of it all…nahhh. Switch the Big 12 with the Big Ten…or maybe even the Fiesta’s Pac-12 tie-in over to the Cotton.

        I also have heard the Outback is more likely to get the 6th BCS bowl bid than the Chik-Fil-A. FWIW. Everybody thinks the Cotton is pretty much locked up–whether it becomes the Champs Bowl or not.

        Like

        • @allthatyoucantleavebehind – From a pure Big Ten perspective, I’d certainly prefer the Outback being in the rotation as opposed to Chick-Fil-A. To the extent that these bowls are all going to be in warm weather locales, a Florida bowl at least provides some semblance of a balanced crowd with all of the Midwestern transplants, snowbirds and vacationers. In contrast, Atlanta provides even more of a home field advantage to an SEC team than New Orleans does.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      Eric,

      “What do you guys think about the larger new BCS outside the semi-finals? There will be 12 bowls.”

      Do you have a link to any new official details, or is this based on old info? Last I knew, nothing was set in stone and can’t be until the playoff is decided. If the committee approves the 4 team playoff using a rotation of bowls to host semis, then TPTB can plan what the other top bowls will be.

      “1. Do the Big 12/SEC end up in the Sugar or Cotton Bowl or something else?”

      They said it would be a new bowl and bid out. Take them at their word until proven otherwise.

      “2. Are most the places left open or do they sign conferences ahead of time?
      3. Any rules for selecting teams for open positions or can the bowls choose whomever.”

      Supposedly they were to be left open and assigned based on geography and rankings. This was a concession to get the non-AQs on board with the playoff system. Remember that geography apparently doesn’t apply to the B10 and MAC, but will for everyone else. There will be some freedom, but they were supposed to force the bowls to take pretty much the top teams left and not skip non-AQs for AQs. We’ll see when they officially announce it.

      “4. Will the new BCS bowls definitely be bigger than all outside bowls?”

      Yes. Pretty much definition. The bowls will clearly be split into tiers:
      1. Bowls in the playoff
      2. Bowls outside the playoff but part of the organized system
      3. Other bowls

      The payouts will probably be tiered, too, based on better TV deals. The top bowls outside the system will be on par with some of the “BCS” bowls, though, because they’ll get 2 AQs and some of the BCS bowls might not.

      “Will the Peach Bowl for instance be able to get higher teams from the Big Ten and SEC if it becomes a BCS bowl than the Citrus Bowl (reverse from now)?”

      If the peach was part of the group and the Citrus was outside, then yes.

      If all the rumors are true, expect this:

      1. Playoff bowls = Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Champs (separate until proven otherwise, if so then Peach)

      2. “BCS” bowls = Citrus, Hall of Fame, Peach, Alamo, Copper, Holiday

      That’s 12 total, which I think is the plan.

      3. Other bowls = Gator, Pinstripe, Sun, etc

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Brian,

        I was going mostly off the report that there will be 6 games in the rotation and I’m assuming those are the BCS (or whatever they are called bowls). That’s not a hard fact yet, but it sounds pretty likely based on that report and earlier talks about turning the BCS into a 12 team event.

        1. Did the SEC/Big 12 actually ever say it would be a new bowl? I heard a lot about it being bid out, but was there ever anything officially saying that the bowl would be a new one? I know Dodds sounded like that’s what he thought, but I thought the Big 12 commissioners initial speech sounded a lot less like that was going to be the case (although it’s been awhile since I listened to either). My guess is that it’s an existing bowl in the end even if it results in a change of structure for that bowl.

        2/3. I think them being assigned based on ranking and geography was them talking about a larger event (something 16 bowls, can’t remember the exact number). I would be very surprised if the BCS bowls operate the same way.

        4. You are probably right about the BCS bowls being higher, but if that ends up being the case, I expect the Citrus to try hard to buy its way in over the Peach.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Eric,

          “I was going mostly off the report that there will be 6 games in the rotation and I’m assuming those are the BCS (or whatever they are called bowls). That’s not a hard fact yet, but it sounds pretty likely based on that report and earlier talks about turning the BCS into a 12 team event.”

          OK. I just didn’t know if I had missed a major story or something.

          “1. Did the SEC/Big 12 actually ever say it would be a new bowl? I heard a lot about it being bid out, but was there ever anything officially saying that the bowl would be a new one? I know Dodds sounded like that’s what he thought, but I thought the Big 12 commissioners initial speech sounded a lot less like that was going to be the case (although it’s been awhile since I listened to either). My guess is that it’s an existing bowl in the end even if it results in a change of structure for that bowl.”

          Initially, Slive said it would be a new bowl. Neinas has said other things. None of it is really official in my opinion. They don’t have any details and haven’t signed any contracts. All we can do is guess.

          “2/3. I think them being assigned based on ranking and geography was them talking about a larger event (something 16 bowls, can’t remember the exact number). I would be very surprised if the BCS bowls operate the same way.”

          A few will be above needing to do that, but even the BCS bowls have needed some help lately. The Sugar didn’t like last year’s turn out, and the Orange is sick of empty seats.

          “4. You are probably right about the BCS bowls being higher, but if that ends up being the case, I expect the Citrus to try hard to buy its way in over the Peach.”

          Of course they’ll try. The new renovations they just announced show that. It seems like those two will fight for the 6th spot unless someone comes out of nowhere.

          Like

  45. Playoffs Now says:

    Ok, so there’s this crazy rumor out there that the ACC met today and is extending an offer to ND to join as a partial member. But wait, it gets better, they will also invite WV. I guess they’d go to 3 pods of 5 for football? Who knows. Not buying the rumor, but decided to play what if for the heck of it.

    So what if ND did decide the ACC is their future, ESPN reopens the contract, and that convinces all the ACC schools to stay put? My expectation is that Texas would be happy in the B12 and stay at 10, or maybe a couple of schools from the Big East or BYU added to get to 12, and the era of major conference expansion ends. If the ACC and B12 schools aren’t willing to move, we have detente.

    But what if DeLoss Dodds and David Boren decide that without ND or adding ACC schools they can max revenues by moving elsewhere and reducing to 4 power conferences and effectively pulling up the drawbridge? If they can place the rest of the B12 schools in good homes, they can all agree to kill the grant of rights and dissolve the B12. If the ACC took WV, it wouldn’t be far fetched to see the other 9 schools land in the P12, B1G, and SEC to get them to 16. One possibility:

    OU, KS, ISU, Rutgers to the B1G

    UTx, TTech, Baylor, TCU to the P16

    OkSU and KSU to the SEC

    B1G gets 3 AAU and a marque equivalent to Nebraska (both on the field and academically now that NU has been stripped of AAU status.) ISU duplicates the footprint but hey, everybody compromises a little while gaining a substantial $ windfall from the enhanced bargaining power, narrower split, and exclusivity of 4×16 power conferences. Perhaps a deal with the P16 to jointly market their cable channels in all their states or maybe even a near merger. OU Prez Boren salivating over B1G membership and prestige probably overcomes the coach’s resistance to playing both UTx and OkSU OOC each year.

    P16 holds their nose with Baylor but gets the big dog. Larry Scott has already said the LHN issues could be overcome. The P12 channel concept is to put a double combo of the main channel and a shared team channel in every market, why not make that a 3 channel block in Texas with the main channel, LHN, and a TTech-Baylor-TCU channel? Doable.

    SEC gets 2 new states with 8+ million population and a tidy pod of aTm, OkSU, KSU, and Mizzou. Or maybe they demand TCU instead of OKSt or KSU if they want more games in Texas.

    Other possibilities ways to horse trade it:

    UTx Bay KS Rutgers – B1G

    OU OkSU TTech ISU – P16

    TCU KSU – SEC

    ——-

    UTx OU Bay Rutgers – B1G

    TTech OkSU KS ISU – P16

    TCU KSU – SEC

    ——-

    Again, I think the rumors today are probably complete bunk. But there are few things we can 100% rule out at this point right now, either. So some food for thought.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I think WVU to the ACC is one we can 100% rule out. I think the Dude was BUI.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      If you’re going to invent scenarios they should have some believability. Was alcohol involved?

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      First off UT isn’t going anywhere since they are currently tied to their LHN. None of the other conferences would let them keep it (the Pac 12 was never on board with UT having their LHN in it’s current form). No other conference (SEC included) will take TCU, KSU, Baylor, ISU, or Ok St (unless they were a package deal with OU). And neither the B1G (who won’t take them regardless) or the Pac 12 (who apparently doesn’t want them without a LHN free UT) want OU because of academic reasons. It would take a super majority (I’m not sure of the exact number) of the schools to agree to dissolve the Big 12 in order to kill the GOR. So WVU and the rest of the Big 12 are stuck for at least another 5 to 6 years, and maybe longer if they ever sign the GOR extention.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        The Big 12 was saved, for all intents and purposes, when the Pac presidents twice refused to allow Okie State into their conference. As a result, the ACC is now firmly in the #5 position and is clearly the most vulnerable if the landscape changes to an immutable four-conference scenario. If any conference is going to be divvied up down the road, it will be the ACC.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          vp19:

          Are you counting UT’s scuttling the P16 in 2010 as the PAC denying OkSU? As to last year, that is one scenario…but not the only one.

          Big 12 is saved for length of GOR (I can’t see enough suitable landing places to get the votes to dissolve, negating GOR). ACC has huge east coast markets (whether fully realized or not, they are east). Big 12 has Texas, and OU’s brand. The ACC improves a bit on the field and which conference is fifth? In spite of your protestations the ACC is still more stable, and will be until they lose as many strong members (4) and reload with a couple move ups.

          Like

          • frug says:

            By definition the Big XII is more stable for the length of the GOR (6 years now and 13 once the TV deal is finalized).

            The fact that the ACC hasn’t even mentioned the possibility of signing a GOR means at least some members believe they have an opportunity to move to a better home in the near future.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            vp19:

            Are you counting UT’s scuttling the P16 in 2010 as the PAC denying OkSU? As to last year, that is one scenario…but not the only one.

            Yes. The 2010 situation would have killed the Big 12; the 2011 “Pac-14″ would have wounded it. And I agree with Frug; if the ACC is as stable as its stalwarts proclaim, why no GOR? Because no one wants to be locked into a second-tier conference, and in a worst-case scenario, many of its members will have options, unlike some of the Big 12 weaklings who have no real alternative. Maryland is no Iowa State.

            The Big 12 at least has Texas, which carries a lot of weight, and Oklahoma carries nearly as much. The ACC? Florida State, not quite as strong a brand as OU; Miami, which is becoming as relevant as post-Tarkanian UNLV basketball (which is to say, not much); and North Carolina, which thinks it’s Texas until it steps onto the football field.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:

            As I said, the B12 is saved (captive?) for length of GOR. That isn’t what I consider the best sign of stability, though it helps. Unstable by action (that doesn’t qualify as by definition?) is losing strong, long time members. As of right now the ACC is the opposite, adding 2 new members soon.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            cc, everyone has a breaking point. For the ACC, that will come when its revenue falls far behind what it considers its peer conferences (the other four), and it discovers to its dismay that — as the Big East is now learning — its precious basketball won’t come to the rescue. The Big 12 from top to bottom is certainly a more motley crew than the ACC, but its top tier keeps everyone afloat. The ACC’s top tier has nothing similar in football value.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Many FSU fans seem to think adding two new members who aren’t very good in football right now was a sign of weakness, not strength. The addition is viewed as a defensive move in the event of more defections and is apparently part of Clemson’s and FSU’s reasons for dissatisfaction with the conference.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Many FSU fans seem to think adding two new members who aren’t very good in football right now was a sign of weakness, not strength. The addition is viewed as a defensive move in the event of more defections and is apparently part of Clemson’s and FSU’s reasons for dissatisfaction with the conference.

            Agreed. Taking SU and Pitt instead of WVU and L’ville did little for the Clemson and FSU fan bases, although academically WVU and UL were never ACC matches in the first place. And if Rutgers and/or Connecticut ever join the ACC to make it 16 (though I sense the ACC wants nothing to do with UConn as a member), that would be the last straw.

            There is a pecking order of conferences. The Big Ten, SEC and possibly the Pac are on the first tier, the Big 12 is next, followed by the ACC, followed in turn by the Big East and so on. Where else could the ACC have gone for members that would have fit its needs, athletically, academically and geographically? Boise State? Brigham Young? Even without the GOR, no Big 12 member would defect to the ACC unless it was part of a bloc (e.g. ISU/KSU/KU). The ACC had few realistic choices, and Syracuse and Pittsburgh were the most sensible.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            vp19:

            I agree to an extent with how it appears. I’m just saying that action speak louder. Words spin, and sometimes accurately forecast actions. Actions have real world effects. If Pitt and Syracuse had joined the B12 and TCU/WVU were headed to the ACC I’d call that a stronger move for the B12 than what happened. But what has happened, happened. It’s not a matter of attributing value/position based upon what might come. If more change comes then there is basis to make an adjustment by evaluating the new makeup of the conferences. And I don’t mean to say the ACC is all peaches and cream. Just that because some would like things a bit different doesn’t mean that using leverage to try to get it is a sign the sky has fallen.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            No, the sky hasn’t fallen. But if it does, it more likely will fall on the ACC than the Big 12 because it’s a) weaker as a football brand, and b) has more properties that could prosper somewhere else than the Big 12 has. Let’s look at the public, non-football kings each has. I think we can safely say that on the open market, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson and Georgia Tech have substantially more collective value than West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Interesting argument. More valuable equates to more vulnerable. I get what you are saying, but that assumes that any endgame starts with the premis that nobody gets left behind. I’m not advocating for that, but it has happened. Ask Loki.

            Like

        • Pablo says:

          vp19, The opinion that the ACC is ‘firmly #5′ is a temporary judgement based on criteria that most universities don’t consider as the overwhelming driver for conference alignment: media money. IMHO, the large majority of the ACC is in its ideal conference (schools would only move if there was no ACC). In other words, TPTB/students/faculty/fans at most schools would prefer to be in the ACC over any other conference. In a tough economy, TV revenue becomes more important and can lead to good rumors. The ACC is much more stable than the Big East. Having 5 viable major conferences is the likely long-term state for cfb…unless one conference implodes due to self-inflicted harm (hence why the Big XII had no choice other than a GOR).

          Bullet, I don’t believe that the ACC expansion is viewed by FSU and Clemson fans as a defensive move. These fans are angry about losing to their SEC rivals and the expansion can’t address this issue. It’s possible that admitting WVU could have calmed these fans by deflecting attention for another year. ACC fb teams, especially FSU and Clemson, need to win.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            If the Champions Bowl is everything I think it will be, the already slender chances of an ACC team qualifying for a 4-team playoff over the rest of the decade just grew even slimmer. That is bound to place the ACC in a near-permanent #5 spot, leading to lessened revenue, recruiting and reputation. The anger you see from the Florida State and Clemson fan bases will begin to permeate some other ACC schools; already you are seeing substantial support for a Big Ten move at Maryland message boards. If Virginia, UNC and Duke want to stay in their insular little world while their revenue continues to diminish, that’s their prerogative. Meanwhile, several other ACC members will high-tail it out of there.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “If the Champions Bowl is everything I think it will be, the already slender chances of an ACC team qualifying for a 4-team playoff over the rest of the decade just grew even slimmer.”

            The two are unrelated. Phil Steele is picking FSU to go 13-0 and play in the NCG. If he’s right, I expect the view of the ACC will suddenly change. The champs bowl won’t mean much if the true champs keep making the playoff anyway.

            “That is bound to place the ACC in a near-permanent #5 spot, leading to lessened revenue, recruiting and reputation.”

            I hate to break it to you, but revenues will only increase. All the AQs are looking at something like $4+ M per school from the playoff, plus what they make from all the bowls, plus the growing TV deals. The gap may grow, too, but so will the gap to everyone below the ACC. Recruiting has been fine and will stay that way based on location. Their reputation will be fine as long as they win some major bowl games. Sooner or later they have to break that BCS trend.

            “The anger you see from the Florida State and Clemson fan bases will begin to permeate some other ACC schools; already you are seeing substantial support for a Big Ten move at Maryland message boards.”

            It’s not a shock to see a school in financial trouble and neighbor to a B10 school contemplate the move.

            “If Virginia, UNC and Duke want to stay in their insular little world while their revenue continues to diminish, that’s their prerogative.”

            What else would they do?

            Like

          • Pablo says:

            vp19,

            The Champions Bowl is an Orwellian fiction…from most fans’ perspective it will soon be seen as the consolation game between not-good-enough SEC and Big XII teams. The champions from those conferences will never want to play in that game because it means that they were not worthy of a MNC. TX, AL, OK, LSU have higher aspirations…Arkansas v K State will be the common match. The real value of the Champions Bowl:
            1. It forced the Rose Bowl/B1G/PAC to negotiate equitably in this 4 team playoff. Although the RB still has pageantry and history, it no longer had undisputed rights to being the sole meaningful bowl (i.e., matching the winners of 2 power conferences). The SEC needed leverage in its drive for a playoff.
            2. It’s a good way to make money. Most bowls have a beauty pageant aspect…this game will have it in spades. The SEC and Big XII have great reputations in cfb and that sells on TV.
            3. It greatly enhanced the perception of the Big XII. After a couple of chaotic years, the Big XII is solidly recognized for its cfb prowess.

            With regards to lessened recruitment, you greatly misunderstand the geographic advantage inherent in the ACC. VA, NC, GA and FL have a lot of good recruits; SC and MD have their fair share of recruits. ACC schools more than hold their own in recruiting; ACC players also get drafted fairly well by NFL teams. FSU is generally a top 10 recruiting school; Clemson, Miami, GT, VT, UVA and UNC are all accustomed to top 30 recruiting classes. From a talent perspective, the ACC is a bunch of underachievers (another reason why ND would be a better fit with the ACC). Unless there is a mass exodus of at least 5 or 6 southern teams from the ACC, the geography will always point towards universities staying aligned with the ACC. Dabo Swinney listed the recruitment advantage as a key rationale for preferring the ACC.

            Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        @bamatab,
        The Big XII super-majority was always 75% or 8 schools in a 12 team league. Presumably at 10 it is 8 out of the 10. The glaring issue here is that 4 of the teams that had a chance of leaving for a “better” conference already have. That seriously hurts the prospects going forward of getting enough votes.

        Like

        • frug says:

          For stuff like expansion it’s 8 of 10, though the GOR required unanimous approval with no abstentions so who knows what it would take to dissolve the conference.

          (Of course if the “right” 6 schools left it might be impossible for the leftovers to get enough new members to meet the NCAA minimum of 8 teams in which the conference would collapse even without a vote to dissolve)

          Like

    • Brian says:

      Playoffs Now,

      “Ok, so there’s this crazy rumor out there that the ACC met today and is extending an offer to ND to join as a partial member. But wait, it gets better, they will also invite WV.”

      No link for those that haven’t seen this rumor and don’t trawl the depths of message boards or Twitter? A quick search only found a GT fan saying that’s what they ACC should do, and he also threw out PSU as an option.

      “So what if ND did decide the ACC is their future, ESPN reopens the contract, and that convinces all the ACC schools to stay put?”

      Adding ND as a non-FB member doesn’t add squat to their contract, and neither does WV. They’d get the same per team.

      “My expectation is that Texas would be happy in the B12 and stay at 10, or maybe a couple of schools from the Big East or BYU added to get to 12, and the era of major conference expansion ends. If the ACC and B12 schools aren’t willing to move, we have detente.”

      For now. In 20 years, there will be a reason for it to happen again.

      “But what if DeLoss Dodds and David Boren decide that without ND or adding ACC schools they can max revenues by moving elsewhere and reducing to 4 power conferences and effectively pulling up the drawbridge?”

      Not going to happen any time soon. Maybe with a new NCAA division split and/or the next generation of the playoff.

      “If they can place the rest of the B12 schools in good homes, they can all agree to kill the grant of rights and dissolve the B12. If the ACC took WV, it wouldn’t be far fetched to see the other 9 schools land in the P12, B1G, and SEC to get them to 16.”

      Actually, I think that would be very far fetched. Who else wants ISU, KSU, TT, TCU, WV, Baylor, KU and OkSU right now? Some of them might get a free ticket to go with OU and UT, but most are unwanted.

      “One possibility:

      OU, KS, ISU, Rutgers to the B1G”

      The B10 already said no to OU, KU adds very little, ISU has zero value and RU apparently doesn’t add much. Why would they take this group of 4? What is the incentive? I could see UT gaining, but how does the B10 gain from this?

      “UTx, TTech, Baylor, TCU to the P16″

      Three schools they don’t want to get UT? Doubtful. Two are religious schools and TT is not a bastion of top academics.

      “OkSU and KSU to the SEC”

      There is no way the SEC takes a little brother and a nobody. It’s not like they are gaining territory this way.

      “Other possibilities ways to horse trade it:

      UTx Bay KS Rutgers – B1G”

      I could buy taking Baylor to get UT as plausible, but I don’t see enough value in KU and RU.

      “OU OkSU TTech ISU – P16″

      They already turned down OU/OkSU. How do TT and ISU make it better?

      “TCU KSU – SEC”

      I could maybe see TCU for more TX access, but not KSU.

      ——-

      “UTx OU Bay Rutgers – B1G”

      How many times must the B10 say no to OU?

      “TTech OkSU KS ISU – P16″

      They don’t want any of those schools.

      “TCU KSU – SEC”

      See above.

      ——-

      “Again, I think the rumors today are probably complete bunk.”

      Agreed.

      Like

  46. Quiet Storm says:

    The ND to the ACC rumor is similar to the one about them joining the Big XII. Olympic sports only and an agreement to play 3 – 5 FB games/year against ACC teams. The rumor makes sense if you believe that ND is seriously looking at leaving the BE for the Big XII. It would be in the best interest of the ACC to make an offer as well.

    I don’t buy into the WVU portion of the rumor.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      “The rumor makes sense if you believe that ND is seriously looking at leaving the BE for the Big XII. It would be in the best interest of the ACC to make an offer as well.”
      My problem with these rumors is for the most part they fail to address the conference on the the end. The SEC is admittedly a football heavy conference, but they are making upwards of 70% of their conference distribution from football related revenue sources. Having Notre Dame join your conference for Olympic sports really doesn’t do anything for your conference unless you get a scheduling agreement for football. And to move the needle there you’d probably need 5 to 6 games a year from them to ensure you get 2 to 3 Notre Dame games covered by your conference deal. If Notre Dame is playing 6 football games versus 1 conference, even if they keep their NBC deal, they’ve given up a fair amount of their independence.

      Like

      • frug says:

        My problem with these rumors is for the most part they fail to address the conference on the the end…

        Having Notre Dame join your conference for Olympic sports really doesn’t do anything for your conference unless you get a scheduling agreement for football.

        You are absolutely right. ND’s non-football sports are not only worthless, they are literally worth less than nothing. Their MBB program alone has lost $5 million over the past two seasons despite being a revenue sport at 90% of AQ schools.

        That said.

        Giving ND a home for its non-football schools might still be in the ACC’s best interest as a defensive move. If ND feels it needs to leave the BEast and no other conference is willing to take it as a non-football member (and none will, Deloss Dodds delusions not withstanding) then giving the Irish a place to park its Olympic sports would be the best way to stave off an arms race that could tear the conference apart.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I think Notre Dame to the ACC would make sense for both parties, but probably won’t happen.

          1. It is a big step for the ACC to take over as the northeastern basketball league. With Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and Notre Dame, there’s an argument to be made that the ACC will have more attention in the northeast than the Big East.

          2. The bowl set-up is likely helped by the Irish. They’ll take bowls up to so this could work either way, but if you have a provision where they can’t take any bowl more than once Notre Dame probably improves the ACC’s bowl presence (or at least their payout on those).

          3. Even if you only are guaranteed 1-2 home games against Notre Dame a year, they’ll likely be national games which helps TV.

          4. Long term, this would make the ACC the most likely conference for Notre Dame football if it ever joins a conference.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            The Big 12 makes more financial sense for an Notre Dame partial, particularly with the Tier 3. If ND wants to play basketball games on the East Coast, it can always schedule a non-conference game or two each year at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, MSG in Manhattan, Wells Fargo in Philadelphia or the Verizon Center in D.C.

            Like

          • frug says:

            With Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and Notre Dame, there’s an argument to be made that the ACC will have more attention in the northeast than the Big East.

            Nobody in the northeast cares about BC or ND’s BB programs. (And based on their financial and attendance data most of the schools fans don’t either).

            Like

          • Pablo says:

            Eric,

            The ACC is a perfect fit for Notre Dame, but it won’t happen.

            In the 70s – early 90s, the great whale for the ACC was UGa. It was the ‘perfect fit': a southern aristocratic school with the right mix of academics and athletics. In that time, it would have been a perfect match with schools like UVA, UNC, MD & Clemson. Unfortunately for the ACC, the SEC had more to offer. Specifically, the SEC expanded its geography to South Carolina (so UGa was no longer in the periphery); the SEC put its championship game in Atlanta; the SEC has cleaned up most of its outlaw reputation while enhancing its football passion.

            For at least the last decade, the great whale for the ACC seems to be Notre Dame. The ACC now has a lot of private universities, as well as schools in big cities. Spanning the entire east coast, excelling at similar sports and having many institutions with reputations for selective undergraduate education should appeal to Notre Dame. Unfortunately for the ACC, football independence seems to be in the DNA of Notre Dame. Somehow Notre Dame fans equate football independence with their unique identity…joining a conference would tarnish their mystic rather than allow the university to grow.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            In the 70s – early 90s, the great whale for the ACC was UGa. It was the ‘perfect fit’: a southern aristocratic school with the right mix of academics and athletics. In that time, it would have been a perfect match with schools like UVA, UNC, MD & Clemson

            What? I’ve followed the ACC since the early ’70s, and never at any time have I heard Georgia — an SEC member since its inception in 1933 — mentioned as a potential ACC entrant. And with the generally lackluster quality of ACC football, I seriously doubt UGa ever would have been interested.

            Georgia Tech — which was virtually as popular as Georgia while it was in the SEC — certainly fit the academic/athletic pattern the ACC sought, which is why it filled the void left by South Carolina when GT became the eighth ACC member in 1979-80 (though it didn’t become eligible for football until 1983).

            Like

          • Eric says:

            Pablo,

            I know football in the ACC isn’t going to happen (at least anytime soon). I think it’s a good fit for both sides even from a non-football perspective though (although the ACC will go for that).

            Like

          • Eric says:

            I meant to say I don’t think the ACC will go for that.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Eric, if I were Swarbrick and both the ACC and Big 12 asked me to move ND’s non-football programs to their conference, I go with the Big 12 every time because of more Tier 3 potential — if the Big 12 agrees that ND plays no more than four football games each year against conference schools (five if Florida State joins), with Texas and Oklahoma automatically in the mix and one home and one road game against a rotation of the other conference schools..

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I’m still not sure that ND’s non-football tier 3 rights would be worth enough to off-set playing in a league where we would have to find new homes for the lax and swimming teams and men’s soccer. The ACC is also the much better mens basketball brand.

            The tier 3 rights ND would mostly be concerned about is in Hockey with the NBC deal. Neither side is close to a hockey deal so this is a non-issue.

            That said, as a Domer, I would find games football games against NC State (least interesting ACC opponent) more interesting than ISU or KU. Since the ACC is bigger, we have more time in between scheduling less interesting opponents.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @FLP

            The Big XII sponsors swimming and diving, but you are right about lax and mens’ soccer.

            Like

          • Jericho says:

            Yeah, I don’t understand the Tier 3 argument. Since this is non-football, you’re talking about sports that already bring nothing to the table. It’s already been established how Notre Dame basketball actually loses money.What great value is there to these TV rights? If you could get even 1 million, I’d be shocked (and I would think hockey would not be included too). It’s more than offset by the likely differences between the two conferences.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Big XII Men’s swimming will be Texas, WVU, and TCU. That’s not a league, that’s a meet. Big East and ACC have a full league slate.

            Like

          • frug says:

            ISU and KU sponsor women’s swimming and diving, but you are right that the men’s side is a little lacking.

            Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      The rumor makes sense if they are looking to leave the BE. And if you believe the ACC would accept the non FB member deal. Not sure how the B12 figures in to that.

      Like

  47. GreatLakeState says:

    ND is not joining the ACC in football. Having secured access to the playoff what possible benefit is derived from that? I do believe the ACC, out of desperation, will take ND on their terms. Terms that include FSU or CLEMSON signing whatever loyalty oath is necessary to stay put.
    If that’s the case, (and yes, I realize this is far fetched) I would love nothing more than to have Dalany bring Oklahoma into the fold, creating “THE GAME II” for the B1G while weakening the Big 12 and foiling Slive’s ‘Champions game’ masterstroke.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      GreatLakeState,

      “If that’s the case, (and yes, I realize this is far fetched) I would love nothing more than to have Dalany bring Oklahoma into the fold, creating “THE GAME II” for the B1G while weakening the Big 12 and foiling Slive’s ‘Champions game’ masterstroke.”

      1. Yes, the premise is far fetched.

      2. The B10 doesn’t want OU even if fans do. It’s not happening.

      3. Let’s look at the impact of adding OU:
      a. If OU becomes NE’s top rival, how does PSU respond?
      They don’t like that OSU treats them as a lesser rival than MI and now NE would do the same. On the bright side, they may finally get another eastern team.

      b. Who is #14 and how do division get split?
      OU gives the West another top team and the NE/OU rivalry to balance The Game. Possible split assuming divisions and an eastern #14 (RU, MD, Pitt):

      West = OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, NW
      East = OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, IN, PU, #14

      Locked rivals: None, preferring to rotate through 2 of 7 equally instead. There is very little history between the B10 and Big 8 kings, and division games would provide 4 king/king games, 7 king/prince games and 1 prince/prince game which is pretty good (not to mention the crossover games that will add several more). If TV demanded locked games, it might be these:

      OSU/OU, MI/NE, PSU/IA, MSU/WI, PU/IL, IN/MN, NW/#14

      Fans will like the geographic split, WI and IA will be ecstatic to get their rivalry back, PSU will be thrilled to get an eastern foe, the kings are happy to lose the locked rivalry with a king (esp. OU who still plays UT), most fans will like losing the chance at a repeat of The Game in the CCG (the B10 might not be so happy).

      c. What does it do to the money? I can’t see much gain per team, but adding a king wouldn’t lead to a loss, either. OK doesn’t add a ton of cable TV homes, but the eastern team might.

      d. Academic impact
      OU is a cellar dweller, but the eastern team should be above average.

      e. Camaraderie
      Getting bigger makes it feel less like a conference and more like two separate ones that play a lot. The eastern team will be a cultural outlier based on their region, and so will OU to an extent.

      f. From a FB perspective, there’s a lot to like about this.

      4. Weakening the B12 is only helpful if the B10 gets UT out of it eventually. Otherwise UT will head west or go independent.

      5. The Champs Bowl is a good idea and fans should support it.. If OU and UT both leave, the SEC may play against the ACC instead. It won’t match the Rose Bowl, but it’s still a good idea.

      Like

      • Great Lake State says:

        #14 would have to be a PSU appeaser as well as an academic gem.
        Red hot, historical rivalries will be the life’s blood of the BTN if it has aspirations to be a truly national network in the future. ND aside, name me an Eastern school that would add more value to the Big Ten than Oklahoma, when coupled with Nebraska. The notion that teams located in east coast population centers will automatically attract eyeballs to the BTN is a false premise.
        UNC would be a catch for sure, but as I’ve stated, I believe ND will go to the ACC in some capacity and that FSU will remain as well. None of these scenarios is likely to happen -ever, but to not consider a football King like Oklahoma which is actually making some strides academically – HEY, I hear you laughing! – is retrograde thinking in the land-grab era of conference expansion as relates to national sports networks.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Great Lake State,

          “#14 would have to be a PSU appeaser as well as an academic gem.”

          So, probably RU, MD or Pitt like I said.

          “Red hot, historical rivalries will be the life’s blood of the BTN if it has aspirations to be a truly national network in the future.”

          I don’t think it has those aspirations. The B10 knows it will need a true national network (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) as a partner for the foreseeable future.

          “ND aside, name me an Eastern school that would add more value to the Big Ten than Oklahoma, when coupled with Nebraska.”

          Any school that is good enough to be accepted by the COP/C because OU isn’t (for now, at least). Pitt, RU, MD, etc.

          “The notion that teams located in east coast population centers will automatically attract eyeballs to the BTN is a false premise.”

          No, but they will lead to more homes paying for the BTN. OK is slightly bigger than IA.

          “UNC would be a catch for sure, but as I’ve stated, I believe ND will go to the ACC in some capacity and that FSU will remain as well.”

          I don’t see ND moving for a while. I agree FSU will stay, for a while. Long term they may both be in the P24 for all we know.

          “None of these scenarios is likely to happen -ever,”

          Agreed.

          “but to not consider a football King like Oklahoma which is actually making some strides academically – HEY, I hear you laughing!”

          OU needs to make a lot more than a few strides before the B10 would be interested. The COP/C made that pretty clear. And the closer you get to the top, the harder it is to keep moving up as the other schools are all trying to improve as well.

          ” – is retrograde thinking in the land-grab era of conference expansion as relates to national sports networks.”

          That’s a wonderful speech, but it has no bearing on what the COP/C has said or will do. Until the view the athletic conference as separate from the academic conference, they won’t accept a school like OU. Accept it and move on.

          Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Get over Oklahoma. It’s not going to happen.

      Like

      • Great Lake State says:

        Actually, I’m over the East Coast. ESPN contracts don’t lie.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          In fairness those contracts are based on having to pay for 1) extremely small schools (and thus alumni) with limited to no football fanbase (think Villanova) and/or 2) extremely large schools with little to no football fanbase (think UConn or Rutgers). When you start counting certain states as “Big Ten” states (due to state universities AND the level of migrant alumni from other Big Ten universities being in the conference) I think those contracts go way up.

          Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        The Big 10 has no good expansion scenerio right now, with ND giving us the one finger salute. That’s why people are reaching with ideas like OK or NC/VA/MD.

        As for OK, the presidents aren’t going to add another questionable academic school, at least without the “cover” of another outstanding academic school (like UNC, which won’t happen for different reasons). Even if they would consider it, which they wouldn’t, OK fans want nothing to do with the Big 10. You can’t move to a conference where 90% of the fans don’t want to be.

        Like

  48. Michael in Raleigh says:

    What do you all suppose are the chances Boise State elects to stay in the Mountain West after all? Is everything really contingent on BSU receiving an invitation to the Big West for non-football sports and/or the WAC somehow surviving as a non-football conference, or would BSU still join the Big East and simply cross its fingers that it would find a home for non-football sports?

    If BSU does not join the Big East, what ramifications are there for that league? Would San Diego State decide to stay in the MWC as well? Would the BE try to “replace” BSU with another western FBS school as a way of keeping SDSU in the fold?

    I find this whole story rather interesting and overlooked due to the announcement that we are getting a playoff.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      My belief is that Boise is just trying to hold its cards as long as possible, all the way to the July 1 deadline. I think that it is trying to juggle negotiations 4 different ways: (1) with the Big East, to try to get financial help in an attempt to join the Big West, which is reluctant to admit a second non-California member; (2) with the Big West, which would likely demand Boise cover the travel expenses for the California teams visiting them; (3) with the WAC and remaining members to try and put together a viable non-FB league in case the Big West indeed does not offer membership under any circumstances; and (4) with the MWC, the one viable conference that Boise can be in long-term without worry of disbanding or cumbersome travel stipends.

      It’s really a tough call on Boise’s part. If they can get in the Big West without having to pay excessively for other members’ expenses, then it’s all gravy. And that’s a BIG if. Meanwhile, the WAC’s continued existence is highly doubtful. New Mexico State, Idaho, Denver, and Seattle are the only other members, with NMSU and Idaho likely headed to the Big Sky and a reluctant downgrade to FCS. Even if other brand-new D1 schools like Utah Valley State joined, the WAC would barely meet the minimum number of members to be a D1 conference. So, the real question is, “Is it worth joining the Big East for football only and putting the rest of the athletic department’s programs at risk of having no conference home?”

      My sense is that the answer is, “No.” Boise State did the understandable thing by joining the Big East for football at the time. It could not have predicted that the MWC, Sun Belt, and C-USA would have stripped the WAC of everyone else at the time because all indications were that C-USA and the MWC were just going to merge, leaving little reason for them to raid the WAC. In the end, I think Boise will lose $5 million to the Big East, and even more in lost future Big East television revenue, but it will at least have a secure conference for all its sports with the Mountain West. As for how that would effect San Diego State, it’s hard to say. It would really hurt the Big East, but that just goes with the theme, right? If something can go wrong in conference realignment for the Big East, it WILL go wrong.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The WAC is in severe trouble. They could get to 8 members easily-Utah Valley, CSU-Bakersfield and UT Pan Am are all western schools with no homes. The problem is meeting the NCAA sports sponsorship requirements. The sports the schools sponsor don’t match well and its hard to see how they get to the required number of sponsored sports.

        Like

    • Ron says:

      The story that Boise State might renege on its Big East commitment is interesting. Aside from the collapse of the WAC, there’s every reason to think that it is directly tied to the fact that Big East BCS status no longer means as much now that we’ve got a four team national playoff. Boise State clearly has legitimate national championship hopes based on recent performance that could have been enhanced by membership in a BCS conference under the old system. Am not convinced any of this applies for San Diego State. Boise State is dragging their feet so much on this decision that I would expect San Diego State to decide independently based on their own criteria (it’s not like the two schools are particularly close to each other as historic or geographic rivals).

      There is no predicting what the Big East does if Boise State reneges. Don’t know that there are many western schools that necessarily accept a Big East bid at this point.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I see what you’re saying, Ron, regarding BCS status being removed as a big reason Boise could renege, but I disagree. Even though it wasn’t clear in November/December that a playoff was going to emerge, it was fairly certain that AQ status was going away. Boise knew that when it joined the Big East. At the time, it still seemed worthwhile to move to a weakened Big East because of increased national exposure, improved bowl second-tier bowl tie-ins, and dramatically better television revenue. Even as the “Big Five” power conferences distanced themselves from #6 Big East, the Big East likewise further distanced itself from C-USA and the MWC by taking all their best members (except for ECU and, arguably, Southern Miss).

        It will always be easier for a 13-0 or 12-1 Boise State team that wins even a weakened Big East to make the playoffs than it will be for a BSU team with the same record as a MWC champ to make the top four. In fact, I would be shocked if a 13-0 Big East champion fails to make the top four; after all, TCU finished in the top four two years in a row after going 12-0 in an even weaker Mountain West Conference. But the same did not happen for Boise when it was in the late-00’s WAC, which is essentially the same league that the Mountain West is today. Therefore, staying in the MWC would be all-around bad for Boise’s chances of winning a national title.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          Boise gained a lot of respect after the 2nd BCS win though and I suspect for at least the next few years would get in the semi-finals if undefeated from the Mountain West.

          That said, the Big East deal with Boise State will be a lot bigger than the Mountain West deal with them. Even though the Mountain West will be more open to giving Boise State a higher portion of the revenue, it’s still probably in both Boise State and the Big East’s interest to work something out. If that means overpaying to get into the Big West, I suspect they’ll do it.

          If Boise State doesn’t end up in the Big East for some reason though (pretty unlikely in my opinion), it’s possible the Big East and Mountain West end up equal perception wise. All it would take would San Diego State changing its mind too (although I doubt that too) and you have the Mountain West as the western equal of the eastern Big East.

          Like

        • Ron says:

          Michael, I agree with you and Eric that it’s probably in Boise State’s best interest to stick with the Big East deal if they can make it work. They’ve worked pretty hard to establish themselves as a national football power. Where you and I have a point of discussion (and don’t think it’s truly major in the context of expansion) is that the new playoff system really doesn’t give any particular credit for a team winning a BCS conference championship. That wasn’t known back when Boise State first made their deal with the Big East.

          Like

    • Peter says:

      I think Boise stays in the MWC. With the end of the BCS, there’s no benefit to going to the Big East. The Big East at this point is such low quality football product that it won’t have any inherent weight to it.

      Also keep in mind that Boise isn’t Texas or a B1G school. They don’t have money to burn, which makes a convenient, geographically sensible location for their other sports much more inviting.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      @Michael – IMHO – San Diego St. is gone no matter what. They’ve already withdrawn and they’ve found a home for its Olympic sports.

      The Mountain West really wants Boise. I think with Boise, the MW will probably get its exemption and become an AQ conference. What I’m surprised hasn’t happened yet, is the MW hasn’t leaked or implied that if Boise stays they’ll take Idaho. I know they probably don’t want Idaho, but the MW with Boise and Idaho is greater than without. I can’t imagine Boise still moving without an Olympic home and the political pressure mounting to “save” Idaho.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        From what I’ve been reading, Boise and Idaho are at war in the state and Boise wants nothing more than to see Idaho drop off the map. I don’t think there is any political pressure.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          I know very little about politics in Idaho and Boise (I just looked up the governor’s bio to see that he is a Boise grad*). However, I would have to imagine that it would be better for the state as a whole (and be popular with Idaho U alums who vote) to pressure Boise into casting Idaho U a life line. Are Boise and Idaho U at such a war they can’t/won’t do what’s best for the state?

          *He is also an “Idaho College” graduate and I am assuming Idaho College isn’t Idaho U since it’s not in Moscow (via http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/index.html).

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t have an Idaho native’s knowledge. I’ve just picked up on the forums and related newspaper articles over the years that there is a continuing battle to keep Idaho as the flagship by people in lightly populated northern Idaho and a battle by Boise, the largest metro, to make Boise much more than the jc it used to be. There’s kind of a zero sum mentality. I don’t remember specific articles or comments, but the Boise president has made some comments that indicate that he feels that way.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            My understanding is that most of the politicians in the legislature are U of Idaho grads. The ascendency of Boise coupled with the decline of U of Idaho has caused considerably animosity.

            Like

  49. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19403492/the-nifty-50-how-the-playoffs-selection-committee-should-look

    Dennis Dodds proposes a 50 member committee and names names.

    If the author wasn’t enough to let you know what crap it was, he prefaces the list with some explanation that includes:

    “My thought in this has always been to get as close to the AP poll as possible. That’s why my 50-member committee is media heavy. We/they are the most objective like it or not.”

    If they wanted a media poll, they’d use one. Nobody would listen to a bunch of “objective” media members.

    Like

    • The AP asked NOT to be part of the BCS formula. I think the BCS recognizes that collectively, they are best suited to choose. Far better than coaches. Far better than computer formulas.
      They aren’t perfectly objective…but taken altogether, I’d rather have the AP in there.

      Like

      • Even if media members aren’t actually used, I believe in practicality, the semifinal choices are going to end up closely (if not exactly) tracking the AP poll top 4, with the only deviations probably being a #5 power conference champ getting swapped in for a #4 non-champ (unless it’s Notre Dame). So, if we want to look at “what-ifs” for what would have happened if the playoff system had existed in the past, it would probably be better to use the last AP poll before the bowls for each of those years as opposed to the final BCS rankings.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Frank, you’re right. This selection commitee idea is a joke. The SEC cleaned Delaney’s clock on everything of any substance. This is window dressing with no meaning.

          Like

          • @mushroomgod – I wouldn’t say that the SEC cleaned Delany’s clock. The selection committee largely benefits the Big Ten more than not (which is why the Big Ten pushed it prior to the commissioners’ meetings). As much as we talk about media bias in favor of the SEC, the computer rankings have actually favored the SEC (and to a lesser extent, the Big 12) even more than human polls. The human pollsters have tended to give the Big Ten champ much more of the benefit of the doubt than any of the SOS and computer formulas (e.g. Wisconsin was #4 in the all of the polls in 2010, but was knocked down to #5 because of the computers) and Delany could see that trend for the past several years.

            Now, if you want to say that the other details of the playoff went much more in the SEC’s favor, then I’d agree with you, but I think that’s more of function of the decision to create a 4-team playoff in the first place. It was simply going to be difficult to have any type of playoff other than a “best 4″ (whatever that means”) setup. Strict quotas for conference champs (whether it was all 4 or even just 3) were never going to fly.

            Honestly, I don’t think the Big Ten will ultimately care as much because they’re going to end up being the beneficiary of the extra bowl and the very likely removal on any caps on the number of teams from a conference that can receive BCS bowl bids. Even if the Big Ten might not get into the 4-team semifinal every year, there’s a good chance that they’ll end up with 3 teams almost every year in the “12-team event” just like they’ve ended up with 2 teams every year in the current BCS 10-team event, and that’s where the conference retains its postseason power.

            Like

          • wmtiger says:

            This is actually a B10 idea, right? How is the SEC cleaning Delaney’s clock?

            IMO this selection committee basically means the top 3 teams in the AP/Coach/Harris polls are essentially going to be in the playoff (there would be major outrage if a #3 team was left out of a playoff); then they’ll likely choose a 4th team from a pool of the 4th, 5th and 6th ‘ranked’ teams…

            Who does it hurt? IMO it hurts who is most likely to past over as a 4th ranked team, teams not in a power conference and conferences like the Pac 12 or ACC who rarely have more than 1 top 5 team.

            Like

        • ChicagoMac says:

          Frank, I fear that you are correct but I really hope you are wrong. The AP voters should not dictate these selections, if they do then shame on the commissioners.

          This group will need to control the narrative. To do that, they should put out information about the selection process and they should publish Record and SOS for Overall, Non-Conf, Home, Away/Neutral, Wins and Losses.

          By emphasizing SOS they can de-emphasize the polls, and that should be their goal. If they are successful, the conversation will be about analyzing the strength of schedule for all of the candidate schools and any controversial selections will be, in part, blamed at the feet of the coaches and ADs who didn’t play a difficult enough schedule.

          Like

          • @ChicagoMac – It’s not so much that the AP voters will dictate the selections, but I think we’re expecting a lot if we think a selection committee is going to have radically different thinking than those AP voters. At the end of the day, they’re all humans and they’re probably going to agree with what they’ve seen with their own eyes (which is the whole reason to have a human element or else we’d use strictly computer rankings) more often than not as a whole.

            To me, “strength of schedule” is more likely to be used as a code phrase for “anyone outside of the 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame is going to get punished” as opposed to knocking power schools for scheduling non-conference cupcakes. I think it’s going to take a very concrete reason for a school that’s outside of the top 4 of the AP poll to get in and, in practicality, I actually don’t have much of a problem with that. As a concept, I don’t like the process of relying on polls, but I generally agree with the outcome (whereas I like the concept of using strictly objective data points to determine a ranking, yet rarely agree with the practical outcome). That’s why I’ve said for quite awhile that when push came to shove, the powers that be were going to choose the process to give them a desired outcome (as opposed to the flip side of a desired process that would provide a largely unpredictable outcome).

            Like

          • ChicagoMac says:

            @Frank

            I don’t think there is going to be a huge departure from the AP poll either, but I do think this committee needs to be empowered to deliver playoffs that differ from the AP poll.

            The AP Poll is fine but it is an absolute FACT that losses early in the season cost teams (in terms of poll points) less than losses late in the season. It is also true that results from past seasons impact how various teams are ranked in the current season. The weakness of the AP Poll is illustrated by the wisdom of the Big12 conference whose representatives have been quoted as essentially saying that a conference championship game probably means we get less teams in the playoffs.

            I think the majority of the commentary I’ve seen about this 4 team playoff is suffering from recency bias. The recent past is not my concern, my concern is what happens in seasons where the top teams aren’t as concentrated in a couple of conferences. What happens when ND is good, what happens when the ACC powers come back, what happens when USC and Michigan get back to fielding excellent teams?

            I don’t want the deciding factor between two conference champions to come down to which school has the better football brand, nor do I want the date of a loss to be a determining factor in separating two teams. As a result, I don’t want this selection committee to be in a position where disagreeing with the AP poll becomes a big problem in trying to find the 4 best teams.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Frank,

          I largely agree, although they may go as low as #6 if there is a cluster of teams. I think their seeding may differ from the AP poll a lot, though.

          Like

        • It also depends on how close things are. If 4-5 or more than that are all in a really tight grouping (3-5 were very close in 2009 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_120609.pdf and 2007 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_120207.pdf, 4-6 was very close in 2004 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2004.pdf, 4-5 was very close in 2002 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2002.pdf), then I think it’ll be heavily dependent on committee voting. But when the differences between 4-5 are much clearer (such as 2001 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2001.pdf or 2003 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2003.pdf), I think it’s almost a given that we’ll see #’s 1, 2, 3, and 4.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        allthatyoucantleavebehind,

        “The AP asked NOT to be part of the BCS formula.”

        You can make another media poll if you want one. There are plenty of “journalists” out there.

        “I think the BCS recognizes that collectively, they are best suited to choose.”

        No they aren’t. Most attend games, which means they miss all the other games going on at the same time. They also have strong regional bias and favor coaches and players based on media friendliness.

        “Far better than coaches.”

        Set the bar a little lower, why don’t you?

        “Far better than computer formulas.”

        Considering they intentionally handcuffed the computers and didn’t even search for the most mathematically valid ways to rank teams, that’s also a low bar.

        “They aren’t perfectly objective…but taken altogether, I’d rather have the AP in there.”

        I’d rather have people that know football and whose sole job is to watch games and compare teams, not people with negligible football knowledge, friends in the business and a financial incentive to create stories and cover them.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Its actually a nice list of who he considers respected journalists.

      ESPN would be banned from any committee. They have a conflict of interest.

      Like

  50. OrderRestored says:

    ADD

    Like

  51. Mike says:

    If you are keeping tabs on the LHN…

    http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-for-this-2403672.html

    Texas is no closer to reaching an agreement with Time Warner Cable to carry the Longhorn Network, Time Warner’s Central Texas communications manager, Ryan Kelly, tells me, as the ESPN-operated venture nears its one-year anniversary in August.

    But an industry source told me Time Warner is interested in trying to buy the Longhorn Network or at least partner with ESPN on the property, for which ESPN is shelling out $300 million over 20 years. Time Warner representatives at the corporate office have not returned phone calls for several weeks, and the cable provider won’t even disclose the last time it negotiated with ESPN. ESPN has failed to reach any distribution agreements with major cable providers or satellite companies.

    In a statement Sunday, Time Warner said, “We had discussions with ESPN (about distribution), and we did not come to an agreement on terms for a contract that would allow Time Warner Cable to distribute the Longhorn Network. At this time, there aren’t plans to carry the Longhorn Network.”

    An ESPN spokesperson said its network is not privy to Time Warner’s internal discussions.

    Time Warner is becoming aggressive in its quest for more sports programming. It will start two regional sports networks in Los Angeles in October after spending $3 billion in 20-year agreements to carry the Lakers, Galaxy and Sparks. Could the Dodgers be next?

    Like

  52. JMann says:

    Not sure where people are getting ideas about an expanded 12 team BCS beyond the four team playoff. A quick Google search shows absolutely no information on this whatsoever. Plus the bowls would never want to be part of it – the playoff diminishes all the other bowls so they are going to wan to make the matchups that work best for them. this means there is no BCs, no rankings anymore. In years its not a semi-final, the Rose will choose the best Big ten and pac 12 teams available. The Champions Bowl will choose the best Big 12 and SEC teams available, etc. Don’t be surprised if the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar then sign a rotating deal with Notre Dame to play their in given years when they meet a minimum number of wins.

    There will be no system that assigns the top teams to certain bowls – the bowls will bb free to make their own deals with whomever they want. The BCS is dead.

    Like

    • ChicagoMac says:

      Here ya go.

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/06/22/presidential-meeting-preview-playoff-plan/index.html

      Note that the semifinals will rotate among 6 bowls. So instead of 4 BCS level Bowls there are 6 Playoff level bowls. There is no automatic qualifier which is the big change. Instead, assume the selection committee chooses and seeds the 4 semifinal teams and also fills in the rest of the playoff level bowl matchups not already accounted for from Rose/Champions contracts. This is a total of 12 teams.

      Like

      • JMann says:

        Big assumption you are making Chicagomac – and you know what they say about assumptions …. It only says that their will be six bowls in the rotation for hosting the semifinals. It says nothing about what those bowls will do when they are not hosting semifinals – as I said people are making BIG ASSUMPTIONS about a 12 team BCS based on their being six rotating sites for semifinals. There is absolutely nothing in print or quoted anywhere from anybody actually in the decision making position about matchups of other bowls not part of the four-team playoff in any year – people are just drawing wild conclusions based on what the BCS did in the past with no facts to support their theories.

        Like

        • ChicagoMac says:

          https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/331003-status-4-3-12.html

          Read point #1 under “Enhancing the Bowl Experience with Additional Adjustments to the Postseason”.

          I don’t think it is that big of an assumption.

          Like

          • JMann says:

            this was April – which is years ago in terms of where the conversation has moved and it says “considering the option” – as i will say again – way to much assuming going on by people without any facts or announcements or even leaks to back it up. In the case of a “12-team option” the mere addition of the Champions Bowl since this was proposed has radically altered the landscape since then. With that Bowl and the Rose taking the 4 most attractive teams left – there really is not much left for a committee to slot into other bowls to create “attractive matchups” -and the bows that are left will get better ratings and ticket sales by taking a 7-5 Notre Dame than by being forced to take a Top 12 rated Southern Miss (for example).

            Like

          • ChicagoMac says:

            I think maybe you had too much sweet iced tea for lunch JMann.

            The Champions Bowl isn’t particularly radical, its the Rose Bowl East.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            The idea of it being 6 BCS bowls (under a different name) is from the idea of the semi-finals.

            They plan on keeping the BCS games as far as we know (I believe they discarded the idea of only handling the playoff months ago, but I’d have to check back). They are going to have 6 semi-final games, 4 of which are current BCS games. Talks of increasing the BCS to 12 games have been around since April and we’ve never heard contrary reports.

            Taking that all together, odds are very much in favor of getting 6 BCS (with a new name) bowls.

            Like

      • ChicagoMac says:

        Also, i think it is pretty safe to assume that the ACC will tie up with the Orange Bowl.

        Like

        • JMann says:

          why what has the orange gotten out of a partnership with ACC except a slide into irrelevance – they would be better off making a deal to get a #2 out of the SEC or Big 12 – there TV ratings and ticket sales have been horrible with an ACC tie-in

          Like

  53. Mike says:

    Larry Scott on the committee

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19419987/larry-scott-explains-why-he-changed-his-mind-on-the-selection-committee

    “I’m not really a committee guy honestly. I didn’t spell it out thinking that would be a good result. I just don’t tend to think the sports world needs another committee but as we got into it, we realized the current system was flawed in so many ways. With coaches voting and they are voting without necessarily looking at the games, computers that are not transparent and one of the fundamental challenges we realized is unlike the NFL, there’s not enough games where teams from different conferences are playing against each other. You don’t have a body of work to look at that gives you a sense of how teams stack up so there’s going to be some subjective element to it regardless of what you do. Listening to some of my colleagues that have served on the men’s basketball committee and realized we have a better chance as a Pac 12 conference to get a fair shake for the fact that we play a nine game conference schedule, the fact that USC and Stanford play Notre Dame, the fact that we play tough out of conference competition, tougher than the SEC or what the Big 12 is doing, and there’s a chance that humans can give us credit for the strength of schedule and credit for what it takes to be the champion of the Pac 12 conference the way that polls and computers cannot.

    “I actually came around on this one. Didn’t start there but came around thinking this could be a great benefit for our conference.”

    Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8094636/new-deal-struck-citrus-bowl-renovation-project

    They are finally going to renovate the Citrus Bowl. Plans are to compete for a semi or NCG. The work will be done in 2014, just in time for the new system.

    “Among the upgrades expected for the 65,000-seat stadium are: new suites and about 8,000 club seats; more restrooms and concession stands; and new banquet and ballroom spaces.”

    Like

    • @Brian – This is a good thing for both the Big Ten and SEC since I believe the Capital One Bowl matchup is very valuable (as much as Delany and Slive might have squabbled, it behooves both conferences to continue playing each other frequently) and it’s enhanced by the Orlando location (even if the stadium continues to leave a lot to be desired). I’ve seen many accounts describing as the festivities leading up to the Capital One Bowl as the best out there outside of going to Pasadena. It’s just stepping into the Citrus Bowl for the game itself that is underwhelming. Hopefully, these renovations will mitigate that feeling (although there’s nothing they can really do to make it as nice as Raymond James Stadium in Tampa or the other NFL facilities out there).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        As the FCS guy said, the renovations should make it a B+/A- stadium. It won’t be elite, but it probably gets a gentleman’s C right now. The Mouse will make sure it does OK in bidding.

        Like

  55. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8094689/bcs-leaders-confident-ahead-playoff-presentation-university-presidents

    The presidents have opened a longer time for their meeting this week to discuss the playoff. Originally scheduled to only last 3 hours, they’ve been asked to block out 7 hours on their schedules and say the idea is to meet until a decision is made.

    Some details:

    “Current BCS bowls — Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta — would get the first chance to host the semifinals but there will be a bidding process.”

    I’d be surprised to see any of those four not make the rotation.

    ‘ “We are ready to stop the hedging,” the president said. “I believe we will have a presidential consensus on approach. I think even the Big Ten is pretty sold on this plan. I do not expect much controversy tomorrow.” ‘

    Good news, and fully expected.

    “momentum is for a playoff selection committee utilizing current NCAA officials such as commissioners and athletics directors. The committee would have at least one representative from each conference. ”

    I know that’s how hoops does it, but I don’t know that it’s the best choice for CFB. Are they going to watch enough games?

    Like

  56. Brian says:

    There are a lot of calls for PSU to get the death penalty from southern sites today.

    The Tennessean, the Orlando Sentinel and al.com all had a brief column saying that (links can be found here: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52097/big-ten-lunchtime-links-157).

    Like

    • jj says:

      I haven’t been following this angle. Will the NCAA be doing anything?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It’s unlikely in my opinion. People are asking for them to use the Lack of Institutional Control rules to punish them, but I’m not sure the NCAA wants to step in to that here. This seems bigger than the athletic department. I think the B10 and NCAA both are waiting for Freeh’s investigation to be complete, and then will make scathing statements but not actually doing any punishing.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I tend to agree with you on this.

          If the NCAA steps in here, do they have to start stepping in to punish other situations like players getting jail time or whatever?

          It just seems like this could be a big can of worms because this has nothing to do with gaining a competitive edge or cheating or anything like that…

          Like

          • Eric says:

            I agree with you two. This is far far worse than what the NCAA usually punishes, but it’s really not something the NCAA wants to get involved with. The NCAA is more about its own rules outside the legal system. If it starts punishing for things at most marginally related to sports, it has just expanded its role considerably and I don’t think it really wants that.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t think the other institutions want that either.

            Its just really not their role. There are plenty of other ways Penn St. and those individuals will be punished.

            Like

    • Counterpoint from a national columnist. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19421664/ncaa-shouldnt-punish-penn-state-lets-let-civil-court-system-do-that

      Summary: if PSU breaks NCAA laws, NCAA acts. if PSU breaks government laws, government acts.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        The question is, does this sort of lack of institutional control meet the NCAA standard? It involved AD officials and possibly the president of the school, so institutional control would be a concern. The LOIC rule is pretty vague and sounds like a morals clause in some ways.

        I expect the NCAA will steer clear, but if they felt the urge they could lawyer their way into it.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          @Brian – Adam Rittenberg with an answer

          http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52157/take-two-punishment-for-penn-state

          The LOIC charge surfaces when an institution makes blatant major mistakes in relation to NCAA rules compliance. Although it sounds like a blanket term, it really relates only to NCAA rules. And unless the Louis Freeh investigation or other probes show Penn State knowingly violated NCAA rules, I can’t see how the NCAA penalizes the football program. I spoke to a source this week who used to be an NCAA investigator, and he explained that it’s a jurisdiction issue. The NCAA governs NCAA issues with an NCAA program, not criminal ones. It only imposes the LOIC charge during major rules infractions cases. If a coach gets a DUI or beats his wife, as bad as those things are, they aren’t issues where the NCAA imposes penalties. So while LOIC sounds broad and vague, it really is specific in how the NCAA uses it. Could the NCAA and Big Ten take action against Penn State?

          Like

  57. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52166/bcs-presidents-meeting-primer

    Some good info to prepare us for tomorrow’s meeting of the president’s committee.

    Some nuggets:

    “Two elements that still must be discussed further and likely won’t be resolved Tuesday: understanding playoff access and revenue distribution. Although there’s an agreement in principle among the commissioners for how the revenue should be divided, the presidents want to have a thorough discussion on this topic.”

    “The commissioners emerged from their April meetings in Hollywood, Fla., with two models: a four-team playoff inside the bowls and a four-team playoff at neutral sites outside the bowls. ESPN.com has learned three leagues — the SEC, Big 12 and Conference USA — advocated neutral sites for semifinal games, which likely would bring in more revenue but devalue the top bowl games. The Big Ten and Pac-12 didn’t want to see the Rose Bowl drop down several notches (think NIT) and endanger the other bowls. This was a deal breaker, and it eventually pushed the group toward an inside-the-bowls model.”

    Just for Mushroomgod, that’s 1 for Delany over Slive.

    About the other top bowls:
    “The selection committee could end up selecting participants for more than just the four-team playoff, especially because the additional bowls will provide access for champions from smaller conferences. The same guidelines applied to selecting the playoff participants – strength of schedule, valuing conference championships — also will be used to determine who appears in some of the additional bowls. For example, if the Mountain West champion and the Big Ten’s No. 2 team have comparable profiles, including strength of schedules, and are ranked 12th and 13th, the Mountain West champion likely would get the nod to a big bowl because of its championship.”

    How would the selection committee operate?
    The group will have certain guidelines for selection, such as valuing strength of schedule conference championships. There are no hard-and-fast rules, but these guidelines will help break ties. Expect the committee to be around 15 members, and it will meet throughout the season. It’s unclear who will serve on it, although former coaches as well as school and league administrators are the likeliest candidates.

    According to a source, the committee could reveal a poll midway through the season to let the public know where things stand with certain teams. Such a poll likely would debut around the time the initial BCS standings do (Week 8 or so).”

    About the Rose:
    “While there will be access for smaller-conference champions, the bowls who have contracts with certain leagues will continue to feature teams from those leagues. If the Rose Bowl isn’t a national semifinal and loses the Pac-12 and/or Big Ten champion to a semifinal game, it will replace them with Pac-12 and Big Ten teams. The only way the Rose Bowl features teams not from the Big Ten or Pac-12 is if it’s a semifinal.”

    “The Rose Bowl will keep its traditional New Year’s Day afternoon time slot, whether or not it’s a national semifinal. A new contract for the Rose Bowl is expected this week and will last through the 2026 game. The Rose Bowl contract always has been completed before the BCS contract. “

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Interesting on it possibly selecting teams for other BCS games (right after I respond to a different one of your posts saying that was unlikely :) ). That would help out the smaller conferences a lot. One possible side effect of that though is that you see more tie-ins for the #2 teams (if they are allowed).

      Very happy to see the Rose Bowl will always be Big Ten vs. PAC-12 when not a semi-final and that it will always keep its traditional spot.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I’m guessing there will only be tie-ins for champs in the BCS bowls, and all the other tie-ins will have to come outside of those top bowls. That said, the committee might well respect preferred match-ups (like a tie-in, but not guaranteed) as much as possible. That’s sort of what following geography does (SEC/B10 in FL, B12/B10 in TX, P12/B10 in CA, etc).

        We’ll have to see.

        Like

        • Ross says:

          I’m still not sure how the Big 12 and SEC think they should be able to keep all the money from their one bowl but still take money from the BCS bowls’ pool. The B1G/Pac-12 need to pull the Rose Bowl if that happens, for sure.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Ross,

            I think what they want is to get all the Champs money but not get a split of the other BCS bowls. Basically, they’re saying we know this will make more than any other bowl except maybe the Rose and we don’t want to share. I doubt the playoff agreement will allow that, though.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Is that what they are after? How does that work, considering they would still be sending teams to the BCS? I have to think part of the advantage of getting two or three teams into the BCS is the money that comes from each slot (as well as the exposure, of course). Do they think their bowl is going to make so much that not getting money from additional BCS bowl slots is worth keeping all of it?

            Like

          • Mack says:

            As owners the SEC/XII has cut out the middleman (the bowl committee). That does not preclude them from working within the new playoff TV deal. They may only want to share the TV revenue, but the B1G/PAC should also favor no sharing of other Rose Bowl revenue (tickets, concessions, etc.).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Oh, I’m sure they want a share from each bowl they are in. They just would rather have each bowl pay what it can rather than them all paying the same. Since the own the Champs and get 1/2 the money, they would net a lot more cash.

            Like

    • Eric says:

      Another interesting thing from the article is that it says we could end up seeing 3 games on December 31st and 3 on January 1st.

      I like squeezing things together more, but I’d personally prefer them going two a day from December 31st to January 2nd.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think that was pure speculation from him. There is no way they put 3 major bowls on 12/31. TV would scream bloody murder and dock them millions per year. I just can’t believe they would do this money grab and then leave another 10% on the table to play on 12/31 instead of 1/2.

        Like

        • texmex says:

          I would be stunned if they tried to schedule a playoff semi-final on New Years Eve. I can’t believe the conference comissioners would be that dumb and. I can’t imagine television partners would be okay with that. The potential loss of advertising dollars to the networks would greatly reduce any negotiated payout the conferences could get. You would lose too many casual college football fans as well as non-footprint fans who follow the sport regularly.

          I could see maybe a non-playoff BCS bowl on New Years Eve but that’s about it. They either try to cram both semi-finals in on January 1st, or they do one on January 1st and the other January 2nd.

          Like

          • @texmex – Yes, it would be very surprising to me if there was a semifinal on New Years Eve, although the powers that be have shown to be willing to make unexpected turns lately. On this issue, I’ve got to believe that the potential TV partners would flip out about it, but we’ll see.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The bowls would flip out about it. Chick Fil A doesn’t do to badly, but noone else has been successful in that time slot.

            Like

  58. B1G Jeff says:

    Has anyone seen any information reconciling the Rose Bowl’s and SEC/B12 Bowl’s respective postures with respect to who own the bowls? With completion of the new Rose Bowl contract imminent, I would have thought the SEC/Big XII’s move to own their bowl would have be a pretty big point of contention. If it was an issue, I wouldn’t have expected the B1G and Pac-12 to agree to get locked up until 2026. Thanks.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      No, but that is one of many issues that we have no info about. All of these are outstanding postseason issues with few, if any, details available:

      1. What bowls will host semis, and how will they be paired?
      2. What happens to tie-ins when that bowl is hosting a semi?
      3. How are teams placed in the other bowls not hosting a semi?
      4. How are teams placed in the top bowls that aren’t part of the playoff?
      5. How will playoff revenue be earned and split?
      6. How will revenue from the non-semis be split?
      7. How will revenue from the other top bowls be split?
      8. Will there be a 7 win minimum for bowls?
      9. Who will be on the committee?
      10. Exactly what instructions will the committee be given?
      11. What/where will the Champs Bowl be?
      12. How will the Champs Bowl work in terms of revenue splitting?

      I/m guessing that once the BOC gives their approval to the 4 team plan with semis in bowls, then we can start to get some answers. The TV negotiations should start this fall, and I think they need to nail down all these issues by then.

      We still don’t know about the B10/P12 scheduling agreement either. Who plays whom, and how much advance notice do the schools get? I have no idea when the B10 will bother to give some details on that. Maybe 2016.

      Like

  59. In case anyone was invested in the tales spun by The Dude from West Virginia regarding the supposed destruction of the ACC, he completely backtracked tonight on Twitter stating that the Big 12 won’t expand this year:

    https://twitter.com/#!/theDudeofWV

    Like

    • frug says:

      Well if this guy is right (eyeroll) about FSU and Clemson being ready to move for a month, it means two things:

      1. I was right that the north schools were worried about access to Texas (he said divisional issues were the heart of the decision to pass)

      2. The Big XII just made the dumbest move since the Big East turned down Penn St. in the ’80s. The Big XII has far away the smallest population and geographic bases of all the major conferences and passing on the chance to expand into Florida and South Carolina because they didn’t want to lose access to Texas (the North schools) or play a CCG (UT) would be an unimaginably short sighted decision. Seriously, it would be turning down PSU because they were a football school not located in a major city idiotic.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Looking a little more at what he wrote, he is saying the Big XII is holding because they believe they can get ND as an all sports member in which case you can add delusional to the list of flaws with the Big XII’s thinking.

        Like

    • Elvis says:

      The destruction of the ACC is only a matter of time.

      It simply comes down to money and the ACC doesnt have any.

      Like

      • Brian #2 says:

        Money = value, and value is fluid. Any value/money the Big 12 currently has over the ACC is due entirely to one school. Excluding Texas, the ACC is significantly more valuable than the other members of the Big 12.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          But because of its poor football brand, the ACC will never get back what it’s worth — especially in an environment where the four conferences ahead of it make better money and have more valuable bowl tie-ins. ACC members know it, which is why the conference has no GOR. It is vulnerable.

          Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            Never is a long time.

            Just like the Big 12, the ACC needs its top tier brands to step up and provide value for the rest of the league. There is no reason that FSU and Miami cannot be regular national title contenders like OU and UT in the Big 12, providing the cache the league needs to improve its brand and value.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            You have a very short memory. In the 90s, FSU and Miami were top 10 in W%. Other now-ACC leaders were #15 Syracuse, #18 UNC, #19 VT and #20 UVA. Meanwhile, UT was #24 and OU #50. The B12 leaders were NE (gone), TAMU (gone), CO (gone) and #12 KSU well above UT.

            Like

        • frug says:

          Except that the tier system rewards conferences for having strength at the top more than depth.

          Because of the high value of the tier 1 contract (the single game can be worth between 35-40%) of the Big XII will always make more in TV money since worst case scenario ESPN can simply air UT or OU every week. The ACC simply doesn’t have that sort of strength at the top.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      The latest is pretty ridiculous. If nothing is happening, its not because the Big 12 is waiting on ND for full membership.

      Like

      • texmex says:

        The Big 12 was never gonna make a move on expansion until the details are finalized for the new 4 team playoff, as well as the Champions Bowl format. That still won’t be settled after today and probably won’t be for several months.

        The revenue distribution format for both are huge issues in determining if it’s worth it to expand for both parties. We still have to see if the Champiosn Bowl will be included in the playoff as well as get final numbers on payouts. There have been a few articles regarding how revenue could be divided with it based on past and future performance which would put the Big 12 in much better position than the ACC. This is part of the ammo the conference would use to convince FSU and Clemson to come over.

        Several insiders on the Texas side of things have been stating this over and over and basically said the WVU sources were full of crap. It turns out they were exactly right.

        Like

  60. Brian #2 says:

    New post from “The Dude”:

    http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/2012/06/big-12-is-about-to-make-big-mistake.html

    The glorious highlights:

    – FSU, Clemson, GTech, and Maryland all want in the Big 12

    – Big 12 holding off on expansion until Notre Dame makes its decision

    – Big 12 is dead set on not expanding beyond 12, thus the delay to wait on ND

    – ND is secretly negotiating with the ACC to try to get a better deal than the Big 12’s offer

    – ND prefers the ACC over the Big 12

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      As long as there’s a chance the Big Ten could expand to 16 and that they could be part of it, neither Maryland nor Georgia Tech will have anything to do with the Big 12.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      The Dude is now the holder. He doesn’t understand the irony. There’s no more evidence than his lack of understanding of the Big 12 TV contracts in his last bit.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m still not sure why ND has to negotiate with anyone for anything.

      ND is about to get the perfect playoff scenario for it without having to go anywhere.

      4 team playoff with a selection committee (full of people who are going to be predisposed towards ND and the Big 5 conferences teams) with possibly 6 BCS Bowls.

      That means they could possibly get a guaranteed BCS slot every year that they’re eligible to go bowling (I’m sure the Orange Bowl wouldn’t mind guaranteeing a slot to ND when it’s bowl eligible and not a part of a playoff).

      What incentive does ND have to go anywhere? They don’t need access to the Champions Bowl. The Big East is stable for its non-football sports with or without Boise because it’s a cut above C-USA and MWC since it took the best teams from those…

      Like

      • ChicagoMac says:

        Its an interesting question Zeek but if the Big12 and/or the ACC, but particularly the ACC, is willing to look at ND as a partial member then maybe it just makes sense for ND to move regardless of what the Big East does or does not do?

        Like

      • Read The D says:

        @zeek

        Playoff scenario may be perfect but they would have to qualify first. Notre Dame’s ability to have a quality schedule seems to diminish each year.

        Scheduling would be the only reason for ND to affiliate football with the ACC or Big 12 instead of Big East.

        Basketball/Olympic sports are another story.

        Like

        • The future schedules for Notre Dame are actually stronger than they have been in recent years. To the extent that there’s any scheduling challenge, it’s more about spacing the marquee games out so that they have better opponents in November. Ultimately, there’s a long list of schools that are more than willing to schedule ND. Now, a school like BYU might be a different story.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, I just don’t see them being in a scheduling dam as of yet.

            Maybe at some point in the future things will change, but as of now the other conferences (Big 12, ACC, Pac-12) have been more than willing to accommodate their scheduling concerns.

            Northwestern finally managed to get another set of games against them; Illinois’ AD mentioned wanting to set up something in Chicago possibly with them.

            They have marquee games against Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, etc. on the schedules.

            They’re always going to have USC and Stanford when they want; those games are worth just as much for those two schools and the Pac-12 as they are for ND. The same goes for the ACC for whom the games are worth more than for ND. Ditto for Purdue and Michigan State.

            The only game that may end up dropped is Michigan-ND because Michigan’s schedules are horribly lopsided (all the marquee home games same years).

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Zeek

            The issue isn’t that they won’t be able to find games, its that they won’t be able to find games later in the season. The Big 10 doesn’t play OOC games after conference play begins and the PAC is adopting the same rule this year (though USC and Stanford’s against ND have been grandfathered in). Add in the SEC who doesn’t play tough OOC competition (except of the in-state rivalries) after conference play begins in earnest, and 9 game schedules in the ACC and Big XII and you can see ND having a lot of trouble getting a decent schedule in November.

            Like

          • AstroBoiler says:

            If all Big Ten schools are guaranteed to play 2 conference kings a year, I don’t understand why the schedule makers last year didn’t set it up so everyone had one home and one road game every year against the kings. That would’ve helped with the lopsided schedules, so in the years when Michigan played Ohio State and ND on the road, they would still have Nebraska at home. It seems like a missed opportunity.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            Zeek-

            Actually, I’d say that the only conference that’s given Notre Dame major help in the schedule is the ACC.

            The Pac 12 does allow USC and Stanford to play Notre Dame in the midst of conference play, but that’s it unless the team that wants to do so gets an exemption approved by all the other schools in the P12. If the B10 and P12 do get their scheduling agreement in place by 2017 (or sometime thereafter), that’ll put a permanent squeeze on the those ten other schools. USC will keep the ND game because of the tradition, but if Stanford is scheduled against a program like Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State or Ohio State, how much of an appetite do they have to play ND plus nine other conference games and then maybe a conference championship game as a prerequisite to getting into the national championship game. Also note that the 2016 Stanford game is scheduled for 17 September, so that doesn’t help the late season schedule (although having Miami on 8 October does).

            Texas has a four-game series with Notre Dame, but three of those games are season openers and the fourth one is on the second week of the season. That doesn’t help ND with late season scheduling and it’ll be interesting to see if the 2015/6 Notre Dame schedule holds up because the first two teams on the slate each year are Texas and Michigan. Oklahoma does have the home-and-home, with one game in October (in Norman) and the other in September.

            The ACC and the Big East have been the major conferences (and the status of the BE in that regard is highly questionable) to give some flexibility to its teams in scheduling ND late in the season. While we haven’t seen FSU or VaTech on the schedule, there is that three-game series with Miami. But in the recent past, we’ve seen ND play Duke, Wake Forest, UConn, UNC, Maryland, Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh. None of those are really major football programs, per se, although they have had their moments. It will be interesting to see going forward as the ACC goes to the nine-game conference schedule exactly how flexible teams in that conference are going to be.

            The Big Ten is pretty solid in terms of only playing Notre Dame in September. ND does have the home-and-home with Northwestern and NW will play ND late in the year, but it’s because they were willing to give up their bye week during the conference season to do it. I don’t know how B10 programs would be willing to do that?

            Having BYU as an independent (which is also having problems scheduling games and is looking at losing its long-standing rivalry game with Utah) will help Notre Dame because they can be put anywhere in the schedule much like ND does with Navy every year.

            That’s not to say Notre Dame won’t continue to have good schedules going forward, but a lot of things have to come in line for it to keep happening.

            Like

    • Mack says:

      The Dude must be smoking something. There will be no further movement this year because FSU, Clemson, et.al. want to see how the football playoffs shake out and want the ink dry on the XII new TV contract and GoR so they will know the benefits and stability before they jump.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        If this new format won’t start until 2014, there’s no urgency in moving for 2013.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          There would be 2 reasons to move quicker:
          1) get more money quicker-but its only 1 year; and more importantly;
          2) get in before the Big 12 signs its ESPN tier I renewal. The Big 12 loses some negotiating power if the deal is already signed, no matter how much discussion has gone on before.

          Like

      • frug says:

        Actually, if it was about TV money they would be better off joining now (or at least announcing their intentions to do so) so the Big XII has more leverage in contract negotiations, and they could make an extension of the GoR a condition of joining.

        Like

  61. zeek says:

    I like the playoff situation more with the addition of an extra 2 bowls in the rotation for the playoffs (say Cap One and Cotton or something else).

    That way the Rose is a semifinal only 1 in 3 years instead of every other year. You get the Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup 2 of every 3 years. That’s not a bad tradeoff from now where it’s 3 out of 4 years (gave up 1 slot out of this past 4 year contract to non-AQ).

    Plus, given the selection committee, they may end up seeding in such a way that helps a Big Ten or Pac-12 team get to the Rose Bowl…

    Like

  62. Read The D says:

    IF the Big 12 were to pull off a grand expansion with Florida State and Notre Dame, the luckiest guys in the world are the administrators of all the Big 12 Schools not named Texas or Oklahoma.

    It’s a little confusing as to why those 4 would carry the water for the other 8. The other 8 are mostly committed and competitive but they are nowhere close in brand to what would be the Big 4.

    Like

  63. Read The D says:

    And another thing – if there is no requirement to be a conference champ to be in the national semi-finals, won’t the unintended consequence be for majors to go independent?

    If Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Notre Dame and BYU all go independent, they can all play each other and pick who else they want to play instead of going to Manhattan, Kansas every other year AND most importantly, get their own television deals.

    You can start thinking of other ripple effects, like West Virginia going back independent if the big boys leave the Big 12, Boise State going independent, etc.

    C-USA would be happy to have Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State for the other sports.

    Like

    • @Read The D – That’s just taking into account the upside for an independent in the playoff system. Being independent would be great if you’re qualifying for the semifinals and/or a top tier bowl every year. However, I’m a large believer that university presidents care more about protecting against the downside risk in bad years as opposed to shooting the moon in good years. When you’re part of a conference, Texas still makes money if Oklahoma goes to the semifinal or Champions Bowl in a way that wouldn’t happen if Texas was independent. University presidents have consistently chosen to take steady annual income over large peaks and valleys in income (and income is really what it’s all about as opposed to actually playing the game on-the-field).

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        @FTT as someone with libertarian leanings you should know that more regulations mean more unintended consequences. The BCS era created the era of conference haves and have-nots.

        To me the reason to stay in a conference is to have a chance to win a conference championship even if you lose a game. It gives the kids a reason to play.

        I think if you are a king or a BYU or ND and are indpendent, you can have your own TV deals, your own bowl deals and a schedule more favorable to your alumni, which means even better ticket sales.

        Texas could play 6 home games, 2 neutrals in Texas and 4 road games every year. So could Oklahoma. So could Florida State in Florida.

        BYU got out of a conference in part because their own TV deal would be better than the MWC TV deal.

        The $1-2 mil extra Texas would make from a conference mate making the playoffs could easily be made up by having their own TV deal where they make ALL of the TV money on ALL of their home games that are on the LHN.

        Granted it wouldn’t work for every program but if you are a king or an outlier like Boise, who could go to the Humanitarian Bowl every year it didn’t make the 12 team event, it’s more of a realistic option if the semis are a strict 1-4.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          It’s not just about that though.

          Only ND has the sweetheart deal with NBC for exposure right now. And the Big East willing to take its non-football sports.

          Sure Texas could get its own T1-2 TV deal, but Texas doesn’t have as many schools lined up around the corner to play it.

          ND has all those legacy rivalries and then another two or three dozen schools that want to play it. I’m not saying Texas would have trouble scheduling, but they’re not going to find the road of independence as easy as ND has it.

          Just as an example, the Big Ten schools won’t play Texas because of disagreements over highlights on the LHN. What happens if the Pac-12 schools have problems like that?

          Being in a conference gets you stable TV payouts without having to worry about the years when you’re down. Being in the Big 12 gives Texas plenty of benefits in terms of having a ready made schedule of geographically proximate schools with plenty of ranked opponents; it’s not just about Texas-Oklahoma.

          And of course, what happens to all the non-football sports? Texas has repeatedly said that they’re not that interested in independence for football because of the scheduling nightmare it could end up creating for its other sports.

          BYU had that Western conference; ND has the Big East; Boise is struggling to find a landing spot for its non-football sports.

          Is Texas interested in sending its non-football sports to C-USA? I don’t think Dodds spends millions on building out facilities for non-football sports to take that kind of downgrade to the competition they’d be playing…

          Like

          • frug says:

            Football scheduling isn’t an issue, that would be easy. Oklahoma would stay and A&M would be back. The Irish would be added as an annual game and BYU could be. They would probably add try and get Army to set up an annual game and fill out the rest of the schedule with games against Texas schools (who they can schedule anytime they want) and a couple games against other big name opponents.

            The issue is entirely about the non-football sports. Texas will not play at the mid-major level and for Texas that includes the Big East (who they could join as a non-football member with one phone call)

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Read The D,

          “The BCS era created the era of conference haves and have-nots.”

          Bull crap. CFB has always had that split. The actual financial divide has grown, but I’m not sure it’s any larger proportionately than it used to be.

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            There’s no clearer example the BCS creating a larger split than Boise St. and San Diego St. joining the Big East. They wanted a spot at the table, and took the risk of finding a suitable home for their non-football sports.

            When 6 conferences had automatic access to the biggest games and 5 others did not, yes that creates a two tier system.

            It’s a fair argument whether the 5 smaller conferences deserved automatic access or not, but the MWC with Boise, BYU, TCU, and Utah was better at the top than the Big East, and still didn’t have access. That’s why none of the 4 remain in the MWC.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Read The D,

            “There’s no clearer example the BCS creating a larger split than Boise St. and San Diego St. joining the Big East. They wanted a spot at the table, and took the risk of finding a suitable home for their non-football sports.”

            They’ve always wanted a spot at the table. What changed is that the BE got weak enough to need to offer them that spot, and as it turns out it really isn’t a seat at the table any more.

            “When 6 conferences had automatic access to the biggest games and 5 others did not, yes that creates a two tier system.”

            Those tiers already existed. Fans always treated power conference teams differently from the lesser teams. The BCS just put a name to the tiers.

            “It’s a fair argument whether the 5 smaller conferences deserved automatic access or not,”

            No it isn’t. They clearly didn’t deserve automatic access. Neither did the BE after losing Miami, VT and BC, but they kept it for political reasons.

            “but the MWC with Boise, BYU, TCU, and Utah was better at the top than the Big East, and still didn’t have access.”

            But it wasn’t better at the bottom by a long shot. Having 2-3 good teams doesn’t make for a deserving conference. The top teams are basically handed 5-6 conference wins every year, and they usually scheduled another 2-3 easy OOC wins. That’s 7-9 free wins and only 3-5 actual games to worry about. That’s very different from a power conference schedule and impacts the outcome.

            “That’s why none of the 4 remain in the MWC.”

            They don’t remain because they had option to move up. They wouldn’t have been there before if they had the choice.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The BCS didn’t create tiers, it formalized them. The MWC commissioner described the AQ designation as a caste system.

            Like

        • greg says:

          The independence option in the BCS era was no different than the new 4-team era, so I don’t see why teams would suddenly seek independence. Now, maybe the explosion in team-specific contracts makes it more attractive, but the format of the playoffs doesn’t make any difference.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Does ESPN paying to block the P16, and BYU leveraging it’s fan base (LDS’s everywhere) trying to be ND light, constitute an explosion in team-specific contracts?

            Like

          • greg says:

            “Does ESPN paying to block the P16, and BYU leveraging it’s fan base (LDS’s everywhere) trying to be ND light, constitute an explosion in team-specific contracts?”

            Yes. 200% increase.

            Like

    • Eric says:

      I see independence as a future possibility that reemerges, but not because of this. It’s doubtful schools would lose out all that much more than they’d gain from conference champs/independents only (especially if independents were only guaranteed if in the top 4). It’s all moot now though I guess.

      Like

    • frug says:

      You can start thinking of other ripple effects, like West Virginia going back independent if the big boys leave the Big 12, Boise State going independent, etc.

      C-USA would be happy to have Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State for the other sports.

      Nobody outside of the current independents and Texas would be able to get TV deals comparable to what they are getting now.

      More significantly, those schools will never let their non-football sports go slumming with a mid-major (which at this point probably includes the Big East). Institutional pride matters.

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        @frug I don’t think Texas would unilaterally go independent and put their non-football sports in C-USA. But if Texas, OU, FSU, etc all make a move to go independent and all park their sports in C-USA or some other conference, that conference is slumming it quite as much as they were before.

        If Boise does end up going BE in football, they are 1 step away from being independent anyway. And if the BE gets poached anymore they’d probably be better off independent than hanging out with Navy, Temple and Memphis.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      I think the headline said it all: “U of Virginia Board reinstates ousted president after outcry from faculty, donors, students” (emphasis mine).

      Between donors rebelling and the governor threatening to fire half the board, magically they came to a new conclusion based on the same data.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Almost forgot to congratulate the AZ Wildcats on winning the CWS.

        As an aside, I hope a FB committee seeds better than baseball did…

        Like

    • Pablo says:

      I expect that there will be a number of resignations & replacements of UVa Board members in the next few months. You can’t go from firing the President to unamimously reinstating her 3 weeks later without taking accountability. When prominent faculty started resigning and very wealthy donors/alums voiced public skepticism, the UVa Board was in over-its-head.

      Like

      • JayDevil says:

        From what I hear, the Board never deliberated over the termination. It was a series of one-on-one discussions and a quorum was never established. You are absolutely correct, though. This has gotten highly political, and there will be scalps.

        Like

  64. bamatab says:

    It looks like some of the Pac 12 schools are starting to second guess their future scheduling agreement with the B1G: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52221/pac-12-teams-balking-at-b1g-alliance

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Interesting. I wonder if we could see the thing modified down to a 6-8 team event (to give everyone years off).

      If it dies completely, at this point, I bet the Big Ten doesn’t decide to go back to 9. :(

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Eric,

        The first step is to exempt schools with an annual OOC rivalry with a quality team (USC, Stanford, Utah, Iowa, Purdue, MSU, MI?). That would get it to 9 teams and remove the most obvious objections. It would be more fair for the P12 teams as they all get 10 quality games, not 11 for some. The B10 similarly would all play 9. It hurts to lose kings, but it’s really hard to fit everyone into this.

        The second step would be to make it a 6-game deal each year so everyone plays 4 out of 6 years. That leaves room for some variety in the other 2 years.

        A third option would be for the P12 to drop back to 8 games, but then the CA schools would have to agree not to play each other every year (play 1 of the 2 in the other division each year). Potentially they could play the other one OOC to keep the rivalries instead, but that leads back to keeping them out of the B10/P12 deal.

        I don’t see the B10 going to 9 either, because they don’t want to. Unless OOC SOS becomes a major factor in not only the playoff but also the top bowls, there is no incentive to play tough OOC games. I think Delany is better off making a rule that every B10 team must play at least 9 AQ teams each season, preferably 10 (maybe make them average 9.5 per year).

        Like

      • jj says:

        SOS better be one of the top considerations in the selection process or I’m gonna puke. And can we have automatic DQ if you play a D-2? Please. No one wants to see this crap anymore.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          jj,

          “SOS better be one of the top considerations in the selection process or I’m gonna puke.”

          It will be a major factor along with champ status, but that doesn’t mean much. How they factor in SOS means more, in my opinion. If they just look at total SOS, all it means is big 5 schools get an edge over the little guys. If they only focus on OOC SOS, it favors the little guys and ignores most of the season. I’d like to see them weigh the OOC SOS equally with the conference SOS as a compromise. That rewards a tough conference slate but also encourages tough OOC schedules.

          “And can we have automatic DQ if you play a D-2? Please. No one wants to see this crap anymore.”

          Unfortunately, plenty of fans are happy to see their team pound an overmatched squad for a paycheck. I wish they’d go away too, but you can’t force it.

          Like

    • cutter says:

      That’s not a surprising development, especially on the Pac 12 side which has a nine-game conference schedule while the Big Ten opted to keep it at eight games given this agreement (the B10 was seriously thinking of going to nine conference games until Delany and Scott made this pact).

      Some Big Ten and Pac 12 schools have already gone forward with games. Wisconsin and Washington are playing one another in 2017 along with Minnesota and Oregon State. Stanford and Northwestern have a home-and-home and it’s rumored that Michigan will be playing Utah starting in 2015 (although that isn’t confirmed yet).

      I don’t agree with Rittenberg’s assessment that teams are going to strengthen their non-conference schedules in response to the new post-season setup. Since conference champions don’t get autobids, there’s no motivation to improve the non-conference strength of schedule. The ACC, Big XII and Pac 12 all have nine-game conference schedules in place and two of those conferences also have conference championship games, so the major teams in those conferences probably don’t need to reach outside to the non-conference games in order to strengthen their SOS. Finally, because there are four teams in the playoff, it’d be only in the most unusual of circumstances to see an undefeated team from a major conference that is 13-0 or 12-0 not get one of the four berths in the playoff.

      Then there’s the economics of the thing. Michigan makes $5.3M in tickets sales alone per game. Why would UM (or any other major BCS program) want to reduced the number of home games it’s playing and take the hit on the revenue side by playing a second home-and-home non-conference series? While conferences have different bowl revenue sharing plans, individual teams still don’t make that much money from the bowls themselves. In its FY 2013 budget, UM looks to receive around $2.4M from net bowl revenues thru the Big Ten Conference. When a school has a $130M budget, that’s not a lot of revenue.

      One more thing on the money side. The Sporting News is reporting that the new television revenue deal for the new four-team championship will be $5B over 10 years. http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-06-25/bcs-meetings-four-team-playoff-tv-contract-5-billion

      Say the Big Ten gets around 15% of that money–it’d be approximately $75M per year or $6.3M per school annually. That doesn’t include any additional revenue programs will get from the money bid by cities to host the championship game. At that point, we may be talking a post-season payoff from bowl games, the playoff and the money provided by the winning city’s bid to mean individual B10 programs might be looking at an $8M to $10M payoff annually instead of that $2.4M mentioned above.

      I just don’t see the motivation for teams to schedule more difficult non-conference games. They will still get paid whether they make the four-team playoff (or a bowl itself) and it probably reduces the chance for a team (especially ones with nine-conference games and a conference championship game) to get into the four-team playoff. Expand it to eight teams and give autobids to the top four or five conference champions and maybe you’ll see the motivation to actually do it. But until then, I just don’t see a lot of teams adding a second home-and-home non-conference opponent or upgrading their existing non-conference opponent into a better opponent.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      After Wilner’s assertion “yes, yes, a thousand times yes” to the question about the PAC inviting OU and little bro last year, I’m not sure he’s as plugged in as some think. The “complainers” want to be assured strong scheduling and winning conference will be rewarded, not punished.

      Like

      • frug says:

        In Wilner’s defense he wasn’t the only one caught off guard. Larry Scott was telling OU for a month that he had the votes to get them and the Cowboys into the PAC without Texas, only to come up short when it mattered.

        Like

  65. Eric says:

    Let me be the first (and probably only one) to say that I am going to miss the BCS. It’s the system that was in place when I really started watching college football. It made the regular season really interesting to watch, especially if you had a top 10 team and were hoping like crazy for a lot of upsets. It was kept a solid place for the Rose Bowl (even if diminished a little) and left it as the goal most the time. It never allowed anyone truly questionable to be called national champs.

    I hope the next system works well, but I’ll miss the BCS.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I’ll miss it compared to a playoff, but to me the old bowl system was better than either. The BCS was designed to fix a problem that didn’t exist and made things worse.

      Like

  66. Pablo says:

    Athlonsports.com is doing a cool gimmick by creating 4 16-team conferences via a draft process. Given how their ‘draft’ is going, its not hard to see why the SEC and B1G have so much clout in any cfb discussions. In the top 32 picks, there is not a single school ‘drafted’ from the smaller conferences.

    Like

    • Michael C says:

      I tried to formalize that one day in terms of the value of each institution to a conference. I took a variety of sources and the formula I used was a linear combination of

      1/3 University Endowment – why? Because money talks (and with schools like Stanford, Texas, Michigan and Northwestern near the top it does an adequate job of acting as a proxy for the academic component of conference associations)

      1/2 Football – components:
      Adjusted (for SOS) winning percentage; 50% historical, 50% from 1990
      Average Attendance
      Estimated fan size (from the Nate Silver’s NY Times’ blog)

      1/6 Men’s Basketball
      Winning percentage; 50% historical, 50% from 1990
      Average Attendance

      Obviously it is an approximation

      1 Texas
      2 Michigan
      3 Ohio St.
      4 Notre Dame
      5 Texas A&M
      6 Alabama
      7 Penn St.
      8 USC
      9 Florida
      10 Wisconsin
      11 North Carolina
      12 Oklahoma
      13 Michigan St.
      14 Tennessee
      15 Washington
      16 Nebraska
      17 Arkansas
      18 UCLA
      19 Iowa
      20 LSU
      21 Missouri
      22 Purdue
      23 Kentucky
      24 Pittsburgh
      25 California
      26 Virginia
      27 Stanford
      28 Illinois
      29 Georgia Tech
      30 Minnesota
      31 BYU
      32 Georgia
      33 Kansas
      34 Syracuse
      35 Virginia Tech
      36 Boston College
      37 Florida St.
      38 Texas Tech
      39 Auburn
      40 Indiana
      41 Miami
      42 Louisville
      43 West Virginia
      44 South Carolina
      45 Oklahoma St.
      46 Duke
      47 Clemson
      48 Vanderbilt
      49 Maryland
      50 North Carolina St.
      51 Oregon
      52 Arizona
      53 Utah
      54 Colorado
      55 Northwestern
      56 Arizona St.
      57 Cincinnati
      58 Mississippi
      59 Kansas St.
      60 Connecticut
      61 Rutgers
      62 Iowa St.
      63 Wake Forest
      64 TCU
      65 Baylor
      66 Mississippi St.
      67 Oregon St.
      68 Washington St.
      69 South Florida
      70 Rice
      71 Tulsa
      72 UAB
      73 Temple
      74 SMU
      75 Boise St.
      76 Navy
      77 Houston
      78 San Diego St.
      79 Memphis
      80 Wyoming
      81 New Mexico
      82 Central Florida
      83 East Carolina
      84 Air Force
      85 Hawaii
      86 Fresno St.
      87 UNLV
      88 Southern Miss
      89 Marshall
      90 Miami (OH)
      91 Colorado St.
      92 Toledo
      93 UTEP
      94 Tulane
      95 Utah St.
      96 Nevada
      97 Ohio
      98 Buffalo
      99 Troy
      100 Army
      101 Louisiana Tech
      102 Akron
      103 Western Michigan
      104 La.-Lafayette
      105 Arkansas St.
      106 Western Kentucky
      107 New Mexico St.
      108 Florida Atl.
      109 Bowling Green
      110 North Texas
      111 Middle Tenn. St.
      112 Idaho
      113 Ball St.
      114 Florida Int’l
      115 Central Michigan
      116 La.-Monroe
      117 Kent St.
      118 Northern Illinois
      119 San Jose St.
      120 Eastern Michigan

      Like

  67. bullet says:

    Its done. President’s approved 4 team about 10 minutes ago. May be press conference at 6:30.

    Like

  68. mnfanstc says:

    Woohoo! Some level of common sense has finally made it to the 21st century. The NCAA was stuck in 19.. (pick a year…).

    Thanks to the commissioners, thanks to the presidents… but, mostly thanks to the FANS that finally pushed the “system” over the cliff…

    Is this perfect—NEVER will be– cannot please everyone… Is this better—thank you, yes…

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Thank the tv providers and their willingness to quadruple their bill every couple years enabling them to provide the financial incentive.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      On the other hand, I hope this playoff is a complete clusterfuck and you all suffer endlessly for ruining a great sport. May your cable bills skyrocket and your teams always lose.

      Like

      • mnfanstc says:

        Some folks around here obviously have more invested in this than the average fan. My local team has not been a major factor since the last of their 6 MNC’s in 1960. I was born 8 years AFTER that.

        I love college football–but what’s most important to me is how my local university does overall (academics 1st). I happen to follow hockey, basketball, women’s volleyball and wrestling pretty closely as well. I well understand the importance of FB in the big scheme, and understand that the Gophers are not likely to compete for additional national titles anytime soon (if ever) based on the current dynamics of college football— being that everyone seems to desire the “traditional” powers (a.k.a. present beauty queens) in anything beyond the lower level bowls. I firmly believe the Gophers, Boilers, Hoosiers, Illini, Spartans (look no further than the f-job the Spartans got last year) have to fight a battle similar to the Boise State’s of the world due to the all the F$%@ED-up pre-conceptions in div. 1 NCAA football.

        I (unlike what seems like many out there) do NOT care about the performance of any other B1G conference team (in any sport). Why would I root for Iowa or Wisconsin?—they are Minn’s biggest rivals–that’s just crazy. Watching/attending any games outside of the ones the Gophers are playing in is simply for the love of the sport in general. This is why I have an interest in this “playoff”. To me it is TOTAL bunk that ‘Bama and LSU replayed a game for the MNC when previously ‘Bama could NOT EVEN WIN THEIR DIVISION, LET ALONE CONFERENCE!! This game thankfully led to public outcry for some semblance of a playoff… As a college football fan, the Rose Bowl means no more to me than the Orange, Sugar, or Capital One for that matter. Here again it is all Historical Perception… It’s 2012… Time to move past 1937…

        Like

        • Brian says:

          mnfanstc,

          “Some folks around here obviously have more invested in this than the average fan. My local team has not been a major factor since the last of their 6 MNC’s in 1960. I was born 8 years AFTER that.”

          It is hard to inflict too much more losing on the Gophers, true.

          “I well understand the importance of FB in the big scheme, and understand that the Gophers are not likely to compete for additional national titles anytime soon (if ever) based on the current dynamics of college football— being that everyone seems to desire the “traditional” powers (a.k.a. present beauty queens) in anything beyond the lower level bowls.”

          Casual fans have only heard of the big names. Why would they want to watch teams they’ve never heard of?

          “Spartans (look no further than the f-job the Spartans got last year)”

          They didn’t screwed at all. They weren’t eligible for the BCS. The computers hated their schedule and knocked them down. The loss to ND really hurt them. Most teams that lose a CCG don’t make the BCS, though.

          “I (unlike what seems like many out there) do NOT care about the performance of any other B1G conference team (in any sport). Why would I root for Iowa or Wisconsin?—they are Minn’s biggest rivals–that’s just crazy.”

          Why? Because the performance of your opponents matters for getting higher rankings and better bowls. The overall opinion of the conference matters to how MN is perceived. Besides, spoiling an undefeated season for your rival is just more fun than beating a bad team.

          “This game thankfully led to public outcry for some semblance of a playoff…”

          The BCS is a playoff. You may not like how it selects the 2 teams, but it is a playoff.

          “As a college football fan, the Rose Bowl means no more to me than the Orange, Sugar, or Capital One for that matter.”

          That’s too bad. Maybe if MN had played in any of them in your lifetime you’d understand the difference. To not understand the difference between the Rose and the Cap 1 is a shame. To not appreciate a long history of conference champions meeting versus a random game named after a bank is sad.

          “Here again it is all Historical Perception… It’s 2012… Time to move past 1937…”

          The Rose was just fine in 1997, too. Being 2012 now is irrelevant.

          Like

          • jcfreder says:

            Far be it from me to stop someone from bashing the Gophers, but as a fan of a school that has far more Rose Bowl experience over the last 20 years than Brian’s, let me say that someone can appreciate the Rose while also embracing the progress this new system gives us. There are bound to be controversies on the way, but nowhere near as bad as the ridiculousness of having two polls spit out different “national champions” and not facing them off. If you think college football is dead, you have an extremely cramped view of what college football is.