I’m finally back from along family vacation where I was blissfully unaware of any major news during that time, so let’s catch up on a few items:
(1) College Football Playoff Details Dripping Out and Confusing Everyone – About a month ago when the FBS commissioners plus Notre Dame announced that they agreed upon a new college football playoff system, it seemed fairly straight-forward with a 4-team playoff, semifinal sites rotated among 6 bowls to be played on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, and a selection committee choosing the participants in the semifinals and top bowls. The first caveat, however, was that certain bowls would have ironclad contractual tie-ins, specifically the Big Ten and Pac-12 with the Rose Bowl, the SEC and Big 12 with the Please Choose the Sugar or Cotton So I Can Stop Calling This The Pompous Champions Bowl, and the ACC with the Orange Bowl. I wrote back in November prior to a playoff being on the radar that any proposed elimination of automatic qualifier (AQ) status from the BCS system would simply be a matter of semantics and that contractual tie-ins would not go away. In essence, the removal of AQ status only affected the Big East (which didn’t have a contractual tie-in with any top bowl). In fact, the new system goes a step further and protects the contractual tie-ins in years where those top bowls aren’t semifinals regardless of ranking. That is, if the Rose Bowl isn’t a semifinal in a given year and a Big Ten team is a semifinalist, the Rose will have a Big Ten replacement no matter what record or ranking such replacement has at the time (whereas the current BCS system requires any non-champ replacement needs to be in the top 14). On the flip side, in the years that the Rose Bowl is a semifinal host and the Big Ten champ isn’t in the top 4, then that Big Ten champ will go to one of the other top 6 bowls. From this point forward, being a “power conference” means having a guaranteed tie-in with a “contract bowl”, while “access bowls” provide variable at-large spots that may or may not provide access to the non-power conferences in a given year.
At the same time, what was initially thought to be a simple rotation of semifinal games among the 6 top bowls may end up being much more complex. The new Rose Bowl deal with ESPN indicated that Pasadena might only host 2 semifinals over a 12-year period (as opposed to 4 if there was an even rotation). It has been speculated that the I’m Really Really Really Sick Of Calling This The Champions Bowl would similarly host fewer semifinals. That didn’t make too much sense to me until SportsBusiness Daily reported an extremely important detail yesterday: the Big Ten and Pac-12 will split $80 million per year in media revenue from the Rose Bowl for the years that the game is NOT a semifinal host, while the revenue during semifinal years would be distributed in a manner to be determined with the rest of the new playoff system. No wonder why the Big Ten and Pac-12 (and the SEC and Big 12) aren’t really that keen on giving up their top bowl tie-ins very often to semifinal games – they could be taking a haircut on a guaranteed $40 million payday in the applicable years.
The SportsBusiness Daily report also indicated that the commissioners expected to have the Rose Bowl and Allstate AT&T Chick-fil-A Breakfast of Champions Bowl host semifinals in the same years, which perplexes me to no end. What’s the point of doing that? Would this mean that there could be years where there isn’t any semifinal on New Year’s Day when those two bowls aren’t hosting semifinals? Why would a TV partner paying billions of dollars for this playoff (which is basically the entire impetus for this playoff being created in the first place) not want at least one semifinal in prime time every New Year’s Day? By the same token, why would such TV partner pay for any semifinal games played on low-rated New Year’s Eve when most of America is outside of their homes getting hammered and not near a TV?
How the “access bowl” slots will be filled is also up in the air. The goals of a selection committee, bowls and TV networks aren’t always going to be aligned here. A selection committee will presumably want to award bids based on merit, bowls want teams with the best ticket buying traveling fan bases and TV networks want the most attractive national brand names. (The latter two usually have a strong correlation, but there are certain exceptions. Iowa, for example, is gold for bowls with how Hawkeye fans travel, yet a TV network would likely prefer bad-traveling-but-big-TV-ratings-draw Miami if it came down to a choice between the two.)
Then, we get to the selection committee itself. I’ve warmed up to the concept a bit over the past month or so, but I still have a ton of reservations on how it’s going to work. Is this structurally going to end up being an end-of-the-year poll only using 10 to 20 people as opposed to 115 people? If so, why is that an improvement over the current usage of the Harris Poll? (Note that I firmly believe that the use of the Coaches’ Poll where there are blatant conflicts of interest should be eliminated from any sort of selection criteria.) How is strength of schedule going to be taken into account? (In my humble opinion, SOS is politically correct code for “only the 5 power conferences matter”. When looking at the SOS rankings last year, the only school outside of the 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame that made it to the top 50 was Tulsa, which had a murderer’s row non-conference schedule of Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Boise State. Big East champ West Virginia was only at #51 even though it played LSU as a non-conference opponent. Anyone that thinks that SEC teams are going to get docked for playing cupcakes in their non-conference schedules are completely misguided – SOS rankings help the SEC even MORE than subjective human polls.) I know a lot of college football fans believe that many pollsters fill out their ballots blindly every week and distrust the polls accordingly, but I’m honestly much more worried about the disproportionate power of 1 committee member vote that can’t be mitigated by a large poll pool. This is a situation where we really won’t know how well the selection committee concept will work until we see it in action.
To be clear, I’m very happy with the new playoff system overall. I have been pushing for some type of playoff for many years that still manages to preserve the Big Ten/Pac-12 tradition of the Rose Bowl and this system largely fits that criteria. As someone that has been following this story closely, though, I’m just curious about the details that I don’t believe the commissioners themselves know how to resolve as of yet.
(2) All Quiet on the Conference Realignment Front – When the Orange Bowl signed a new deal with the ACC that provided the conference with all of the bowl’s media revenues, that removed any doubt regarding the ACC’s place in college football’s power structure. I feel like the proverbial broken record here in continuously saying that the ACC is much stronger than what football fans give them credit for. The ACC’s on-the-field record in BCS bowl games is irrelevant here: a league with academically prestigious schools (many of whom are flagships) that own or have large shares of their own home markets isn’t going to get booted out of the elite club.
This means that the chances of Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC schools defecting to the Big 12 or even SEC have dropped precipitously. To be sure, the new Big 12 TV contract might end up being so massive that it’s too much for any of those schools to turn down, but then it becomes circular for the Big 12 schools themselves. That is, if the Big 12 TV contract is truly going to be that large, why expand at all and split up the pie further? We’re at the point where there might be little incentive for either side to make any moves other than to provide all of us here with blogging fodder to discuss during the offseason. There is no longer any rational fear on the part of Florida State and Clemson that the ACC will no longer be part of the power group. By the same token, the Big 12 doesn’t need Florida State or Clemson to stabilize themselves to get a larger TV contract. The wild card is obviously Notre Dame, but I’ll agree with The Dude of West Virginia on one point: anyone that thinks the Irish are joining his/her conference for football has gone full retard.
That leaves us with some less-sexy outstanding conference realignment matters that need to be settled, mainly who the Big East will add as its 14th football member. Air Force still seems to be the most reasonably plausible addition that would add value to the league by pairing it up with rival Navy, although the Falcons completely backed off from Big East overtures last fall after appearing very interested. (Note that I personally believe that BYU is going to be committed to independence for awhile. The Cougars appear to be concerned with national ESPN exposure and building up BYUtv even more than money and being independent could be a better value proposition to sell in competing against Pac-12 member Utah for recruits compared to being in the Big East or any other non-power conference.) After that, the pickings get a lot slimmer. Fresno State is competitive on-the-field with a solid fan base, but might be the West Coast version of East Carolina where the Big East isn’t interested in entering that market. UNLV has a solid TV market yet is essentially the Western version of Memphis, where their football ineptitude/basketball competence means that they make more sense as a potential all-sports member as opposed to a football-only member (except that UNLV doesn’t have the geographic proximity of Memphis to make an all-sports membership viable). Bottom line: the Big East needs Air Force pretty badly here.
(3) Little Glass Houses For You and Me – Finally, the Penn State scandal seems to continuously get worse and worse for the university in the wake of the issuance of the independent report by Louis Freeh. This has led to calls of punishments such as the death penalty for the football program, which NCAA president Mark Emmert said is an option that is not “off the table”.
I really cannot defend anything that Penn State’s leadership, including but not limited to the late Joe Paterno, did (or more appropriately, did not do) in covering up multiple instances of child rape. There is truly nothing more heinous than letting child rape continue on for years and years when it could have been prevented by someone just speaking up. However, I have also seen a lot of commentators, columnists, bloggers and message board posters spend a ton of time acting sanctimonious and try to one-up each other in terms of how outraged they are. What troubles me, and as Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal poignantly pointed out in this piece, is that there’s an argument being parroted by many people that the “insular culture” in State College that allowed a massive coverup to protect the Nittany Lion football program is somehow a unique Penn State problem. If you believe that to be the case, ask yourself about how confident you are that your own alma mater or favorite college team hasn’t skirted or outright violated the law at some point. How many sexual assaults by star football and basketball players have been swept under the rug over the years? How many schools use coeds as “hostesses” for top-level recruits visiting campus where there are certain expectations of how those hostesses are supposed to provide a memorable weekend? How would you feel if your own daughter was one of those hostesses? What about the murder of a transferring player, like in the case of Baylor in 2003? How about sending a student to a tall video tower with 50 mph wind gusts? Even a marching band in the SWAC can have its own insular culture that results in horrific consequences.
It’s not just about whether child rape is worse than the recruiting violations at SMU back in the 1980s that caused the NCAA to hand that school the death penalty. Child rape is obviously exponentially more heinous and awful than anything that the NCAA has on the books (and frankly, I’m someone that believes that most recruiting rules are completely ridiculous). However, the supposedly insular culture at Penn State where the protection of the “brand” is of the utmost importance is a culture that permeates everywhere in big-time college sports. Chances are pretty high that your own school has some skeletons in its own closest that would bury your football or basketball program if the truth ever came to light. This isn’t to excuse anything that occurred at Penn State, but it’s something that everyone needs to remember when trying to pass judgment on the culture in State College. None of us are in a position to be sanctimonious here. The culture everywhere in college sports needs to change (not just at Penn State).
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from The C-Blog)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
GEAUX Pre-season #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
Go B1G Red!
LikeLike
Second.
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
Frank – welcome back.
Today was the first day of SEC Media days. Over 1,100 press credentials were issued. In Slive’s “State of the SEC” address, Project “X” (a round-the-clock SEC Network) is now known as “Project SEC”. He really didn’t offer any news.
I’m also sick of the Champions Bowl moniker, especially since it will usually be Big XII #2 v. SEC #3 most years. While I originally hoped it would land in New Orleans, if the Champions Bowl follows the new Rose Bowl model, I doubt the Sugar Bowl committee really wants it. If the Sugar could get 6-8 semis and 2 NCGs over the 12 year cycle, they’d be much happier with games that matter, rather than just exhibition games.
LikeLike
Have you ever made a post here that wasn’t in some way an SEC wank?
LikeLike
I could see some logic in putting both semifinal games on Dec 31 in some years:
A. Maybe testing the waters early on to see what the ratings will be, especially for the night game. IIRC, they aren’t scheduling the whole 12 years right away.
B. Making the 12/31 night game a playoff is the best way to boost ratings for that timeslot.
C. When NYEve falls on a Saturday, 2 afternoon playoff games should draw great ratings. Sunday is reserved for the NFL, but when NYEve is a Monday that might get almost as good ratings as Saturday, since it will be a holiday for far more persons than midweek NYEves. Friday NYEve might also work, to a lesser extent.
D. Seems like the demand elasticity is far higher for 12/31 than 1/1. So I would not be surprised if the increase in viewers of putting a playoff on 1/1 is less than putting it on 12/31, and thus 12/31 might provide higher net viewership for the entire ex-BCS bowl package that will be bid upon.
LikeLike
8-team Playoffs Now,
“Have you ever made a post here that wasn’t in some way an SEC wank?”
Wow, that’s a cheap shot.
Lots of us post pro-our conference comments, but Alan always provides good info. Many of his comments are SEC related because he has insight and knowledge there that the rest of us don’t. Most of his comment was new info (changed name for the SEC network project, his opinion on the Champs moniker).
LikeLike
WARNING FOR 8-TEAM PLAYOFFS NOW: SEC-related content to follow from SEC Media Days.
Saban suggests a Penn State ticket tax to assist victims of child abuse.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8180229/tax-penn-state-athletics-benefit-kids
Saban also supports a 9 game SEC schedule.
LSU and Texas A&M may start playing on Thanksgiving weekend, along with Mizzou/Arky.
Spurrier quipped that if he made the schedule, USCe would play Ole Miss and Georgia would play LSU.
LSU picked to win the SEC over UGA in the SEC CCG.
Brain – thanks for the kind words.
LikeLike
Love your lead in! 🙂
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Saban also supports a 9 game SEC schedule.”
I’ll give him credit, he isn’t afraid of a tough schedule. Now, he still gets his cupcakes every year but I think he would be willing to play no cupcakes as long as nobody else did either.
“Brian – thanks for the kind words.”
No problem. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to make about various people that comment here, but complaining about homer posts from you isn’t one of them. There are plenty of worse offenders, and many more pro-B10 posts than anything else here. If we didn’t have people like you and Bamatab, we’d never hear the SEC side of these issues.
LikeLike
Penn State may be fined up to $60mm with the proceeds going to child-related programs/charities.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027
After a few days reflection, I wouldn’t be surprised if Emmert had Saban float the PSU ticket tax idea at SEC media days to gauge reaction. Emmert was the LSU Chancellor that hired Saban away from Sparty. They are very close. When Emmert left LSU for Washington, Saban really started listening the NFL inquiries.
LikeLike
Alan,
I think of even more interest is the Yahoo link in that story, although a $30-60M fine is huge. Unprecedented even.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–sources–ncaa-president-to-hit-penn-state-with–staggering–penalties-from-sandusky-scandal.html
“The move will mark a first in NCAA history, in which the president will invoke a defense of the NCAA’s constitution as part of his reasoning for taking the unprecedented steps. The moment is groundbreaking in that Emmert is circumventing typical NCAA process and moving forward without an investigation by his enforcement staff. However, Emmert is expected to detail that the action is backed by a special provision allowing such a step if he receives approval from the NCAA’s board of directors. A source told Y! Sports the NCAA is prepared to defend the lack of an investigation by focusing on the Freeh Report, and Emmert’s determination that the report provided actionable evidence.”
If that provision exists, all the lawyers need to sit down and shut up about this.
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
Thanks for a rational voice on PSU. I’m tired of reading, “they should tear their entire stadium down” and “the whole athletics program should be shut down forever”. It’s hard to find an educated thought with so many ridiculous screaming voices on both sides of the discussion.
LikeLike
Roll Tide Roll!
LikeLike
Thanks Frank.
LikeLike
And for what it’s worth, I still think that Army will be the 14th team in the Big East.
And man, it feels good to talk about something so trivial.
LikeLike
Army left C-USA for a reason…actually a whole lot of reasons. They are not joining C-USA mark 2.
LikeLike
…
LikeLike
I agree with Carl.
LikeLike
Regarding Penn State, I’m not sure what purpose the death penalty serves. Frankly, I’m not sure under what authority is the NCAA allowed to impose it. In my opinion, there is no role for the death penalty in college football. The decision to abandon a program should be left to the school itself. The NCAA can impose other sanctions, and the conference itself could impose sanctions, but the so-called death penalty by the NCAA is too much for me.
LikeLike
SH,
If they wait for the annual convention, the NCAA can levy any punishment they want for anything via a supermajority vote.
LikeLike
If you’re obsessing over a statue on campus, then you’re missing the point.
LikeLike
The fact that people are arguing over the statue could/should be evidence for the need of a Death Penalty here.
LikeLike
That’s deep…and ridiculous.
LikeLike
Great post….it is amazing how many people miss the forest through the trees…
LikeLike
I agree with the premise that the culture at Penn State is probably no different than other major institutions and are not immune to some of the same decision blunders that occurred. But that also doesn’t mean other institutions would have acted the same way either. So having said that, whether or not Penn State’s culture is different than anybody’s else’s is irrelevant when determining their punishment. The fact is it still happened.
This becomes an NCAA issue the minute the head football coach became involved in the decision making process. If a Penn State Economics professor was raping young boys using PSU facilities, I doubt Paterno is consulted. In fact, I would be willing to bet the decision making process would be a lot different than what’s been reported in this situation. Major decisions by athletic departments mostly revolve around protecting, defending, and enhancing your brand and image as a program. That as stake in this situation.
Penn State is a voluntary member of the NCAA. It’s a voluntary membership between both sides The NCAA has full governance with regard to its’ competition with other NCAA members. They have every right to punish them as they see fit. If PSU has an issue with that, they can join another collegiate athletic association. If the NCAA wanted to, they could probably vote to kick Penn State out of its’ membership and there’s wouldn’t be anything PSU could do about it. ..ditto for the Big 10 conference.
I haven’t decided what I personally think should happen to PSU if I were in charge. But there’s no question in my mind the NCAA has every right to be involved in this situation and levy a punishment they deem appropriate…whether than punishment is a 2 year bowl ban, 10 year bowl ban, 5 year TV ban, loss of 30 scholarships or 3 year death penalty.
LikeLike
An economics prof. was caught raping a young boy. The victim got him to confess on tape. That case went the same way as Sandusky. Which further supports Frank’s point. Institutions conduct cost/benefit analyses, bring lawyers in, weigh liabilities, and then they’re in CYA mode.
Murders were covered up at Eastern Michigan, child porn rings at U Michigan Med. School, rapes at U. Colorado, etc.
LikeLike
So child rape is only worth 30 scholarships? Or, more directly, it’s impossible to create an NCAA sanction that is a proper punishment for what happened, death penalty included. Seems much more worthwhile to let the grown ups take care of a grown up problem and leave the silly TV bans for things like tatoos and text book sales.
I just don’t think there’s a very good solution to the problem, NCAA or otherwise.
LikeLike
The upside is that it became a little easier to make a rose bowl. The dream never dies!
LikeLike
That is, after it just got harder with neb and the championship game.
LikeLike
I understand the B1G/PAC12 alliance fell apart because 4 PAC schools were opposed.
Anybody know who the 4 were, and why they were opposed?
LikeLike
Apparently UW was one.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2018683547_conferences14.html
LikeLike
Based on the PR, best bets the other three are Stanford, USC, and either UCLA or Utah.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
Interesting note:
“Yet it’s believed USC and Stanford thought the plan could still work once their other high-profile nonconference games were off the schedule.”
USC has TX in 2017-8 and TN in 2021-2 (sites TBD, so there may be no contract)
Stanford has UVA in 2017-8
It sounds like they would have been willing to do it in 2019 and on. Stanford has NW for 2019-2022, so they aren’t one of the 4.
Clearly WSU and OrSU were in favor while UW was against. I’m thinking it was several mid-level schools that didn’t necessarily want the extra tough game. The bottom end wanted the deal to get B10 schools to play at their place. The top end are going to play someone tough regardless so they could probably live with it.
LikeLike
UW against is a bit surprising. However, they are no longer counted among those having never scheduled a 1-AA. They seem to have decided to adopt a bit of SEC/B12 scheduling strategy that, from what I have read, seems to be going over like a lead ballon with fans. Props to USC, UCLA, and ND as the three remaining not to have scheduled down. And apologies to the Trojans, as they were my (and many others) first guess as a no go voter.
This just all seems odd as I understand with UA scheduling IA that every PAC team has multiple B10 opponents on their future schedules. Perhaps the arrangement is in fact suspended rather than canceled.
LikeLike
Ariz has schedule with Iowa? This is the first I’ve heard of it. They did play in 2009 and 2010.
2016 is Iowa’s first open spot.
LikeLike
Greg:
Perhaps I misunderstood an AZ supporter I was talking to. If they haven’t scheduled then AZ is my second guess as a no vote as they alone in the PAC wouldn’t have a B1G set in their future.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
UW is trying to get back to the top. They need wins more than SOS at this point. I think they looked at it as making it harder to make a good bowl game.
LikeLike
Brian:
I’m sure you are correct regarding the AD’s intention, but I think he has misjudged the Husky fans acceptance. Comments like: How many hundred million for a stadium to watch exhibition games? Wasn’t the local HS or CC available? There’s is still a proud alumnae base, in spite of the last decade.
LikeLike
Agreed. The UW fans have not been happy. That said, I’m betting they are still buying more tickets than when UW was winless. Once sales start to suffer or donations drop, then the AD will listen.
LikeLike
Due to Mike Leach, I guessed WSU.
LikeLike
That’s because you think Leech can over rule Bill Moss, who hired him and is his boss? LOIC?
LikeLike
No, I don’t think that. I guessed that was due to Leach’s history of playing cream puffs out of conference at Tech.
LikeLike
So everyone is guilty in college football than PSU shouldn’t be given the death penalty?
I REALLY hope that isn’t your logic. Because it is crappy logic.
“the ACC is much stronger than what football fans give them credit for”
no it isn’t. It is death for football schools and coming revenue differences will make it more obvious. Nobody in the Big 4 cares if Clemson, FSU, and Va Tech no longer can compete for titles (after revenue differences kick in). But those schools might……because it is only a matter of time.
LikeLike
(I posted this in the previous thread, since you brought up the issue here I thought I would repost it here)
http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/07/report-air-force-cincinnati-to-cancel-future-football-series/
This is interesting, Air Force just canceled an upcoming series with Oklahoma St. and is now calling of a series with Cincinnati. While Air Force says that OSU and the Bearcats initiated both cancellations, it means that Air Force now has only Army and Navy on its OOC schedule from 2014 on. Speculation is that they are clearing their schedule for a possible move to the Big East along with Navy.
LikeLike
Definitely interesting.
LikeLike
All right, let’s for the sake of argument assume Penn State gets the Death Penalty. I have questions for the group.
1. If it is 2yrs or less, does the Big Ten boot PSU?
2. If it is >2yrs does the Big Ten boot PSU?
3. If PSU gets booted, where do they end up?
3.5 Or is the answer, “obviously in the Big East, dummy.”
4. If PSU get booted, who does the Big Ten bring in, if anyone, to replace them?
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“All right, let’s for the sake of argument assume Penn State gets the Death Penalty. I have questions for the group.
1. If it is 2yrs or less, does the Big Ten boot PSU?”
No.
“2. If it is >2yrs does the Big Ten boot PSU?”
No.
“3. If PSU gets booted, where do they end up?”
They’d join the ACC, with MD, Pitt and Syracuse. I think they’d pass on the SEC and B12, who would both offer as well, over academics and geography.
“3.5 Or is the answer, “obviously in the Big East, dummy.””
No way on Earth. They’d return to independence before they join the BE.
“4. If PSU get booted, who does the Big Ten bring in, if anyone, to replace them?”
Pitt. The only argument against them was not adding TV. Now they would help replace what was lost. MO would be an option but I don’t think they’d jump ship from the SEC. ND is a no go.
By adding Pitt, now the B10 can split East/West:
East – OSU, MI, MSU, Pitt, PU, IN
West – NE, WI, IA, NW, IL, MN
I don’t think locked rivals would be necessary, either, so they’d play 5-3.
LikeLike
In hypothetical land, nd replacing psu would be better. Perhaps this is too obvious, but the b10 would need a hockey school in such a scenario. I might be wrong but I don’t think Pitt has one.
LikeLike
jj,
I didn’t want to get that hypothetical. Of course ND would be better for the B10.
LikeLike
If u saw the latest story about the B10, I think this could play out. Not likely, but maybe.
LikeLike
jj,
I saw the story about PSU maybe getting the boot. What story will convince me that ND would join the B10?
LikeLike
The divisions would be tricky (in order of locked rivals):
A – MI, ND, MSU, PU, IN, NW
B – OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL
A – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, IN
B – NE, ND, WI, IA, MN, PU
A – OSU, ND, IN, WI, MN, PU
B – NE, MI, MSU, IA, NW, IL
Other?
LikeLike
Personally, I think if it is over 2yrs, the B1G might well kick them out.
I assumed they would let the PSU hockey team stay on as the first associate B1G member if/when ND didn’t show up and they had to take Pitt (which is kinda a no-brainer new #12 IMHO).
I don’t know if the ACC would take a post-DP PSU, I figure only the Big East would be willing.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8175462/jerry-sandusky-scandal-penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-passed-reform-2004
In November 2004…
…seven members of Penn State’s board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board’s oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to documents obtained this week by “Outside the Lines.” The group told the full board, “Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand the test of being informed decisions.”
But the board never took a vote on the proposal. Spanier and then-board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin considered the reforms — and… said no, three current trustees say.
Joel Myers, a longtime trustee, said the Freeh investigators told him that if the good-governance proposal had been adopted by the board back in 2004, “This (crisis) could have been avoided.”
The whole BoT really needs to go.
LikeLike
frug,
It’s hard to blame the whole BoT when the topic didn’t even get to most of them. I think for symbolic reasons they should all go, but I don’t put too much blame on them for this.
LikeLike
“Symbolic” reasons are illogical reasons.
LikeLike
Symbols are powerful. Showing they put the school above themselves by quitting would mean something to many people. Letting a whole new BoT create the new rules would look better to everybody.
LikeLike
I completely agree that the protection of the ‘brand’ is a part of many universities and is not unique to Penn State. However, I think that is exactly why the NCAA needs to come down hard here. At some point Joe Pa and the others did a mental calculation and determined that removing a known child sex predator from the streets was not worth the potential damage to the Penn State brand. Penn State needs to be made an example so that the next time someone in power even considers protecting a criminal for the sake of an athletic program that they can refer to the steaming crater that was once Penn State football.
LikeLike
IMO, their thinking was a lot more complex than a simple cost/benefit to Penn St. There were personal calculations-they ignored the red flags from the 1998 incident and continued to allow him to bring young kids around. There was the personal element-they knew and had worked with Sandusky for many years, found it hard to accept and wanted to help him-while they didn’t personally know the victims. There was the head in the sand element-this is a very unpleasant thing and they didn’t want to deal with it or even think about it-they just wanted it to go away. Why else would it take 17 days to make a decision?
There’s a culture factor and all of these people had been together for a long time so there would tend to be some group think, but there are a lot of other factors involved.
LikeLike
Frank-
If you are Florida State, and you want to want to play big-boy football over the long haul, just what is the plan for remaining competitive with the SEC schools which surround you while remaining in the ACC? A situation in which Vanderbilt and Mississippi State are making a great deal more money from their television rights than Florida State wouldn’t sit well with me if I were a Noles fan.
The ACC sold their soul to ESPN to get their basketball games on air. That might be a good deal for Wake Forest, but it is a lousy deal for Florida State.
LikeLike
You are 100% correct.
But Clemson and FSU are supposed to just shut their mouths because it works for the other 9-10 schools who don’t do a thing for football (and the money).
LikeLike
Clemson has a major announcement on the 20th at noon. Noone seems to have any idea what it is. Could be some major donation to their academic side. Could be something to keep Frank busy. Could be some sponsor will get them to wear new uniforms even more hideous than Maryland.
LikeLike
“Could be some sponsor will get them to wear new uniforms even more hideous than Maryland.”
Phil Knight loves a challenge.
LikeLike
*Shudder*
My eyes burn during every Maryland and Oregon game. I’m a complete reactionary when it comes to uniforms.
LikeLike
They do have that lovely combo of neon orange and purple to work with. I’m thinking purple tiger stripes on an orange background from head to toe (shoes, socks, pants jersey, helmet, everything).
LikeLike
matthewladner,
“If you are Florida State, and you want to want to play big-boy football over the long haul, just what is the plan for remaining competitive with the SEC schools which surround you while remaining in the ACC?”
Oversign, pay relatives of players, give jobs to coaches/friends/relatives, and use every other trick those schools use. That’s all done with donor/booster money, not TV money.
What was FSU’s plan before when the SEC was making more than the ACC?
LikeLike
“What was FSU’s plan before when the SEC was making more than the ACC?”
When FSU joined the ACC, it had the HIGHEST conference payout. It has since fallen to the 5th highest and the Big 4 are increasing the difference at a HUGE rate.
Things changed. The facts changed. FSU football (and Clemson) are screwed if they stay in the ACC with the trending of revenue in a conference that REFUSES to see football as the cash cow. Basketball is all that matters and they are annoyed by the football schools. The end result. Lowest revenue of the major conference by a LONG shot.
LikeLike
Elvis,
“When FSU joined the ACC, it had the HIGHEST conference payout.”
I’ll take your word for it since it’s been over 20 years. I doubt the ACC was #1 every year until just recently, though.
“FSU football (and Clemson) are screwed if they stay in the ACC with the trending of revenue”
Bull. That’s just an excuse. FSU is in the heart of the best recruiting area in the country and has millions of fans. They make a lot of revenue, too. Boise, TCU and Utah have been fielding better teams with less than 10% of the budget lately.
“in a conference that REFUSES to see football as the cash cow.”
That’s crap, too. They see it, they just can’t capitalize on it because teams like FSU stopped winning big. They can’t force networks to pay them more.
“Basketball is all that matters and they are annoyed by the football schools.”
Based on what?
LikeLike
Elvis,
The ACC got the lowest revenue because of horrible timing for contract renegotiations, not because of Basketball vs. Football. The Pac-12, which had inferior ratings to the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and probably Big 12, currently has the best TV contract of all because it negotiated when the market value for live sports had escalated to unprecedented heights. Had the ACC negotiated at the same time, its contract would have been even better.
Secondly, believe it or not, the people who run the ACC read the same widely-known reports about how football drives TV value in college sports. Shoot, if football isn’t seen as the cash cow, but in the heck were Miami and Virginia Tech added? If you say it was for basketball, you’re out of your mind. Now, for Syracuse and Pitt, they were added because they were the best schools who could add value to the TV contract while still being academically acceptable enough (much to WVU’s dismay) to the more high-brow members (UNC, Duke). The fact that SU and Pitt happen to be good at roundball was just icing on the cake, but their basketball indeed is not the cash cow.
LikeLike
The ACC is letting basketball drive the bus? Is that why they ruined a historic basketball ethos to add football schools VT, BC, FSU and Miami? Is that why they moved the title game away from the conference center to football hotbed Florida? Is that why one of the ACC crown jewels, UNC, hired a coach who’s last college head coaching job was at ThugU? Is that why the same school set up fake classes to allow football players to stay eligible?
Despite making all these football decisions, the conference went 2-13 in the BCS and dropped from 1st to 5th in revenue. What did it gain them beyond a tattered reputation?
LikeLike
Hook em
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see if the Orange gets 2 or 4 or 6 semifinals (and thus how much the ACC gets to keep for themselves). Was it 4 in a press release somewhere?
Is it certain that the Champions Bowl will be primetime NYD? That contract hasn’t been negotiated yet, so if that bowl is movable, primetime NYD could have a semifinal in years that the Rose or Orange isn’t a semifinal (Champions Bowl being NYD when one is).
LikeLike
Obviously nothing is set in stone until the contracts are signed, but the SEC and Big XII have made clear they intend for the game to be played in primetime on New Years right after the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
Very interesting stuff as usual. It doesn’t seem that the FBS commissioners really were much in alignment into how this new system they’ve created will look. As each is concerned with their own interests in a zero-sum game, there are certain to be losers somewhere and that is going to remain an issue going forward.
Quick question for other readers- what other blogs or forums to you read that discuss realignment/consolidation? I very much enjoy Frank’s perspectives, and have been looking around to find others which reflect on the shifting landscape of the sport. Any suggestions?
LikeLike
Taiwanese?
LikeLike
http://csnbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=637
LikeLike
NCAA won’t punish with a death penalty because the punishment is completely displaced versus the criminals. Many small businesses in State College won’t be able to stay open without a football season and the NCAA won’t want to be directly related to job losses. Sure, there’s collateral damage when punishing a program like this, but putting innocent businesses in the cross-hairs will create a serious backlash against the organization.
NCAA should force a bowl ban, force the university to create child abuse PSAs in the stadium/on tv, and force the university to donate football revenues be donated to similar charities. It makes much more sense to use PSU’s popularity to promote the cause instead of shutting it down which does nothing to help the victims.
LikeLike
Great points, CM. Shutting down football would also effectively shut down many of the other 29 PSU sports. Track & Field, gymnastics, swimming, etc.–where does the money that supports those sports come from? Obviously, from the football program. I doubt basketball is even a net positive revenue generator, considering how empty the building is most of the times I’ve seen PSU on TV.
I think what needs to be done is something that punishes the football program that doesn’t have a bunch of collateral damage. Reduce the program from 85 scholarships/year to 50/year for five years (unlike USC’s supposedly overwhelming punishment of 75 scholarships/year for three years). Ban the team from bowl games for five years. Also, the NCAA should force PSU to donate to child advocacy groups, etc., as CM suggested, because that would actually do something that actually has a chance at making a positive difference, as opposed to just killing the football program.
PSU absolutely deserves to pay a steep price. An example needs to be made out of them as a warning that nothing like this can ever happen again, because that cover-up was disgusting and egregious. But other parties, like the small businesses in State College, the non-revenue sports, and the Big Ten, shouldn’t have to pay the price alongside Penn State. They are no more guilty for what happened that you and I are.
LikeLike
A person who brings their children to their sentencing hearing so the judge will pity their children is exactly the kind of person who needs to go to jail. I am so very tired of watching the guilty try to garner sympathy with “won’t someone think of the children.” No one thought of the children, apparently damned few PSU folks are still thinking of the children, and I’ll be darned if Penn State should get sympathy from “think of the small businessman”.
“Let’s not get crazy” is not an appropriate response given what Freeh turned up. For folks who’ve spoke of honor for half a century, they seem to have little honor…or shame (see the Paterno family). If they had either, they’d sit down, shut up, and pray that they can recover from their well deserved lumps.
Let every player in every sport transfer. 15 lost scholarships/yr for 5 years and no bowl games while they stink is a joke given circumstances, and I hope to God you know that.
If PSU goes down, the Big Ten’ll just grab Pitt and be fine. I didn’t care personally until all the Penn State fanatics and Big Ten apologists felt the need to go to bat for them. Now I find myself wishing for the DP in spite of my earlier thoughts, just in reaction to their pathology.
LikeLike
Michael is hardly a Big Ten apologist; the guy openly supports FSU and the ACC.
Next you’re going to call bullet a Big Ten apologist.
This is ridiculous. What competitive advantage did Penn State get from harboring Jerry Sandusky? Tell me that before you start parading around for the death penalty.
LikeLike
Didn’t mean Michael specifically. I was thinking more generally, looking at reactions around the interwebs.
@zeek
Let me answer a question with a question: Was having Joe Pa as head coach from 1998-2010 a competitive advantage?
If it weren’t for his and the rest of the gang of four silence, Joe Pa would not have been head coach that whole time. With the scandal, recuiting would have suffered, and Paterno would have been forced to deal with much bigger off field issues than if/when he’ll retire.
LikeLike
Okay, then give a requisite penalty on par with that. Strip them of their victories for a decade and put them on probation for as long. Maybe add some other things. I don’t see where the death penalty comes into play if the issue is the competitive advantage of having JoePa.
There are all sorts of legal violations committed by every football program in the country. Hardly any justify NCAA action. Perhaps this one does, but it should match the actual competitive impact.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I missed it when it was determined that the ncaa’s sole authority was maintaining competitive balance.
Last I heard, it was born trying to keep the government from cracking down on football after ll the onfield fatalities at the beginning of last. ccentury. It became powerful keeping players as indentured servants in the 50ssam or so.
LikeLike
The NCAA needs to do what’s best for the industry for the college sports industry and make PSU and their unthinkable crimes, and tonedeaf fans go away for a while. Cutting the perceived cancer is about the only thing the industry caan do at this point to help in the court of public opinion.
LikeLike
I really don’t see what any of this solves. Do you think the NCAA should have gotten involved in the Declan Sullivan case?
I tend to think the courts are effectively equipped to deal with this situation.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t have bother me if the NCAA stepped in on Mr. Sullivan’s death. Before you call BS, remember Declan was a Domer, and Kelly, the actual responsible person, isn’t. I didn’t have a problem with the Lou era sanctions.
What it solves is obvious: it get people back on the actual sport. Folks can stop trying score point in re PSU. The speculation stops. There is no more [black] shoe to drop.
The courts run sure and thorough, as they should…but they run to slow for the 24hr news cycle.
LikeLike
@FLP
I really don’t recall hearing any tuned in Notre Dame fans after the Elizabeth Seeburg suicide following an alleged sexual assult by a football player. Should the NCAA have dealt with this? An attorney at the time claimed the same thing had happened to her and others. The DOE reviewed it and it directly involved the football team.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/notre-dame-making-changes_n_888873.html
And in that case, the Notre Dame police showed a lot of deference to the athletic department in arranging to interview the suspect.
LikeLike
@bullet
Miss Seeburg was a distrubed girl, aand her passing is sad.
But her case involved a grabbing of a breast. This is about far from the serial rape of preadolecent children as you can go and still have it perhaps fall under the term “sexual battery”.
Its no secret at ND that dtudent discipline is kinda a crapshoot even if it doesn’t involve athletes.
Also, twenty years ago, the stat was that one in six women would be raped during their undergrad years.
Local prosecutors had no evidence, the report you cited found a no major wrongdoing by ND, and just had reminders to better communicate.
I don’t remember anyone going off the deep end either way. What I remember is that her college (SMC) really ended up looking bad by keeping her family out of the loop and not keeping a better eye on her.
LikeLike
Let me answer a question with a question: Was having Joe Pa as head coach from 1998-2010 a competitive advantage?
JoePa didn’t break any NCAA rules.
I’m not excusing his behavior and agree with his firing, but nothing he did (or didn’t do) falls under the scope of the NCAA.
LikeLike
“the guy openly supports FSU and the ACC.”
No he supports FSU in the ACC. Not FSU AND the ACC. HUGE difference.
LikeLike
@bullet
I am mistaken. IIRC, the Chicago Tribune’s handling of the Seeburg case among other things was the reason NDN stopped linking to them.
LikeLike
@Elvis,
If you’re talking about me, I am a supporter of Florida State and a supporter of the ACC. I would be enormously disappointed if FSU ever left the ACC.
LikeLike
I get that people are mad and want justice is this case and the Joepa apologists make me want to bash their face in. And I get, just like with the Catholic church, that haters of an insitution, organized religion, Christianity, or in this case big time college athletics, come out in swarms wanting to end the entire enterprise when the opportunity presents itself. But this isnt a football issue no matter how people want to make it. This is a people issue. This is four man who conspired to protect their own ass not the football team. The football program isn’t hurt if this comes out to the authorities in 98. Joe Paterno is hurt and his saintly clean image. The men is charge took their ques from him. If these men coached men’s lacrosse, people wouldn’t be calling for the end of the lacrosse program. They would be calling for these men to go to jail. You might say that they wouldn’t have he power if they were the lacrosse coach and that’s true but then you are arguing against big time college athletics as a whole and the power it gives. Is that going to change because of this case no matter the penalty to PSU? You are naive if you believe so. There will be other scandals in the future. Powerful men will always try to protect their positions. Power always corrupts. So for those calling for the death penalty, what are you hoping it will accomplish? Or do you just want scortched earth vengeance?
LikeLike
Joe Paterno is hurt and his saintly clean image. The men is charge took their ques from him.
Unfortunately for Penn St. that is a football issue as far as the NCAA is concerned. Paterno shouldn’t have the power to overrule his bosses. Penn St did gain an advantage by covering up for Sandusky by protecting the image of the football team (“grand experiment”, “do things the right way”) that was one of their recruiting advantages.
That being said, I don’t see PSU getting the death penalty.
LikeLike
Mike:
Strictly as an institutional control issue, was/is UT lacking control when (supposedly) the AD and FB coach influenced the decision to go, or not go to the P16? The impression had been that the pres and a number of admins were in favor.
Just because higher ups listen to advice and sometimes take it does not indicate a LOIC situation exists. Sometimes it shows good judgement on their part, sometimes bad, and in PSU’s case apparently terrible. But that doesn’t make it the underlings decision.
LikeLike
@cc – I agree there is some gray area between the decider/influencer roles. There are other issues NCAA issues to worry about. See page 37 of the Freeh report.
LikeLike
There are other issues NCAA issues to worry about. See page 37 of the Freeh report
Woah. Typo city. I meant to write that other NCAA issues to worry about are on page 37 of the Freeh report.
LikeLike
PSU needs to work with the NCAA and BIG 10 to get PSU, the NCAA, and the Big 10 off the hook on this bullshit. A single and complete settlement.
IMO, PSU has already paid a tremendous price, and will continue to pay a tremendous price, for what has happened. I personally think the NCAA and BIG ought to stay completely out of it, as this does NOT involve on-the-field competitive issues. People talking about “competitve advantage” of non-disclosure are just blowing smoke out their ass, imo.This does not directly involve on-the-field competition, and everybody knows it. However, no one in authority will have the balls to say otherwise, so PSU needs to step up and take its lumps….to me, the most logical aspect would be to prevent PSU from playing for the BIG title and/or participating in the playoffs for a couple of years…….you can throw in some politically correct education and prevention nonsense if you want…….that’s all that should happen.
LikeLike
@PSUhockey
Thanks for your thoughts. Hopefully people will understand that PSU alumni, students, and fans, are not monolithic regarding the deification of Joe Paterno. However, we ARE mostly united in our love of the university! Separating the two can be difficult for outsiders, because we have allowed the media to make Joe Paterno the face of the university.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
Thankyou for your reasoned thoughts. A case could be made, if one would just want to consider football issues only(hard to do at this time), that PSU football has actually underperformed since the mid to late 90s. IMO, the competitive advantage reaped by having Paterno as coach, was negated by the disadvantage of having Paterno as coach. Again, my opinion only. Certainly, not revealing Sandusky in 2001 was to the benefit of PSU. We will, going forward, now pay for that unconscionable mistake in spades.
The
LikeLike
I do feel really bad for Penn State alumni and fans. I have some friends who graduated from there and remain big fans. They have two kids whom they dress in Penn State gear, which they have every right to do. Fortunately those kids are young enough for mist of their peers to pretty oblivious to what has happened at Penn State, and so the kids are fairly safe from the kind of ridicule that certainly must be happening for kids who are Penn State fans and are, say, at the middle or high school level. Kids at that age are going to be told they’re fans of child molesters, if not worse, because that’s the kind of thing kids do. Penn State’s leaders failed at so many levels. Their alumni deserve better than this. Their alumni’s children, I.e., their youngest fans, deserve way better than this. And, it should go without saying, those victims deserved so much more.
LikeLike
er@Flp_ND,
I don’t think reducing scholarships by 35/year (not just 15/year) is a joke. 50/year would cripple the program without killing it. Winning at PSU with that much of a competitive disadvantage would be nearly impossible. I mean, it is one thing trying to convince a recruit to come to USC, with that player knowing they’re only down ten scholarships/year for three years. It’s altogether another trying to recruit someone to come to a program with a seedy, disgusting past hanging over it, where the team has 35 fewer scholarship players on the team for not one or two years, but for five. Plus, with no bowl game for five years, who with any talent would want to play for that team? I’m telling you, the program would be crippled. It could make PSU as bad as Duke in the mid-2000’s was or Temple was in the 90’s. But it would still keep the program alive, which would prevent the crushing of small businesses and the destruction of the remainder of PSU’s athletic program.
What’s really much more important is that Penn State undergoes drastic reform. Shutting down the program when the truly guilty parties are going to prison does not make things better. It doesnt , in and of itself, prevent something like this from happening again. But requiring PSU to change the way it runs itself in such a way that ensures safety and accountability at all levels WILL make a difference. I agree with the idea that the BOT probably needs to be cleaned out, too, but the bigger question is, “Where do they go from there?
By the way, FLP, do not mistake me for some Penn State apologist who wants the program to get by with a slap on the wrist. I did admire PSU and what they stood for (supposedly), and I respected them as a great university. I even have some friends who went there, and my cousin got her Ph.D from there. But I do care way more about the welfare of children than I do about any sports team. As a matter of fact, I work for an organization that is centered around youth services. When I first found out about the Sandusky thing, it made me disgusted and angry. I work often with kids who are now around the age Sandusky’s victims were at the time they were attacked. Even The idea that someone could hurt those kids just makes my stomach hurt. So, even though I don’t yet have children, I do have an understanding of just how important it is to have children’s safety at the top of every priority list. Then, to find out these guys knew what happened, only to put their own careers and the school’s brand name ahead of children’s lives? Hey, I want them in jail for as long as the law allows. And, yes, the program should be punished too, since it was the breeding ground for those boys ruined lives. It should be punished as severely as possible, but not at the expense of people who are not guilty. Therefore, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the program alive, but as a shell of its former self. A five year ban on bowls would do that. 50 scholarships/year would do that., but it wouldng shut down the remainder of the athletic department, or harm the Big Ten, or crush small businesses.
LikeLike
@ MichaelinRaleigh
How wounded is Southern Cal, really? They would have made the Inaugural PAC-12 title game, if they would have been allowed to participate in it, and they beat the eventual champs on the road. They finished #6 last year, without the benefit of a postseason. They are back in the Nat’l title picture this season. They may pretend they got their wings clipped, but they really didn’t.
Twenty years ago Auburn was stripped of scholarships and post-season play, and went undefeated. It took five years for them to win less than 8 games a season. 50 scholarships may be unprecedented, but isn’t going to turn PSU into Temple or Idaho. Let’s be real.
If the stadium/restaurants/bars stay full, and the money keeps rolling in, how is Penn State being punished? What was the point in going half-way? The criminals here counted on the fact they were too big to be punished…and that is exactly what you are arguing. How dare we allow them to be right on this.
We’ve not seen anything like the SMU payment plan since they got busted. As corrupt as the SWC was, the only reason can be that TPTB were scared off by looking at what happened to the Mustangs. The next time an administrator has to make the choice to come clean about horrible crimes or try to cover them up, I hope he can partially justify making the right decision to the crazed fans by saying, “look at what they did to Penn State.” I don’t see anyone being able to do that with TV bans, lost scholarships, and “punishing the kids there now” by not letting them go to bowl games.
If you want the program to rise from the ashes, it has to die first. It would be better if PSU put the program down, but clearly they lack the courage. Shoot, they lack the courage to make a mere political gesture and take down the statue. The NCAA should step in to end the situation for the foreseeable future.
If Penn State football is taken away, who’s fault is it? I argue it was Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley, and not the NCAAs.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox:
USC has not yet suffered a loss of scholarship. They appealed, and lost, and will be limited to 15 per year for the next 3 years (if my recollection is correct). All they suffered so far is PR. Nothing that actually limited the team. We will see how things are in 3 years.
Because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The lesson of SMU was not to have the pres and high administration actually actively involved (and stop when caught). That is what underlings are for. Then you can “can” those “actively involved”, being able to, when caught, “clean house”.
You seem to not distinguish between the criminals and their employers. I think Spanier et al are in the midst of exceptional failure. Why not banish all FB in the state since the State would seem an authority above the PSU admins that did nothing either?
LikeLike
Shultz and Curley will probably go to jail. Spanier may end up in jail. Some of the others, Harmon, the Public Safety head and the legal counsel may be at risk. The first 3 will lose everything they own in lawsuits even if its just in legal fees defending themselves. Penn St. will suffer significant losses on lawsuits and possibly very severe penalties by the DOE.
There will be plenty to look at and say look at what happened to Penn St. That will be on administrator’s minds a lot more than what happens to their football team.
LikeLike
“But it would still keep the program alive, which would prevent the crushing of small businesses and the destruction of the remainder of PSU’s athletic program.”
This is unfortunately not really financially grounded. How much money does Duke or Temple make in football revenue? Not much. If the PSU football program becomes, as you said, “a joke” but remains alive, revenue and ticket sales dramatically shrink. This does the exact opposite of what you say, with no money or following you crush small business and the rest of the AD. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You either punch the whole school and city economy in the face, or you don’t.
LikeLike
No doubt PSU needs major reforms….and how they accomplish those reforms should be no business of the NCAA, yourself, or FLP.
LikeLike
Nor you, ‘Shroom, nor you…at least by your way of thinking.
If the PSU-PTB lack the politicial wherewithal/courage to do the minimum symbolic gesture and take down Paterno’s statue if only temporarily, they have obviously no intention/ability of reforming a damned thing. If they can’t be the grown-ups, they have to be stopped from ruining the whole industry by association.
Stubbornness in defiance of accepted practice and embarrassing College athletics is what led to SMU’s right and proper Death Penalty.
LikeLike
One thing the NCAA could explore is having, as a requirement of membership, all members be open to the levels of openness required of the State schools. ie the privates and semi privates (PSU) engage an independent outside authority ( or cede that authority to the appropriate State) to provide the oversight the state wields over fully State institutions. I know, nobody likes bureaucracy, but an additional layer of oversight has its benefits.
LikeLike
FLP—By any chance, are you an Obama supporter? Your predilection for sweeping punishments otherwise outside the rule of law is very Obamaesque in character….a little Stalinist also……
LikeLike
I see we are getting closer to compliance with Godwin’s law….
LikeLike
My point politics at this point are more “None of the Above” than anything, You ‘shroom are little more than a troll, rarely adding anything of note, and are consistently uncivil here for no reason.
Y’know, if you wanna get into name calling.
I’m not even advocating salting the earth here. PSU, even if dropped to the Big Ten is too big and too traditional a king to fall as far or as hard as nuveau rich and tiny and private SMU.
Pplus, let’s be real. I’m only advocation civil penalties here.
Did you use Obama and Stalin becaus even you have more class than to go with a German reference?
LikeLike
Nah….Stalinist in that he would arrest and execute, and then define the crime.
You want the NCAA to punish in ways the NCAA was not established to do….because that’s what your moral sensibility demands.. Thus you talk about symbolic gestures and stubborness in defiance of what YOU think should be done. All very Obamaesque and extra-legal
LikeLike
Interesting………didn’t know Goodwin had a law………..probably a better analogy is the media hysteria and political correctness that led to the the manslaughter charge in the T. Martin case in Florida…..
LikeLike
Maybe you auction off the statue with the proceeds to go to a child abuse charity.
LikeLike
add2
LikeLike
Frank, regarding PSU, you sound like you were channeling Otter in the Delta trial
LikeLike
PSU is an example of why it’s important to cycle through head coaches every 5-7 years at a major university. That way a school doesn’t become beholden to a certain coach and his influence over the university as a whole 😉
LikeLike
That’s probably a good way to get rid of the major issues that could go on for decades/years, but the bigger issue is probably just that college football has become such a big revenue generator for everyone that its importance has effectively made it “too big to fail” (as alluded to in the previous thread).
What college’s athletic department doesn’t derive most of its budget from the football program directly or indirectly, and what community with a major college football program doesn’t derive millions of dollars worth of benefits from that program?
I mean look at Bobby Petrino, he wasn’t at Arkansas that long before hiring his mistress.
It’s an institutionalized culture at this point. Changing coaches often can prevent Sandusky-sized issues, but you’d need a culture change to get rid of a lot of the murk that you can find anywhere that big $ college football is played.
LikeLike
I think, not the coaches, but the administration needs to have a mix of people. Most universities make a point to primarily hire faculty who got their Phd elsewhere. At Penn St., the AD and VP were both former football players. Spanier had been there for a long time. Its the inbred administration that contributed to the problem.
LikeLike
That’s probably a good point about administrations.
After watching the fiasco over at UVa the past couple of weeks, it’s pretty clear that the boards and administrations of these universities can run into a lot of same problems that plague large corporations or other institutions in terms of how insular groups regulate themselves.
I just don’t know what the solution is.
You look at the gang rape case over in Montana and despite the lack of publicity, that to me is even more shocking than the Sandusky case given that the football players were involved in the gang rape. They’ve also had a bunch of other incidents with Montana’s football program and the police among others have basically just looked the other way. The whole thing is disturbing.
And to be sure this happens everywhere although not on the scale of some of these situations.
LikeLike
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-02/news/31543359_1_sexual-assults-rapes-civil-rights
This is a brief link on the Montana situation. The coach and athletic director were later fired.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the size of their board didn’t contribute to the board’s lack of action. Larger boards have trouble working together. And with 30+ members, the head of the board may have not felt it necessary to contract everyone. Most boards I have seen have 7-15 members.
My biggest concern about this is the board’s finger pointing. They’ve cleaned house at the school. But they have yet to clean house at the board. The tone of the board at the time Paterno was fired wasn’t outrage over the crime, the quotes indicated they were mad at Spanier for not telling them everything and at Paterno for suggesting they deal with the problem instead of dealing with him since he was going away anyway. It was almost an ego thing. “We’re in charge so you need to treat us with respect.” Again, they were wrapped up in their internal issues instead of the problem.
LikeLike
Frank, your point extends to a lot of problems that are of a lesser scale than PSU.
Do alumni really want to win so much that their school becomes known as “Thug U.” Do you want to bring players with questionable character who get together to committ armed robbery? Do you want players with such bad judgement they can’t figure out they will get arrested if they drive without a license?
If you’ve got a bunch of college kids, you will have some alcohol and drug abuse problems and the occassional bar fight. You deal with it and move on. But when you have things like armed robbery that a non-athlete student would not do, you have really gone over the line. When you put pressure on professors for grades, have plagiarism and non-existent classes or you let illiterates stay in the program for 4 years, you need to change that culture and not recruit players who can’t compete in the classroom.
LikeLike
I really hope I am wrong, but I believe Penn State is getting the Death Penalty. With the exception of domestic terrorism like 9/11, there are two things above all that is despised in our Society, and those are pedophiles and those who enable their behavior. In the mind of the NCAA, if the enablers are allowed to get away with what they did, then it will become anything goes. People at Miami. USC and the rest will make the case in the Court of Public Opinion that why should our programs be penalized, and why should innocents have to pay for the Pete Carroll’s & Reggie Bush’s of the world? Beyond that, they have to wonder if they could see another CCNY Basketball or Black Sox betting scandal, or what is currently happening with the New Orleans Saints and unlike Landis (Black Sox) or Goodell (Saints), we (the NCAA) becomes essentially powerless?
LikeLike
When looking at the Penn State case, one of the things to keep in mind is the actual value football has brought and will bring to the university as a whole.
Back in April 2011, then PSU President Graham Spanier told new Big Ten member Nebraska that Penn State’s joining the B10 “played a big part in changing the perception of the school from being a regional university to a national university”. See http://www.dailynebraskan.com/mobile/news/penn-state-president-assures-nebraska-will-have-smooth-transition-to-big-ten-1.2546147
The article also talks about how the number of out-of-state applicants went up since 1990, the graduation rates increased from 57% to 90% and the SAT scores for all applicants also rose. Spanier also talked about the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) and all the assets and cost savings that consortium brought to Penn State.
By PSU’s own account, the research dollar expenditures at the school grew from $226M in 1989 (one year before the B10 announcement was made) to $804M in the most recent fiscal year. See http://www.research.psu.edu/about/reports/annual-report-of-research-activity
While football at Penn State wasn’t the sole reason why they were added to the Big Ten in 1990, it certainly was a contributing factor. Add in its ongoing role as a platform to market the university on television, to solicit donations from alumns and other interested parties and to appeal to perspective students and you can see that the value of the football program goes well beyond the revenue it provides to support the rest of the athletic department.
That’s something to keep in mind when crafting any sort of punishment or response to what happened at Penn State. When you’re looking for motivation behind Spanier’s actions in particular, keep in mind what was at stake not for the football program, but also the university as a whole.
Also be mindful the level at which these decisions were taken. The actions taken weren’t solely done by one individual in the athletic department. This crept up in the university president’s office and the nature of the offense goes far beyond getting illegal benefits or a competitive advantage over an opponent. This was an out and out crime perpetrated against the most vulnerable members of our society.
While I wouldn’t touch anything Penn State does in regards to its academic mission like forcing it out of the CIC, for example, it’s also difficult to do anything to the football program that won’t affect the university in some way, shape or form. If you make the argument that PSU shouldn’t be given the death penalty because of the effect on businesses in Happy Valley or how it might touch on donations, etc., then you should also have been against the death penalty for any school, regardless of the circumstances. Athletic departments and football programs don’t operate in a bubble–that’s why so much time and money are invested in them by the universities in the first place.
If there’s any thing the NCAA and the Big Ten should do,I have one recommendation that should be considered. The B10 pays annual conference distributions to each of its schools with the amount in FY 2013 slated to be around $25M and with part of that money coming direct from the NCAA through the men’s basketball tournament.
The B10 in concert with the NCAA should consider fining or withholding some sum of money from that annual conference distribution through a fixed period of time. PSU is one of the big money makers in college athletics with the most recent profit total being a little over $30M for the entire department (including expenses from non-revenue sports). The B10 could withhold all its conference distributions from PSU and the athletic department would still be profitable. While I wouldn’t necessarily suggest that, the amount should be perhaps 40% or 50% of the conference distribution per year for five years (a little over $10M to $12M in FY 2013). That’s enough to make a statement (especially if that money goes to an appropriate charity), but it won’t cripple the athletic department so much that there will be a major problem with its daily operations or with its support to the existing student athletes at PSU.
See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/17/penn-state-s-economic-fallout-will-the-sandusky-scandal-sink-a-whole-city.html
LikeLike
Frank,
(1) College Football Playoff Details Dripping Out and Confusing Everyone
“Please Choose the Sugar or Cotton So I Can Stop Calling This The Pompous Champions Bowl”
I don’t think they will choose. They’ll rotate the game between the two so it is held all 12 years – perhaps 6 in each.
“That is, if the Rose Bowl isn’t a semifinal in a given year and a Big Ten team is a semifinalist, the Rose will have a Big Ten replacement no matter what record or ranking such replacement has at the time (whereas the current BCS system requires any non-champ replacement needs to be in the top 14). On the flip side, in the years that the Rose Bowl is a semifinal host and the Big Ten champ isn’t in the top 4, then that Big Ten champ will go to one of the other top 6 bowls.”
Notes:
1. When the Rose hosts a semi and the B10 champ makes the playoff, the runner up is not guaranteed a spot in another host bowl. It would be unusual for the runner up not to be top 12ish, but it could happen and then they would be left out. I’m not saying you said otherwise, I just wanted to point it out.
2. This is where the Rose and Champs differ. I believe the Champs will host B12/SEC all 12 years by shifting locations (probably between Sugar and Cotton). The B10 and P12 need to sign a secondary deal with the Fiesta to achieve this same thing.
3. The $80M per year is evidence why the B10 and P12 need a supplementary deal for the Rose. They could miss out on a lot of money in 2-4 years if Pasadena is their only site.
“The SportsBusiness Daily report also indicated that the commissioners expected to have the Rose Bowl and Allstate AT&T Chick-fil-A Breakfast of Champions Bowl host semifinals in the same years, which perplexes me to no end. What’s the point of doing that? Would this mean that there could be years where there isn’t any semifinal on New Year’s Day when those two bowls aren’t hosting semifinals? Why would a TV partner paying billions of dollars for this playoff (which is basically the entire impetus for this playoff being created in the first place) not want at least one semifinal in prime time every New Year’s Day? By the same token, why would such TV partner pay for any semifinal games played on low-rated New Year’s Eve when most of America is outside of their homes getting hammered and not near a TV?”
Best guesses:
1. The commissioners haven’t talked in depth to the TV people about their plans, and will change things once they find out how much they are leaving on the table.
2. If they host the same years, it makes it easier to keep appropriate geographic pairings of games each year while keeping a rotation of sites.
3. They believe 2 semis on 1 day has a multiplicative effect on ratings/value. Both semis on NYE would be sufficient to get fans to adjust their plans while the Rose and Champs would be more than enough to get viewers on NYD. Both semis on NYD would crush the ratings, allowing lesser numbers on NYE. Split semis would give value to both days.
4. Only the Rose actually has their TV deal locked in. Maybe the Champs won’t always be at 8 on NYD.
5. The commissioners are wrong and they won’t host semis the same years.
“The goals of a selection committee, bowls and TV networks aren’t always going to be aligned here. A selection committee will presumably want to award bids based on merit, bowls want teams with the best ticket buying traveling fan bases and TV networks want the most attractive national brand names.”
I think the committee makes all the decisions and on top of their rankings, they’ll also consider bowl-relevant factors such as geography and recent bowl appearances in determining locations. In many years, the big 5 could take 9 of the 12 slots so there won’t be many choices to make. TV is basically bidding on 2 semis, the NCG and 3 BCS bowls. I don’t think the match-ups in the 3 games will change their bids very much.
“Is this structurally going to end up being an end-of-the-year poll only using 10 to 20 people as opposed to 115 people? If so, why is that an improvement over the current usage of the Harris Poll?”
Pretty much. It sounds like 15-20 people will be used and they’ll start work in mid-season. The improvement will come from them paying more attention to the games, I suppose. Administrators tend to not be as biased as the former coaches in the Harris poll, but they also know less about football. I’m guessing they’ll lean heavily on the info they are provided, whatever that is (AP and computer rankings, SOS data, etc).
“How is strength of schedule going to be taken into account? … Anyone that thinks that SEC teams are going to get docked for playing cupcakes in their non-conference schedules are completely misguided – SOS rankings help the SEC even MORE than subjective human polls.”
Nobody knows, but several people have mentioned OOC SOS. It’s possible that the committee will look at overall SOS to separate the big boys from everyone else, but they might use OOC SOS (or weight those games more heavily) when separating amongst the big boys.
(2) All Quiet on the Conference Realignment Front
“This means that the chances of Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC schools defecting to the Big 12 or even SEC have dropped precipitously.”
Tell that to The Dude.
I think the long term money strain will eventually crack the ACC if they don’t recover in FB soon. The B12 and SEC are going to get further ahead with bowl revenue (Champs > Orange), and then playoff revenue may also hurt the ACC (depends how much is based on BCS era success). Add to that the renegotiated SEC TV deal and the new B12 deal, and the financial divide may eventually get too large to ignore for a couple of schools.
(3) Little Glass Houses For You and Me
“What troubles me, and as Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal poignantly pointed out in this piece, is that there’s an argument being parroted by many people that the “insular culture” in State College that allowed a massive coverup to protect the Nittany Lion football program is somehow a unique Penn State problem.”
I agree every major football school has some of this culture. However, I also think the extent of the cultural problem is unique to PSU. PSU is the perfect storm of several factors:
1. Being in an isolated small town.
2. Not sharing a state with a major rival with fans always looking for any possible dirt.
3. Being away from major media always looking to break a story and tear down a program/coach.
4. Having the problems happen in the era before blogging. Does anybody believe rumors wouldn’t leak out nowadays?
5. Keeping the same highly successful coach for over 50 years building a huge bank of good will and trust.
6. Having friends and former players for said coach in almost every position of power.
7. Having the small town culture lead to a culture of trust instead of verification in governance (BoT, etc).
I don’t think any school will ever combine all those factors again. Coaches don’t last as long and don’t get trusted as much. Media is more and more invasive. Bloggers hear every rumor and publish them. America is getting more and more cynical. People are more willing to talk about things they would keep quiet before as they understand the impact.
LikeLike
Why rotate the Champions Bowl? The Sugar and the Cotton Bowls are separate entities. One will outbid the other. Why would the SEC and the Big 12 take a pay cut every other year?
LikeLike
You rotate so that you have it all 12 years. If they stick with one site, the game disappears when a semi is hosted there instead. By moving it, they get the roughly $80M all 12 years instead of only 8 or 10. I doubt the bids would be all that different anyway, plus they can preserve historic ties to those two games for the conferences.
LikeLike
@Brian
“(2) All Quiet on the Conference Realignment Front
“This means that the chances of Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC schools defecting to the Big 12 or even SEC have dropped precipitously.”
Tell that to The Dude.”
Um, the Dude predicted FSU to the Big 12 on Tuesday. It is now officially Thursday in my time zone. I think the Dude likes to see his name in print.
Nemo
LikeLike
You may be right about the name in print, but the Tuesday thing was a joke by him. The last month he has been ranting about big bad evil Texas and Deloss Dodds have deprived WVU of a fellow eastern time zone member.
LikeLike
People have touched on the bad idea of playing the new six “BCS” bowls on new Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, mostly in the context of the game held on the evening of NY Eve being at risk for lowered viewership.
I question the idea of packing the games so close together regardless of when they are held. I could make the investment to spend a week where my nightly viewing was a BCS game or the championship game. I, and I believe a lot of fans, are going to tailor my schedule to watch the 2 playoff games and only the 1-2 non-playoff games that are most compelling.
Look at 2014 for example. Only a true diehard or someone without a life is going to watch 9-10 hours of college football on 12/31 and 1/1 when they know there is also going to be 6 hours of NFL wild card playoffs on 1/3 and 1/4.
LikeLike
Phil,
The BCS TV numbers showed that spreading the games out over several weeknights didn’t work well. Fans still ignored all but the most compelling BCS games and the NCG.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. The primary reason why those six games are clustered over two days is that it allows large scale mass promotion for those events. It also puts the non-playoff bowls on the same dates as the ones with playoffs with the idea that more viewers will watch those games in concert with the bowls that have playoff implications.
The BCS bowls were losing ratings in part because they were spread out, but also because some of them weren’t very interesting (Oklahoma v. Connecticut in Fiesta Bowl comes to mind). The other problem those bowls had is that they weren’t relevant in any degree to the BCS national championship game.
We’ll see how well these games do in terms of ratings, but given the scheduling, it makes you wonder if TPTB want to see one network (most likely ABC/ESPN) broadcast these games because of the cross-promotion angle. The reason I think this is if the non-playoff bowls continue to lose traction like the BCS bowls have been doing recently, then college football might feel compelled to rethink the post-season again.
LikeLike
The reason college football “lost” New Years Day is because it is now the worst college football weekend for volume of content.
In the ol’ days, New Years Day was the one day a year you could get up, eat breakfast, and spend the next 12 hrs watching football…two games at the same time…all day.
Now with cable, third tier rights, etc., on any given football Saturday you can watch at least 3 games from 11-11 EST, and probably two more night games on the west coast afterwards. UNLESS it is New years day, where the only time multiple games are on is c. 1pm EST, the Rose Bowl is the only highlight, and the rest of BCS games are later in the week. Frankly, I’d rather watch the novelty of outdoor hockey than a non-championship game played between two teams I have no emotional interest in…esp. if it’s looking like a snoozer.
Gimme the old days, when I could flip back and forth between the Sugar and Orange bowls.
LikeLike
I agree with the above comment about NYD. It lost value when viewers didn’t have multiple options for games. What drives ratings is what happened in 2006 when ESPN started airing a weekly national primetime game on ABC. Mike Slive complained about it asking what they were doing creating competition for his SEC game. ESPN told him to watch what happens….his SEC games on ESPN drew better ratings. ESPN made sure ESPN2 had a competing SEC game and showed better games on ESPNU. College Football on Saturday night became a stop down for viewers nationwide. Fans will stop down and make it priority when their are multiple options they can switch back and forth. People rarely watch the entire game unless it’s their team.
You want to recapture NYD? Put 4 early games on between 10:00 and 4:00…then the Rose Bowl…and then 2 games at night.
Put the two playoff semi-final games on a 4th Saturday of December each year…that becomes another stop down. You then have a 4-7 day break to generate hype for NYD and place the value back on NYD. Putting a playoff semi-final on NYE? Now you’ve created competition for the playoff….planning for college football vs planning for NYE plans.
LikeLike
I thought it had value when there were just 4 games. You normally had the Cotton and Sugar early, Rose in the afternoon and Orange at night. I don’t want 4 games on at noon. I can see the value in multiple games, but not a flood. I know last year I had more than 1 game I wanted to watch at noon. Now I’ve got ties in the Big 12, SEC and lived in Big 10 country as well, so I may be much more inclined to watch schools other than my main team than a typical viewer.
LikeLike
Its true there are lots of games all the time (a warning from basketball? overexposure?). But NYD got minor bowls on it instead of the big matchups. And the BCS games got moved off NYD. It ceased to be the day when all the big games were on. The big games were scattered about. Houston/Penn St. was a pretty minor bowl and was on NYD last year. I was interested because I was interested in seeing UH, but a bowl that low on the totem bowl never made it to NYD in the past.
LikeLike
Bullet – it was probably a typo, but the Totem Bowl might be a good name. As long as bowl games are going to be around, they should at least throw in a few more puns; the Cotton Bowl shouldn’t have to bear that burden alone.
LikeLike
Oddly, multiple games on New Year’s day became a victim of college football’s wild popularity. Even without the BCS, no one dares challenge (or dilute) the massive audiences tuning in for the Rose and whatever big game is in primetime. The Rose and (for lack of a better word) Champions are events now, like the Super Bowl or Final Four, and no one programs anything worth a darn against those sorts of events.
LikeLike
I’m so glad to attend a school that actually cares about academics and isn’t obsessed about sports.
LikeLike
You’re right, Morgan. I’m going to go outside and burn my worthless land-grant university diploma right this minute. Hopefully, I can get into a more refined and academically inclined school soon.
LikeLike
Whoa, I didn’t mean to imply that academics at schools like Penn State are worthless, the emphasis was supposed to be on the “doesn’t care about sports” part.
LikeLike
Pitt agreed to the same deal as Syracuse-$7.5 million and they get to escape the BE in 2013. BE lawsuit against TCU was also dropped today with no comment. So the BE lawsuits are done-assuming Boise doesn’t back out.
LikeLike
TCU also settled with the big East yesterday for $5 million. Along with settling up with Pitt and ‘cuse, $20 million in one week is not a bad haul for the big East.
I settled 3 cases this week too, but I’m a little short when compared to the big East’s lawyers.
LikeLike
Big East statement said TCU paid the $5M.
So Big East ended up getting $20M from WVU, $5M from TCU, $15M from Pitt and Syracuse. It doesn’t make up for losing the schools but that’s $40M in exit fees.
LikeLike
Of course, those schools leaving is a big part of why they’re being relegated considering that the remainder of the conference is former C-USA/MWC schools or similar.
LikeLike
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120718/SPORTS/120718030/
Indy isn’t going to bid on the first few NCGs. They have too many other events coming.
LikeLike
I’ll probably have more comments tomorrow on your post, but for now I want to just echo that I very much agree with wanting them to just choose a bowl (or multiple as Brian suggests, which would work well for them, but I don’t think that’s likely given the way things have been laid out so far). The Champions Bowl would be a great name if a) it was actually going to be the name and b) it was likely to have champions in it fairly regularly.
LikeLike
It’s kind of a generic name. The good bowls fit a pattern: Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, etc. “Champions Bowl” actually sounds like a name not worthy of a champion. The best bowl names are no more than six letters long, ideally rolling off the tongue with the “bowl” at the end.
LikeLike
I always thought the “Poulan Weedeater Independence Bowl” had a sort of inherent zing.
LikeLike
It occurs to me that the selection committee could be selecting as few as two teams to go to non-semifinal bowls some years, and that that could happen more often than six. Message to the non-New Year’s Day conferences: get in the playoff or get out. Looks like they traded access to the BCS bowls as a whole for access to the playoff, which I guess is a trade they’d make (unless they’re the Big East). And I think that is why Notre Dame will either take the Orange Bowl’s offer or, less likely, ask for some pretty generous assurances from the selection committee for access bowl spots, perhaps even more generous than what the BCS gave them (think “guaranteed spot with eight wins” or “if we’re even being considered, we’re in”). Wouldn’t be surprised to see the Golden Domers involved in the Orange contract negotiations either.
LikeLike
Big Ten response to scandal
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/jim-delany-wants-the-power-to-fire-coaches/30771
The proposal, part of a plan being circulated among Big Ten leaders, would give James E. Delany, who has overseen the league since 1989, and a powerful committee of conference presidents the ability to penalize individual members of an institution, should their actions significantly harm the league’s reputation.
The sanctions, spelled out in a document obtained by The Chronicle, could include financial penalties, suspension, or termination of employment.
[snip]
Big Ten officials are still in the early stages of debating how to handle fallout from the scandal. Among other ideas, the league’s presidents and chancellors could consider removing Penn State from the conference, one Big Ten leader told The Chronicle.
[snip]
But the conference’s bylaws prescribe potentially severe penalties for member institutions that break lesser rules. Any Big Ten university that employs or retains workers who intentionally falsify or deliberately fail to provide complete and accurate information during an investigation may be required to “show cause why its membership in the conference should not be suspended or terminated,” the Big Ten’s 2011-12 handbook says.
At least four top Penn State officials—including Graham B. Spanier, the former president, and Timothy M. Curley, the athletic director on administrative leave—failed to paint an accurate picture of how much they knew about Jerry Sandusky
[snip]
The Big Ten’s 12-member Council of Presidents and Chancellors must approve any decision to suspend, expel, or place on probation any member of the conference. According to the conference handbook, expulsion requires a vote of not less than 60 percent of the full council (a Big Ten spokesman said that figure is actually 70 percent, or eight members, which will be reflected in the 2012-13 handbook).
The Big Ten does not have a contingency scheduling plan should Penn State’s football team be banned from playing this or any season
LikeLike
That just reads like someone took all of the laws that could potentially be used to expel PSU and put them together in a story. I don’t see any record of the Big Ten saying that the expulsion/suspension of PSU from the conference is seriously on the table.
LikeLike
Hmmm…”the league’s presidents and chancellors could consider removing Penn State from the conference”
…and folks are worried about the NCAA letter, investigation and potential penalties?
Before today, I would have never really believed that there was much chance that the PSU scandal could actually lead to more realignment. The vultures are going to start circling on this comment (B1G will try to quite this talk, while ACC and Big East ears perk-up).
LikeLike
For PSU, ‘failure’ AND the big east are not an option.
LikeLike
I think that giving the conference commissioner and/or other presidents the authority to fire a coach is a very bad idea. The schools hire and pay the coaches, not the commissioner. The commissioner is supposed to work for the universities, not vice versa. Was this Delany’s idea? The title of that article makes it sound like he wants that power. Personally I would be very worried if Slive was trying to get that kind of power. Now if the other presidents and the commissioner want to apply pressure on a school to get that school to take a certain action, that is fine. But for a commissioner or other presidents to be able to just up and fire a coach, that sets a bad precedent IMO.
LikeLike
I agree with this. I don’t see how centralizing this kind of power in the commissioner’s office is going to prevent anything like this.
LikeLike
Larry Scott is probably thinking he could use that power with some of the ADs =D
still a bad idea
LikeLike
Dan Guerrero to start….
LikeLike
Get ND on the phone.
LikeLike
Keep in mind they expelled Michigan once.
LikeLike
WAC News via Brian Murphy (@murphsturph)
– Big Sky commish says league could combine with WAC to keep 2 AQ bids in hoops. Says it is a longshot however
– [Big Sky commish] Fullerton on Idaho: “Good possibility they play with us in some way.” Says football likely to try independence
– Fullerton says on KTIK that Idaho going indy in FB, Big Sky in other sports would be “good enough for us.”
LikeLike
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc
Found this while looking at something else. It attempts to take the ACC’s media contract and assign dollars to the school that earned it. Its interesting.
LikeLike
Did not expect Clemson to be that high, or Maryland and UVA that low. Can’t comment on his methodology, but would love to see that kind of analysis on other leagues.
LikeLike
I would also like to see that analysis over time.
LikeLike
It is an interesting analysis…converting TV viewership into the ‘relative value’ of each school in the ACC. The author clearly believes that FSU has to carry a heavy burden and that there are too many free riders (especially Wake and BC) in the league.
The financial conclussion is obvious: even in a relatively mediocre (by FSU standards) 2011 football season, FSU is still the biggest brand in the ACC. A few years ago, being recognized as the biggest brand and gaining school reputation would have been seen as positive. Now the analysis is spun to prove that FSU is being exploited.
LikeLike
A few thoughts after your post:
1. People want to take an all or nothing approach to Penn State and NCAA. If it’s an NCAA matter a lot of people feel the death penalty is warranted. In reality though, this is at most a matter on the outskirts of what the NCAA was intended to deal with meaning if there is any punishment, it should be fairly light.
2. I’m not entirely sure New Years Eve nights are all that bad. It’s not traditional, but people tend to get time off and a lot would probably watch these while doing other things too. The night itself may not be ideal still, but having some big really bowls on New Years Eve could also help keep people going through New Years Day.
Example to think of: It seems crazy that the Gator/Outback/Citrus Bowls are almost all at the same time. These could all be different times and possibly get higher ratings individually. It’s arguably the combined experience the networks are looking for though. You can say you have a very wide audience watching for the event. The same may hold on a bigger scale over 2 days.
LikeLike
The town of Grambling petitions the NCAA to restore Eddie Robinson as the D-1 coach with the most all-time wins. As you recall, Penn State fired JoePa one week after he passed up Coach Rob. I don’t know how the NCAA can take wins away from JoePa and PSU, but I’ll always view this record as tainted.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20120719/UPDATES01/120719019/Grambling-petitions-remove-Joe-Paterno-wins-record?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
LikeLike
Alan,
If they decide the cover-up in 2001 was a major violation, they could potentially vacate all the wins since then. Certainly they could take away a season’s worth.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8182621/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustee-steve-garban-steps-downs-jerry-sandusky-scandal
The former chair of the PSU BoT (he was chair when the scandal broke) has resigned from the board.
From his letter of resignation:
“I officially joined the Penn State community in 1955 as a freshman. I joined the Board of Trustees in July 1998, and I was honored to serve as chair in 2010 and 2011.”
From the article:
“Garban is a 1959 Penn State graduate who was very close to Paterno. He was one of four Penn State leaders to visit Paterno in his home in November 2004 to try to urge the coach to retire.”
LikeLike
Looked at a NY paper and CNN on the same topic because of ESPN’s emphasis on the death penalty. Neither article mentioned it. I wanted to see if ESPN was just mentioning the sports angle or if that was a primary concern. Looks like it was just ESPN emphasizing the sports angle.
They have a lot more to be worried about than the NCAA.
LikeLike
ESPN is a sports network. Of course they’ll focus on that aspect, and they should.
LikeLike
Well if the trustees were talking to CNN or NY Times about the sports angle, I would say they need to get rid of those trustees immediately because PSU has bigger problems.
LikeLike
That’s the whole problem, though, right? A failure to see the bigger picture. On the other hand, they may have been asked only about the sports angle.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8182973/nba-adds-three-additional-uses-instant-replay-2012-13-season
The NBA is the first truly major American sports league to completely sell out. Uniforms will carry ads starting in 2013. How long until uniforms look like soccer jerseys with just the name of the sponsor and not the team?
LikeLike
I’m would be ok with this if it would mean less commercial breaks.
LikeLike
What will obviously happen is that we’ll get uniform ads in addition to the barrage of commercials we already endure.
LikeLike
Terrible. Glad I don’t watch the NBA too much.
Sponsors on jerseys are a big turn off to me. I think I could get a little into soccer, but our local team (the Crew) has some sponsor name right in the middle of their jerseys and that makes me avoid trying.
I just hope ‘t want to see this in baseball or college sports (the sports I care about).
LikeLike
@Brian – The business side of me isn’t bothered by this. With people watching fewer commercials, it’s actually surprising that American sports leagues have held out this long. This was going to happen sooner or later. There’s going to continue to be an increased premium for in-game advertising of various forms. The NFL, for instance, charges an outrageous amount to Motorola just so that they can have its logo on coaches’ headsets. One can imagine what a logo on players would be worth (and NBA players, in particular, have much more international marketing appeal compared to any other American athletes).
The aesthetic side of me is worried more about the look since I’m very traditionalist in terms of my jersey tastes. The Premier League jerseys generally look good to me even though the logo of the sponsor is actually much more prominent than the club logo since there’s fairly traditional styling otherwise. When sponsors start wanting more than a patch and start demanding stylistic changes to the jersey overall, that’s where I have an issue in terms of personal taste.
LikeLike
Speaking of the Premier League and ads, those were worth ~184 million dollars last year.
http://deadspin.com/5927684/ready-or-not-here-come-ads-on-nba-jerseys
I hate the idea by the way.
LikeLike
I think that the soccer jerseys with ads on the front look awful. That said, I don’t really care what the NBA or NFL do as most of their unis look garish anyway. They better not mess with the birds-on-the-bat or traditional baseball piping though (though I wouldn’t mind ads on batting helmets like the Japanese have).
LikeLike
I would point out that perhaps there should be a special rule prohibiting ads for Target on helmets.
LikeLike
Paul Lukas’s call to arms
http://www.uni-watch.com/2012/07/20/nba-planning-to-add-uniform-advertising-in-2013/
But maybe we can still get them to go that route if we make our voices heard. This is a genuine red-alert crisis, people — even if you don’t care about the NBA (I don’t much care about it myself), this move would open the door for uniform advertising in the other Big Four leagues. The threat is real, and the time to respond to it is now: Tweet to @nba with the hashtag #NoUniAds, send an e-mail to the league, call the league office (they’re in the book: 212-407-8000). Do all of those things, and tell them in no uncertain terms, “NO UNIFORM ADS!” And if the ads will make you less likely to buy a retail jersey, be sure to tell them that too.
Remember, folks, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Your uni-verse needs you. You know what to do.
LikeLike
http://preseason.stassen.com/consensus/2012.html#big-ten
Consensus preseason predictions for 2012.
B10:
OSU is a slight favorite over WI to win the East with a huge gap to #3 (PSU, IL and PU are all close together. MI is the clear favorite to win the West over MSU and NE.
ACC – FSU vs VT
B12 – OU in a landslide
P12 – OR vs USC
SEC – UGA vs LSU (AL is close)
NCG – USC vs LSU
LikeLike
Bama loses a recruit and a former star player claims Auburn bought the recruit. Sour grapes or the beginning of Auburn getting caught cheating (again)?
LikeLike
If the NCAA didn’t hit auburn for playing a kid whose dad was proven to be pimping his kid out to the highest bidder, then they won’t do anything to them for moving a kid from LaGrange, GA to Auburn, AL to finish out his senior year in high school.
LikeLike
It’s the NCAA. They’ll find proof for the most minor offense and punish them for that.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/19614875/Bid-process-for-Champions-Bowl-to-begin-next-week
Good info on the Champs Bowl.
* Bidding starts next week
* They expect just one site (I don’t)
* They expect to match the $80M for the Rose
* Dallas is the favorite right now over Atlanta
* The SEC would welcome a game in the new recruiting territory of TX (not sure how thrilled the east is with that)
* “Also, the Champions Bowl will not be the actual name of the bowl, sources said. Instead it will assume the name of the bowl where it’s held, such as the Cotton Bowl or Chick-fil-A Bowl, etc.”
* There was no mention of New Orleans or the Sugar Bowl hosting it. It’s a shame to see that connection lost.
LikeLike
I guess if the Cotton becomes the SEC/B12 game, then the Sugar will do its best to make up for losing its tie-in to the SEC by bidding to be a frequent host of semifinals.
With 24 semifinal bowls over 12 years, and the Rose and Cotton getting only 2 each over that time, other bowls are going to have to get more than 4. Shoot, if the Orange Bowl also ends up wanting to host only 2 over the 12 years, the Sugar, Fiesta, and (presumably) the Chick-fil-a will have 18 of the 24 semifinals. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Orange Bowl takes that same angle. The ACC owns the TV rights to that game, just as the SEC/B12 will own the TV rights to their game. Seems like it would be in the ACC’s best interests to be in to appears in the game they basically own rather than frequent semifinals forcing the league to give the income to to other leagues.
LikeLike
Sounds like it’ll become the Cotton Bowl based on all of that. I doubt Chick-fil-A can outbid JerryWorld combined with one of two bowls outside the BCS with the same $ capacity (Cap One and Cotton).
LikeLike
Also, if Atlanta and New Orleans end up in the semifinals rotation a lot more, doesn’t that just help the SEC in the long run?
If they take the Cotton Bowl for the Champions Bowl, then Atlanta and New Orleans will end up hosting at least 8-10 semifinals games over the next decade…
LikeLike
Depends on the Orange Bowl. If the Orange hosts more too, then you are talking 20 semi-finals for four games or about 5 a piece.
You are right on the locations not being ideal here for everyone else at all though. I was really hoping the Sugar Bowl would get this as that would help out the rotation along with going with tradition.
If the Sugar Bowl had it, instead we’d likely have 5 semi-finals in Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and Phoenix. At least then only 1 game would be squarely in SEC only controlled territory.
LikeLike
If indeed the Rose, Cotton (Champions), and Orange Bowls do end up hosting only 2 semifinals each in order to protect the media rights interests of the conferences which own them, then the remaining three bowls will host six semifinals each over the twelve years. In effect, the “contract bowls” would hold a semifinal once and then again six years later, while the other three (for the sake of argument, let’s say they’re the Fiesta, Sugar, and Chick-fil-a) would host a semifinal every other year.
I could see two six-year rotations going like this:
Year 1,
Rose: Pac-12 vs. Big Ten
Fiesta: Semifinal #1
Cotton: SEC vs. B12
Sugar: At-large vs. At-large
Chick-fil-a: Semifinal #2
Orange: ACC vs. Notre Dame or at-large
Year 2
Rose: P12 vs. B1G
Fiesta: At-large vs. At-large
Cotton: SEC vs. B12
Sugar: Semifinal #1
Chick-fil-a: ACC vs. Notre Dame or at-large
Orange: Semifinal #2
Year 3
Same as Year 1
Year 4
Rose: P12 vs. B1G
Fiesta: B12 vs. At-large
Cotton: Semifinal #1
Sugar: Semifinal #2
Chick-fil-a: SEC vs. At-large*
Orange: ACC vs. Notre Dame or At-large
Year 5
Same as Years 1 and 3
Year 6
Rose: Semifinal #1
Fiesta: P12 vs. B12
Cotton: SEC vs. B12
Sugar: Semifinal #2
Chick-fil-a: At-large vs. At-large
Orange: ACC vs. Notre Dame or at-large
*The SEC and B12 would likely both end up in the same bowl in a year where the Cotton is the semi, but for now I put each conference in the bowl game with which it has some historical ties.
The biggest issue with this arrangement would be that two semis would occur on NYE every other year, whereas the other years would have one semi on NYE and the other on NYD. I wouldn’t be shocked if the networks ask for the games to be held on Jan. 1 and Jan. 2, rather the Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19616796/saban-makes-it-clear-nine-games-is-best-for-sec-but-not-everybody-agrees
Saban explains why the SEC should go to 9 games (no 4 year player would miss any SEC team, good for the conference, SOS). Tony Barnhart explains why he thinks the SEC is headed for 9 games sooner rather than later:
1. By 2013, the ACC, B12 and P12 will be playing 9.
2. The B10 is reconsidering playing 9 by 2017.
3. SOS matters in the new playoff, and that could be all of the other power conferences playing 9.
Something he doesn’t mention is that it will help balance the schedules. LSU and UF have to want other schools to play a 9th game so AL (vs TN) and others don’t get such an obvious scheduling advantage every year.
LikeLike
If the SEC and Big Ten move to a nine game schedule, is that essentially the end for intriguing non-conference games? We’ve already seen a decline in recent years, but it seems like that would put the final nail in the coffin, which would be sad.
LikeLike
Pac 12 tried to do the Big 10 deal. Big 12 schedules are picking up.
I think TV and the need to fill stadiums is driving more intriguing matchups.
LikeLike
I’m just gonna stick with the biggest reason for 9 games: more TV money from more conference games.
It’s going to happen in the Big Ten and SEC sooner rather than later. I’d be shocked if we get to the end of this decade still at 8 games. Somehow it means the conferences passed up a chance to get some extra cash, and they haven’t done that lately with the moves that have gone on…
LikeLike
The question is though whether the extra TV value can replace the lost .5 home game revenue that will likely disappear. That wasn’t as much a question in other conference, but the Big Ten and SEC have the biggest fanbases who can sell out bigger stadiums against even smaller opponents.
LikeLike
@Eric – This is true – the extra home game means much more to most of the SEC and Big Ten than other conferences. That being said, Michigan was one of the most vocal proponents of the 9-game conference schedule and they arguably have the most incentive to have the most home games possible out of anyone since they have the largest stadium.
LikeLike
tOSU has the most incentive as they derive the most revenue from tickets of any B10 team. But you’re right–Michigan and PSU get more than the rest.
LikeLike
Schools just have to balance the OOC schedule with a 9 game conference schedule. I do think the unintended consequence may be the disappearance of at least one other BCS opponent.
In a perfect world we would have a 9 game conf schedule with at least 1 additional BCS opponent. That would leave only two games for MAC type opponents. I think if a team plays a FCS opponent they should be automatically disqualified from the 4 team playoff.
LikeLike
Per the FY 2013 Michigan Athletic Department budget, UM received $43.1M in football spectator admissions for the eight home games. That’s an average of a little under $5.4M per game. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf. This figure doesn’t include PSLs or the money coming from the luxury box leases.
Of course, that figure doesn’t include losses of additional revenue from concessions, parking, etc., but I imagine UM figures its can make up the $3M or so it would lose annually from the television revenue increases.
If the Big Ten does this, I wonder if they’ll be able to implement it by 2017. I have to imagine some scheduling decisions were put on hold as the agreement with the Pac 12 was being worked on, so the conference members may have some flexibility there and be in the position to actually have a nine-game conference schedule five years from now.
As far as intriguing non-conference games go, I assume the major programs in the conference will want to have a minimum of seven games per season. That means one-home-and-home series plus two buy-in games. It’s going to up to the individual schools regarding the level of opponent for that one home-and-home series.
Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue have Notre Dame on an almost regular basis (although UM has a two year hiatus in 2018/19 and MSU plays Oregon in lieu of ND in 2014/5 not to mention a home-and-home with Alabama in 2016/7), so that covers those three teams.
Wisconsin has Washington and Virginia Tech on its future schedules.
Ohio State has Oklahoma in 2016/7 and North Carolina in 2017.
Penn State has a couple of future games with Pittsburgh, but there are no real heavyweights on their future non-conference schedule (although PSU just finished a home-and-home with Alabama).
Nebraska has non-conference games coming up with UCLA, Miami-FL, and Tennessee.
Northwestern has a game with Notre Dame in 2014 and a six-game agreement with Stanford with the final game in 2022.
Iowa has its annual game with Iowa State, but like PSU, their future non-conference schedules don’t look too aggressive (there is one game with Pitt in 2015).
I suspect there are some Big Ten athletic directors waiting for some more guidance vis-a-vis the strength of schedule component for the selection of the four teams to participate in the post-season playoff before making any other decisions on future opponents as well. Becoming bowl eligible is also going to be a factor, although it appears the movement towards winning seven games minimum my be waning a bit.
LikeLike
I’ve seen comments in this blog that a nine game schedule strengthens the SOS for the 5 top conferences but it also weakens the SOS for the bottom 5 conferences. My opinion is that If the Big 10 goes to 9 games, the game they give up is to a MAC team and if the SEC goes to 9, they give up a Sunbelt or CUSA game. Those teams from bottom 5 conferences that lose games to the top 5 conferences will have to replace those games with weaker opponents, making it harder for a them to make it to the playoffs.
LikeLike
National Cable Television Cooperative signs on with P12N.
http://www.pac-12.org/SPORTS/Baseball/News/tabid/1448/Article/158616/Pac-12-Enterprises-NCTC-Reach-TV-Agreement.aspx
LikeLike
Just waiting on DirecTV now…..so I won’t have to change my provider.
LikeLike
That’s a big get. 900 operators. The sats and telcos should soon follow. I’m disappointed the Pac-12/Big-10 agreement fell apart, but at least the network is going to be huge. The Pac-12 have not been shy about spending their new found money on coaches. Hopefully results will follow.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/07/20/miami-ncaa-investigation.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a4
The NCAA was down in Miami again. Looks like they are still months away from finding out their fate.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–hurricanes-coach-al-golden-s-staff-used-booster-s-associate-in-potential-recruiting-violations.html
Y! is saying there’s quite a bit more there than came out before, and that it went on through mid-2011.
LikeLike
That looks really bad since it involves Al Golden and his staff, too. Miami is going to have punish the crap out of themselves to avoid the DP if all of this proves to be true.
LikeLike
Yeah, a lot of people are pretty worried about all of this; didn’t catch much reaction on the radio because the news broke late, but it’ll be the main topic of discussion in the coming week.
It just doesn’t look good at all because of how Golden seemed to look the other way and let all the mess continue even as he said he was cleaning shop. That’s going to make the entire thing look worse…
LikeLike
Tim Reynolds
@ByTimReynolds
People tell AP no end in sight to NCAA inquiry, and Yahoo said Sean Allen helped this staff recruit. Other than that, not much.
That’s from the Miami AP sports guy.
LikeLike
Key is the first part obviously; it was a response to someone who asked him what all the Miami news was about…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8184260/joe-paterno-statue-call-made-penn-state-nittany-lions-president
PSU’s president will make the decision about Paterno’s statue over the weekend.
What to do about the statue has been a highly emotional topic among administrators and the board of trustees, sources said Friday. Much of the discussion has centered on how the NCAA will interpret whatever decision is made about the statue, sources said.
…
The trustees who spoke Friday morning said board members did discuss possibilities for the statue, including moving it from the stadium area, perhaps to the library on campus that bears the Paterno name, or the Penn State All Sports Museum near the stadium.
In other words, they want to do the least possible yet still avoid angering the NCAA. I wish doing what was right was their top concern instead, but that’s not realistic.
Dealing with the statue issue, and the resignation of Garban, was needed to show the public the board was serious about “moving forward,” one trustee said.
“It’s a highly sensitive decision,” another trustee said Friday. “The decision is a symbolic one. We have to be very careful about what kind of message we send.”
According to one trustee, board members also are concerned about how the NCAA might view the board’s decision in 2004 not to take a vote on a sweeping set of reforms that would have strengthened the board’s oversight power over the university president and other campus leaders, including Paterno.
LikeLike
The Princeton Review’s Annual Party School ranking is out. The MAC’s Ohio U dethroned reigning champ Georgia for this year’s #1 spot. Five schools each from the B1G and the SEC made the list.
SEC (5): #2 UGA, #3 Ole Miss, #9 Florida, #13 LSU & #20 South Carolina
B1G (5): #4 Iowa, #7 Penn State, #11 Illinois, #14 Wisconsin & #16 Indiana
Big XII (2): #6 West Virginia & #10 Texas
ACC (2): #8 Florida State & #18 Maryland
Big East: #12 Syracuse
Pac-12: #17 Arizona State
Misc (4): #1 Ohio U, #5 Cal-Santa Barbara, #15 DePauw & #19 Vermont
Here’s a shocker. BYU is #1 on the Stone Cold Sober Schools list.
http://www.collegeatlas.org/top-party-schools.html
LikeLike
It looks like Delany not only wants to power to fire coaches, but he also made a proposal during this past bowl season for the commissioner to have the power to vet, and even hire coaches as well.
“He wanted to offer that he would play a very central role in hiring and managing the power coaches in the conference—that the commissioner would be insulated from boosters and campus politics,” this person said. “And knowing the situation going on in intercollegiate athletics, he could play a really critical role in hiring decisions.”
Here is the link to the article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/delany-also-wanted-power-to-hire-coaches-source-says/30799
LikeLike
CBS is reporting that the NCAA will announce its decision on the future of PSU tomorrow. Seems impossible since PSU has not replied to the November Letter of Inquiry but this is the report. -FWIW.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477382/ncaa-source-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state/?tag=stack
LikeLike
I think Penn State football will be the anchor tenet on the BTN for long time. Don’t expect to see them on network tv for many years.
LikeLike
It’s possible, but I doubt it. That would punish ABC/ESPN more than PSU. PSU gets the same share of the TV deal as IN no matter where their games are televised.
I’m hearing/thinking a multi-year bowl ban and maybe major scholarship losses, plus something more to hit the whole AD (large fine?).
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Penn State’s first big game is going to be must see TV. People are nothing if not morbid.
LikeLike
Sounds like something along the lines of a full decade removal of victories and things like that along with bowl ban(s) and loss of scholarships probably.
LikeLike
Just want to add, as of now it doesn’t sound like a death penalty situation yet.
I don’t think they’d cancel 2012 football given the havoc it would bring down on scheduling at this late time, and I’m not sure there’d be such a rush to cancel 2013 football.
Perhaps they’ll ban Penn State from all postseason activities for a year in the NCAA? Every sport banned for a year or two from the postseason?
LikeLike
Joe Schad @schadjoe
Penn State sanctions expected to be extremely harsh and could even be perceived as more damaging long-term than “death penalty”
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
20m Joe Schad @schadjoe
Penn State facing loss of bowl/s and scholarships, but not so-called death penalty
LikeLike
zeek,
“Sounds like something along the lines of a full decade removal of victories and things like that”
This is one of those rare times when I support vacating wins. If an underlying cause of this was a desire to preserve Paterno’s reputation and records, then moving him behind Eddie Robinson and Bobby Bowden is a fitting football punishment for Paterno’s legacy.
LikeLike
BTW, unfortunately from my perspective, leaking the “unprecedented” comment probably means that football operations will not be suspended for a year or two. “Unprecedented” means NCAA spin. And PSUhockey, I hope that the Big 10 shows the leadership that its conference members think they demonstrate and bans PSU from the BTN as well.
LikeLike
Well, it could be a TV ban or something like that; Schad says it’s potentially more damaging than the death penalty.
Wetzel is saying that on-field opponents haven’t heard anything about games getting cancelled.
LikeLike
Joe Schad @schadjoe
If loss of bowls and or scholarships are significant enough it will be debated if punishment is harsher than one-year suspension of program
Joe Schad @schadjoe
Thee sanctions were not self-imposed or negotiated. This is Emmert taking a stand he felt he had to due to horrors in Freeh Report.
He just posted these as well.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-reveal-penn-state-sanctions-monday
Interesting discussion with college official on potential sanctions “This is an important precendent and should be taken with extreme care.”
If they are doing it on Monday, it sounds like its being done without extreme care, unless there has been substantial hypothetical discussion going on since before the Freeh report was issued.
LikeLike
The Freeh investigation was substantially more professional and extensive than what the NCAA is usually capable of, and PSU as an entity does not dispute it. There’s no reason to conduct more investigation here.
It has also been reported that PSU will not appeal NCAA punishment.
LikeLike
bullet,
Interesting discussion with college official on potential sanctions “This is an important precendent and should be taken with extreme care.”
If they are doing it on Monday, it sounds like its being done without extreme care, unless there has been substantial hypothetical discussion going on since before the Freeh report was issued.
Don’t forget that the NCAA sat in on many of the interviews and probably also saw many of the documents as they were obtained. They probably just needed to read the report to make sure they didn’t miss anything important. Besides, I think they’re under intense pressure to do something now rather than on their usual glacial time scale.
LikeLike
Peter,
“The Freeh investigation was substantially more professional and extensive than what the NCAA is usually capable of, and PSU as an entity does not dispute it. There’s no reason to conduct more investigation here.”
Agreed. They can add on more punishment of future trials or lawsuits reveal anything else.
“It has also been reported that PSU will not appeal NCAA punishment.”
Even PSU isn’t tone deaf enough to appeal.
LikeLike
Bryan Fischer @BryanDFischer
Using proposed NCAA penalty matrix, max sanctions PSU would be looking at: 50% of scholarships cut, fine of 5% total budget, 3+ yr bowl ban
LikeLike
Judging from the lack of a typical NCAA infractions process, I suspect that penalty matrix doesn’t apply in this case.
LikeLike
bamatab,
It looks like Delany not only wants to power to fire coaches, but he also made a proposal during this past bowl season for the commissioner to have the power to vet, and even hire coaches as well.
“He wanted to offer that he would play a very central role in hiring and managing the power coaches in the conference—that the commissioner would be insulated from boosters and campus politics,” this person said. “And knowing the situation going on in intercollegiate athletics, he could play a really critical role in hiring decisions.”
I read the article, and I could see how he could be helpful. Maybe IN wouldn’t have hired Sampson if he chimed in. I don’t think he wanted carte blanche to pick all coaches. If he could have saved MN from Brewster or MI from RichRod that’s a bonus, but unlikely.
LikeLike
Is there any point at which Penn State’s membership in the Big Ten becomes in jeopardy?
LikeLike
IMO, that only gets considered if there’s a multi-year death penalty or TV ban put in place…
LikeLike
I think the NCAA is making a big mistake here. There is no reason the NCAA and the B1G should jump in front of the judicial process on assessing penalties/damages. While Sandusky has been found guilty, it is only the beginning of the court process. Both institutions should wait until the entirety of the evidence and judgment has concluded. If the NCAA assesses these penalties and part of the Freeh report turns out to have been inaccurate (I do believe most of the report, however, it does simply read like someone giving their opinion on the evidence we all already know – there is more out there that could potentially suggest something else), then they will be in some trouble.
LikeLike
The PSU Board of Trustees adopted the Freeh report. They don’t dispute the findings.
LikeLike
That doesn’t mean it contained every shred of evidence. The authors of the report said as much when they explained that they were specifically asked not to speak to key witnesses and they lacked subpoena power. I don’t expect the final conclusions of the courts to substantially differ from the Freeh Report’s findings; however, the potential exists for there to be discrepancies. As long as that potential exists, I would think the NCAA is making a mistake to assess penalties. They could be wrong, perhaps even completely off-base.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I think the NCAA is making a big mistake here. There is no reason the NCAA and the B1G should jump in front of the judicial process on assessing penalties/damages.”
I think there are several reasons to do this now:
1. There is intense public pressure on them to do something. People hate that the courts take forever, but they understand it’s necessary. The NCAA doesn’t get the same level of understanding from people.
2. Penalties should be applied ASAP after a violation. The NCAA has been trying to speed up their investigation and punishment times anyway.
3. The sooner they do this, the sooner recruits and future students can evaluate their plans.
4. The sooner they do this, the sooner other schools can adjust their scheduling (to drop or add PSU).
5. The sooner they do this, the sooner the B10 can make any necessary changes (TV schedule changes, etc).
6. The sooner they do this, the sooner TV networks can make any necessary changes.
7. The sooner they do this, the sooner PSU can make necessary changes.
LikeLike
LOIC I thought was a repeated failure to have, or follow procedures regulating athletics. Which of those rules has PSU repeatedly violated? Don’t get me wrong, there needs to be harsh judgement. But it should be judgement of criminal activity of those involved, in criminal court. It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind meeting out athletic penalties for non-athlete related individual criminal actions.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“LOIC I thought was a repeated failure to have, or follow procedures regulating athletics. Which of those rules has PSU repeatedly violated?”
For the COI, yes. This is more like Goodell punishing the Saints.
“Don’t get me wrong, there needs to be harsh judgement. But it should be judgement of criminal activity of those involved, in criminal court. It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind meeting out athletic penalties for non-athlete related individual criminal actions.”
I’m not a huge fan of NCAA penalties here, but I think they can easily justify anything but the death penalty. If they are going to do something, it’s better to do it now than later in my opinion. The courts will still have their say, but that’s a different standard of proof and PSU isn’t on trial.
LikeLike
Brian:
“and PSU isn’t on trial.”
Their reputation, through their leaders, certainly would be. Again, what athletic rules and regs are the athletic teams and/or department in violation of? I’m concerned the nature of the crime is driving this bus. Substitute covering up multiple uninsured accidents, or DUI’s and does the NCAA jump in at all, let alone with a big hammer?
LikeLike
The sooner they do this, the EASIER it is on PSU. Uncertainty is one of the biggest penalties out there. If PSU isn’t going to appeal, that could be part of the thinking.
LikeLike
Bullet:
You are probably correct. And it being an already agreed to punishment is the only thing that makes sense. However, does it set president? Marburg v Madison anyone?
LikeLike
Darn auto correct…precedent?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“and PSU isn’t on trial.”
Their reputation, through their leaders, certainly would be.
No, I mean literally on trial. Sandusky was tried, and 2-3 more will be, but PSU as an entity can’t be tried criminally. That’s where the criminal court argument loses some steam. Now, the civil courts will have a field day with PSU and cost them probably around $100M as a guess and I can see calling that a sufficient punishment.
Again, what athletic rules and regs are the athletic teams and/or department in violation of?
LOIC, unethical conduct, etc. And being a voluntary organization, they can do almost anything they want. Assuming the bylaws give the board the right to give the president special dispensation to punish PSU, then the NCAA isn’t overstepping. In some ways, this is more fitting than going through the COI as usual. I think we can all agree these are unprecedented problems. It’s probably best dealt with in an unprecedented way.
I’m concerned the nature of the crime is driving this bus. Substitute covering up multiple uninsured accidents, or DUI’s and does the NCAA jump in at all, let alone with a big hammer?
First, how would they cover up those kinds of things. Second, why would they bother? They don’t carry nearly the stigma of child molestation.
I think the NCAA is saying that if you get so far off track as to be beyond on our normal rules and punishments, we’ll expand out nebulous clauses about ethics and such to punish you appropriately anyway.
I still don’t think the NCAA should be punishing them, at least not right now, but I accept that the public sentiment is so strong that they have to do it.
LikeLike
ccrider55.
The NCAA is explicitly not bound by precedent. The COI has always said that. The NCAA isn’t a court of law.
LikeLike
“but I accept that the public sentiment is so strong that they have to do it.”
I guess this was the attitude in Mass colony 1692.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that PSU the institution , minus Sandusky et al would/could be tried and convicted? Criminal activity may happen within an organization, but not in the absence of actors.
LikeLike
No, I’m saying because PSU can’t be tried, saying only the courts should get involved could be seen as falling short. The NCAA can punish PSU while criminal courts can’t.
LikeLike
Staples is much more eloquent in expressing my main concern.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/07/22/ncaa-penn-state-decision/index.html
LikeLike
I dismiss his concerns, too, because they are misplaced. The 20ish member executive board had to vote to give Emmert this power. That’s representative democracy. There’s no reason to assume they’ll regularly vote to give the president this power.
LikeLike
So the cabal is 20, not 5 or 6. I feel much better…
LikeLike
If it goes to the COI it’s a group of 5-6 deciding their fate. That’s better because it’s been done before?
LikeLike
I don’t think Penn State can be unwound from the B1G with the grant of rights and the BTN.
That said, a number of schools were reportedly extremely angry at the first B1G meetings after the scandal broke, and if you saw an extended ban of anything that would defeat the point of having a 12th member (i.e. multi-year post-season ban if the NCAA didn’t provide a championship game waiver), that might get revisited.
LikeLike
The grant of rights is trivial. It is pretty much a one way street. Presumably all the Big Ten would need to do there is release Penn State from said grant. The Big Ten Network could be a complicating factor depending on how it is actually structured and how the contracts are provisioned.
LikeLike
Since Nebraska is buying into the BTN, I suspect each school will technically own 1/12 of the network. Even if it’s not technically quite like that, Penn State would likely have to be reimbursed that share.
that said, they aren’t being kicked out regardless imo. I doubt it’s even a one in a million chance.
LikeLike
Taking the death penalty off the table pretty much takes Penn State being out of the Big Ten off the table.
LikeLike
Peter,
“That said, a number of schools were reportedly extremely angry at the first B1G meetings after the scandal broke, and if you saw an extended ban of anything that would defeat the point of having a 12th member (i.e. multi-year post-season ban if the NCAA didn’t provide a championship game waiver), that might get revisited.”
PSU having an extended postseason ban wouldn’t impact much of anything but PSU. PSU would be like OSU this year, ineligible to represent their division in the CCG or to go to a bowl. The biggest impact on the B10 would be 1 less team bowl eligible most years, and thus a slightly smaller bowl payout. It would give the rest of the division a better chance to win a title (mostly helps OSU and WI).
LikeLike
Husker Al,
“Is there any point at which Penn State’s membership in the Big Ten becomes in jeopardy?”
Only if they get kicked out of the NCAA.
LikeLike
Any announcement by NCAA would likely come as a result of agreement with Penn St officials on a resolution. This would come quickly because Penn St is not likely to fight anything at this point.
I’m struggling to see the point, or rationale for putting sanctions on the program related to punishing the current student athletes. This case had nothing to do with student athlete behavior. This is a situation where controls and oversight from outside Athletics need to be put into place to reign in the culture of Football/Athletics being bigger than the University. It seems to me it’s the school restructuring itself and bringing “watchdogs” into athletics oversight, while the NCAA perhaps puts the University on probationary notice that any further instances of an “unchecked” Athletic Department behaving badly may result in future heavy sanctions or removal altogether.
Speaking of Death Penalty, I don’t think any major program will ever get it again. If Miami doesn’t, we can probably remove that sanction from future possibilities anywhere. I’m fairly sure the Miami situation was the hypothetical example in mind when the sanction was first created!
LikeLike
What Penn State is going to get may become known as the new death penalty. It sounds like a major institutional crackdown, which is what the “shutdown” death penalty was supposed to be, but is too impractical to administer in the modern world. Miami will also probably get a variant of whatever PSU is getting.
And punishment is coming for PSU because of the systematic institutional corruption. The only reason NCAA by-laws don’t address this is that it was inconceivable that an athletic program would effectively order the athletic department and the university president to cover up/enable serious felony offenses.
I think the NCAA lawyers can be forgiven for not thinking to include that explicitly in the definition of LOIC.
LikeLike
Peter,
I think Pete Fiutak named it well. He called it the “coma penalty.”
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1204349.html
LikeLike
Guido,
“I’m struggling to see the point, or rationale for putting sanctions on the program related to punishing the current student athletes. This case had nothing to do with student athlete behavior.”
I’ve seen this argument many times and I’ll just respond this time.
NCAA penalties always punish the current athletes that did nothing wrong. The only things they can do to prior offenders are vacate wins and strip records. The point is to punish the school, and any offenders that are still around. The current players are innocent victims, but for two things:
1. They can transfer with no penalty if a bowl ban will last through their senior year.
2. It’s a team game. You win and lose as a team, and you get punished as a team. The same is true for penalties in a game.
LikeLike
I think the standard punish today’s athlete for yesterdays athletes misdeeds (taking extra benefits) is not a perfect system, but at least it’s related in part to the Athletes involvement in whatever rule was broken. I see this very differently, as I have not seen any connection made to Student Athletes involvement in this case.
LikeLike
They play at PSU. That’s their involvement. All of OSU’s players are missing a bowl because Tressel lied and covered up violations he knew about (the player infractions wouldn’t have brought a bowl ban). Players suffer when coaches break recruiting rules (IN hoops, for example). That’s always been the way it works.
LikeLike
UNC is pretty bad also since it involves academic fraud.
The rush is a bit of a problem since this only peripherally involved football and had nothing to do with the current athletes. If it was applied in 2013, current players could transfer. They’re all pretty much stuck for this year.
LikeLike
bullet,
“UNC is pretty bad also since it involves academic fraud.”
And yet the NCAA didn’t hammer them as much as you might expect for the academics fraud. I think it’s because they couldn’t prove the fake classes were designed to help athletes.
“The rush is a bit of a problem since this only peripherally involved football and had nothing to do with the current athletes.”
I think that’s exactly why it can be rushed. Besides, the Freeh report was a t least as thorough as anything the NCAA could do. The usual procedure would be to tell PSU what violations were found and give them 90 days to respond, but I’m not sure how that delay helps anyone.
“If it was applied in 2013, current players could transfer. They’re all pretty much stuck for this year.”
We don’t know that any penalty will impact this year’s team directly. At worst they lose out on a bowl this year. They still have time to transfer if someone will take them.
LikeLike
Noone will have space in August.
LikeLike
Not many, anyway. I’m guessing some schools may have 1 or 2 spots they were going to give to senior walk-ons but they haven’t started officially.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–sources–ncaa-president-to-hit-penn-state-with–staggering–penalties-from-sandusky-scandal.html
Yahoo’s latest report: ‘One source told Yahoo! Sports Emmert’s sanctions will include a “multiple-year” bowl ban and “crippling” scholarship losses. Penn State will not receive the “death penalty.”‘
My guess: 3 year bowl ban, 60 scholarships lost over a 4 year time frame.
LikeLike
Basically, prepare for Penn State football to play at a mediocre level for at least 10 years. If the bowl ban and scholarship losses are that severe, it will take a long time for them to recover.
Also, no word on whether they will lose past victories. It wouldn’t surprise me if an entire decade’s worth of records is wiped out…
LikeLike
zeek,
“Basically, prepare for Penn State football to play at a mediocre level for at least 10 years. If the bowl ban and scholarship losses are that severe, it will take a long time for them to recover.”
I think they’ll recover fairly quickly. The question is how they count the penalties. Take your suggested penalties (-15 scholarships). Does that mean 70 total for 4 years or 10 recruits for 4 years or both? If both, PSU will suck the most so I went with that:
2012 – 85 (24//29//18/5//20/1 = Sr//Jr//RSo/So//RFr/Fr)
2013 – 64 (-24 Srs -11 others to attrition = 50 + 14 recruits since 4 can backcount)
2014 – 47 (-20 Srs -7 = 37 + 10)
2015 – 36 (-17 Srs -4 = 26 + 10)
2016 – 29 (-15 Srs -2 = 19 + 10)
2017 – 44 (-9 Srs -1 = 19 + 25)
2018 – 58 (-9 Srs -2 = 33 + 25)
2019 – 70 (-9 Srs -4 = 45 + 25)
2020 – 79 (-9 Srs -7 = 54 + 25)
2021 – 85
They’d be weakened but still solid in 2013, 2019-2020. They’d struggle in 2014-2018. That’s a sizable penalty, but my point is they are back to competitive in the third year after the penalty ends so they recover fairly quickly.
“Also, no word on whether they will lose past victories. It wouldn’t surprise me if an entire decade’s worth of records is wiped out…”
I could see dropping every win since 2001. That would be 88 wins, dropping Paterno to 321 (Robinson 408, Bowden 377, Stagg 328, Bryant 323, Warner 318).
LikeLike
That’s a good analysis. I think it ends up playing out something like that.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/22/sanctions-looming-death-penalty-may-have-been-preferable-for-psu/#comment-95720
Couple of points;
[t]he penalties… are considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable
and
the NCAA is taking the unprecedented step of bypassing its own Committee on Infractions in handling the Penn State situation. Schad notes that “the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and/or the NCAA Executive Committee has granted Emmert the authority to punish through non-traditional methods.”
The fact they are bypassing the COI is a pretty huge issue. I can’t possibly imagine Penn St. actually incurring the PR hit that would come from mounting a legal challenge, but wonder if that would give them grounds for a lawsuit.
LikeLike
I really think this is dangerous for the NCAA, as I said above. They are jumping the gun, without the courts having finished their jobs. In addition, skipping the COI step seems like a surefire way for there to be disputes, if the courts’ findings do differ from the Free Report. I just don’t think the NCAA should really be getting involved at all at this point, let alone letting one person dictate the penalties.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how the penalties are “worse” than the death penalty if the reports are accurate.
Death penalty kills the budget of the department for a year, screws up scheduling, big loss of $ for community, huge hit to the conference as well (lost games, lost $, etc.).
This just seems like a stronger version of the USC penalty (they got 30 scholarships over 3 years and 2 year bowl ban). They’d need to do something else for this to be worse than the death penalty.
LikeLike
The length of these punishments matters a great deal. If they’re simultaneous (unlike appealing USC) and long (say a 4-year bowl ban), it might as well be a multi-year death penalty. You can theoretically compete, but in practice you’ll be as hapless as post-DP SMU. The long term damage done to the school’s institutional memory and reputation would be tremendous. No quality prospects are going to sign up for several years of butt-kicking on a scholarship-depleted, post-season-banned school.
At that point, PSU would wish it had a TV ban because TV will be the B1G opponents trucking the equivalent of third-string and walk-ons by scores of 45-3.
LikeLike
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_statue_comes_down.html#incart_river_default
JoePa’s statue is now in storage.
LikeLike
It’s a shame it took this long to decide it needed to come down. All the articles about it show the PSU fans still don’t get it. They are so busy defending the good Joe did that they fail to acknowledge all the bad he did. Keeping that statue up is akin to southerners flying the stars and bars. It may represent good things about the past to you, but to a large minority that suffered terribly and their families it’s a constant reminder of the abuses they faced and to everyone else it’s a statement about your lack of empathy.
LikeLike
While not southern, I don’t have a problem with the Star and Bars (American flag will be bad to someone too). I think I grudgingly accept this though. The historian in me hates to see the all time winningest coach (which he’ll be that to me regardless of what happens with the official record) and someone who built up the program ignored, but with the current circumstances I agree its for the best.
LikeLike
Eric,
“While not southern, I don’t have a problem with the Star and Bars (American flag will be bad to someone too).”
I don’t directly, either, but then I’m not descended from slaves or from a Civil War casualty. However, I understand how it is offensive to many millions of people and would never fly it or support those who do. Having one amidst a collection of Civil War paraphernalia is different because it provides context. Slapping it on your pickup is a bush league redneck move designed to support the white power movement indirectly.
“The historian in me hates to see the all time winningest coach (which he’ll be that to me regardless of what happens with the official record) and someone who built up the program ignored, but with the current circumstances I agree its for the best.”
How is not having a statue on campus being ignored? His name is staying on the library, they may move the statue to another site, he’s still in the record books, I’m guessing his name is inside the stadium somewhere, etc.
And yes, he’ll be the all time winningest coach to people who watched him coach but always with that mental asterisk. More importantly, though, PSU can’t officially trumpet his achievement which is why the NCAA should do this. They also need to officially label this as a major violation so PSU can’t claim a clean record.
LikeLike
“They also need to officially label this as a major violation so PSU can’t claim a clean record.”
Only if it is a violation of an existing NCAA rule.
LikeLike
They can throw 10.2 or 2.4 (I think those were the ones) at them.
LikeLike
If Penn State football is going to be emasculated for the foreseeable future, then perhaps the B1G should reconsider its divisions. The only reason the Leader-Legend divisions were chosen was to spread the Kings (Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska) evenly between the two divisions. However, if PSU is going to lose its King status (even for just a decade or two), then the current division s are very unbalanced, with just one King in the Leaders — OSU (which is affected by sanctions of it’s own).
This year we will see Wisconsin cakewalk to the CCG while in the other division Nebraska, Michigan and MSU will battle fiercely for the other spot. Competitive balance? I don’t think so.
We would be much better off with geographical divisions (i.e. Frank’s KISS divisions). With those divisions Nebraska would balance Wisconsin in the west while Michigan would balance MSU in the east. Then, in future years, Michigan would fight OSU for the east division with some competition from MSU; while in the west, Nebraska, Wisconsin and (occasionally) Iowa would compete.
LikeLike
You could also put MSU in the west for more balance. As a Nebraska fan, I always preferred a geographic split.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“If Penn State football is going to be emasculated for the foreseeable future, then perhaps the B1G should reconsider its divisions.”
When will people give up on this? There will be no change to their make up or their names as long as Delany is around unless the B10 adds or loses a school.
“The only reason the Leader-Legend divisions were chosen was to spread the Kings (Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska) evenly between the two divisions. However, if PSU is going to lose its King status (even for just a decade or two), then the current division s are very unbalanced, with just one King in the Leaders — OSU (which is affected by sanctions of it’s own).”
How would a change impact that? The East has 2 kings and the top prince. PSU dropping will only help WI and others rise. The West has 2 kings and the other prince. No change will make it more balanced.
“This year we will see Wisconsin cakewalk to the CCG while in the other division Nebraska, Michigan and MSU will battle fiercely for the other spot. Competitive balance? I don’t think so.”
Many experts predict OSU to have an equal or better record than WI. That’s a cakewalk in name only, and it’s only for one year. That also ignores what anyone else might do. Meanwhile, you’re assuming MI, MSU and NE will all battle for the title. Odds are that 1 of the 3 will fall back or else all 3 aren’t that great. Why not wait until there’s an actual problem before trying to force a solution?
LikeLike
I agree, if anything Wisconsin is the best replacement for Penn State as a power if it comes down to that.
Ohio State and Wisconsin can easily carry that division for a decade if they have to; particularly given the expectations for the Meyer era and Wisconsin’s recent performance.
LikeLike
However, in the B10, Wisconsin is the Prince with the most financial resources (as much as most Kings) and Nebraska is the King with the least (both financially and in terms of recruiting grounds).
In 2 decades, we could very well see the roles of Wisconsin and Nebraska reversed. Plus, even if PSU falls from King status, how could you balance the divisions better by moving teams around? You’d have 3 Kings and 3 Princes (PSU won’t fall below that).
LikeLike
I can always hope for:
A – OSU, NW, IL, PU, IN, MN
B – MI, NE, PSU, WI, MSU, IA
That seems fair.
LikeLike
The odds are probably pretty close to zero, but I hope we get new divisions out of this.
LikeLike
Delany did say “Never say never.”
LikeLike
Tomorrow will be fascinating for all the wrong reasons. I think the impact on recruiting will be interesting. PSU had a decommit already, but supposedly it wasn’t all about Sandusky (he switched to UNC). Now their elite QB recruit may be wavering.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53613/top-psu-recruit-in-holding-pattern
If major long term penalties are coming, I’d expect many/most of the recruits to bail to equivalent schools that offered them.
LikeLike
I don’t like this at all. I can accept Penn State getting sued to the moon and top executives going to jail if that is what the courts find, but this is not primarily an issue of competitive play and not something were tradition/rules dictate a major penalty should occur. Even we accept it is NCAA related, from an NCAA perspective (rather than a legal one), how is this a bigger issue than USC? As as competitive play goes, benefits to players/recruits is far bigger a factor than covering up for a former coach.
LikeLike
From the NCAA’s perspective, football trumping the responsibilities of the AD, VP and President is much worse than what happened at USC where they mostly blamed one assistant coach in FB and the hoops coach.
LikeLike
No. Gaining a competitive advantage through aquesence or neglence of higher administrators, or violation of existing rules, is what the NCAA has always been concerned about. Until this current case, that is.
I wonder if had PSU a violation or two in their past, would they have been more likely to have faced this situation differently more than a decade ago. Perhaps the desire to maintain the “image” of perfection, doing it the right way, led to not doing it right. Now we may be rushing to punishment with the same concern for “image”.
LikeLike
No, actually academic fraud and amateurism have always been their biggest issues, then everything else. Part of amateurism is the moral and ethical standards they expect. It’s part of their constitution.
And yes, I think PSU would have responded slightly differently if they didn’t hold themselves up on a pedestal as the rare clean FB king.
LikeLike
If it helps, remember the NCAA was born to keep the Feds from regulating the sport over a century ago because of the number of on-field fatalities. It only got into regulating the other stuff to justify it’s continued existence. Probably the biggest regulations are designed to keep the sports “amateur” to keep schools overhead down.
The NCAA, at heart, is primarily and industry standard board.
LikeLike
One of the sad things about PSU ‘s response to this scandal has been how many have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything. I understand the Paterno family protecting Joe, although their methods have been lacking. Too many fans don’t understand any self-punishment, and way too many trustees and administrators seem to agree.
It shouldn’t take 10 days to decide the statue had to come down, and no trustees should be against it. Even with doing it, many only seemed to support the action as a way to placate the NCAA. And then they seemed shocked that the NCAA is planning to punish them severely.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-levy-unprecedented-sanctions-penn-state-nittany-lions
“Unbelievable,” said a Penn State trustee informed of the NCAA statement, speaking to ESPN.com senior writer Don Van Natta Jr. “Unbelievable, unbelievable.” …
“Emmert has been given full reign by the pansy presidents (at other universities) to make his own decision,” said the trustee, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He has been given the authority to impose these unprecedented sanctions. It’s horrible.”
By the way, these are the schools that have gotten 3+ year bowl bans since 1960:
Indiana, 1960, 4 years
Oklahoma St., 1989, 3 years
Michigan St., 1976, 3 years
Houston, 1966, 3 years
LikeLike
The NCAA gave out a lot of long bowl bans in the 50s and 60s, probably because there were so few bowls that schools didn’t make one every year like they do now. A long bowl ban now is a harsher penalty financially, but missing one in the old days was probably worse emotionally.
LikeLike
A former chair of infractions committee is also surprised: “But this has nothing to do with NCAA business,” the former chair said. “This is new. If they’re going to deal with situations of this kind that have nothing to do with the games of who plays and so on and rather deal with members of the athletic department who act immorally or criminally then it opens up the door to other cases.”
LikeLike
It really does raise the question of where to draw the line. As noted above, you had the death of the student filming at Notre Dame due to reckless disregard of safety, the death of the band student at FAMU in an activity tacitly encouraged by the band director that was ignored by the administration just as PSU ignored Sandusky’s activities (very similar pattern except that the crime was committed by students and encouraged) and you had the death of 12 students at Texas A&M in another reckless disregard of safety where the administration had warnings and the culture led to them ignoring that. Do they get into the alleged sexual assult cases at Notre Dame where the police department was alleged to have been repeatedly uninterested in the victims?
I’m skeptical that the NCAA is doing this in a logical fashion, but is doing it because its the trend at the moment to deal with this issue. They don’t want to be criticized for being insensitve to the victims.
LikeLike
Agreed with the last part.
As a hypothetical, what would happen if Penn State challenged the ruling? This whole rollout of Emmert’s punishment doesn’t really seem to be going by the books in terms of process, and I’m just interested in whether it would really stand up in a court of law.
Of course, Penn State isn’t likely to challenge anything, and instead just accept the punishments and deal with playing horrible football for 5-6 years, so there’s that, but I’m more interested in whether this is a one time deal or whether we start seeing these “on the fly” punishments meted out in the future.
LikeLike
zeek,
“As a hypothetical, what would happen if Penn State challenged the ruling?”
I suppose they can appeal to the NCAA’s executive committee, but they’re the ones who gave Emmert this power.
“This whole rollout of Emmert’s punishment doesn’t really seem to be going by the books in terms of process, and I’m just interested in whether it would really stand up in a court of law.”
It’s not the standard procedure, but the books allow for other methods. They never do it, but they can always skip the COI and wait for the annual convention to punish schools. I’m guessing the NCAA rules do give the committee the right to give this sort of power to Emmert. Besides, as a private organization with voluntary members, a court doesn’t have much power over the NCAA. At most they can make PSU stay a member until the annual convention when the NCAA can do anything they want with a supermajority vote. PSU doesn’t have a right to be in the NCAA, and when they joined they agreed to follow the rules.
“Of course, Penn State isn’t likely to challenge anything, and instead just accept the punishments and deal with playing horrible football for 5-6 years, so there’s that, but I’m more interested in whether this is a one time deal or whether we start seeing these “on the fly” punishments meted out in the future.”
I’m guessing PSU will shut up and take it because fighting will only make things worse. I also think this will be a rare occurrence but the NCAA will reserve the right to do it again if a scandal is big enough and largely outside of the standard rules.
LikeLike
bullet,
“It really does raise the question of where to draw the line.”
Sort of, but not really. This is an institutional-level problem of actively covering up something and putting football before the school while not committing a bunch of specific NCAA violations. It also was large and prolonged. That’s a unique situation.
“As noted above, you had the death of the student filming at Notre Dame due to reckless disregard of safety, the death of the band student at FAMU in an activity tacitly encouraged by the band director that was ignored by the administration just as PSU ignored Sandusky’s activities (very similar pattern except that the crime was committed by students and encouraged) and you had the death of 12 students at Texas A&M in another reckless disregard of safety where the administration had warnings and the culture led to them ignoring that. Do they get into the alleged sexual assult cases at Notre Dame where the police department was alleged to have been repeatedly uninterested in the victims?”
Negligence won’t get the PSU treatment, nor will the hazing at FAMU nor the assault cases as ND. You need something unique to the case to elevate it to this special treatment. If they had proof that ND hid knowledge of assaults from the cops, that might be different.
“I’m skeptical that the NCAA is doing this in a logical fashion,”
The NCAA and logic rarely meet.
“but is doing it because its the trend at the moment to deal with this issue. They don’t want to be criticized for being insensitve to the victims.”
That’s a big part of it. I also think the presidents have gotten sick of all the scandals over the past couple of years and are drawing a line. They’ve been trying to reform the system under Emmert and the PSU scandal gave them a push and an excuse to step up punishment.
LikeLike
Brian:
How long has this step up the punishment move been going on? Was there legislation passed that instituted it? Since Cam Newton when they shifted from the long standing “the parent is the child” philosophy to “as long as the kid didn’t know”? The UNC academics? Boise St? Miami? This seems the only example that is not following what passes for normal NCAA enforcement.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“How long has this step up the punishment move been going on? Was there legislation passed that instituted it?”
A couple of years, give or take.
Yes. They officially revamped the punishment system and created that new matrix.
“Since Cam Newton when they shifted from the long standing “the parent is the child” philosophy to “as long as the kid didn’t know”?”
They changed the rule after that to include family members.
“The UNC academics? Boise St? Miami? This seems the only example that is not following what passes for normal NCAA enforcement.”
USC got hammered more than past precedent would suggest OSU got an unprecedented bowl ban based on what they were charged with. Miami isn’t done. Boise got hit hard but it’s being appealed.
What you seem to fail to want to understand is that the NCAA is allowed to follow different procedures. The COI process is the default method, but not the only one. They can also punish at the national convention but choose not to do that generally. Per the Yahoo article I linked above, Emmert will cite a special provision that allows him to do this if the executive committee gives him the OK. Just because the NCAA hasn’t done it before doesn’t make it outside the rules.
LikeLike
Why mention ND twice in that litany there, I wonder? Every campus has sexual assaults. I had a friend who knew when she was at Michigan State about players that were only allowed to be on campus when they had class because they had sexually assaulted students.
For that matter, how many PDs follow-up in sexual assaults without provable penetration? How many cases are dropped nationwide against no-name suspects because no physical evidence can be recovered, and the rape kit is too late?
Sex crimes generally are a whole other topic. Sorry to let my own feelings get out there.
LikeLike
The one attorney alleged that there was a pattern of sexual assults by Notre Dame football players being ignored by the campus police at Notre Dame (including herself). If this was proven it was basically the same thing as Penn St. and happened over an extended period (she was claiming cases back to 2003). The DOE looked at the last case where the young lady committed suicide, but there’s no indication the NCAA looked at this at all.
I mentioned cases where someone died. People talk about how much worse PSU was than SMU, Miami, etc. But if someone dies, that’s even worse. At FAMU, Texas A&M and the two Notre Dame cases people died. In the Baylor case someone died as well, although the NCAA did act on that one. So if you are going to argue the severity of the case forces the NCAA to act even though it was only peripherally involved with sports, shouldn’t the NCAA get involved in cases where people die?
I don’t think the NCAA should have gotten significantly involved with PSU. I think they were right not to get involved with Texas A&M, with FAMU and with the scissor lift issue. I do have a problem with the assult case because the campus police appeared to be protecting the football player (they deferred to the athletic department on when to interview him) and there was an alleged pattern. I don’t think its ok just because every campus has sexual assults.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
A former chair of infractions committee is also surprised: “But this has nothing to do with NCAA business,” the former chair said. “This is new. If they’re going to deal with situations of this kind that have nothing to do with the games of who plays and so on and rather deal with members of the athletic department who act immorally or criminally then it opens up the door to other cases.”
That reads more like him not thinking the NCAA should be involved and perhaps being surprised that they were involved, not that the penalties would be substantial if the NCAA got involved. PSU seemed shocked to hear that the NCAA penalties would be severe.
LikeLike
I agree, with the caviot that any punishment imposed by an organization that he doesn’t think has authority would be improper. He doesn’t have a problem with the court system handling things they are structured to, but he does with the NCAA handling things they were not.
LikeLike
The NCAA is a craven, cowardly, criminial organization.
IU self-reports basketball violations and gets hammered by the NCAA. Kentucky cheats out the wazoo and wins the NC.
Auburn buys the NC. NCAA does nothing. NCAA jumps on PSU without legal authority…..they know PSU can only sit by and take it.
LikeLike
Bitter much?
LikeLike
Seriously. I hate Kentucky and Calipari. And the Auburn thing was a fiasco. But what the NCAA is doing to Penn State is actually–for once–hitting the program that deserves to get hit. Ordinarily, Penn State would get let off easy and some kid from Eastern Illinois would get a 12-game suspension for wearing a headband with Adidas on it or something.
LikeLike
CBS Evening News just reported that PSU sanctions will include
– Scholarship losses
– Multi year postseason ban
– Fines
– Probation
A source tells their website,
“I’ve never seen anything like it,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477382/ncaa-source-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state/
LikeLike
frug,
None of that is surprising or unprecedented, really. I’m guessing the magnitude of the penalties may be unprecedented, though. As a pure guess, I’m guessing 5 years for the penalties. Probation, no bowls and maybe down 10 scholarships per season for 50 total (I ran the numbers for a 15 ‘ship loss in another comment and that seemed a little to extreme to me). It’s harder to gauge the fine, but I’m thinking it’s on par with PSU’s share of the bowl pool and NCAA tournament distribution for 5 years.
LikeLike
Fines?
That sounds like the NCAA just trying to get their piece of the pie. They haven’t been out any great amount in the investigation. The NCAA getting a dime beyond costs bugs me. Let the victims get their money. There’s no reason for the NCAA to.
LikeLike
They might require the fines to be paid to charity. That’s what the NFL does.
LikeLike
bullet,
Fines are regularly a part of NCAA penalties. OSU was fined, for example. So was GT. That’s just off the top of my head.
I believe they give the money to charity, and I know that’s what they do when an athlete has to pay back the value of an impermissible benefit.
Why do you hate charity?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027/ncaa-could-fine-penn-state-as-much-as-60-million-as-part-of-sandusky-sanctions
The NCAA will fine Penn State at least $30 million and perhaps as much as $60 million for its involvement in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, industry sources told CBSSports.com’s Brett McMurphy.
The record fine will go toward an endowment for children’s causes, sources said.
Between $30 million and $60 million. Wow.
LikeLike
frug,
If their other punishments are spread over 5 years, that’s $6-12M per year which is high but reasonable. I guessed it might be about the same as their annual bowl share plus NCAA payout and that was about $6M last year I think.
LikeLike
Wow… Penn State fans are pulling out the “these punishments are not fair because the perpetrators are not going to be the ones punished” card. Really? Think Lane Kiffin and the current USC is pleased with paying for the sins of Pete Carroll and Reggie Bush? Just pathetic. It’s how ALL of these NCAA sanctions seem to work.
I don’t think the death penalty is appropriate, but the need to punish Penn State is clear to me.
First, the University showed that it would allow the interests of the athletic department to trump overall University standards. There is no way that Paterno should have been the least bit involved in the Sandusky issue. Once it was reported to the University leadership, Paterno and the A.D. should have been out of it. Instead, the University showed that the athletic department and University leadership were commingled. This is WORSE than giving a player free sneakers.
Second, Penn State has embarrassed the NCAA and its constituents in a way that no other University has. Wow… Ohio State players got some free tats. Miami did what Miami always seems to do. What happened at Penn State was news that leaked well beyond the sports pages. And it was negative. Fire away, NCAA.
Again, the death penalty was too strong and I am glad it is off the table. I also think that the idea of unprecedented penalties is crap–everything being reported has been done before. Penn State just looks to get slapped harder than in recent years. $$$ is replaceable.
LikeLike
I believe the AD was involved because Sandusky was using athletic facilities and was a professor emeritus and essentially was responsible for him. Its not clear how much Paterno was involved, but I agree, he should not have been. Of course, people were slamming him for not reporting it to the police himself and not getting more involved.
LikeLike
I mean… the University should have decided what to do without any regard for whether it was O.K. with Paterno or the A.D. The overwhelming sense of everything is that people were stepping gingerly around the football program, rather than allowing the process to properly play out with the University and external discipline. That is a backwards system and exactly what should not happen with a compliant program.
LikeLike
A number of lawyers commenting on the matter don’t think the NCAA got their ducks in a row before handing down this unprecedented (and perhaps unlawful) punishment. The fact that the NCAA is changing the rules as they go along could prove problematic if this ruling is challenged in a court of law. I don’t know what the right punishment is, but this ruling does appear to be a reactionary response based largely on the Freeh report. As long as the five administrators (and Sandusky) are punished, Paterno’s name is banished and the victims receive whatever compensation they are seeking, justice (if there can be justice in a case this horrific) will be done.
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter. There is no way PSU is going to risk the PR backlash of actually appealing whatever the NCAA does.
LikeLike
Great Lake State,
“A number of lawyers commenting on the matter don’t think the NCAA got their ducks in a row before handing down this unprecedented (and perhaps unlawful) punishment. The fact that the NCAA is changing the rules as they go along could prove problematic if this ruling is challenged in a court of law.”
How would they know? Do they know what meetings the NCAA held to decide to go this route? Have they checked the rules and made sure the BoD isn’t allowed to give Emmert this power? Just because they haven’t done it before doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to do it. The rules clearly allow for punishment at the national convention or via the COI. If PSU fights this it will just go to the national convention to get the same penalties, and the other members will be mad that PSU fought it.
LikeLike
If this was put to a member vote, Penn State would probably get dismissed from the NCAA.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that in the NCAA’s eyes, the coverup that took placed for over a decade is what is drawing their “wrath”. I’m guessing that in the NCAA’s eyes, that just proves to them that there is absolutely no institutional control at PSU when it comes to holding the football program accountable for anything. Just take a look at the events that transpired since ’96:
Joe knew in ’96
Forced Sandusky into retirement in ’98
Found out of other rapes in ’02
Kept allowing Sandusky into facilities until ’10
Lied to Grand Jury in ’11
And I believe Sandusky attended games last year using the president’s box
I am sure that the NCAA is basing its punishments on the Freeh report, which was an investigation conducted by a former director of the FBI at the behalf of PSU itself, that resulted in a 300 page report. That is probably a far more thorough investigation than the NCAA has ever conducted itself.
The last thing the NCAA wants to know is that an institution has been actively involved in a massive coverup that stretched from the football coaches, up to the president and BOT. Heck, even the janitors new about it and were afraid to say anything for fear of getting fired. The NCAA is involving itself because of the massive coverup that involved everyone in the AD (not to mention all of the other PTB, not because of the child rapes of Sandusky.
LikeLike
It’s so obvious, I can’t believe I didn’t see it before now.
The NCAA and Penn State have the same problem: they both need scapegoats to make the public pressure go away.
They found each other.
The NCAA can say PSU was totally and utterly corrupt and that they are being punished in an unprecedented manner. Now I doubt the punishment will be as bad as the loss of the program for a few years. Heck, I doubt the punishment won’t be something Penn State can’t cheat their way through, but it should get the media spotlight off both PSU and the NCAA for the time being…at least until the NCAA drops the hammer on the Hurricanes again, but State College will be allowed to lay low for a while.
Meanwhile, TPTB at PSU can say that the NCAA was responsible for whatever punishment that Penn State agreed to (and you know that PSU agreed to it to spare everyone the hassle and time of the lawsuits) and plausible deniability that PSU agreed to anything. Heck, they were using the NCAA as a scapegoat to get rid of the statue, when they knew they needed to just to save their own skins on the PR. The remaining BOTs will use the NCAA as an excuse for every unpopular decision with their fanatical fanbase and keep their jobs. Shoot, the new Uni pres. could not have handled the statue issue this weekend any better given circumstances. Off-topic, but did y’all see how many cops they had to prevent a riot on a summer Sunday morning? I know I saw at least two dozen on the national news shots. Talk about a tone-deaf fanbase…
I wouldn’t worry about precedent. How likely is it that one man who would be current coach, practically the entire living history of the football program, the public face of the university, and a major donor simultaneously?
How often will a school and a industry standards board need a scapegoat at the same time for the same situation?
LikeLike
“I wouldn’t worry about precedent”.
Obviiously you woundn’t. That was thew whole point of our earlier conversation.
The mob has prevailed. The rule of law and common sense cannot withstand the onslaught of a politically correct media when blood is in the water.
LikeLike
Would it hurt your feelings less if the rest of the NCAA just blackballed Penn State and the Big Ten just bought them out?
PSU is happy, the NCAA is happy, the Media is happy. Its never been about justice, it’s always been about money and quiet.
LikeLike
1. The NCAA has never been bound by precedent.
2. Precedent is overrated. You don’t have to keep doing something just because that’s how it has always been done.
3. Apparently the NCAA has a provision that allows the executive board to give this power to the president by vote. Thus, they’re straying within their rules. Just because they haven’t done it before doesn’t mean it’s against their rules.
LikeLike
The NCAA has never followed any kind of precedent.
But in this case, I can see where a decade long coverup that started with the football coaching staff, and went all the way up to the president and BOT would be of great interest to them. I think that is the very definition of lack of institutional control IMO.
LikeLike
Agreed. To me, Lack of Institutional Control is equivalent to “we cannot police ourselves.” Has there ever been a clearer case of a University not being able to police itself? From the President on down to janitors, nobody did the right thing–including people with actual police power.
This was justice being avoided to protect the football program. What else is it?
LikeLike
Or not? CBS has been out in front of the story this week, and Dennis Dodd makes it sound worse than I assumed.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19634504
LikeLike
Figured it would go like that. ‘Grats to the NCAA and the PSU prez for hitting on just enough to get the wolves off their heels in time for the Olympics, and that it will not be the top story on Gameday come Labor Day.
PSU will stay, and in about 6-10yrs this will all be behind them…provided the Second Mile scandal isn’t as bad as we fear…and as long the fanatics that are currently wailing and gnashing their teeth on Black Shoe Diaries don’t screw up the deal.
LikeLike
Unprecedented penalties.
If the NCAA wanted to do something creative, they would force Penn State to hire Greg Robinson and put him in a head coach or d.c. position for the next 10 years.
De facto death penalty.
LikeLike
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2012/7/23/3177389/penn-state-penalties#comments
Hiring Greg Robinson at Syracuse =
4 year bowl ban.
Vacated wins, i.e. losing to Akron, Miami (OH), everyone good, etc.
Loss of revenue.
Hiring Greg Robinson at Michigan =
1 year bowl ban.
LikeLike
Texas fans would suggest Greg Davis if you wanted a former Texas assistant in order to avoid bowls. (now at Iowa).
LikeLike
$60 million fine
4 year bowl ban
Over 4 year scholarships reduced by 40 (10 per year)
1998-2011 all victories vacated by football
5 year probation
LikeLike
I actually don’t think this will be as deep as it could have been. The scholarships were the biggest impact, and that’s basically only 1 year longer than USC’s…
LikeLike
It’s two extra years on the bowl losses as well.
Still, I thought the scholarships would be reduced to below 15 per year; I think Penn State will be weakened for around 6 years because of this. By 2017-2018, they should be getting back to strength if they can fix recruiting by then…
LikeLike
zeek,
See my comment below for the numbers, but PSU shouldn’t be back to full strength until 2020. They’ll be good enough for a bowl by 2018 or 2019.
LikeLike
I hope they fight it, but doubt they will.
LikeLike
News conference said there will be no appeal.
This is much more devastating than USC because the bowl ban and scholarship loss is simultaneous and immediate. Also, frankly, Penn State is starting from a much more fragile position. They weren’t a USC except in the minds of the most delusional fans. They don’t have piles of 4 & 5* talent on that roster to start with.
The bowl/conference champ ban being twice as long also matters hugely. You have no hope to offer recruits or current players. And they can leave without penalty.
LikeLike
Unfortunate. Spineless leadership at PSU.
LikeLike
The spineless leadership was from 1998 to 2001, when everyone (including people outside the power structure at PSU, including police and attorneys) danced around what was in the best interests of the football program and a pedophile. Certainly there is a chance that it was all just a big mistake and not intentional to protect the program. But those odds are slim and the damage is done.
LikeLike
Really? Not appealing is what’s spineless about PSU’s leadership? Are you on someone’s payroll to make PSU fans look bad?
LikeLike
I disagree. Stupid, but not spineless. They took the risk that Sandusky’s judgement was the issue in 1998 and not something more sinister. The real problems were 2001 forward.
I think the NCAA has jumped the shark on penalizing criminal behavior by vacating wins back to 1998. They are penalizing the school for Sandusky’s 1998 act which was reported to the police and determined not to be prosecutable. They are penalizing them for his acts in 1999 in San Antonio which they didn’t know about. They are penalizing them because of what he did in 2000 and because a janitor didn’t report him.
The vacating the wins seems stupid. Paterno is dead. If he was alive, maybe it carries some sting. He’s still in the record books with his other 298 wins, so its not like they are making him disappear. They ought to vacate Bowden’s wins for going around talking about it like he’s happy he now officially passes Paterno. My opinion of Bowden has really dropped these past couple of weeks.
LikeLike
I see no point in vacating the wins either. Maybe from 2001 forward. 1998?
However, I see that as being directed at the people associated with Penn State–the cops, the prosecution, etc. Too much deference to the program.
LikeLike
Guys,
I think you need to look at the bigger picture. Vacating wins punishes the one group that is otherwise untouchable – the fans. They were complicit in creating the culture at PSU, and pulling Paterno off his pedestal hurts them more than anyone.
LikeLike
The NCAA started down this path of politically correct lawless ness when the late great Miles Brand decided to go after school mascots.
And FLP….isn’t the vacating of wins pretty Stalinist? Isn’t that what he did-rewrite history?
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“I hope they fight it, but doubt they will.”
They signed a consent decree. They can’t fight it.
LikeLike
Seems like an appropriate penalty. Even at this late juncture, Penn State fans STILL do not get it. The University placed the football team/brand above morality and common sense for several years. A slap on the wrist would have precluded change. This is a strong, but appropriate measure to restore balance.
LikeLike
I’m not a PSU fan….and that’s nonsense.
LikeLike
Nice analysis.
LikeLike
Go to Black Shoe Diaries.
They are bitching and moaning about how the offenders are all out of the program now. So what? Getting rid of the offenders–any program can do that once caught. USC has innocents being punished. Indiana has innocents being punished. If a school could avoid penalties by getting rid of people, nobody would be punishable.
They are bitching and moaning about no clear NCAA rules violation. I agree with Emmert that what happened at Penn State was a violation of the NCAA constitution. The negative general p.r. arising out of this incident–including lame rioting due to Paterno–was enough to justify the punishments.
Note that there is no sense that the Big Ten is appalled by the penalties. Quite the contrary, the only sense is that the Big Ten may impose additional penalties.
LikeLike
The BIG is pissed that the cash cow that was PSU football is gone. Not to mention the negative publicity that has been generated. That is it.
I hope clowns like Gee at OSU will at least spare us righteous indignation, but I fear that is way to much to ask.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Note that there is no sense that the Big Ten is appalled by the penalties. Quite the contrary, the only sense is that the Big Ten may impose additional penalties.”
I don’t think the B10 will add anything. Several of the corrective measures involve PSU reporting to the B10 via a monitor about the changes being made. As long as that stays on track, I think the B10 stays out of it.
LikeLike
B1G presser at 11:00 am, apparently.
As expulsion is off the table, not sure what they are going to do or why it would matter. Definitely the extra-point to the NCAA’s touchdown.
LikeLike
B10 penalty – no share of bowl revenue for 4 years. It’ll go to appropriate charities instead.
LikeLike
“Your predecessor was an asshole, so I’m going to punch you in the face instead.”
So the NCAA has appropriated itself $60MM from the state of Pennsylvania, and lowered the number of scholarships nationally too. They’re on a roll.
LikeLike
I would very much appreciate if you would stop lumping all PSU fans together. The ones who drank the JoePa cool-aid will continue bitching for the foreseeable future. And, what do you expect when you go to a specific U’s sports blog? You will find the typical half-brain, sports addicted, miscreant! The ones who need to keep shouting their version of the truth louder and louder, because to them, everyone else is stupid for not agreeing with their version of reality. In another sweeping generalization, you indict ‘The University’! Is it a few people at the top who made a huge moral mistake, or is it the sum of alumni, students and faculty? As a PSU alum, I am extremely tired of having everyone and everything associated with Penn State painted with a wide brush.
LikeLike
Fair enough. But if the reasonable fans are not bothering to make the Black Shoe Diaries debate a reasoned, logical one… why should anyone assume that the reasonable fans exist?
As for the University, I stand by it. The President of PSU made horrible decisions. That is imputed to the University. Similarly, there were failures throughout the University community, from leadership on down. All of this is imputed to the University as well.
At the same time, nobody is claiming that a biology teaching assistant somehow failed the Sandusky victims. Nobody is claiming that every person within the University somehow did something wrong. Instead, only certain people did the wrong things and they were important people and very wrong things.
It is what it is.
LikeLike
@acaffrey
Not trying to be adversarial here, but when you say, “failure throughout the University Community, from leadership on down”, who is the ‘on down’ you are specifically talking about. If you have a reference to the Freh report, I would appreciate it.
LikeLike
From 1998 to 2001, there was a failure by, off the top of my head, the University President, the Athletic Director, the Head Football Coach, the fourth guy (I forget his position), Sandusky (obviously), McQueary, the janitors, the police/prosecution in 1998. In the past year, there has been despicable devotion to the program by some of the students (rioting for JoePa) and some of the alums, demonstrating that they simply do not get it. A guy is raping boys on campus, in the football locker room, and PSU failed to do enough to stop it in 1998 or 2001–instead, keeping it quiet just long enough for there to be additional victims.
The football program was placed on a pedestal. Today, that pedestal was knocked down. And all the vocal Penn State fans can come up with is (a) shame on the media for sensationalizing forcible, statutory rape; (b) shame on the NCAA for punishing innocent people; (c) shame on the PSU administration for not fighting the NCAA; and (d) how fast can we rebuild the pedestal that just got knocked down.
Wake me up when Penn State finally gets it. Probably about 2016, I suspect.
LikeLike
largeR,
“As a PSU alum, I am extremely tired of having everyone and everything associated with Penn State painted with a wide brush.”
I sympathize with you, but there are several problems on that front:
1. The administration was involved
2. The students rioted to support the coach that helped the cover up
3. Some of the BoT was involved
4. Multiple quotes from students, players and trustees show more sympathy for Paterno than the victims
5. The PSU community struggled with the decision to take down the statue
6. BSD and other online outlets are strongly pro-Paterno and anti-punishment
To an outsider, these things combine to make it look like all levels of PSU are on the same page and it’s not a good one.
LikeLike
zeek,
“4 year bowl ban
Over 4 year scholarships reduced by 40 (10 per year)”
They’re also capped at 65 (starting next year, presumably) according to Emmert.
My rough look at the numbers:
2012 85
2013 65
2014 58
2015 52
2016 50
2017 61 (lots of FR)
2018 70 (mostly FR/SO)
2019 78
2020 85
Bowl ban:
2012-5, but likely to miss 2016-7 as well. I’m looking for PSU to downgrade their OOC schedule even more for the near future to get some easier wins.
LikeLike
From the NCAA:
“Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year, the NCAA imposes a limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 25 allowed) and for a period of four years commencing with the 2014-2015 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2017-2018 academic year a limit of 65 total grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 85 allowed) for football during each of those specified years. In the event the total number of grants-in-aid drops below 65, the University may award grants-in-aid to non-scholarship student-athletes who have been members of the football program as allowed under Bylaw 15.5.6.3.6.”
My #’s:
2012: 85
2013: 15 new scholarships, 85 maximum–with a looming 65 though. Maybe PSU imposes a 75 maximum to bridge the gap?
2014: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum
2015: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum
2016: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum
2017: 25 new scholarships, 65 maximum (25 is unrealistic given the 65 total)
2018: 25 new scholarships, 85 maximum (85 is unrealistic given the 65 from the year before)
2019: 25, 85
Until 2019, I cannot envision PSU having a full team.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
I just went by his words, so thanks for the details.
My #’s:
“2012: 85
2013: 15 new scholarships, 85 maximum–with a looming 65 though. Maybe PSU imposes a 75 maximum to bridge the gap?”
Based on attrition, I think the most they’ll have is 68. They’re going to lose about 20 seniors plus have standard academic/legal/injury/transfer losses, plus anyone that transfers to avoid the penalties.
“2014: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum”
They can have 65, but only 61 will be real. The others are walk-ons getting a ‘ship. That trend will continue as they drop as low as about 52 in 2016.
LikeLike
65 is the scholarship limit for FCS (I-AA).
LikeLike
PSU won’t lose 20 seniors. Guys aren’t going to gamble away their last year of eligibility when they have a month to find a new school, transfer, start practicing, and win the starting job. Most seniors and a lot of juniors will stay. Talented frosh/soph are gone.
52 on scholarship? C’mon. The lowest they go is 60.
LikeLike
Lets say they have 85 and 15 are seniors and 20 juniors. If they lose half the juniors and 3/4 of the rest, they will be left with 22 players next year + 15 new recruits. That’s 37.
LikeLike
greg,
“PSU won’t lose 20 seniors. Guys aren’t going to gamble away their last year of eligibility when they have a month to find a new school, transfer, start practicing, and win the starting job. Most seniors and a lot of juniors will stay. Talented frosh/soph are gone.”
I was talking losses to graduation before 2013.
“52 on scholarship? C’mon. The lowest they go is 60.”
Do the math. Players graduate faster than they can be replaced, plus you have standard attrition and attrition related to the penalties. I started by assuming the players were split equally between the 4 classes which is fairly accurate for PSU because they redshirted almost everyone.
2012 85 22/21/21/21
2013 65 15/17/18/15
2014 61 15/16/15/15
2015 55 14/13/13/15
2016 52 12/12/13/15
2017 61 11/11/14/25
2018 70 10/12/23/25
2019 78 11/20/22/25
2020 85 18/20/22/25
LikeLike
They will probably still be able to back count ships to previous years so that they can maintain 65 throughout. In 2 years they will be able to offer early playing time and the bowl ban will not affect those recruits much.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“They will probably still be able to back count ships to previous years so that they can maintain 65 throughout. In 2 years they will be able to offer early playing time and the bowl ban will not affect those recruits much.”
They can’t back count because they are limited to 15 as well. They may get to back count in 2013 to the 2012 class, but I don’t know if PSU wants to press their luck. They can’t back count after that.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think the scholarship losses were lighter than expected though. The bowl ban was in the area expected.
By 2018-2019, Penn State could be set up for a return as long as they make sure they have a strong recruiter in place…
LikeLike
I don’t think the 10 per year was lighter than expected. I don’t think they’d ever go past 10 except by going to 0 allowed. I was thinking it might be 5 years, not 4, but that was just a guess.
Recruiting will be tough as the team will be so bad by mid-decade. They can promise a lot of playing time, though.
LikeLike
The issue is that players can transfer. With 15, they could be playing with a bunch of walk-ons for 4 years and well beyond even when they get back to 25.
LikeLike
The saving grace for PSU is almost everyone will stay for 2012, so 1 year of the penalty will pass before they lose a lot to transfers. That’s time for the coach to brainwash them.
LikeLike
PSU transfer details:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/20120723/21207234
With this key nugget:
Additionally, the NCAA is considering waiving scholarship limits for programs to which these football student-athletes transfer, provided they reduce proportionately in the next year. For example, the limit is 25 new scholarships per year to a total of 85 scholarships. If the limits are waived in 2012-13 to accommodate one Penn State student-athlete who wishes to transfer to a particular school already at the limits, in 2013-14 the school will be limited to 24 new scholarships and 84 total scholarships.
LikeLike
I am thinking that they will allow leniency for a school to take A player.
However, if 5 PSU players wanted to go to Ohio State together, the NCAA might not wave the limits.
LikeLike
Frankly, no school would trade 5 incoming upperclassmen for 5 recruits. Filling 1 hole is like getting a JUCO player.
LikeLike
I was just using a hypothetical. The NCAA “can” waive the limits, but it does not have to if there is a reason not to–such as a block of players moving and upsetting the balance of power in a conference.
LikeLike
Of course… if you are a coach on the proverbial hot seat. Might you take several Penn State players if they can help immediately? No point in worrying about next year if you are not around to see it.
I am thinking of a guy like Paul Pasqualoni at UConn. Or Randy Edsall at Maryland. Can you afford a mediocre or worse season in years 2 and 3?
LikeLike
So does that mean all the SEC schools will now have 95 players?
LikeLike
With oversigning, they already do.
LikeLike
Its still going to be hard on the players with this going into effect for 2012. Other than a handful, they really won’t be able to leave and won’t get a bowl. If it went into effect for 2013 they would have time.
LikeLike
B1G to impose own penalties at 11am ET.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53632/big-ten-to-impose-own-penalties-on-psu
LikeLike
No link yet, but Sportscenter just reporter that PSU will be ineligible to receive their share of Big 10 bowl revenue for 4 years. Estimated to be worth roughly $13 million.
LikeLike
Their share will go to charity, not the other schools.
LikeLike
@frug – Depending upon how the Big Ten is phrasing this, the amount may actually end up being much larger since there will be more bowl revenue from the new playoff and Rose Bowl deals in the 2014-15 portion of this ban.
LikeLike
“4. Fine: Because Penn State will be ineligible for bowl games for the next four years, it will therefore be ineligible to receive its share of Big Ten Conference bowl revenues over those same four years. That money, estimated to be approximately $13 million, will be donated to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children.”
I assume bowl revenue will be construed to include playoff revenue, but it may only include earned playoff money.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/072312aaa.html
LikeLike
Here is Penn State’s statement accepting the NCAA penalties:
http://live.psu.edu/story/60475
LikeLike
It does lay out the payout plan:
Specifically, the University will pay $12 million a year for the next five years into a special endowment created to fund programs for the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse. This total of $60 million can never reduce the pain suffered by victims, but will help provide them hope and healing.
LikeLike
@ESPNMichele: Per ESPN research, w/ Penn State’s ’98-’11 wins vacated, the last QB to win a game at PSU was Mike McQueary on 11/22/97
LikeLike
You just can’t make this stuff up.
LikeLike
Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen
B1G penalties for PSU include loss of bowl revenue over next four years (approx. $13 million total) and censure. Conference call at 11 am
LikeLike
Does anyone know what the margins are for Penn State’s athletics department?
This is a significant loss of money over a 4-5 year time span; you’re looking at $15-16M or more potentially over each of the first 4 years (depending on playoff/Rose Bowl money) and another $12M in the 5th year.
Can they sustain their 30 sports with a hit that big applied over a half decade?
Also, what happens if ticket sales fall by say 10k or 20k per game in the middle of the decade? That sounds like another $5M or so out of their pockets…
Can their athletics budget stand a roughly $100M hit over 5 years…?
LikeLike
10k to 20k per game? I could see them playing before 60k in a 110k seat stadium. 45k for a Kent State game. Things could get really ugly.
LikeLike
greg:
Check PSU’s attendance in 2003 & 2004 when JoePa went 3-9 and then 4-7.
LikeLike
I’m not predicting 60k or 45k to happen. But it could. I don’t think 2003/2004 gives much evidence to what will happen when the program is facing a pretty large penalty for 14 years of child rape coverup. The good news is, the greed shown by PSU in the re-seating has already given them a lower ticket base to start with, having multiple ~95k games last year.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Does anyone know what the margins are for Penn State’s athletics department?”
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
2011:
Revenue $116M
Expenses $101M
“This is a significant loss of money over a 4-5 year time span; you’re looking at $15-16M or more potentially over each of the first 4 years (depending on playoff/Rose Bowl money) and another $12M in the 5th year.
Can they sustain their 30 sports with a hit that big applied over a half decade?”
They have to. That’s a condition of their punishment. At worst, the school will have to support athletics a little.
“Also, what happens if ticket sales fall by say 10k or 20k per game in the middle of the decade? That sounds like another $5M or so out of their pockets…
Can their athletics budget stand a roughly $100M hit over 5 years…?”
No. But it will cover much of it, and the school and/or endowment will cover the rest. It wouldn’t be a penalty if it didn’t hurt.
LikeLike
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_states_bill_obrien_has_no.html
BOB doesn’t have an out clause for major NCAA sanctions, so he’d have to quit to leave PSU. That means he’d have to pay them money.
LikeLike
Yeah, it sounds like he’ll have to just accept the role of trying to rebuild the thing given how much it would cost him to terminate that contract.
“Participation in bowl game: 11 percent of base salary”
That stands out the most to me in terms of incentives. I mean his agent had to be assuming that he would get that money every year…
LikeLike
As far as silver linings go, the major one for Penn State is that they have clarity now and a timeline for when they’ll be getting back to normal (compared to other situations like Miami that are in a holding pattern knowing that the sledgehammer comes down at some point).
For the Big Ten, the silver lining is that the next contract renegotiation is for the contract starting in 2017 and so the penalties will mostly be gone by then with the football program presumably getting back up on its feet after that…; I’m not sure how directly this situation and penalties could affect the value of it, but that’s at least going to significantly mitigate the downside to it. That still may include a year or two of mediocre Penn State football but it’s not as bad as if the contract started during the 5 year penalty phase…
LikeLike
Will the Big Ten Nework air any of these games that have been vacated? Just curious.
LikeLike
Only the losses! 🙂
LikeLike
I know you’re kidding, but only wins are vacated. The losses stay on their record.
And to answer Nick, yes they’ll eventually show the games if they were good games. They own the rights and the other teams did nothing wrong. I’d guess PSU won’t be on as often as before though except for live games.
LikeLike
@Brian
My point (your right, kiddingly) being they wouldn’t want to show Penn State winning any games. I don’t understand the NCAA logic in vacating wins before 2001. Does anyone know their reasoning for that?
LikeLike
This was not about reasoning.
LikeLike
largeR,
They said it was because that’s when the institutional failure began based on the Freeh report. Spanier was copied on emails about it but claims he never heard about the incident and such. The janitor incident was in 2000 I think and that added fuel to the fire with their fear of the FB program.
LikeLike
I hate this. I truly do. I hate vacating wins on principle. Vacating them doesn’t change the fact they happened and I’d rather history reflect reality than what people want it to be. Maybe JoePa shouldn’t have had all of those wins, but the fact is, those games were decided on gameday, not this year and claiming anything else is just an insult to the history books.
Beyond that, they’ve just crippled a team for a decade for something that doesn’t even feel to me like it was done with the intent of preserving football success. Jail time and civil suits all around are called for, but the NCAA should not have been involved in my opinion.
With that said, I’ll let it go.
LikeLike
I agree with you Eric on both points.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I hate this. I truly do. I hate vacating wins on principle.”
I sympathize, but this is the rare case where I support it.
“Vacating them doesn’t change the fact they happened and I’d rather history reflect reality than what people want it to be.”
They didn’t change history, just the NCAA record book. The reason I support it is because the drive for the wins record was a motivating factor in the cover up. The fans put Joe on a pedestal in part because of his wins total, and they have had a hard time accepting reality. This penalty hits them as much as anyone.
“Maybe JoePa shouldn’t have had all of those wins, but the fact is, those games were decided on gameday, not this year and claiming anything else is just an insult to the history books.”
The NCAA record book isn’t the sole source of history.
“Beyond that, they’ve just crippled a team for a decade for something that doesn’t even feel to me like it was done with the intent of preserving football success.”
Why did they do it? To protect reputations (of PSU, of Paterno, of Sandusky), presumably. JoePa’s reputation was integral to PSU’s football success. You can’t hurt his reputation and expect the team results to have been unaffected. He wouldn’t have coached as long or won as many games.
“Jail time and civil suits all around are called for, but the NCAA should not have been involved in my opinion.”
It’s a reasonable opinion and one I generally share. But I also acknowledge it is a gray area so I’m not upset that he NCAA got involved. I’m glad that since they did get involved, they did it in an unusual way that acknowledges that this isn’t a standard enforcement case.
LikeLike
So you don’t think they ought to be involved at all………….but since they are, you support these insanely harsh penalities? Odd.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“So you don’t think they ought to be involved at all…”
Correct, but I’m not militant about it. I can see both sides of the argument.
“…but since they are, you support these insanely harsh penalities?”
I didn’t say that. I said I approved of them using a unique method to do it since the case is (hopefully) unique. I do support the levels of penalties, though, because it would be even worse to get involved and then give them a slap on the wrist.
I don’t think they are “insanely harsh.” My rough guess was about a $30M fine and 5 years of bowl ban and being down 10 scholarships. Trading another year for the bigger fine is OK. Lesser punishments would have been in line with what USC got, and there’s no reason to skip the COI if that’s all you’re going to do.
“Odd.”
Probably.
LikeLike
Looking forward, Penn State’s future OOC schedules look pretty easy: Syracuse in 13, 20 & 21; Virginia in 13; Temple in 14, 15 & 16; Rutgers in 14 & 15; Pitt in 16 & 17; and MACrifice games filling in the other spots with plenty of slots to schedule, beginning in 15.
With regard to open spots, does Penn State just schedule MAC and I-AA teams? Do they try to schedule Big 5 conference teams? Does anybody of substance want to play a home & home with Penn State over the next several years? Does Penn State get dropped by any of the schools that it has current agreements with?
LikeLike
The 2013 Syracuse game is slated for the NY/NJ area. Makes you wonder if Syracuse and/or the stadium will want to go through with the game. I don’t think Syracuse was expecting it to be a watered down Penn State opponent. I don’t think that the game organizers expected it to be a non-traveling, apathy-driven Penn State fan base.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“The 2013 Syracuse game is slated for the NY/NJ area. Makes you wonder if Syracuse and/or the stadium will want to go through with the game. I don’t think Syracuse was expecting it to be a watered down Penn State opponent. I don’t think that the game organizers expected it to be a non-traveling, apathy-driven Penn State fan base.”
PSU shouldn’t be down too much in 2013. besides, I think SU would take the win over PSU no matter what. The organizers won’t be thrilled, but PSU fans may see that as their chance to travel and see PSU with no bowl available.
LikeLike
Maybe they should reschedule it for the end of the season?
LikeLike
PSU would if they could.
I’m curious to see if PSU tries to schedule HI during their bowl ban and/or just after it. Play the extra home game plus get a pseudo bowl trip. I’m sure HI would be happy to beat up on a B10 team.
LikeLike
I was thinking that too, re: Hawaii. Maybe they need to close that rule exception for teams on probation?
LikeLike
And deny Hawaii a chance to play, and possibly beat a “king”? When did Sandusky work for UH?
LikeLike
@Brian
They closed that loophole after Alabama did something similar when the last time they were given postseason ban. (USC was allowed to play them this year though because the game had been scheduled more than 5 years in advance and tickets had already been sold)
Now postseason ban includes all “exempt games” including bowls, CCG’s and Hawaii (you can still play them but you don’t get the extra home game).
LikeLike
Interesting question because both attendance and wins might be an issue for a couple of years. One the one hand, you want to schedule games you can win with the depleted man power and that means I-AA and MAC games in at least the worst years. On the other hand though, you need to give your fans something to come see amid a lot of disappointment and that might require bigger name opponents that would otherwise be required.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Looking forward, Penn State’s future OOC schedules look pretty easy: Syracuse in 13, 20 & 21; Virginia in 13; Temple in 14, 15 & 16; Rutgers in 14 & 15; Pitt in 16 & 17; and MACrifice games filling in the other spots with plenty of slots to schedule, beginning in 15.”
I’m curious to see if they drop the Pitt series. Pitt is moving to 9 games and may not want it and PSU really doesn’t want to lose to them.
“With regard to open spots, does Penn State just schedule MAC and I-AA teams?”
Yes. They need wins to keep selling tickets and making money.
“Do they try to schedule Big 5 conference teams?”
Why would they?
“Does anybody of substance want to play a home & home with Penn State over the next several years?”
Maybe. It sounds better than a MAC team even if they are about as good at that point.
“Does Penn State get dropped by any of the schools that it has current agreements with?”
Pitt is the one I question.
LikeLike
Maybe Penn State ought to let all the AQ home and home schools get out of the contract so they can schedule 8 home games for the rest of the decade with I-AA scrubs from the Patriot League and pay them $400k each for the pleasure of playing in Beaver Stadium. If fans still show up, that’s several million the Lions get back to apply toward the fine.
LikeLike
With only 65 scholarships, Penn State will essentially be a strong I-AA team for the rest of the decade anyway.
LikeLike
So they could still beat MI, right?
LikeLike
The scholarships are manageable. Its the bowl ban and perception that will hurt recruiting. They won’t get the same caliber of players. They will have depth problems, but basically will have to avoid redshirting players. The NFL got by for years with a 40 player roster and 7 player taxi squad. If you redshirt 15-20 players a year, that leaves 65-70 players that most programs are working with in a year.
LikeLike
Did PSU join the SEC?
LikeLike
Alan,
They’d have to buy their way out of those deals I’m sure. I’m guessing Temple is looking forward to a chance to finally beat PSU, for example. I’m betting they’ll fill their schedule with MACtion games, though.
LikeLike
Temple? I would think the biggest celebration would be in Bloomington! Penn State will be turned into another IU with the scholarship reductions. Maybe the Hoosiers can win their first game and go on a win streak vs the Nitts. I agree totally with Alan above. Buy out the Pitt and Cuse games and schedule the worst of FBS for home buy games. I’m guessing for the next 6 years after 2012, PSU wins maybe one B1G game a year if we’re lucky.
LikeLike
I was talking OOC games, obviously. PSU may still want to play SU but I don’t know if their egos are prepared to lose to Pitt.
LikeLike
I think PSU wins more than 1 B10 game a year. Over the 6 or 7 worst years, they’ll probably outperform 2 or 3 B10 schools.
LikeLike
Bowlsby via Bret McMurphy (@McMurphyCBS)
Bowlsby on future conference expansion across country: “A period of calm would be good” for college football
Bob Bowlsby: “I don’t know if we would get 2 votes on expansion. If we voted today, we wouldn’t take new members in”
Big 12’s Bob Bowlsby: “Best days of (Big 12) conference are ahead. Stability far better than public perception”
LikeLike
Also
Bowlsby:
“The pass-through third tier rights, we think that there is an opportunity to monetize those. We also think there’s an opportunity for institutional exposure that is substantial. ….
I agree with you. Your assertion that it could be an attractive element of having others come to our league, and once all the details are finalized, I think it becomes easier to have those discussions”….
LikeLike
Is the Big Ten withholding bowl revenue from Ohio State the year they are banned from the postseason? Should they?
LikeLike
Makes sense, but I think this is a new policy. Will see if they retroactively make it apply to Ohio State for this season too even though that didn’t seem to be the plan.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“Is the Big Ten withholding bowl revenue from Ohio State the year they are banned from the postseason? Should they?”
OSU gave back their bowl money from the 2010 season already, but they will get it for 2012.
LikeLike
“Death Penalty” closer than I thought.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/23/3270275/penn-state-president-erickson.html#storylink=cpy
Penn State president Rodney Erickson revealed that the university accepted the severe NCAA sanctions announced today to avoid the death penalty for the football program.
In an interview with the Centre Daily Times, Erickson said, “We had our backs to the wall on this. We did what we thought was necessary to save the program.”
Joined by board of trustees chairwoman Karen Peetz and interim director of athletics David Joyner, Erickson said he signed the NCAA agreement because no better deal was available.
He said Penn State could have faced at least one year without football and still would have endured additional penalties.
LikeLike
I’m amused by all the commentators who think that the penalties handed down were worse than the death penalties. The writers at Yahoo! and other websites seem to think so…
But that’s clearly not the factual case. A year or two suspension of football along with additional penalties would have been far worse.
The actual penalty is harsh, but it doesn’t demolish the athletics department. As Brian points out above, it basically removes Penn State’s annual surplus and may force them to make a small subsidy to keep all 30 sports going (but it seems minor at best) over a 5 year period of time. Additionally, the football team will be extremely bad for a period of 3-5 years and then begin to crawl itself out of the hole in 2018. With the right recruiters, it could be at full strength in 2020 but that’s not the issue.
Now go to the death penalty. If you actually suspend play, you’re talking about huge damage to the surrounding community in terms of tens of millions of dollars in revenue from gameday activities. The damage to opponents schedules would be significant but mitigatable; however, the Big Ten would take a huge hit with a loss of 11 or 12 Penn State games (3-4 non-conference home games and 8 conference games) considering the TV implications and ticket sharing arrangement. That’s even before considering that Penn State’s athletics department would face a 1 or 2 year hole of around $60-70M due to ticket sales (would have to be refunded I assume?) as well as the Big Ten possibly yanking their entire TV pay for the year(s) of suspension. Then go to the on-field product, wouldn’t all the players leave? They’d have a full bottoming out to a few 1-2 win seasons after that. Also recall that SMU’s death penalty included 55 scholarships lost over 4 years after they returned. So it’s not as if Penn State would have been going anywhere.
Put it altogether and you’re talking about a financial impact several times greater on all parties involved in the death penalty scenario. The football impact would be much more significant too in terms of bottoming out. And the athletics department would need a huge subsidy just to stay afloat, let alone trying to fund 30 sports.
Simply no comparison that Penn State got a penalty that they can survive through with a period of bad football and a more manageable financial loss, while minimizing the impact on other actors (surrounding community, their other sports, the Big Ten, etc.).
LikeLike
After thinking it over for a while, I’m just relieved that the punishment is manageable. I thought the NCAA did a really good job of mitigating the impact on unrelated parties (surrounding communities, other sports, Big Ten, rest of Penn State’s athletics department). Each of the unrelated parties will get some pain, but it won’t be anything remotely comparable to the impact of the death penalty on those other actors.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Sounds like they gave PSU an ultimatum. If you don’t agree we will give you the death penalty. Sounds kind of heavy handed, but unfortunately typical of the NCAA.
LikeLike
That’s not the impression I got from Emmert. To me, it sounds like the NCAA told PSU this is what we’re going to do and PSU agreed to sign the consent to avoid the risk that saying no would anger the NCAA enough to get the death penalty plus other penalties.
LikeLike
I’m referring to Erickson’s quote above.
LikeLike
I know. I’m just pointing out that Emmert/Ray gave a very different picture of how that happened. Erickson may be spinning it to protect himself a little.
LikeLike
Goes to my “spineless” assessment. That was a correct call. Academia is not where the courageous reside.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I’m amused by all the commentators who think that the penalties handed down were worse than the death penalties. The writers at Yahoo! and other websites seem to think so…”
It’s hard to compare, but they can make a good case.
“But that’s clearly not the factual case. A year or two suspension of football along with additional penalties would have been far worse.”
Well now you’re arguing apples and oranges. The argument people are making is the totality of penalties PSU got versus just the death penalty.
$60M fine vs lost $60M from no FB for a year
5 year probation versus 5 year probation
4 year bowl ban versus 1 year bowl ban
4 years of being down 10/20 scholarships vs no restriction
A lot of years of being crappy versus 1 year of no FB and several years of being crappy
Vacating 112 wins versus vacating no wins
In either case, PSU would be back to normal by 2020 probably. Before then, who knows? The advantages as far as the NCAA is concerned: I’d say the penalties might be comparable.
1. $60M for charity versus just costing PSU $60M
2. Other teams don’t have holes in their schedules
3. No interference with contracts (TV deals, games, etc)
4. Easier to assure the non-revenue sports won’t suffer
5. Less collateral damage to innocent parties
“The actual penalty is harsh, but it doesn’t demolish the athletics department. As Brian points out above, it basically removes Penn State’s annual surplus and may force them to make a small subsidy to keep all 30 sports going (but it seems minor at best) over a 5 year period of time. Additionally, the football team will be extremely bad for a period of 3-5 years and then begin to crawl itself out of the hole in 2018. With the right recruiters, it could be at full strength in 2020 but that’s not the issue.”
Don’t forget that current surplus is based on fans paying a lot for FB games. If attendance drops and donations decline and ticket prices get lowered, PSU will suffer a lot more. They could lose half of their football revenue every year for 4+ years.
“Now go to the death penalty. If you actually suspend play, you’re talking about huge damage to the surrounding community in terms of tens of millions of dollars in revenue from gameday activities. The damage to opponents schedules would be significant but mitigatable; however, the Big Ten would take a huge hit with a loss of 11 or 12 Penn State games (3-4 non-conference home games and 8 conference games) considering the TV implications and ticket sharing arrangement. That’s even before considering that Penn State’s athletics department would face a 1 or 2 year hole of around $60-70M due to ticket sales (would have to be refunded I assume?) as well as the Big Ten possibly yanking their entire TV pay for the year(s) of suspension. Then go to the on-field product, wouldn’t all the players leave? They’d have a full bottoming out to a few 1-2 win seasons after that. Also recall that SMU’s death penalty included 55 scholarships lost over 4 years after they returned. So it’s not as if Penn State would have been going anywhere.”
Most people assume PSU could bounce back faster than SMU because they are a king and the only FB power in the northeast. Players in TX had a lot of other great choices near by while those in New England don’t. of course recruiting has gotten more national lately so that’s less important than it used to be.
LikeLike
That’s fair. I’m just saying that the death penalty is like rolling all these penalties into one year and slamming the department.
Perhaps the impact on Penn State is the same in the long run either way.
I suppose it’s enough to just say that the unrelated actors dodged a big bullet by not facing the consequences of the death penalty.
LikeLike
You have to start from scratch. SMU had only a half dozen or so players left after their death penalty. Its like starting a new program. It would be like UTSA jumping right into the Big 10.
LikeLike
How will this affect upcoming TV negotiations? Penn St was one of the Big Ten’s top teams and one with some national appeal. They won’t be back to full strength for several years after the new contracts start.
LikeLike
Obviously we don’t know for sure, but PSU will be coming off their punishment and be rebuilding right as the deal starts. For a long deal, a few years of sub-par PSU isn’t a big problem. It just means others are winning more games. By then people will be ready to see PSU succeed again so that should be a positive as the fans start coming back to support them.
LikeLike
Urban Meyer’s performance at Ohio State probably has more mpact in terms of upside and downside to the next TV contract.
Penn State in 2016 will be a bad team but past the sanctions; there’s really not going to be any indication of where they’re going to be from 2020-2026 (last 7 years of a 10 year deal), so even if the next contract assumes that they’ll be subpar in 2017-2019, the totality of Penn State’s value is going to be based on what the Big Ten and TV networks think that Penn State’s potential is (because there won’t really be many hints of that in 2016).
LikeLike
It shouldn’t have a major impact (I mention this above as the silver lining for the Big Ten).
The new contract starts in 2017 which is just after all of the sanctions themselves end. It will still take another year after that for Penn State to clear 70+ scholarships but they should be strong enough by 2019 to put a good team out there assuming that they do a good job of recruiting in 2017-2019.
The next contract negotiations will likely be completed by mid-2016, so although Penn State will be a bad product around that time, the new agreement is likely to cover something like 2017-2026 (give or take an additional 2 or 3 years if the contract is longer).
I don’t see Penn State’s value to the next contract being discounted that much given that the penalties will be in the rearview mirror when the contract starts, and certainly within 2-3 years of starting the new contract, they’ll be back at full strength in terms of scholarship numbers…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8192320/fitzgerald-toussaint-michigan-wolverines-suspended-dui-arrest
And the hits just keep on coming. Fitz Toussaint is now suspended indefinitely for a DUI. That should end any hopes MI fans had of beating AL unless Hoke caves and lets him play.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53734/paterno-family-statement-on-ncaa-ruling
Shockingly, the Paternos have put out yet another statement.
LikeLike
Ironically enough, they’re helping the Penn State administration show that they’re very far apart now.
LikeLike
The Lettermen’s Club also put out a statement condemning Emmert for saying bad things about PSU.
http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1204674.html
LikeLike
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/penn-state-board-of-trustees-reaction-rolled-over-played-dead/1#.UA3Si6PHnKe
This is why PSU can’t have nice things.
Apparently the administration didn’t discuss the consent decree with the BoT before signing it, so they’re mad. Good to see they’ve fixed their communication issues.
“It really wasn’t much of a negotiation (but) everything’s negotiable,” Lubrano said. “My view is that we rolled over and played dead. They (board members) want to put Paterno behind them.”
And this is the bigger problem. This guy campaigned for the BoT in part by by running a Paterno tribute on TV. Now he thinks they could have and should have negotiated with the NCAA.
LikeLike
The only one with any foresight is Erickson. Whether the bowl ban is 3 or 4 years, whether the scholarship losses are 32 or 36 or 40 over a 4 year period, or whether the fine is $60M or $40M over 5 years; all of those are just minor details.
The football program is going to be pretty horrible for around 6 years regardless of any changes around those details.
The key is and was always to make the punishment manageable so it wouldn’t have to all be handled in a year (i.e. death penalty). By avoiding that, Erickson saved them in the long run.
In a “negotiation” where one side is holding a gun to your head, you take the best possible option and sign the dotted line. Trying to hold out to mitigate minor details would have only raised the possibility of a full suspension of their football program for a year. Avoiding that risk had to be done at all costs.
LikeLike
It is all conjecture now, but I believe that if PSU had self-imposed a suspension of the football program for one year for the 2013 season before the NCAA acted, they would have recovered sooner than after this penalty.
Let’s face it, the majority of posters on this board completely underestimated the severity of this situation for PSU and thought that PSU would never receive the punishment that they did.
Unfortunately, the Big 10 looks feckless and weak — certainly not a Leader much less a Legend.
I truly empathize for the loyal PSU alums and “subway” alums who love their school and are devastated by this rapid turn of events.
LikeLike
A 1-year suspension would have been clumsy and catastrophic for a lot of other parties. It’s unfathomable that any program would unilaterally do that without trying to get any other penalty (and I really mean any other penalty).
LikeLike
It is all conjecture now, but I believe that if PSU had self-imposed a suspension of the football program for one year for the 2013 season before the NCAA acted, they would have recovered sooner than after this penalty.
Penn St.’s president said he accepted these penalties because he believed the only other alternative was the death penalty which he believed was worse. Yes, a one year suspension would probably have resulted in a return to competitiveness sooner, but it would have devastated the economy of Happy Valley. During the season bars, restaurants and hotels make up to half their weekly revenue on Saturday afternoons and either Friday or Saturday nights (depending on kickoff time).
Let’s face it, the majority of posters on this board completely underestimated the severity of this situation for PSU and thought that PSU would never receive the punishment that they did.
Not at all. The majority said they didn’t feel the NCAA should get involved. No one made any predictions about whether they would and what would happen if they did.
Unfortunately, the Big 10 looks feckless and weak — certainly not a Leader much less a Legend.
Don’t see how. What would have been different if things had gone the other way?
LikeLike
rich2,
“Unfortunately, the Big 10 looks feckless and weak”
And if they had brought major penalties before the NCAA did, they’d be accused of overstepping their bounds and being unfair to a newer member. The B10 rightly let the NCAA go first and then added complementary punishments.
LikeLike
rich2,
Don’t forget the NCAA said they would have imposed the death penalty plus other things. So if PSU proposed a 1 year DP, they still would have gotten other penalties like the fine and scholarship reductions. Maybe the fine would be less or the duration of punishment 1 year less, but that’s about it.
LikeLike
Interesting Brian…………so PSU kneeled prostate before the NCAA……..the only issue is what the NCAA is going to do. So if PSU offers ANY resistence to their plans the NCAA goes directly to the DP although their aquthority to do so if highly questionable. Sounds like dealing with the Mafia, rather than a purportedly reputable institutuion. And everybody’s fine with that and singing Kumbila.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – My impression is that it’s not so much that the NCAA actually threatened the death penalty, but the mere fact that such a sanction would be hanging out there as a possibility was going to be more damaging to Penn State at this juncture than the school just accepting this punishment and moving on. I think someone here made the comparison to this being like a company that has anticipated bad news that hasn’t been officially announced yet but its stock is falling precipitously as a result of it. The threats and rumors of bad news are what causes a panic sell-off as opposed to the actual confirmation of the bad news itself. In a way, the NCAA did Penn State a favor here by not dragging this out since the drip-drip-drip nature of bad news about the entire scandal is what has kept this story on the front pages everyday this summer. Penn State was likely at the point where it was going to take any sanctions by the NCAA that wasn’t the death penalty and get it over with so it wouldn’t be hanging over the school for several more months.
LikeLike
lol at you rich………I can tell you’re heartbroken………
LikeLike
So if PSU makes a peep the NCAA changes it’s proposed punishment and goes with the death penalty? WTF is that…..and all of this is done with NO formal investigation by the NCAA itself.
Extremely shady dealing, imo.
LikeLike
The NCAA did not go far enough in vacating PSU wins. Should have gone back the full 30 years Sandusky was employed there. Then we could have SMU as national champs in ’82 (I am sure they were as clean then as in ’87) and Miami in ’86 (after losing the FIesta Bowl and its #1 ranking to Penn State).
LikeLike
They could go back to the beginning of time. It doesn’t change anything: it’s just do-nothing, feel good nonsense.
LikeLike
I HATE the idea of vacting wins…….especially where no direct on the field advantage is gained. That’s easily the most rediculous and insulting aspect of this whole assinine screwjob by the NCAA.
LikeLike
Well download before they change it!
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/stats/football/2011rb.html
LikeLike
I wonder what the odds are for Wisconsin winning the Leaders division are now, considering tOSU and PSU are both ineligible. Their only competition has to be Purdue. Indiana isn’t improving from 1-11 all the way to division champs. Ilinois? I don’t see it.
LikeLike
Yeah, they’re definitely the prohibitive favorites barring some kind of wild longshot bid from the remainder of that division.
LikeLike
My usual source for lines doesn’t have any B10 lines up at the moment. Used to have division and conference championship odds.
http://www.5dimes.eu/livelines/livelines.aspx
LikeLike
Michael,
This is where IL misses Zook. This is exactly the sort of year where he’d luck into the CCG on tiebreakers and have a puncher’s chance at a Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
So will O’Brien stash recruits in JUCOs in the Northeast?
By 2017, they can issue 25 new scholarships. By 2018, they can go up to the 85 limit.
Some creative roster management would help. Granted, the guys willing to go the JUCO route won’t usually be the elite, but some kids who grew up PSU fans may decide to do it rather than go to a MAC school.
PSU could also institute a massive walk-on program like Nebraska use to have. Tuition may be an issue though (unless you get kids who would get a lot of financial aid anyway; or sons of former PSU players to sign on).
LikeLike
I think PSU will be leery of roster management. If not, PSU will sign 21 recruits in 2013 and back count 6 of them to 2012. That doesn’t send the signal that football is being kept in perspective and could cause them trouble with the NCAA. I think they’ll play it straight and take their lumps. It’s the same reason I don’t think they’ll schedule HI until their bowl ban ends.
As for JUCOs, that’s for stashing dumb athletes. PSU can’t afford to take academic or character risks with their restrictions, and I don’t think they want to lower their standards and start taking a lot of JUCOs. Besides, they need people to be around for 4-5 years, not 1-2.
They’ll certainly try to develop their walk-on program, but it’s a tough sell when you can get a scholarship from a team that’s as good or better.
LikeLike
I think they have to take some JUCO’s. In a few years they won’t have the depth to compete. I think there is more risk to throwing a few true freshmen out on the field that can’t compete (because they likely will be signing 2 and 3 star players that are undersized initially) and risk injury then it would be to take a few Juco’s.
Nebraska still goes the JUCO route on accasion and they don’t have too many problems with them. Obviously not ideal but when they get to that 65 ship limit they will have a hard time keeping above 60 for few years since they are limited to 15 per year.
LikeLike
That thought crossed my mind yesterday. Will PSU be so undermanned that players will get injured as a result of the NCAA actions? Will the NCAA be creating a situation for players to get hurt? But most likely the players probably will just be slower, not smaller.
LikeLike
Linemen will be a lot smaller. If you lucked out genetically to have potential pro size and body composition, you’re not going to go to a school where you won’t win anything. Way too many other, better offers. Plus you likely won’t be able to redshirt to transform yourself into a Big 10 line player before you have to go deal with them…
If I’m a QB recruit or said recruit’s parent who knows how football is played, I don’t even consider Penn State for this reason.
LikeLike
bullet,
“That thought crossed my mind yesterday. Will PSU be so undermanned that players will get injured as a result of the NCAA actions? Will the NCAA be creating a situation for players to get hurt?”
They shouldn’t be substantially worse than a I-AA, and nobody worries about them playing bodybag games.
“But most likely the players probably will just be slower, not smaller.”
I think it’ll be a mix. The OL and DL will probably be big and slow while the LB, DB and skill players will be small.
LikeLike
Peter,
“Linemen will be a lot smaller.”
Maybe, but I tend to think they’ll be big but slow. The MAC is filled with big bodies that were too slow for the B10.
“If I’m a QB recruit or said recruit’s parent who knows how football is played, I don’t even consider Penn State for this reason.”
I wonder if BOB will have to change his offense. A true spread like the Air Raid of Leach is better suited to a low talent team. They could go triple option but he has no experience there.
LikeLike
@ Brian Regarding the comparison to D-1AA teams the difference there is that the FCS schools usually only play 1 BCS opponent each year. Penn State would have to play a complete Big Ten schedule plus any out of conference games. Things could get ugly but if they recruit okay and redshirt some players the next two years they could get through the tough times. The key for them is to have as many upper classmen as possible when they are going through the 65 limit years.
LikeLike
Peter & Kevin:
IU plays a full B10 schedule as well, and they compete with MAC schools for talent. Yet I haven’t heard people at IU complaining about increased injuries.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I think they have to take some JUCO’s.”
I’m sure they will. Richard asked about stashing players at JUCOs, though, and that’s what the SEC does when it oversigns and players don’t make it academically. I’d look for plenty of JUCO offensive linemen especially, because they need the time to develop and PSU may not have 2-3 years to put a guy in the weight room.
“I think there is more risk to throwing a few true freshmen out on the field that can’t compete (because they likely will be signing 2 and 3 star players that are undersized initially) and risk injury then it would be to take a few Juco’s.”
If I had to guess, they’ll have an equal mix of undersized players and underspeed players. MAC teams have plenty of big bodies, but they tend to be a step or two slower than B10 linemen.
“Nebraska still goes the JUCO route on accasion and they don’t have too many problems with them. Obviously not ideal but when they get to that 65 ship limit they will have a hard time keeping above 60 for few years since they are limited to 15 per year.”
It helps that NE has a history of going JUCO and has lower academic standards. If PSU takes too many JUCOs all of a sudden, people are going to question their priorities again.
LikeLike
IMHO – Penn St should take a few JUCO players to help spread out graduation. They will want 25 players a year coming off scholarship once they are allowed to take 25/85.
Also, I have read that the extra home game for playing in Hawaii exemption will not be available to Penn St. I still think they should though.
LikeLike
Mike,
“IMHO – Penn St should take a few JUCO players to help spread out graduation. They will want 25 players a year coming off scholarship once they are allowed to take 25/85.”
At the end, they’ll want 25 lesser players coming off scholarship, sure. But when they first get to take 25 again, they’ll want nobody coming off scholarship so they can build numbers. With all 4-year players they won’t get back to 85 until 2020. Then they’ll have big classes rolling through to start graduating since they get to take 25 starting in 2017. Below are the rough numbers I posted before to give you an idea. So maybe they take some JUCOs in 2018 and 2019 to speed up the transition, but I don’t think it would help them much before then except to plus some holes.
2012 85 22/21/21/21
2013 65 15/17/18/15
2014 61 15/16/15/15
2015 55 14/13/13/15
2016 52 12/12/13/15
2017 61 11/11/14/25
2018 70 10/12/23/25
2019 78 11/20/22/25
2020 85 18/20/22/25
“Also, I have read that the extra home game for playing in Hawaii exemption will not be available to Penn St. I still think they should though.”
That was true for USC as well. They can still play HI, though, and can get the extra game starting in 2016. I’d expect them to try to schedule HI after that as they will need a few years to get back to good enough to make a bowl.
LikeLike
@Brian – Redshirts (both regular and medical) will throw off your chart a bit. Also, I can’t find any documentation for it, but I believe that giving a walk on a scholarship doesn’t count against the 25 (or in Penn St’s case 15) limit only the 85 (65) limit.
If I was BOB, I would be building a Nebraska style walk-on program* to help build depth. There are enough good players out there that just need some coaching, training, or an opportunity that could become contributors who would love to say they are part of the Penn St football. If I remember correctly, they can take up to 125 into fall camp up until school starts and then can expand the roster some more.
*I can think of five walk on players on Nebraska’s 2 deep, including the All Big Ten P/PK and a second team All Big Ten guard.
LikeLike
Brian, doesn’t the 65 limit kick in at 2014-2017 to give them a year to reach it? You think they’ll go below next year?
LikeLike
Mike,
“@Brian – Redshirts (both regular and medical) will throw off your chart a bit.”
They will. I’m not claiming it’s exact. It’s just supposed to give an idea of what could happen.
“Also, I can’t find any documentation for it, but I believe that giving a walk on a scholarship doesn’t count against the 25 (or in Penn St’s case 15) limit only the 85 (65) limit.”
If they are an established walk-on, that sounds right. I didn’t count those types of players because they aren’t really scholarship level players.
“If I was BOB, I would be building a Nebraska style walk-on program* to help build depth.”
That assumes tons of players want to walk-on to a team with a dark future and no bowl possibilities.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Brian, doesn’t the 65 limit kick in at 2014-2017 to give them a year to reach it? You think they’ll go below next year?”
No, I made these numbers before I read the details. It won’t change by much, though, because they lose a bunch to graduation and attrition (transfers, injuries, etc) and can only add 15 unless they back count some to last year. The unknown is how much attrition they’ll have.
LikeLike
@Brian –
“That assumes tons of players want to walk-on to a team with a dark future and no bowl possibilities.”
There is a significant amount of players that will play for teams with dark futures and no bowl possibilities. The real question is how many will pay for the privilege. The fact remains that Penn St is still a major college program that will have every one if its games on TV. It shouldn’t take a lot to convince a player to walk-on at Penn St with its facilities, support, and opportunities for playing time over a scholarship from (for example) Buffalo. Penn St still means something.
LikeLike
Mike,
“There is a significant amount of players that will play for teams with dark futures and no bowl possibilities. The real question is how many will pay for the privilege. The fact remains that Penn St is still a major college program that will have every one if its games on TV. It shouldn’t take a lot to convince a player to walk-on at Penn St with its facilities, support, and opportunities for playing time over a scholarship from (for example) Buffalo. Penn St still means something.”
Maybe. With ESPN3 and such, more games than ever are televised. Why not take a scholarship to IN or something and at least have a chance at a bowl? The players will be aware that the overall talent level is down, and players on bad teams don’t get as much attention as on a good team. I’m sure some players will do it, but they’ll be farther down the talent scale than PSU would prefer.
LikeLike
Wonder how many AP voters would leave Penn St. off their ballot if they went unbeaten this year?
LikeLike
Few to none, probably, since none of the current players or coaches are implicated.
LikeLike
What happens to Big Ten hockey if PSU can’t keep the sport afloat?
LikeLike
PSU’s hockey program is funded by Pegula’s donation and should be self-sustaining given that he went as far as to build a scholarship endowment into it.
Also, as mentioned above, Penn State should be able to weather most of the financial penalties through its natural operating profit.
LikeLike
They have to keep it afloat. Not cutting other sports is part of the deal.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53832/source-usc-pursuing-psus-silas-redd
Here’s a shocker. Lane Kiffin is the first vulture to pounce on PSU’s carcass, making a bid to get Silas Redd.
LikeLike
http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2012/07/23/mark-richt-says-georgia-may-pursue-penn-state-players/
Count UGA as another potential destination. UGA is under the 85 limit but doesn’t have a lot of ties to any of the players.
LikeLike
@Brian – I would expect that most teams that don’t over sign will be under the limit by a player or two. Right now, Nebraska has five scholarships* available and is shorthanded on Linebackers. I would be a little surprised if Nebraska took any, but they do have a lot of room right now. If I were a Nittany Lion I wouldn’t go anywhere where I actually had to play against Penn St.
*(in case anyone is wondering how… Signing day miss, NQ recruit, one left school for MLB, and two Transfers)
LikeLike
In 2012, the three Big Ten schools that do not play Penn State are Michigan, Michigan State, and Minnesota. So a one-and-done transfer that wanted to stay in the Big Ten, but avoid playing Penn State, might be limited to those schools.
In 2013, both Michigan and Minnesota are added to the Penn State schedule. Therefore, for underclassmen, if they wanted to stay in the Big Ten and avoid playing Penn State, then MSU is their only choice.
My guess is that once the kids look around, this won’t be a factor.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I would expect that most teams that don’t over sign will be under the limit by a player or two.”
Agreed, and I’m not slamming any of them for offering these players an option. I just pointed out UGA because I saw an article mentioning them. GT has openings as well.
Timing could be an issue because soon these extra scholarships will go to senior walk-ons and then there won’t be slots left.
“If I were a Nittany Lion I wouldn’t go anywhere where I actually had to play against Penn St.”
Unless the new staff screwed you over, I agree.
LikeLike
I don’t expect many -if any – to transfer to B1G schools. Most of the B1G programs are full on scholarships so they’d have to ding future recruiting, Ohio State can’t “win now” anyway thanks to the ban, and, let’s face it, the upper tier of B1G schools have seen plenty of what became of Penn State recruiting in the last few years and most likely don’t want most of it.
Current and future recruits are another matter entirely.
LikeLike
Michigan just poached one of Penn State’s recruits–CB Ross Douglas. See http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/ex-penn-state-commit-ross-douglas-joins-michigan-28-hours-after-nittany-lions-hammered-by-ncaa-sanct/
UM should have room for one more commit and the first choice is probably WR Laquon Treadwell. If he gives a verbal, then that should wrap up the 2013 class.
I’m not sure if Michigan is looking at any PSU players to transfer at this point. WR, TE, interior defensive linemen and WDEs would be the higher priorities on the list.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/52118/big-12-media-days-best-of-day-1-2
Not much news at Big 12 media days. West Virginia mascot was able to carry a musket through the airport and the Texas Tech coach complained about Missouri’s turf, which they finally replaced this summer to go to the SEC. Texas lost a running back and Missouri lost the Big 12’s leading rusher in another game, in addition to Tech’s losses on that turf.
No expansion news. It appears that is back burner right now behind getting the TV contract, Champs Bowl and playoff revenue allocation finalized. Nothing much came out of Swofford’s appearance at the Clemson board meeting other than Swofford downplaying the importance of TV revenues and saying the ACC needed to win more football games.
LikeLike
Bowl news for B1G fans. The Insight.com Bowl, errrr Insight Bowl, errrr Valley of the Sun (not to be confused with the actual Sun Bowl) Bowl is now the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl.
Note to participants and fans: watch out for sprinklers, black-outs, clock malfunctions, bad calls and never-ending games.
LikeLike
Alan, don’t forget TV cameras crashing to the turf.
LikeLike
Greg – that’s funny, but I was referencing the BWW commercials. I guess real life follows fiction at times.
LikeLike
Alan, I’m with ya. Since I watch live sports, I’ve seen those commercials a couple million times.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s my libertarian leanings but this ‘collectivist’ approach to punishment makes me very uneasy. There is a great article in the WSJ today that expresses my feelings on the matter perfectly. I realize many here disagree, but it’s worth a read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577545384018802236.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing. Agree entirely.
LikeLike
Excellent and correct analysis………almost as good as if I’d written it myself.
There are two factors involved here……..and it’s very politically incorrect to call out the factor invoked by the Journal writer…..to-wit, the complete emasculation of Academia and the cowardness of the administration related thereto…….educators cannot do ANYTHING these days without giving everyone and their uncle “due process”. I see it even in elementary education, when I go to PTC conferences and talk to teachers. Everyone is afraid to call a spade a spade. Everybody is afraid of the lawyers because common sense has become a rare commodity in the legal system. Since Sandusky was not CHARGED, let alone convicted, of anything, we can’t do anything to him–that is the thought process.
Now, I disagree with the writer that ‘football culture’ and considerations were not also a part of the equation……but the bottom line for these guys is caution and risk aversion………seeing the academics in action over the years, including the likes of Piles Brand, I have always doubted and disputed that this is primarily about football.
The WSJ………an island of sanity in an otherwise insane universe.
LikeLike
Here’s my response to the article: If you don’t police yourself, someone else will.
The writer completely lost me during the first sentence. His bitterness, and the obvious one-sidedness to the article, made it clear he wasn’t going to be rational. And of course…. he doesn’t offer any solutions, or give merit to the corrective actions and the new policies presented by the Freeh report or mentioned by The Big Ten COPC. His article can be summed up like this: The NCAA is clueless and I don’t have any better answers.
The NCAA and Big Ten were so disgusted and pissed off at Penn State, that they discussed ending their relationship and/or suspending Penn State. As a Big Ten alum, I would not have a problem with my school disassociating itself from Big Ten, as unrealistic as that might be.
If you are angry that someone else is coming into your town and your school and telling you how to clean up your mess so you can be welcome in the larger community, then either walk away from the NCAA and walk away from The Big Ten, or work to meet their guidelines. And if you are angry about the punishment, how about directing your anger towards the Penn State leadership that failed across the board. Above all else, they are responsible for setting Penn State on a course that would allow them to be judged and punished.
LikeLike
Apparently, for you, it takes a Village.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Maybe it’s my libertarian leanings but this ‘collectivist’ approach to punishment makes me very uneasy.”
So what is your alternative? What’s the better way for the NCAA to enforce their rules and standards?
LikeLike
Stick to applying actual standards instead of invented ones?
LikeLike
Like a constitution? Or are you saying minor things like that don’t matter?
LikeLike
Punishing the guilty in a court of law. These were not football or NCAA violations. Penn State still would have been deeply damaged. The onus, in a case like this, is on the University to make the necessary institutional changes or suffer the loss of the public’s confidence. If the Big Ten didn’t find their efforts adequate, they could kick them out. Convict the criminally guilty, and the subsequent lawsuits etc. would have been an appropriate punishment for the institution.
LikeLike
They had to stretch it to a great extent and ignore the overall purpose of it.
They also had to ignore established procedures.
Let’s get real. This was done to make sure it didn’t look like the NCAA didn’t care. I understand that. It was done with probably more calculation than used by the 3 stooges at Penn St. in deciding not to do anything and with the same cynicism and the same self-righteousness hypocrisy that has so many turning on PSU now.
What’s interesting is that the state is telling PSU they can’t use state funds. The NCAA is saying they have to keep all their other sports. So they will have to pay $60 million, lose $15 + million from Big 10 bowl money and probably 10s of millions more EACH year in lost ticket sales and sponsorships (who other than alumni would be willing to be a PSU sponsor now?-look at the people cutting ties to Chick-Fil-A just because their owner expressed a political opinion). And then they have to pay the victims and deal with substantial penalties from the DOE, possibly including loss of student loans or research money.
I imagine PSU dumps a bunch of sports the day after the consent decree.
LikeLike
I doubt it bullet (as to that last part). They’ve got a big enough donor base to step up for the other sports and save them if anything goes wrong over the next couple of years.
LikeLike
Great Lake State,
“Punishing the guilty in a court of law.”
They will, hopefully (1 down, 3 to go). They are not mutually exclusive things, though. Murders also get sued in civil court. Lawyers that go to jail can also get disbarred. It doesn’t have to be either/or.
“These were not football or NCAA violations.”
Clearly the NCAA disagrees, and PSU agreed with the NCAA. I would agree that these weren’t football violations in the usual sense, but that’s why they didn’t go through the COI process designed to deal with typical football violations.
Breaking the NCAA constitution certainly is a plausible basis for NCAA violations, though. It’s like when people get charged for civil rights violations by the feds when the state can’t always prove a specific crime like murder.
“Penn State still would have been deeply damaged.”
So? Are you saying the NCAA shouldn’t punish anybody who would suffer in some other way? Is a hit to their reputation enough to avoid punishment? Is there some financial threshold they have to meet? I can see moderating the punishments due to other punishments, like the B10 did by limiting the fine to bowl money, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t punish them. I’m guessing the DOE will take into consideration the punishment from the NCAA and B10 when deciding what, if anything, to do to PSU. It doesn’t mean they won’t do anything because somebody else got there first.
“The onus, in a case like this, is on the University to make the necessary institutional changes or suffer the loss of the public’s confidence. If the Big Ten didn’t find their efforts adequate, they could kick them out.”
That’s the only option? The NCAA or B10 can kick them out but they can’t punish them?
“Convict the criminally guilty, and the subsequent lawsuits etc. would have been an appropriate punishment for the institution.”
That’s one man’s opinion. Clearly the NCAA disagrees, and so do many others.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They had to stretch it to a great extent and ignore the overall purpose of it.”
I don’t think so. They just haven’t ever had anyone get caught straying so far of course in this way before.
“They also had to ignore established procedures.”
So? The other procedures are in the rules, they just don’t normally use them. This was big and important enough to directly involve the president and the executive board rather than being staffed out like most punishment is. All organizations do that.
“Let’s get real. This was done to make sure it didn’t look like the NCAA didn’t care. I understand that. It was done with probably more calculation than used by the 3 stooges at Penn St. in deciding not to do anything and with the same cynicism and the same self-righteousness hypocrisy that has so many turning on PSU now.”
The PR appearance was part of it. They were also genuinely angry and embarrassed.
“What’s interesting is that the state is telling PSU they can’t use state funds.”
They shouldn’t, especially since they spent so much time fighting to prove they aren’t part of the state government and thus are immune to sunshine laws. That’s only about 5% of their budget, though. They’ve got tuition money, research overhead funds and a large endowment plus whatever insurance is covering.
“The NCAA is saying they have to keep all their other sports.”
And they should. The women’s hoops team didn’t cause this problem.
“So they will have to pay $60 million, lose $15 + million from Big 10 bowl money and probably 10s of millions more EACH year in lost ticket sales and sponsorships”
$60M over 5 years, so $12M per year. They lose about $2.3M per year in bowl money, or $13M total, from the B10. They recently had an operating profit of about $15M IIRC, so that will cover most things if it persists.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
Here are USA Today’s number for PSU:
2011
Revenue:
Ticket sales $35,634,458
Contributions $34,286,648
Rights/Licensing $36,454,671
Other $9,742,248
Total $116,118,025
That’s a lot of revenue to find $12-15M.
Expenses:
Scholarships $12,289,069
Coaches $25,641,656
Facilities $28,135,841
Other $35,269,917
Total $101,336,483
I’m sure they could tighten up a little if they need to. Heaven forbid they spend less on football somehow. Fewer plane flights for recruiting? Fewer official visits? Less brand new equipment that isn’t needed? Fewer staff members?
“(who other than alumni would be willing to be a PSU sponsor now?-look at the people cutting ties to Chick-Fil-A just because their owner expressed a political opinion).”
They did just lose State Farm (for FB only), but Pepsi and PNC Bank said they’re staying.
“And then they have to pay the victims and deal with substantial penalties from the DOE, possibly including loss of student loans or research money.”
We have no idea what the DOE will do. You can’t use that as a reason for the NCAA to do nothing. What if the DOE only slaps their wrist?
“I imagine PSU dumps a bunch of sports the day after the consent decree.”
I assume you meant the day after it ends, but I highly doubt it. First, they have to satisfy the integrity monitor for years so they can’t do it and would have long term commitments still on the books. Second, the B10 would limit how many they could cut. Third, it would be admitting that everyone was right about them all along. By the time the decree is over, there will be light at the end of the tunnel. They’ll be getting their postseason money again and not having to pay the annual fine.
LikeLike
Brian, all of that and the Big Ten will have signed its new TV deal in the summer of 2016. I don’t think Penn State will have money problems as a result of this. Yes it will be tight for a few years, but as long as they get through they’ll be sailing smoothly by 2017…
LikeLike
Bullet,
I agree with you here pretty much. This was done because emotions were high and the NCAA was determined to do something (both because they were mad and because they want positive public reaction).
At the end of the day though, this was as much an NCAA issue as burglary is to a baseball umpire. Sure the umpire might care if a player once stole something, but taking it out on the player with bad calls is overstepping his role.
Aside from the charities benefiting from the fine, these punishments did nothing to deter future actions that the jail time/public attention/civil suits aren’t already doing in my opinion. If they aren’t and only indirectly was Penn State violating NCAA rules, then the NCAA’s punishment is a big show that accomplishes nothing beside make it’s leader feel good.
LikeLike
Rights and licensing is going to go down the tubes (and would have regardless of NCAA actions). Who is willing to wear their Penn St. gear in public if they aren’t actually on campus? They will lose a lot of sponsors. Unless you are an alum, you should be dropping sponsorship. This isn’t something you want to be associated with the next couple of years.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Aside from the charities benefiting from the fine, these punishments did nothing to deter future actions that the jail time/public attention/civil suits aren’t already doing in my opinion.”
It is punishment. It doesn’t have to benefit the victims or deter others to be fit punishment.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Rights and licensing is going to go down the tubes (and would have regardless of NCAA actions).”
Probably, but there are still plenty of angry PSU fans that will buy stuff out of spite.
“Who is willing to wear their Penn St. gear in public if they aren’t actually on campus?”
All of their alums who are angry at TPTB, so about 400,000 people.
“They will lose a lot of sponsors. Unless you are an alum, you should be dropping sponsorship. This isn’t something you want to be associated with the next couple of years.”
Probably, but 2 big ones just said they would stick with them. For the most part, only PSU people will know who sponsors PSU anyway. There may be a good business case for sponsoring them as the price will drop and you’ll have a lot of devoted fans that will buy from you to spite other companies who dropped PSU.
LikeLike
Interesting to compare Tiger Woods here (not that his situation is anywhere near the gravity of what Sandusky did). He faced a very intense period of excruciating negative media coverage and even had a press conference that seemed to make things worse. However, the storyline has shifted to, “When will Tiger Woods win a major again?” and it’s likely that the Penn State storyline will shift in a similar direction in a couple of years, as well. I recall my wife and I watching The Masters last year and she said to me that in normal circumstances, she would never cheer for a guy that cheated on his wife, yet she still wanted Tiger to win. Part of why we watch sports is the chance of watching greatness achieved firsthand and, in the case of Tiger, that storyline eventually trumped all of the terrible off-the-course news that he has no one other than himself to blame about.
We have other recent instances of resurrections. Kobe Bryant went through accusations of rape that I can’t recall anyone talking about anymore – it’s all about how he’s cementing his legacy at this point. Nike hasn’t had any qualms about featuring him in commercials lately. Plenty of people believe that Ray Lewis outright committed murder, yet he’s been getting high profile national endorsements left and right.
Penn State isn’t an individual, but I think in a few years we’ll end up focusing on “Will Penn State rise again?” just like the sports world did with Tiger, Kobe, etc. For most of us, Penn State was indeed a great football program and there’s an inherent interest in seeing fallen stars pick themselves back up.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I’ll not paint all of PSU with the acts (or lack of action) by a few. I’ve state farm ins, and may change precisely because they seem to be chasing the pc public relation angle. I don’t own any PSU gear and probably never will, but not because of this. I’m not going to think any differently of those that do than I would of those with ND or Baylor, etc had the NCAA involved themselves in those situations and levied sanctions.
LikeLike
I’ve read of alums getting harrassed or nasty looks wearing PSU gear. As for the sponsors, its like the Tiger Woods sponsors who dropped him. You want positive things associated with your brand. Its just not good business for the national brands. Now it will be mostly forgotten in 5 years, maybe even 2. But not right now.
LikeLike
No, Tiger was both the institution and the offender.
LikeLike
bullet,
I think the main difference is that Tiger had national deals. PSU sponsors are seen on campus, in football programs, in the local area, etc.
LikeLike
@cc
You don’t think a lot of people believe PSU is every bit the offender? Whether you or I do is not the issue. A lot of people in the public see it as the same.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Well yes, of course there are. There are also people who believe men walked with dinosaures, that we didn’t go to the moon, and still believe wmd’s were in Iraq. I’d hope those segments aren’t who we cater to.
LikeLike
Well I don’t know how most sportswriters feel about man on the moon, but most seem to put PSU’s conduct pretty close to Sandusky’s as an active enablement by their refusal to do anything. Most message board posters seem to feel the same way (now I concede, a lot of them probably don’t believe man ever walked on the moon-I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous PSU conspiracy scenarios involving the governor, ESPN, etc.). If you’ve been reading anywhere but here and PSU boards, the attitude toward PSU as an institution is VERY hostile. Just because you and I and some others on this board don’t share that doesn’t mean there isn’t a significant group (and probably a solid majority) who feels differently.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/07/23/Colleges/Bowlsby.aspx
Interesting article talking to Bowlsby. One item of note-Big 12 and SEC prefer Champions Bowl hosting 4, not 2.
Rotation of sites is possible, but it depends on the bids.
Also, “We think its important to solve the access issues that have been the criticisms of the past.” That indicates there might be a lot of control over who gets invited to the other bowls.
LikeLike
Note that Missouri and Kansas State from the Big 12 had similar complaints to non-AQs about access.
LikeLike
Rumors are swirling down here that Robert Bolden has expressed interest in transferring to LSU. The Tigers have 2 RS Freshman behind Mettenburger at QB. Sounds like an insurance move for the Tigers.
What’s the deal with Bolden? He was highly touted coming out of high school. Wasn’t he the starter at one time last season?
LikeLike
Bolden has started off and on for both years. He was the first freshman to start the season opener in 100 years in 2010. He wanted to leave the team after 2010 and JoePa wouldn’t release him from his scholarship. I see that O’Brien announced McGloin as the starter on 6/1/12.
Bolden is the one upperclassman I’d expect to transfer.
LikeLike
Alan,
He’d be a lot like getting Jordan Jefferson back, but with less experience.
LikeLike
Bolden will be a great backup in case somthing happens to Mettenburger AND your two RS freshman. He has not adjusted to the speed of the B1G, let alone the speed of the SEC. Enjoy!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8194692/penn-state-nittany-lions-state-farm-drops-sponsorship-penn-state
Some important collateral damage for PSU. Losing sponsors, and potentially getting their credit rating lowered.
LikeLike
NCAA release on PSU transfer rules:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/20120723/21207234
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53892/ncaa-outlines-policy-for-psu-transfers
Interesting that USC and OSU can go over their limit to sign these guys. Silas Redd all but a Trojan. I guess USC’s cheating is not as important as PSU cheating.
LikeLike
greg,
“Interesting that USC and OSU can go over their limit to sign these guys.”
No, they can’t. They can sign PSU guys but only if they don’t exceed their specified limits:
NCAA:
A school subject to scholarship limits due to an infractions case is allowed to accept transfers from Penn State but cannot exceed the scholarship limits specified in its infractions report. Athletically-related financial aid may not be canceled during the period of the award and these schools are not permitted the same exception allowed to schools not under Committee on Infractions sanctions.
ESPN:
And finally, a school already facing scholarship limits because of NCAA infractions, such as Ohio State or USC, may add a Penn State player as long as it doesn’t exceed the limits specified in its infractions ruling. So USC can add Penn State running back Silas Redd as long as it doesn’t exceed its NCAA-mandated scholarship limit of 75.
LikeLike
The author is clueless about the problem at PSU. The author’s conclusion that the PSU scandal is mostly about “the collapse of authority” is completely wrong. In fact, it appears that Sandusky benefitted greatly as a result of his connection to PSU authority.
Although the NCAA punishments are severe, there is no doubt that Emmert’s comment on the need to change the PSU culture is accurate. Spanier and Paterno deserved to be fired…but individual punishment is not enough. It is sickening that a janitor who admitted to witnessing Sandusky’s perversion didn’t feel comfortable notifying authorities. McQueery wrongly trusted authority (Paterno, Curley, Shultz & his father) rather than challenge the PSU insular culture.
LikeLike
Sorry I put this on the wrong place.
I was commenting on the WSJ article and the need for collective institutional penalties.
LikeLike
I think the janitor bit is overplayed.
Do you think the odds are really any different than if a janitor at Ohio St., Notre Dame, Duke or Northwestern saw a long time popular assistant coach do something (alright-long time coach and Northwestern is not possible-but just imagine)? Or a Dean of a college doing something? You’ve got a low level employee (who unfortunately now has dementia and can’t testify) and a powerful person in the organization. That’s not unique to Penn St. or to sports. What is different is PSU is very insular as you say.
LikeLike
Yes, I think the odds are much different. There is some chance it happens anywhere, but we only know it has happened there. Plenty of low level people rat out higher ups. Especially since we’re talking extreme criminal behavior, not NCAA violations. I could see a beloved head coach being protected from NCAA stuff at many places, but not a former assistant raping kids.
LikeLike
The reason I believe that the janitor incident is meaningful is because he/she actually confessed to an independent investigator years after the incident. The janitor trusted an investigator while not trusting PSU superiors to do the right thing. That is the cultural problem that PSU needs to remedy immediately.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that is correct. The janitor who witnessed it now has dementia. Freeh, therefore couldn’t interview the actual witness. The witness told another janitor who was the one who told the investigator working for Freeh. The janitor trusted another janitor.
LikeLike
I think janitors are human beings and should be held to that standard. You quit your job over this kind of stuff if necessary.
LikeLike
Agreed, but its easier if you have a college degree than if you are a janitor.
LikeLike
Going back to Frank’s point about Big East expansion to 14 FB members, Air Force seems like the clear choice. Just speculating, but it seems like it could work out for the AFA if its non-FB sports can find a suitable home.
Could the Missouri Valley be willing to take them and Denver (which desperately needs a viable alternative to the WAC) as travel partners? That would put the MVC at 12 members. Assuming Boise gets into the Big West, that would also leave only three WAC orphans (Seattle, NMSU, and Idaho).
LikeLike
No. MVC has already made it clear they don’t want to do that back when Air Force was first considering it.
LikeLike
Frank,
Re: your tweet to Pete Thamel.
Don’t forget that Tony Barnhart has also said he thinks the SEC will go to 9 games sooner rather than later. They may have to as part of the new TV deal and network. I think it is much more likely if and when the B10 goes to 9 games, leaving the SEC as the only power conference playing 8 games.
LikeLike
It may be that the SEC is finding out (as I have often said) that the only way Missouri and A&M bring in significantly more money per school requires doing things they could have done without expanding-play a 9 game schedule and/or Thursday night games. These are things they have long opposed. The 9 game schedule and extra 2 teams, of course, also provide better and more owned content for a conference network.
Their numbers will be interesting. Nothing has leaked (other than the CBS reluctance), so they apparently are still in negotiations only a month from the start of the season. Going to 14 is a bigger financial hurdle than going to 12 when you add a championship game. The SEC experience will be an indicator of whether we get 14 or 16 team conferences in the future.
LikeLike
You just pulled that straight out of your ass.
LikeLike
I’ve said it several times before that a 9 game schedule and TH games would bring them more money and they weren’t interested. The SEC voted against an 9 game schedule. They don’t play TH weeknight games during the season. Those are all facts.
LikeLike
bullet,
Why did you have to use the M word? Now we’re stuck with yet another cavalcade of hyper-defensive nonsense posts.
LikeLike
I specifically never used the M word. It was targeted at the B10 fans interested in expansion.
Andy will choose to believe what he wants to believe. All of you can believe or not believe what Bohls wrote. I didn’t write it.
LikeLike
Ignore my response, I thought it was another post he was responding to.
LikeLike
rumor among SEC fans is that 1) the SEC will go to 9 games just like all of the other conferences so that teams from across divisions can play once every 3 years instead of once every 6years, and 2) the SEC is encouraging the Big 12 to expand back to 12 so that they’ll have a championship game. They don’t like the comptetiitve advanatag ethat UT and OU have by not having to play one. Supposedly they’re going to use the new bowl game as a way to push the Big 12 to expand. Not sure how. Also not sure if the rumors are true. Came from a sports radio guy in Nashville.
LikeLike
There are rumours that’s in the contract coming from the Dude and a few others.
Doesn’t really make sense that Big 12 would agree to that.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/07/24/pac-12-football-news-notes-links-and-commissioner-larry-scott-on-directv-and-other-topics/#more-25790
From Jon Wilner:
Scott addressed other topics Tuesday at Pac-12 football media day:
…
*** On the Rose Bowl hosting a semifinal in the four-team playoff that begins with the 2014 season and last 12 years: “There is a commitment to at least two (semifinals). It’s philosophical: Do you want a traditional Rose Bowl or as many semifinals as you can get?” He added that the Pac-12, Big Ten and Tournament of Roses “haven’t decided.”
*** On the Pac-12 football programs scaling back to an eight-game conference schedule to mirror that of the Southeastern Conference and Big Ten: “We debated it afresh as we discussed the (scheduling partnership with the Big Ten), and the most important thing was a nine-game conference schedule.”
They really need to make a decision on semifinals. The B12 and SEC seem to prefer 4 semis for the Champs, and I think the Rose/B10/P12 will be pressured to fall in line on that. I think that’s a reasonable expectation for all 6 bowls to host 4 each. In exchange, perhaps the B10 and P12 can get a commitment to get paired in the Fiesta those 4 years if both have a team available.
I’m not surprised they chose 9 P12 games over playing the B10, especially with trying to preserve the CA rivalries while still getting everyone CA access. I’m sure they are pressing the B10 a little bit to go to 9, not that they have much influence on that.
LikeLike
1) I think the Rose Bowl eventually will end up hosting the semi-final 4 times as originally thought, in order to be consistent with the Orange and Champions Bowl. Part of the reason those bowls are commanding signficant dollars is that they will be on at desirable time slots (New Years Day). The Rose only hosting two times throws off the entire schedule
2) The conference schedule issue could soon become a major issue as the conferences are split on this….Big 10/SEC are 8 game schedules with a championship game….PAC 12/ACC are 9 game schedules with a championship game…Big 12 is 9 games without a championship game. This split makes non-conference scheduling more challengingas certain won’t have slots avialable
LikeLike
The format is definitely simpler if the Rose Bowl and Big 12/SEC bowl host 4 times. One New Years Eve/one New Years Day won’t be a bad set-up.
LikeLike
These schools generally play only 1 other school from one of the other power conferences anyway (sometimes 2) and there are 1-2 bye weeks in college football, so I don’t see how scheduling is made difficult. Pretty much everyone except the SEC (and ACC sometimes) keeps the first 3 weeks clear for OOC games.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53933/b1g-faces-key-scheduling-decisions
A look at scheduling issues for the B10 with media days coming up. He looks at:
1. Going to 9 games (eventually, but maybe not now)
2. Playing B10 games in September (maybe)
3. Impact of the playoff (how will OOC games change)
4. Another scheduling alliance (unlikely due to 9 games for all but SEC)
I’ll renew my support for 9 games based on these facts:
1. Division games are more important (tiebreakers), and they are split 3/2 no matter what
2. More games means fewer rivalries missed (WI/IA, WI/MSU, PSU/MSU)
3. More games means more equality in schedules (balances inequalities in locked rivals)
4. Who you play is often more important than where you play (Which would you take – @ IN or vs OSU?)
5. The big boys can still have 7 home games every year
6. You can balance the competitive advantage of 5 vs 4 by having one division get 5 home games one year and the other gets 5 the next
LikeLike
I agree completely on going to 9 games.
I do hope they avoid September conference games though. I hate having non-conference games after conference play begins.
LikeLike
I agree about finishing OOC first. Obviously going to 9 will lead to late September B10 games, though.
LikeLike
From a fan perspective having all the OOC game is better but from a coaches perspective staggering OOC games within the Big Ten season is better. First, schools can use these OOC games as an extra bye game essentially during the season. I think it helps keep the top SEC schools fresh throughout their grind. Second, I think it would also help recruiting as more kids could use their official visits when the weather is still warm. Kids and coaches don’t like to use official visits for many of the OOC as they typically have poor atmospheres compared to conference games.
LikeLike
That’s a very good point about using the OOC game mid-season as bye game. Michigan had Delaware State mid-season in 2009. Although we were pretty terrible that year, that game was a really good opportunity to rest the starters.
LikeLike
That’s a bad thing, though. You shouldn’t schedule OOC bye games late in the year. Doing it in September while getting the team prepped for conference season is one thing, but doing it late is just crap.
LikeLike
@Brian,
Couldn’t the same kind of logic be made that scheduling easy non-conference games early on while other schools schedule tough non-conference or conference games early (like Michigan-Alabama or Georgia Tech-Virginia Tech) is crap
T mo me, it doesn’t matter whether the non-conference games come early or late. I grew up with FSU’s ACC season being broken up in October with Miami and, to this day, at the end with Florida.
I think B1G fans have thus idea that the non-conference games should always be played early, with the 8 conference games all at the end because it’s all they’ve ever known. Michigan-Notre Dame, Purdue-ND, and MSU-ND are the only real non-conference rivalries, and those games have rarely ever been played later than the first weekend of October. And the logic, it seems, is that since that’s the way it’s always been done, in the Big Ten, then it’s the way it always should be done. But those three ACC-SEC rivalries wouldn’t mean the same if they suddenly stopped occurring at the end of the season. Conference races mean a lot, but so do in state rivalries.
Furthermore, what difference does it make if Ohio State plays Youngstown State on Sept. 15 or Nov. 1? Youngstown State is a body bag game no matter when it is played. And if Big Ten teams were to complain about OSU’s late season cupcake game while they’re pounding it out against each other, the certainly Ohio State could counter that it was playing some tough team back in September while gr rest of the league was baking their own set of cupcakes.
To me, a game against a cupcake is just as ridiculous in November as it is in September. Overall strength of schedule, no matter the order of it, is what should really matter.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Couldn’t the same kind of logic be made that scheduling easy non-conference games early on while other schools schedule tough non-conference or conference games early (like Michigan-Alabama or Georgia Tech-Virginia Tech) is crap”
No, you have to use different logic. You can justify playing a weak team in the preseason while developing your team. It still sucks for fans, but it makes some sense from a development standpoint. Later in the year it’s just a bye week that counts as a win.
“T mo me, it doesn’t matter whether the non-conference games come early or late. I grew up with FSU’s ACC season being broken up in October with Miami and, to this day, at the end with Florida.”
Just because others are tainted doesn’t mean the B10 needs to be.
“I think B1G fans have thus idea that the non-conference games should always be played early, with the 8 conference games all at the end because it’s all they’ve ever known.”
That’s part of it. But it’s also that we value winning our conference very highly, so B10 games mean more than OOC games. Shouldn’t the most important games come last? Other sports also split their schedule this way.
” Michigan-Notre Dame, Purdue-ND, and MSU-ND are the only real non-conference rivalries,”
IA/ISU might disagree.
“and those games have rarely ever been played later than the first weekend of October.”
As it should be.
“But those three ACC-SEC rivalries wouldn’t mean the same if they suddenly stopped occurring at the end of the season. Conference races mean a lot, but so do in state rivalries.”
But those aren’t the sort of OOC games we’re talking about. We’re talking about games like LSU playing Nicholls State in early November. I understand why UF/FSU, GT/UGA and Clemson/SC are season enders. The B10 doesn’t have those sorts of rivalry games except IA/ISU, but that doesn’t have a history of being a season ender.
“Furthermore, what difference does it make if Ohio State plays Youngstown State on Sept. 15 or Nov. 1? Youngstown State is a body bag game no matter when it is played.”
Simple. On 9/15, the coach is getting experience for new starters, gelling the team, developing depth for the rest of the year, etc. On 11/1 he’s resting the starters and game planning for the big game next week.
“And if Big Ten teams were to complain about OSU’s late season cupcake game while they’re pounding it out against each other, the certainly Ohio State could counter that it was playing some tough team back in September while gr rest of the league was baking their own set of cupcakes.”
That’s not a winning argument, though.
“To me, a game against a cupcake is just as ridiculous in November as it is in September. Overall strength of schedule, no matter the order of it, is what should really matter.”
Both should matter.
LikeLike
@Brian, A key word you used in your rebuttal was “preseason.” There isn’t a preseason in college football unless teams schedule so lightly through the first 3 weeksgthat coaches can pull starters after the first half, as is done in the NFL preseason.
Big Ten fans largely look at three if the first four weeks of the season as preseason because, unlike other leagues where conference games get going in Week 1 or 2, the league doesn’t get rolling until the last weekend of September at the earliest. The ACC and SEC have done just fine starting their league slate earlier. As far as non-conference games, yes I agree they should count for less in the sense that they do not apply towards a conference crown, but they ought to be very meaningful for rankings and bowl placement depending on the wins and losses against good and bad non-league games.
I just find the idea of a “preseason” in college football (which Big 12 d ptprobably Pac12 fans may share) to be a product of which league a person follows. SEC teams like Auburn, Tennessee, and Alabama are opening with VERY important games that are anything but preseason. LSU was doing anything but playing a preseason game when it faced Oregon to open and West Virginia a few weeks later.
Personally, I think it would serve the Big Ten some good to spread its cupcake (or preseason, if you prefer) games to later in the season and get the conference race started earlier. Two or three years ago, the ABC game of the week in Indianapolis and throughout most of the Big Ten states on the last weekend of September was Eastern Michigan at Ohio State. What harm would it havedone to bump a conference game up? Games like that are third- tier games and should only appear in the BTN.
LikeLike
Brian – As a fan, I don’t mind a body-bag game in November. I understand that it helps the team and I could use a breather too. Just to be clear though, LSU has not played Nicholls State in football in my lifetime, let alone in November, and all the Tigers’ OOC games this season are in September – including what should be a ranked Washington team.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
A key word you used in your rebuttal was “preseason.” There isn’t a preseason in college football unless teams schedule so lightly through the first 3 weeksgthat coaches can pull starters after the first half, as is done in the NFL preseason.
Sure there is. Everything before the conference season starts is preseason. Hoops is the same way. It’s a figure of speech and you know it. I realize the games count, but they don’t matter as much as conference games. The whole point of OOC games (not counting major rivalries, because those are a different animal) is to prepare for the conference slate.
Big Ten fans largely look at three if the first four weeks of the season as preseason because, unlike other leagues where conference games get going in Week 1 or 2, the league doesn’t get rolling until the last weekend of September at the earliest.
Only in part. It’s also because other sports start that way. The pros officially have a preseason. College generally doesn’t, but they start with OOC games instead.
The ACC and SEC have done just fine starting their league slate earlier.
Good for them. That doesn’t mean the B10 should do it.
As far as non-conference games, yes I agree they should count for less in the sense that they do not apply towards a conference crown, but they ought to be very meaningful for rankings and bowl placement depending on the wins and losses against good and bad non-league games.
There aren’t enough good data points for them to be useful, though.
I just find the idea of a “preseason” in college football (which Big 12 d ptprobably Pac12 fans may share) to be a product of which league a person follows.
Probably true, but we were only talking about the B10 schedule so it doesn’t matter.
Personally, I think it would serve the Big Ten some good to spread its cupcake (or preseason, if you prefer) games to later in the season and get the conference race started earlier.
And I don’t. I think you get a more true champion if the teams develop first and then face each other without intervening cupcakes.
Two or three years ago, the ABC game of the week in Indianapolis and throughout most of the Big Ten states on the last weekend of September was Eastern Michigan at Ohio State. What harm would it havedone to bump a conference game up?
Ask the team that loses that game because their new starters are still gelling with their teammates and learning the systems. Besides, it’s rare to have 1 weekend when nobody plays anybody interesting. This year’s week 4 has MI/ND, PSU/Temple and MN/Syracuse. Would PSU/MN really be an improvement?
If you push conference games up, you risk stopping teams from scheduling power teams. Is OSU going to risk scheduling USC in week 1/2 if they may play NE in week 2/3? Probably not, based on the fact that they usually play their big OOC game in week 3. They’ll play somebody more mid-pack just in case. That’s bad for everyone.
Games like that are third-tier games and should only appear in the BTN.
I’ve seen worse conference games on ESPN.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – As a fan, I don’t mind a body-bag game in November.”
I know. You’re also used to it. I always see it as a chicken move by an SEC team trying to gain an advantage since they never seem to fill that slot with a good team, but I realize the conference has given them the schedule with an open date then to fill.
“I understand that it helps the team and I could use a breather too.”
That I don’t get. I like the whole season to build, but of course that’s in part because The Game is the last game every year.
“Just to be clear though, LSU has not played Nicholls State in football in my lifetime, let alone in November, and all the Tigers’ OOC games this season are in September – including what should be a ranked Washington team.”
I was just pulling names off the top of my head to point out that UF/FSU wasn’t what we were talking about. LSU has generally had some good OOC slates recently. But you know the sort of games I mean (AL/WCU on 11/17/12, LSU/Furman on 10/26/13, etc).
LikeLike
That game was to fill a hole in the schedule left from the schedule growing from 11 to 12 games. It was also a year where you had 12 weeks to play 12 games so finding an opponent was difficult.
LikeLike
Brian – Sorry man, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on playing all of the OOC games at the beginning of the season. The purpose of the OOC schedule isn’t to prepare the team for the conference schedule. It’s purpose is to fill out the rest of your regular season schedule. If it’s purpose was to prepare you for your conference schedule, then your ultimate goal would be to win you conference championship. But from a SEC fan’s standpoint, the ultimate goal should be to win the national championship, with the conference championship being the secondary goal. And the best way to accomplish a run to the national championship is to throw in a “breather” game near the end of the season.
Plus having to play multiple crappy OOC games in a row to start the season sucks from my standpoint as a fan. I don’t wait all year eagerly anticipating the arrival of college football so that I can watch Bama (and other good schools for that matter), beat up on some directional school. Heck it’s hard to find a decent B1G game to watch 3 out of the first 4 games of the season. I personally like that the SEC staggers their out so that their is always a conference game being played by at least one of the schools.
I see where you are coming from, but I just can’t go along with your view of the the OCC schedule being a psuedo “preseason” schedule. If you don’t think losing an OOC game means as much, just ask the Michigan fanbase what losing to Appalachian State meant to their season. There is no preseaon (psuedo or otherwise) in college football like their is in the NFL, or even like there is in college basketball. There are only 12 regular season games in college football, and they all count just the same (just try winning the national championship after losing to a directional school).
LikeLike
bamatab,
“Brian – Sorry man, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on playing all of the OOC games at the beginning of the season.”
That’s fine. Realize here I’m only talking about it for the B10. You’re used to the SEC model and it works for you, and that’s fine (unless you move up the Iron Bowl to play an OOC game to finish, then I’d have a complaint).
If I was in the SEC, I’d plug in a cupcake (not I-AA because I think those should be banned, but SB is fine) late in the year, too. You can’t afford not to if all your competitors are. I just wouldn’t do it in the B10, and when I said it looked bad I’m talking solely from the viewpoint of someone used to the B10 model. I’m not saying it is chicken, that’s just the initial impression I get until I remember why they’re doing it.
“The purpose of the OOC schedule isn’t to prepare the team for the conference schedule.”
To me, that is exactly its purpose.
“It’s purpose is to fill out the rest of your regular season schedule.”
That to, but that’s mostly a matter of needing X number of games to make enough money sort of thing.
“If it’s purpose was to prepare you for your conference schedule, then your ultimate goal would be to win you conference championship.”
Exactly. And thus you understand the traditional B10 viewpoint. National titles are nice, but they should be a by-product of winning your conference and having a great year.
Part of this is that the SEC traditionally only played 6 conference games until the late 80s and only 7 until expansion in 1992. The B10 went to 8 in 1971. B10 fans are used to more conference games, which has the effect of making the OOC seem less important because it’s a smaller chunk of the season.
It’s aided by the fact that winning the B10 was the only route to a bowl game until the 70s. The SEC never had that rule.
“But from a SEC fan’s standpoint, the ultimate goal should be to win the national championship, with the conference championship being the secondary goal.”
And that’s the difference. The SEC largely seems to view conference games as a necessary evil. I sometimes think it’s really a group of independents with a scheduling alliance.
To be clear, it’s not that B10 fans prefer winning B10 titles to national titles. We just see winning the B10 title as a necessary step to winning the national title, so we aim to win the B10 and let the chips fall where they may. It’s also why we saw last year’s NCG as crap and don’t respect teams that don’t win their conference as much as other national champs (no personal offense intended, we felt the same when B12 CCG losers played in the NCG).
B10 fans value conference championships and bowl games (esp. the Rose) more than other fan bases because of our particular history and traditions. We know that.
“And the best way to accomplish a run to the national championship is to throw in a “breather” game near the end of the season.”
I don’t think we know that for sure. You could just as easily play Ole Miss or Vandy and get the same effect. I think the bigger impact is that it helps you win the SEC by having 2 weeks to prepare for the big game the next week and also giving you a leg up on the eastern teams that have an OOC rival to play (SC, GA, FL).
“Plus having to play multiple crappy OOC games in a row to start the season sucks from my standpoint as a fan.”
To be fair, that’s more of an AD issue than a scheduling issue. Nobody forces schools to schedule multiple weak OOC opponents. Besides, I’m so happy to have FB back in September that I always liked having a chance to get some blowout wins. It builds the fan’s hopes up before the conference season brings you back to reality.
“I don’t wait all year eagerly anticipating the arrival of college football so that I can watch Bama (and other good schools for that matter), beat up on some directional school.”
Me neither, but I do wait that long to see OSU crush someone. I don’t care who it is as long as OSU is finally playing again, and I like the chance to see the whole depth chart get some PT in multiple games. But as I mentioned earlier, these games also used to happen before school was in session and I hate the thought of making students miss conference games. That’s just not right.
“Heck it’s hard to find a decent B1G game to watch 3 out of the first 4 games of the season.”
Not true. At most there’s 1 week with no good games (usually week 4). Take 2012:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1161441.html
Each game each week ranked from best-looking to worst-looking.
Saturday, September 1
1. Michigan at Alabama (Arlington, TX)
2. Boise State at Michigan State
3. Southern Miss at Nebraska
4. Northwestern at Syracuse
5. Iowa vs. Northern Illinois (in Chicago)
Saturday, September 8
1. Penn State at Virginia
2. Nebraska at UCLA
3. Purdue at Notre Dame
4. Air Force at Michigan
5. Iowa State at Iowa
Saturday, September 15
1. Notre Dame at Michigan State
2. California at Ohio State
3. Arkansas State at Nebraska
4. Boston College at Northwestern
5. Ball State at Indiana
Saturday, September 22
1. Michigan at Notre Dame
2. Temple at Penn State
3. Louisiana Tech at Illinois
4. Syracuse at Minnesota
5. Central Michigan at Iowa
“I personally like that the SEC staggers their out so that their is always a conference game being played by at least one of the schools.”
That’s good for you since your conference does that. I don’t like it, but my conference doesn’t do that (yet).
“I see where you are coming from, but I just can’t go along with your view of the the OCC schedule being a psuedo “preseason” schedule.”
That’s fine. I’m not trying to change any minds here.
“If you don’t think losing an OOC game means as much, just ask the Michigan fanbase what losing to Appalachian State meant to their season.”
It doesn’t because you can still win something important and play in a major bowl. That doesn’t mean the OOC losses can’t hurt. But most teams are middle of the pack, and going 3-1 OOC isn’t a bad thing for them. They’d gladly trade an OOC loss for a conference loss.
“There is no preseaon (psuedo or otherwise) in college football like their is in the NFL, or even like there is in college basketball. ”
There really is. Look at how early losses are treated versus later losses.
“There are only 12 regular season games in college football, and they all count just the same (just try winning the national championship after losing to a directional school).”
No, they don’t. No team that loses to a directional school is good enough to win the title. But later games always carry more weight, and thus conference games do. Besides, a lot more teams can realistically aspire to win their conference title than the national title in a given year. That makes conference games more important. Not everyone is OSU or AL.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I’m guessing OSU will now be less opposed than before since they have switched to semesters. Before, students weren’t on campus until the 3rd or 4th game so they really didn’t want to play B10 games early. I still don’t like it, but I’m less opposed for that same reason.
My other issue is that I never listen to the coaches about scheduling. They only care about Ws and Ls. Most of them would gladly play 12 cupcakes so they can keep their jobs longer. Any OOC game in October or November will be a cupcake. In September, they might not be.
By going to 9, you force 1 week of September conference games. The first 3 weeks can be used for a tune-up against a cupcake (everyone’s so happy to have FB back they don’t mind), a quality OOC game and a mid-level game to lead into the B10 season. A few will play the good OOC game in week 1 or 3, too, so TV will have something to show.
LikeLike
I’m still just going to say that I think the next TV deal will seal the move to 9 games. We all know that the Big Ten’s ADs don’t turn the other way when it comes to the kind of TV money that could be made by substituting a weekend of Big Ten play for the MACrifice weekend.
Obviously, the tough part is giving up what may have been a home game every other year in terms of finances, but I think no matter what Delaney is going to want to make a big push for 9 games with the ADs in order to get as big a TV deal as possible in 2016 summer.
LikeLike
Agree, can’t see them leaving that much money on the table. Won’t happen till they renegotiate their TV deals.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/54012/wisconsin-purdue-move-up-2013-game
Here you go, September B10 game fans. Enjoy. At least WI is playing a decent OOC opponent.
Bielema: “… it would allow us to maybe play more of a quality opponent earlier in the season”
I hate to break it to you, Brett, but there’s another way to do that. It’s called scheduling better OOC games.
LikeLike
Wisconsin didn’t think to consider playing an actual tough OOC opponent early in the season? They start every season 4-0 beating up on WAC, MWC, MAC & Div I-AA opponents.
LikeLike
Take it easy everybody . . . moving the game up was to enable UW to schedule BYU later in the season. For all those wanting Bielema to add tougher non-conference opponents, this is a pretty big step forward. Hopefully UW keeps it up.
LikeLike
I’m glad to see WI taking even this baby step towards a better schedule. I was just mocking BB’s quote as if there wasn’t another really obvious way to play a better opponent in September.
LikeLike
It’s kind of ironic that the two Big Ten teams talked to in this article are Wisconsin and Michigan State since they both have the weakest fixed inter-conference opponents in Minnesota and Indiana.
It’s no wonder those two schools don’t want to see a nine-game conference since they would lose that scheduling advantage. I also imagine they might be a little wary about having a second fixed opponent from the other division on the schedule if it was top flight team (this was discussed when the B10 talked about having a nine-game conference schedule).
For Wisconsin, it makes sense to have Iowa and Minnesota on the schedule each year as fixed opponents. That means Iowa’s two annual inter-divisional games would be UW and Purdue.
Michigan State and Penn State used to play for the Land Grant Trophy on an annual basis. Perhaps MSU and PSU should be put together (although given Penn State’s problems, Michigan State would probably be on the better side of the deal). That makes MSU’s two fixed games with Indiana and PSU. Penn State would have Nebraska and Michigan State.
Northwestern has Illinois each year, so the two teams would need partners. Michigan-Illinois would be an interesting annual matchup, so that would give UM Ohio State and the Illini each year. Illinois would have NW and Michigan.
Here’s what could be a complete lineup of the two annual inter-division games:
Illinois: Michigan, Northwestern
Indiana: Michigan State, Minnesota
Ohio State: Michigan, Northwestern,
Penn State: Michigan State, Nebraska
Purdue: Iowa, Nebraska
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
Iowa: Purdue, Wisconsin
Michigan: Illinois, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Penn State
Minnesota: Indiana, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Penn State, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, Oho State
I’m sure there are other combinations, but having Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota play one another each year has been a Big Ten tradition. So unless the divisions are altered, it makes sense for Wisconsin to have Iowa and Minnesota as its crossover opponents.
We’ll see in due course if the Big Ten goes to nine games and opts to have two inter-divisional tie in games or not.
If they do it, Michigan, for example, would play the five teams in its division each year (Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern), two fixed inter-division games (Illinois, Ohio State) and two of the following four teams–Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin on a two year on/two year off basis. That leaves three non-conference games to schedule each year and assures that Michigan plays each Big Ten team at least twice in a four year period.
LikeLike
I’d prefer that WI/IA be the only other locked game, but I know the B10 likes to treat everyone the same.
LikeLike
“WI/MSU”
Rivalry?
“PSU/MSU”
Eh, you might find someone at either PSU or MSU who want to play each other more, but no more than a handful.
Iowa-Illinois, Iowa-PSU, and NU-Wisconsin (at least to the Purple) are actually more like rivalry games (than UW-MSU, anyway).
I’m pretty certain Wisconsin desires more to play Nebraska more often than MSU.
LikeLike
Richard,
“WI/MSU”
Rivalry?
I’ve seen MSU fans claim it is.
“PSU/MSU”
Eh, you might find someone at either PSU or MSU who want to play each other more, but no more than a handful.
The schools said they wanted the game.
Iowa-Illinois, Iowa-PSU, and NU-Wisconsin (at least to the Purple) are actually more like rivalry games (than UW-MSU, anyway).
To you, maybe. IA and IL fans don’t seem to be clamoring to play each other much. Other than for proximity reasons, I haven’t seen anyone from WI claim to want to play NW. At least WI/MSU have played some important and close games lately. And everybody seems to have rivalry feelings (i.e. hate) for WI since Bielema showed up.
I’m pretty certain Wisconsin desires more to play Nebraska more often than MSU.
Maybe so. You do realize that I was just listing some examples of games that are not locked but might be desirable, right? Feel free to substitute your personal choices instead. It doesn’t change the argument.
LikeLike
I’m an msu fan and I pretty much hate Wisconsin. BB is a total butthole.
LikeLike
If wisky desired to play neb or anyone else decent, they could have just picked up the damn phone over the past 15 years or so and scheduled one. At least they apparently tried with bama but sabin is even more of a DB.
LikeLike
“At least they apparently tried with bama but sabin is even more of a DB.”
Actually Beliema threw the wrench in that one. ESPN was trying to set up a neutral site game for Bama & Wisconsin, and Beliema wanted it to be a home and home. Saban refused the home and home, but was open to the original neutral site game.
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/track/story/greece-expels-triple-jumper-voula-papchristou-over-racist-tweets-072512
A little off topic, but I guess PSU did something to get penalized (or failed to do something). I have trouble seeing how a bad joke (which is NOT racist) gets someone kicked off the team. Sounds more like she got penalized for supporting the wrong party. The NCAA has limited its political correctness discipline to things that are clearly offensive to some (Indian mascots) and its just in their post-season tournaments that it is prohibited.
LikeLike
Personally, I find the most interesting thing right now to be that North Carolina’s secondary wave of academic infractions related to their football team has been deemed to be a “non-football/non-NCAA issue” in their eyes. Someone has to figure out how they’re squaring the circle on that one.
Perhaps they’ll change course on that one but we’ll have to see.
LikeLike
I’ll suare it for you. The NCAA is now in the political correctness business, rather than the regulation of competition business.
LikeLike
WOW! A class made up of 75% athletes in African-American studies (i.e. not a PE related course which probably would be mostly athletes) is non-NCAA. Are these people still eligible with fake credits? To me academic fraud should be the thing the NCAA gets most upset about. It threatens the institutions’ very reason for existence. It degrades the value of a degree from that institution. The diploma mills make people turn in papers, do tests or at least show up occassionally. But not academic powerhouses like UNC.
Maybe the ACC and Swofford have pictures of someone at NCAA hq. B12 better not mess with them.
The Clemson people complain how Swofford (then AD at UNC) and UNC led a move to penalize Clemson additionally after the NCAA hit them in the mid-80s.
LikeLike
UNC has definitely benefited from the overwhelming, tragic news stories in State College and Colorado because they should be getting buried for this, especially locally. UNC is going to suffer for this, though, regardless of the NCAA’s involvement (though the same could have been said for PSU). Their reputation is going to takeasusubstantial hit.
I don’t think it’ll hurt the “value” of a UNC degree, though. A UNC degree is good ththing to have on the resume no matter what.
What I do not have a lot of patience or respect for in these matters, though, is when fans of rival schools use these cases to point the schools out as “hypocrites” or as a point of making fun of the school. Now, I consider myself nor a fan of NC State than the other two local ACC schools, but I’m sick of State fans trashing UNC for this scandal, as though they have insider knowledge that NC State did things the “right way” to safeguard against something like this. None of us could have predicted that that Penn State’s leaders would commit such an immoral, disgusting cover up. As a matter of fact, PSU had been able to back up their claim of “success with honor” because of their indisputably high graduation rates and APR scores. UNC likewise had no major history of violations ans had a sterling reputation academically. Alumni were rightfully proud if those things.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
What I do not have a lot of patience or respect for in these matters, though, is when fans of rival schools use these cases to point the schools out as “hypocrites” or as a point of making fun of the school.
Some of that is karma, though. If fans of a school get on a high horse about how superior they are, then it’s hard not to want to rub their faces in it a little bit. OSU fans took a ton of grief from PSU fans over Tresselgate pointing out how clean and great PSU was, so now OSU fans struggle to feel sorry for them. UNC fans have rubbed their academic superiority in the faces of NCSU fans/grads for decades, so I don’t blame them for taking this chance to get some pay back. It’s not the most adult behavior, but it is natural.
LikeLike
I think the honest answer is that the NCAA wants to steer as clear as possible form academic fraud issues.
I’m as big a college football fan as anyone, but I know these guys aren’t true students in any meaningful sense. There’s no big-tine D1 school that’s going to want the NCAA looking under the rocks at the classes players are taking………..
Now…..on the other hand…….what’s more politically corect than coercing Pedifile U by threatening to destroy the program………righteous indignation and all……..
LikeLike
zeek,
IIRC, they said the problem is that they can’t show that athletes were favored over other students or that athletes were guided to take these classes. That makes it an accreditation issue, but not an NCAA one. Perhaps UNC should Freeh to come down and do an investigation into it, and then the NCAA would get involved.
LikeLike
MWC News
Idaho and New Mexico State are the only football-playing members of the Western Athletic Conference but unlike many of their former conference mates, the Vandals and Aggies won’t be invited to join the Mountain West.
“We’ve informed them that they will not be members of the Mountain West. Go onto Plan B whatever Plan B may be,” Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson said during his annual state of the conference address at football media days.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/07/25/bmurphy/mountain_west_rules_out_adding_idaho_new_mexico_state_again#storylink=cpy
@ids_broncobeat (Bronco Beat by Chadd Cripe. News and updates on the Boise State Football team)
Losing The Mtn. cost MW $4 million on its TV contract. Will be about $8m this year
Boise State will forfeit about $2.3 million in MW revenue in 2012-13
MW asked for two-year or one-year (Boise State season) BCS waiver.
MW offered to distribute half of its BCS money based on performance to keep Boise State. Thompson felt had a chance
Thompson says having co-owners for The Mtn. was “textbook example” of how not to run a network
LikeLike
I liked the 1 comment suggesting a 12 game home and home series between the two teams. At least we’d definitively know which was the better team.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, the Mountain West ought to have one of the most stable rosters of membership for years to come. Air Force might go for the BE (football only) and some other league for the remainder of its sports, but who else has even arguably better options?
– Fresno State, for football only, makes sense, but no more than East Carolina, whom Frank interestingly describes as the east coast version of Fresno State. ECU, with far more sensible geography, couldn’t get in, so why would yet another school so far away from a league still largely on the east coast get in? To placate Boise and SDSU? Really? Would the thing that keeps a wavering Boise State from returning to the invisible MW (for TV purposes, anyway) really be an invitation for FRESNO to join the Big East? “I don’t think so, Tim.”
– UNLV isn’t going anywhere, either. As Frank said, they’re much like a western University of Memphis, where football value is basically negligible, but the TV market is good and the hoop value is, too. Problem is that hoops wouldn’t join because, even for the Big East, that’s just too far west for an all sports member.
– Others MW schools leaving for football only in the Big East would just be to serve as warm bodies, would they not? Nevada? New Mexico? San Jose State? Colorado State? These don’t help in football strength, nor in gaining anything significant forvTV market penetration. Even the Big East demands more than that. Hawaii might be the one MW school that could provide value for the BE, and that’s because road games in Hawaii allow the visitor to play a 13th game (I.e., have another home game for which it can sell tickets).
– Outside of the BE, no one is going to take interest in MW schools for a long time. The ACC would go after BE schools and/or Notre Dame if it were to expand. The Big Ten would seek ACC schools, Big East schools, Notre Dame, and/or Big 12 schools (at least 13 years from now) if it were to expand. The Big 12 would go for ACC or Big East schools. The Pac12 would only go after Big 12 schools, and that would have to be 13 years from now. The SEC would have to after Big East or ACC schools since the rest of their neighbors are toed to a grant of rights. Even Conference USA isn’t likely to seek MW schools as members. Stretching from Miami to Norfolk to West Virginia to El Paso is spread enough for a low revenue all sports conference. Adding a bunch of Mountain and Pacific time zone schools to a league where long-distance travel hits the wallet hard would be unwise.
LikeLike
MAC is stable too (nobody wants their programs) but that doesn’t mean it’s a decent league.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh
If Larry Scott is right and there will be further consolidation in the future there are a few MWC schools that should use whatever time they have before then to start making themselves more attractive (both academically and athletically) to the PAC. Here’s my list of schools that with some success and a little help could be PAC members.
1. New Mexico – Utah showed you how it’s done
2. UNLV
3. Nevada – best hope is that UNLV doesn’t get it together and they improve on recent success.
4. Fresno St. – does the San Fernando Valley count as a redundant market?
5. Colorado St. – redundant market but may be a nice #16
LikeLike
According to conventional wisdom the PAC passed on OU and OkSU. There is really nothing those on your list of schools can do to become “attractive”.
LikeLike
@ccrider
The year before they turned down the Oklahoma schools they added Utah and Colorado. If those schools follow the Utah model, academically acceptable and BCS worthy football, they’ve got a good chance of making a PAC16 if it ever happens.
LikeLike
Mike:
Colo could have joined when the SWC collapsed. Utah delivers a larger market than most realize,is a very strong academic/research school, adds 2 senators, fills as traveling partner with Colo, enabled a CCG (and that 20+ mill/yr).
Fresno? Boise has a better chance, and their chance is nil.
Anything Nevada comes with a lot of baggage the NCAA doesn’t care for. Would make for entertatinig visits, but is that the purpose of an invitation?
Colo St? UH…no.
UNM has the academics, but no markets and only the memory on MBB success, and a faded memory of ASU and UA matchups. A western Texas school in need of a partner in an expansion that was missing the 16th is the only conceivable scenario. But how likely is it that particular school wouldn’t already have a dance partner, and the power to insist (as long as it isn’t Baylor)?
LikeLike
I heard this third hand on a message board, but ESPN supposedly reporting that Illinois sent six(!) assistant coaches to PSU’s campus to recruit players.
Also, this tweet from PSU player Adrian Amos:
We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA? #comeonman
LikeLike
Story
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53996/opposing-coaches-staking-out-psu-players
LikeLike
So we’ve got Bobby Bowden talking everywhere, Grambling people trying to get Paterno’s wins vacated so Eddie Robinson becomes #1 again and coaches from all over the place stalking/ recruiting players.
Does anyone understand what the NCAA was supposedly trying to accomplish with these penalties? Doesn’t sound like it.
LikeLike
bullet,
“So we’ve got Bobby Bowden talking everywhere, Grambling people trying to get Paterno’s wins vacated so Eddie Robinson becomes #1 again and coaches from all over the place stalking/ recruiting players.”
You would prefer it if the NCAA said the current players are SOL? Because that’s the only alternative now.
“Does anyone understand what the NCAA was supposedly trying to accomplish with these penalties?”
Yes.
LikeLike
Bowden, Grambling people and the coaches rushing in mass don’t understand. The children were assulted and the football vultures are circling the carcass when PSU gets impaled for enabling that. They are doing the same thing PSU was accused of doing, putting football first.
Yes, its important to vacate wins at PSU so Bowden and Eddie Robinson can claim leadership on the all time win list! Its pathetic.
LikeLike
Bowden just needs to shut up about and make no comment. Every time he talks he looks worse and worse.
LikeLike
Some people don’t, but I’ve always liked Bobby Bowden. But that has changed.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Bowden, Grambling people and the coaches rushing in mass don’t understand.”
Those other coaches understand, but they also understand the NCAA lifted recruiting restrictions on the PSU players for a reason. The goal isn’t to punish those players. I agree it doesn’t look good, especially schools like IL bringing 6 coaches to campus. I don’t think it’s bad for a coach to call BOB and PSU and say they would offer a landing spot for a player or two if the players are interested. Like everything in life, there are good ways and bad ways to do things.
I’ll address Bowden below. As for Grambling, remember that it was the local politicians that spoke up and not the school. They don’t have a lot else going for them but Grambling, and the biggest reason Grambling is famous is Robinson. They shouldn’t have said anything, but I can understand wanting the record back.
“The children were assulted and the football vultures are circling the carcass when PSU gets impaled for enabling that. They are doing the same thing PSU was accused of doing, putting football first.”
No, because the other schools didn’t ignore victims to put FB first. That ship has sailed and they are just competing in recruiting like they always do. It’s always unseemly, but that’s why you shouldn’t watch the sausage being made.
“Yes, its important to vacate wins at PSU so Bowden and Eddie Robinson can claim leadership on the all time win list! …
Bowden just needs to shut up about and make no comment. Every time he talks he looks worse and worse.
Some people don’t, but I’ve always liked Bobby Bowden. But that has changed.”
Bowden has been pestered by media from the day the scandal broke. I think he’s been fairly low key about getting the record back. He hasn’t been celebrating. He and Joe were friendly rivals and Joe felt bad for Bobby when he vacated wins and Bobby has returned the favor. I don’t know why you expect him to not say a word when his phone has been ringing off the hook.
LikeLike
Et tu, Illini! Here-after known as the Illinois Poaching Illini. 🙂
At least we now know who are B1G friends are. Thankyou Boilermakers.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20120723/SPORTS020101/307230056/purdue-football-penn-state?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
LikeLike
It’s kind of unbelievable and disgusting that the PSU community wants these kids to stay and accept punishment for the glory of Penn State. “We don’t want to watch bad football, so please stay and sacrifice your career so that our football might possibly not be quite as bad.”
Place is a cult.
LikeLike
Name one school/fanbase that wouldn’t hope the same under sanctions allowing open, immediate transfers?
LikeLike
@ Peter If this happened at Wisconsin I sure as heck would want them to stay. How is it sacrificing a career? These kids will all have NFL opportunities. If you are good enough, the NFL will always be there. Playing time is a key component of that NFL opportunity.
The alternative is not being able to field a team.
LikeLike
Ordinarily, everyone is up-in-arms about kids being stranded at schools when the coach bails or being at the mercy of one-year scholarships or being punished by the NCAA for something they didn’t do. So how is giving them latitude to escape an awful situation not of their making and very much not what they signed up for an evil thing?
For non-NFL talent, they are supposed to get their heads kicked in for several years with no hope of winning any postseason honor. For NFL talent, they are supposed to forfeit the exposure, stats and prestige of post-season games, and for the younger guys and incoming recruits, are stuck in a situation where they CANT perform as well as they could at peer programs because of the scholarship beatdown & the bowl ban driving off what recruits you can take. If your team is getting overwhelmed, your numbers will look bad and, at certain positions, you run increased injury risk.
Would anyone here actually want to go or send their kid into that futile meatgrinder? Yeah, that’s what I thought. So why should the people who got it dropped on them be put on this guilt-trip?
LikeLike
@Peter
Very tired of the lame cult references and the ‘PSU community’ homogenization. Yep, were all just one and the same. Just feel free to continue your hatred of everything PSU. You obviously are of the group who want to believe everything and everyone ever associated with Penn State should burn in hell. It must be sweet to be on that moral high road! I love to hear how others waste their lives spewing hatred. It makes my life seem that much better.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/07/25/Penn-State-abuse-trustees.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a3
PSU’s BoT is going to meet with President Erickson to decide if he had the right to sign the consent decree without going through the board first.
Some trustees have expressed concern that Erickson violated a board rule that says the board must authorize the signing of “contracts, legal documents, and other obligations.”
Penn State spokesman David La Torre said Erickson had authority to act without the approval of the full board.
What are they going to do, turn around and say no to the NCAA? That would be great PR, especially if it led to worse penalties from the NCAA and B10.
LikeLike
If, in fact, the PSU President agreed to that consent decree without first informing/consulting the entire BoT, which appears to be the case, he should be immediately fired. That is an incredible abuse of discretion. Our President has the right to kill whoever he wants whenever he wants, but there are limits to the powers of mere mortals.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty
More details of what (supposedly) went down between the NCAA and PSU.
1. PSU originally faced a 4 year death penalty
2. If PSU said no to their penalties, a formal investigation would have begun and might come down with more harsh penalties, especially the fine.
3. Most of the BoT didn’t know that discussion were going on.
“Some trustees said they are considering a bid to overturn the consent decree in court because they don’t believe Erickson had the authority to sign it. Erickson consulted with board chairwoman Karen Peetz, acting AD Dave Joyner and several other unnamed members of the board’s executive committee, he said Wednesday.
…
On Wednesday, Erickson said he had consulted with Peetz, the board chairwoman, and the university’s outside counsel, about whether he had the authority to negotiate and approve the agreement with the NCAA.
“We felt that I had the authority to engage in that consent decree,” Erickson said.
LikeLike
Erickson should be commended if all of this is true about a 4 year death penalty.
A 4-year death penalty would have been the end of Penn State football as we know it. They would have been kicked out of the Big Ten for sure if there was a multi-year death penalty like that in place.
As for their athletics department, I can’t even imagine how they’d keep it going for that long a period of time and beyond without football at the current level that it it’s at…, we’d be talking about whether they could afford to keep the most important 10 or so non-revenue sports up (like women’s volleyball) through donations and whatever the men’s basketball team brings in (as an independent most likely? good luck with that).
Then after the death penalty, they’d have to rebuild completely as an independent… and then probably go to the Big East after 2 years of that. I’m not sure we’d ever see Penn State football or athletics the same ever again…
LikeLike
zeek,
“Erickson should be commended if all of this is true about a 4 year death penalty.”
Agreed.
“A 4-year death penalty would have been the end of Penn State football as we know it. They would have been kicked out of the Big Ten for sure if there was a multi-year death penalty like that in place.”
Nothing is for sure. The B10 worked with 11 teams for a long time, they could do it for 4 more.
“As for their athletics department, I can’t even imagine how they’d keep it going for that long a period of time and beyond without football at the current level that it it’s at…, we’d be talking about whether they could afford to keep the most important 10 or so non-revenue sports up (like women’s volleyball) through donations and whatever the men’s basketball team brings in (as an independent most likely? good luck with that).”
They have a $1.8B endowment. They can afford to keep a lot of things if they choose. They could also cut costs significantly.
“Then after the death penalty, they’d have to rebuild completely as an independent… and then probably go to the Big East after 2 years of that. I’m not sure we’d ever see Penn State football or athletics the same ever again…”
Probably not for a long time, and maybe never a king again as players get used to going elsewhere.
LikeLike
Wow, I think PSU and their trustees may consider suing. Not sure if the consent decree prevents that but I think what the NCAA did is so far outside the rule book that they could find themselves in hot water.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Wow, I think PSU and their trustees may consider suing. Not sure if the consent decree prevents that but I think what the NCAA did is so far outside the rule book that they could find themselves in hot water.”
The NCAA is not in trouble. They assumed that the figure of authority who signed the decree had the right to do so. If he didn’t, then the decree is invalid. It’s no big deal legally. The BoT can then authorize him to sign it or not. If not, the ball is in the NCAA’s court again plus PSU will reap a huge negative PR hit.
I’d guess that the NCAA would see rejection of these terms as proof that the culture is still broken and go back to the multi-year death penalty instead of the bowl ban. The B10 would also react negatively.
If the BoT just wants to settle the legal issue of whether the president had the authority to do what he did or not, that’s fine. Fighting the sanctions won’t help PSU, though.
LikeLike
The NCAA’s approach to this, would you appear to approve without reservation, is very similiar to the appraoch taken by the EPA. against landowners who dare oppose them. They levy enormous fines that no individual can withstand, making it cost prohibitive to seek legal redress. The abuse of authority here by the NCAA which you cheer lead is very troubling indeed.
LikeLike
I think a death penalty was warranted. I also think they are lucky they got what they did. If this isn’t lack of inst control I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
Erickson signing a contract he had no authorization to do or Spanier not reporting a crime?!
LikeLike
If outside counsel told him he had the right but he didn’t, you can’t blame anyone but the counsel.
LikeLike
You could blame him for being a dumbass.
LikeLike
This sounds so much like Spanier only talking to certain board members about the grand jury issues (in terms of procedure). The parallels are amusing.
LikeLike
It does seem strange. I think it’s the overly large size of the BoT coming back to bite them.
LikeLike
Reducing it should be one of the governance regulations.
Sometimes a really large board is for fundraising purposes, but they could have some kind of honorary board for that or separate groups.
LikeLike
I don’t know if state law/politics is involved in the size, but they may be forced to be that big.
LikeLike
I’m sure it is. But they need to ask the state to help them out and reduce the size.
LikeLike
FSU, for example has 13. The University of Texas system has 10 for 9 universities and 6 medical schools.
LikeLike
Oh, I fully agree. I hope Freeh suggested that. I was just pointing out that the decision may be above their pay grade.
LikeLike
PSU BoT meets with Erickson. Releases statement agreeing with everything he said.
The Penn State Board of Trustees met for a discussion tonight. A vote was not required and none was taken. The Board finds the punitive sanctions difficult and the process with the NCAA unfortunate. But as we understand it, the alternatives were worse as confirmed by NCAA President Mark Emmert’s recent statement that Penn State was likely facing a multi-year death sentence.
“The University and Board resolve to move forward together to recognize the historical excellence in Penn State’s academic and athletic programs. We anticipate and look forward to demonstrating our outstanding performance in complying with the sanctions. We continue to recognize the important role that intercollegiate athletics provides for our student athletes and the wider University community as we strive to appropriately balance academic and athletic accomplishments.
“Penn State will remain a world-class educational institution of which our students, faculty, staff and alumni can be justifiably proud. The commitment demonstrated by our student athletes in recent days embodies all that is good about Penn State and we look forward to unprecedented support by the Nittany nation when we take the field this fall.”
LikeLike
Brian and others with legal minds… I did not do a substantial amount of research whatsoever, but I thought it odd people were complaining about due process, given that the NCAA provided notice in November 2011. See http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2012/07/25/due-process-penn-state-blah-blah-blah/ I did not write this to duplicate the depth of analysis for a brief, either. I just get tired of the due process argument. What do you think?
LikeLike
If you are talking about NCAA processes instead of legal processes:
NCAA normally notifies them of penalties and gives them time to appeal
NCAA doesn’t do plea bargaining, which Emmert has confirmed happened in this case, “Take this sentence and don’t appeal or you will get the death penalty.”
It appears to be unprecedented that the NCAA president is doing the penalty instead of the normal enforcement divisions.
So the NCAA president intervened in the normal process (sound like PSU at all?), they didn’t give those suffering, including innocent victims a chance to formally state their case (sound like PSU with Sandusky’s victims at all?) and didn’t give them any choice (sound like Sandusky at all?).
Obviously, I am exaggerating with the comparison, but the parallels in the breakdown in normal processes are striking. Leadership needs to let police or enforcement groups do their work and not get involved based on their personal agenda, whether that be protecting the institution (PSU or NCAA), protecting a friend (PSU) and trying to make something bad go away (PSU and NCAA).
LikeLike
bullet,
NCAA doesn’t do plea bargaining, which Emmert has confirmed happened in this case, “Take this sentence and don’t appeal or you will get the death penalty.”
I think as more details have come out, it was more like this:
NCAA – We think you should get a multi-year death penalty on top of other penalties like fines.
PSU – That seems excessive and will unduly punish the community for our mistakes. How about major scholarship losses instead of the death penalty?
NCAA – Well, the collateral damage argument is reasonable. OK, but only if you don’t fight it. Sign this consent form.
PSU – OK.
It appears to be unprecedented that the NCAA president is doing the penalty instead of the normal enforcement divisions.
Not quite. The first NCAA president (’53 – ’88), Walter Byers, did several punishments on his own. Yes, I realize the current compliance infrastructure wasn’t in place back then, but it’s still a precedent of sorts.
So the NCAA president intervened in the normal process (sound like PSU at all?), they didn’t give those suffering, including innocent victims a chance to formally state their case (sound like PSU with Sandusky’s victims at all?) and didn’t give them any choice (sound like Sandusky at all?).
1. PSU had lots of time to state their case since the NCAA first talked to them in November. They chose to wait for and then accept the Freeh report, though. If you accept that report, how much case do you have left to state?
2. They had choices. They could have denied the report. They could have fought the NCAA. instead, they chose to consent.
Obviously, I am exaggerating with the comparison, but the parallels in the breakdown in normal processes are striking.
Choosing a different process is not a “breakdown in normal processes.”
LikeLike
acaffrey,
Americans have a very bad habit of acting like constitutional restrictions on the government apply to private businesses, organizations and people. They don’t. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean your boss can’t fire you for saying something you shouldn’t, and due process doesn’t apply to the NCAA.
That said, people expected the NCAA to follow their traditional process and they didn’t. What many fail to understand is that taking a new approach isn’t automatically wrong or bad. The provisions for this already existed, so they weren’t making things up as so many people claimed. Everyone agrees the PSU scandal is unprecedented in its nature, but somehow don’t see why that might lead to an unprecedented NCAA punishment process as well.
As you note, the NCAA told them last November that they had specific questions. The asked to be in the loop of the Freeh investigation and PSU said yes. The NCAA then used the results of that investigation rather than starting from scratch to conduct their own for two reasons. First, they can’t afford to spend $6.5M investigating one school and it would have taken even longer based on their limited staff size. Second, PSU accepted the results of the report.
In the standard NCAA punishment process, they have an expedited procedure they use when both sides fully agree to what violations were committed. Instead of answering the NOA and having the COI hearing and such, they skip straight to the penalty phase. That’s exactly what happened here. The only difference is that the executive board decided this was big enough for them to deal with directly in concert with Emmert rather than delegate to the standard compliance people. I think that was wise because the bosses should be the ones to bear that burden and take the heat for a decision of this magnitude.
Note that this is exactly why they only punished PSU and not the individuals. There are more facts to gather before punishing them appropriately (show cause penalties most likely), and they certainly don’t agree on every detail of the report. I think the process will look different for them, but the president and board may deal with them just to be consistent.
LikeLike
I do agree with you completely about people having a tendency to put Constitutional restrictions in a lot of places they don’t exist (they are from the federal government and sometimes the states; rarely elsewhere).
I guess my issue with the NCAA here does go somewhat along those lines though. It feels like the NCAA was set-up for very specific purposes (fair play between schools in athletics) and I despise when it oversteps that role. When they ban/discourage Indian mascots and punish Penn State here, it feels like the NCAA is becoming more than it was meant to be or than I want it to be (I don’t even mind Penn State getting in bigger trouble than they are here, but I very much dislike the NCAA being a part of it).
With all of that said, you are right that doing sanctions this way isn’t inherently bad and I can see the advantage of getting it all over with if they are going this way.
LikeLike
And I can understand some uneasiness with the NCAA expanding their role. But since they have become the public face of colleges to a large extent, I think they have to do it. I happen to agree with them about Indian mascots if you can’t get the appropriate tribe(s) to say it’s OK. People have a right not to be represented in a way they don’t like. I just wish the NCAA was consistent and treated all groups that way (Did anyone ask the Irish about ND?, etc).
LikeLike
One more for the fellow lawyers.
Seems like the NCAA bylaws provide an out IF Penn State fans are right that the Freeh report is inaccurate.
LikeLike
If Bohls info was correct (this is an April article I just ran across), it explains why the Big 10 thought expansion from the west didn’t help it in St. Louis. Most of this article is dated, but item #2 says Texas Tech was #2 behind only Texas in Big 12 TV ratings from 2008-2010 in 6 of the Big 12 markets including St. Louis, DFW and Austin. Texas Tech (not in this article) has 78k alumni in DFW behind only Texas. A&M has 50k and Baylor 41k.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-for-this-2319662.html
LikeLike
For context, people should remember 2008 was an anomalous year for TT in being 11-1 and top 5 for part of the year. I doubt TT did as well in ratings before 2008 and is dropping quickly under Tuberville. I would have expected OU and MO to be ahead of TT in St. Louis, though.
LikeLike
Pretty sure he meant six collectively, not all of the six individually. That wouldn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8202237/penn-state-nittany-lions-lawyers-say-shower-abuse-victim-sue
Now this bugs me. A guy is coming forward now and claiming to be the shower victim. He couldn’t bother to help prosecute Sandusky, but he wants to sue him now that’s he’s convicted.
LikeLike
Interesting article on academic fraud that has occurred at various places. Sounds like if you let a few non-athletes in on it, its ok to give athletes fictitious credits. Auburn apparently figured out a way around the rules and UNC is the latest to follow their lead and stretch it by not requiring any work at all. Auburn should have done like the tax lawyers and gotten a patent on it so the other schools pay them royalties to avoid compliance issues.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/12/2195378/on-the-other-unc-scandal-the-ncaa.html
LikeLike
I’m hoping, but not hopeful, that the NCAA will tighten up the rules on this. Regardless of whether athletes got special treatment or not, bogus classes should be a violation that gets the school punished. Big fines, probation, etc. Only directly punish the athletic department if they guided athletes into those classes.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8202276/wisconsin-badgers-bret-bielema-ohio-state-buckeyes-urban-meyer-weigh-psu-recruitment
Bielema is making up unwritten rules of B10 coaching again. I applaud his stance on the issue, but I think it’s crap for him to imply that everyone else is doing something wrong (and note that my coach isn’t doing it either, so it’s nothing personal). Typical move by Bielema. WI fans, this is why people hate your coach.
LikeLike
Bielema has no qualms in continue to recruit players who have committed to another B10 school. I guess we’re not “brothers” at that point.
LikeLike
He’s never had a problem recruiting committed players. Check the records for his 7 years as coach. Don’t believe everything that is written.
LikeLike
Are you claiming he doesn’t recruit committed players? He does. Its a fact.
I realize most places do it, so I don’t truly complain, but Bielema continues to spout conflicting claims about coaching’s unwritten rules.
LikeLike
@ Greg. He has never talked about unwritten “gentlemens” agreements etc… Articles written that suggest he was in favor of such agreements are wrong.
Regarding recruiting committed players re-read my statement. “He’s never had a problem recruiting committed players” In his 7 years as coach he’s pretty much flipped 1 or 2 recruits each year. Usually they are in-state players that commit to Iowa or elsewhere initially and flip them back to Wisconsin.
LikeLike
So then what illegal recruiting practices was he complaining about when Urban Meyer showed up?
LikeLike
@ Greg, it was illegal contact during dead periods. Having former players contact recruits etc.. in a manner that was against NCAA rules. It’s nitpicky but it is what it is.
LikeLike
I have to laugh about this idea of a gentleman’s agreement in the Big Ten regarding recruiting. Wasn’t it former Purdue head coach Joe Tiller who brought that up when Michigan’s Rich Rodriguez flipped Roy Roundtree into committing to UM? Tiller also called Rodriguez a snake oil salesman in a wizard’s hat, which was an image that stuck to Rodriguez like glue.
Of course, there was no such gentleman’s agreement in place and there were plenty of examples of Big Ten coaches recruiting youngsters who had already given verbals. What I found funny is that the “gentleman’s agreement” bit was brought up again when Urban Meyer poached kids from Penn State. Meyer was never given a wizard’s hat or a bottle of snake oil by the press. In fact, he was applauded for his successful recruiting tactics and for being so aggressive.
Reading the articles about what had happened, a lot of writers may have incorrectly inferred that Bielema’s problem with Meyer was “breaking the gentleman’s agreement”. Bielema certainly did say that the Big Ten wasn’t the SEC and he did call Meyer about the problems he had with him. I suspect Bielema was more concerned about making illegal contact than with poaching another school’s recruits because he had done it himself.
See http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-02/urban-meyer-negative-recruiting-ohio-state-bret-bielema-upset
LikeLike
It should be pointed out that Meyer says he did nothing wrong and the NCAA hasn’t said he did anything wrong. If Bielema had any evidence, it wasn’t damning.
LikeLike
http://www.toledoblade.com/Ohio-State/2012/07/28/Meyer-defends-his-recruiting-record.html
More details on the issue. Meyer emailed Delany about it and Bielema shut up after the coaches meeting.
LikeLike
http://www.nusports.com/view.gal?id=122559
Welcome to the ugly uniform club, NW. I know your colors can be hard to work with, but those chest stripes suck (esp. on the road jersey).
LikeLike
Speak for yourself. I haven’t heard a negative comment yet from an NU fan about the new jerseys.
BTW, the Northwestern striping is there because we invented it.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Speak for yourself. I haven’t heard a negative comment yet from an NU fan about the new jerseys.”
1. I have. Many seem to like them, but certainly not all. Lots of “meh” reviews, which could be construed as negative opinions from people that don’t want to deal with fallout from saying so on a blog.
2. Even if all NW fans like them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t ugly. OR fans like their unis, and probably even some MD fans like theirs. Fans can convince themselves to like anything if it’s theirs.
3. The national response has clearly been less favorable than the NW response (in other words, it’s not just me). The NW blogs say so. Maybe it’s because everyone else isn’t immune to the purple or is less used to rugby jerseys.
“BTW, the Northwestern striping is there because we invented it.”
Not quite, or at least not necessarily.
http://hailtopurple.com/features/unis1.html
(emphasis mine)
The more significant innovation, however, was the sleeve striping for the white jersey. While most other colleges continued to wear plain jerseys or the large chest stripes, the “northwestern stripes” sleeve style on the Wildcat jerseys set the trend for what would become the modern college uniform.
The striping design (three stripes: one wide stripe enclosed by two narrow stripes) had been around for a while. It was being used for basketball stockings as early as 1915 and by the early 1920s it was being used for football stockings. It is believed, however, that Northwestern was the first football team to wear the pattern as part of a jersey design, and to this day the striping pattern is known as “northwestern stripes.” It remains one of the Wildcats’ greatest football traditions.
Note that they were always on sleeves. NW had some chest stripes one freaking year (1909, way before little things like numbers on the chest or the northwestern stripes pattern) but they weren’t northwestern stripes. It was basically a rugby jersey.
And again, historical connections don’t negate ugliness.
LikeLike
“The NW blogs say so”
Which NU blogs? Not the 2 I’ve read.
Anyway, ugliness/beauty is a matter of taste (personally, I’m not a fan of the traditional OSU gitup, and actually thought that the crash-dummy look UMD trotted out there was pretty awesome).
LikeLike
Lake the Posts said it, for one.
LikeLike
Big news from B10 media days:
BOB is exploring a uniform change according to a tweet.
LikeLike
Taking a break from the whole PSU mess, here is an interesting article on the numbers from the SEC media in relation to social media and website traffic:
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/SECNation/SECOfficeReport/tabid/1104/Article/235743/sec-media-days-website-traffic.aspx
I think it at least hints at the SEC interest from various markets nation wide.
Some interesting notes:
* The state of Texas had the most viewers, with the cities of Houston and Dallas coming in at 1 & 2.
* North Carolina has been in the top 10 the last 2 years despite not having a team in the SEC.
* The states of New York and California came in 13th & 15th.
Now I know that this is a one time snap shot, but I think this is a positive preliminary showing of the potential SEC interest in the state of texas. I know some don’t think that TAMU will deliver the the major Texas markets for the upcoming SEC Network, but I’m encouraged by the numbers coming out of Houston and Dallas.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“Taking a break from the whole PSU mess,”
How dare you. All comments must be about the PSU mess.
“here is an interesting article on the numbers from the SEC media in relation to social media and website traffic:
I think it at least hints at the SEC interest from various markets nation wide.”
The one caveat I’ll make is that it is based on total numbers and not normalized for population. A small fraction of TX residents is still a big number, for example.
“* The state of Texas had the most viewers, with the cities of Houston and Dallas coming in at 1 & 2.”
See above. TX was #7 last year wen they didn’t have a team in the SEC. With TAMU just joining, this should be their peak year of viewership until they are ready to compete for the title.
“* North Carolina has been in the top 10 the last 2 years despite not having a team in the SEC.”
FL is the only SEC state much bigger than NC (GA is about the same size). Due to proximity to SC and TN, there are plenty of SEC fans in NC and also just a lot of CFB fans desperate for something relevant to watch. TN is 2/3 the size of NC, and AL about half. Everyone else is even smaller.
“* The states of New York and California came in 13th & 15th.”
Large populations containing some CFB fans. CA is more than 10x as populous as MS and AR, for example.
I’m not trying to be a downer, just pointing out that using absolute numbers isn’t generally the best approach except for PR purposes.
“Now I know that this is a one time snap shot, but I think this is a positive preliminary showing of the potential SEC interest in the state of texas. I know some don’t think that TAMU will deliver the the major Texas markets for the upcoming SEC Network, but I’m encouraged by the numbers coming out of Houston and Dallas.”
The problem is that cable companies are hard to deal with, especially in big cities. That’s why people are more pessimistic. B12 fans in those cities will be furious if they are forced to subsidize the SEC, much like the other B12 fans have been about the LHN. The question is how many SEC fans they need to reach a critical mass.
LikeLike
@Brian – I know we are talking total numbers, and that the state of Texas (for instance) has a much larger total population than most of the other SEC states. But I think that the fact that the viewers in Houston & Dallas doubled, and the fact that St. Louis grew by 5X the number says a lot. And I do think that you can use total numbers as a factor when trying to determine if a project like the SEC Network can be profitable, especially when determining interest from outside the SEC footprint since it’ll be in the lower cable/satellite tiers in those markets regardless.
LikeLike
Like I said, I’m not trying to argue your point so much as point out the problems with using straight numbers. I think the network will work just fine, but I have no idea which parts of TX will carry it. Houston seems more likely than Dallas to me based on proximity to TAMU and the LA border, plus all the Katrina refugees that never left. But I also remember that Atlanta doesn’t have ESPNU on basic despite all the SEC content and Philly doesn’t have the BTN on basic despite PSU being in state. The big cities are tough nuts to crack sometimes.
LikeLike
As you all know, I’m not an SEC guy, but I’d wager heavily that an SEC Network that has the equivalent content of the BTN will easily receive wide carriage with high subscriber fees throughout its entire footprint. The newer markets of Texas and Missouri will probably look like how Pennsylvania is for the BTN, where some areas where overall interest in the conference is stronger will receive a higher subscriber fee. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh market has BTN carriage and fees equivalent to the rest of the Big Ten footprint, while Philly has lower carriage and fees. I’d expect a similar delineation in Texas between Houston (where overall SEC interest is higher) and Dallas. The SEC Network can effectively name its price in the other legacy SEC states. I have way more faith in the success of an SEC Network compared to the Pac-12 Network.
LikeLike
There are a ton of SEC alumni in Texas. SEC has always done well on TV in Houston. Doing the sporting goods store test at a store near Rice, UT and A&M had the most merchandise space, UH was a close 3rd, Rice was 4th and Baylor and LSU were right behind Rice. Noone else had counter space.
But this year in particular, the Aggies are probably very interested in learning about their new league.
LikeLike
Tweet from B10 media days:
Rittenberg/Bennett@ESPN_BigTen
Delay said he considered power to remove coaches when PSU had no president and an AD who’d been indicted. Emergency power only.
LikeLike
Other tidbits (you can read it all at http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53887/live-coverage-of-big-ten-media-days):
* B10 was prepared to be more harsh if the NCAA wasn’t.
* B10 will stay at 8 games. They want more OOC games to build SOS, implying either that the playoff committee will be looking at OOC SOS and not total SOS or that OOC games on average are more difficult than B10 games.
* Delany says you’ll see “enhanced schedules” going forward for Big Ten power schools, aimed at impressing playoff selection committee
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/54113/delany-b1g-to-stay-at-eight-league-games
Delany explains his SOS argument more here. His plan is for schools to play more OOC games against power conference schools, and that these intersectional games will help establish relative strength.
Personally, I think it’s a BS excuse for cowardly coaches to hide behind. Go to 9 games, with the East playing 5 home games in even years and the West in odd years (or vice versa) so there is no competitive advantage for making the CCG to whine about. Then play 1 quality AQ school OOC, 1 weaker AQ school/quality non-AQ and 1 cupcake.
LikeLike
I agree with you there and I sincerely doubt the Big Ten teams are going to be more aggressive in their non-conference scheduling than what we’re currently seeing.
There’s really no incentive for them to make their schedules more challenging. The borderline teams won’t do it because they want to win enough games to get into a bowl. The better programs with national championship aspirations will likely conclude that going 13-0 or 12-1 with a Big Ten title and a season ending win in the conference championship game is going to outweigh the strength-of-schedule considerations presented to the selection committee. I’ll believe the “enhanced schedules” thing when I actually see it.
If two or three conference champions had been given an autobid into the four-team playoff (ex. Delany Plan for 3 autobids and one at large), then it would at least remove a negative motivator against having more aggressive conference schedules and perhaps allow room for a 11-2 conference champion in the playoff. Without that sort of structure, I have to say I’m very quizzical much is going to change.
LikeLike
“Delany explains his SOS argument more here. His plan is for schools to play more OOC games against power conference schools, and that these intersectional games will help establish relative strength.”
Sounds good in theory, but where will these non-con power opponents come from? The SEC already has a number of bowl tie-ins with the Big Ten (plus many non-con rivalry games with the ACC) so they are unlikely to find many options there. The Big 12, ACC, and Pac-12 are already at nine game conference seasons, which provides less of an opportunity or incentive to schedule a tough non-con.
LikeLike
He also has zero control over their scheduling. I look at it this way:
1. Last year he said the B10 was going to 9 games in 2017
2. Then he said the B10 and P12 would play each other every year
3. Now he says the B10 will schedule tougher OOC games
If 1 and 2 were not true, why should anyone believe 3?
LikeLike
If you look at the future schedules for Big Ten teams, you’ll see that most of them play one home-and-home series with a good to outstanding opponent. Going through the 2012 schedule, here’s the best non-conference opponent(s) for each B10 team:
Indiana: at Navy
Illinois: at Arizona State
Iowa: Iowa State, No. Illinois (Chicago)
Michigan: Alabama (Dallas), at Notre Dame
Michigan State: Boise State, Notre Dame
Minnesota: Syracuse, at UNLV
Nebraska: at UCLA
Northwestern: at Syracuse, Boston College
Ohio State: California
Penn State: at Virginia
Purdue: at Notre Dame
Wisconsin: at Oregon State
With perhaps the exception of Iowa, everyone on the list is either punching at their weight or better. The trick, such as it is, is to make sure there is a second compelling non-conference game that would otherwise have been the ninth game of the conference schedule.
That’s going to be somewhat problematic for these schools–and that’s for the ones that go this route. There may be teams who want to maximize home dates and will schedule accordingly. There are others who feel that they don’t have to uprgrade the non-conference schedule because they’re looking for a 12-1 or 13-0 record and a B10 championship as the way to get into the playoff. In the end, it’s all going to depend on what the athletic director and the coach of that team wants to do to achieve their goals.
LikeLike
I realize I’m being defensive, but…
With the possible exception of Iowa? Using Massey ratings comparison, they’re playing last year’s 36th and 48th ranked teams. Which are a lot higher than some of the other teams on that list. And this year (and next) are outliers where Iowa almost always has two BCS teams on the schedule, but they wanted to get a Chicago game so they have NIU as their 2nd best game.
LikeLike
greg,
I think it was more a put down of ISU (which we all understand you have to play) than IA. And yes, usually IA has AZ or someone. OSU usually has someone better than Cal, too.
LikeLike
Sadly doesn’t surprise me at all. Going to 9 games was something that could happen with the change to 12 teams, but something that was going to be hard to get pressed through any other time.
LikeLike
I’m not a big fan of 9 game schedules for 12 team leagues. It sorta defeats the purpose of a CCG if you are already playing more than half the teams in the other division (at least in my opinion).
LikeLike
frug,
“I’m not a big fan of 9 game schedules for 12 team leagues. It sorta defeats the purpose of a CCG if you are already playing more than half the teams in the other division (at least in my opinion).”
How does it defeat the purpose of making cold, hard cash? Or do you think there’s another reason for a CCG?
LikeLike
I like 9 game conference schedules, it makes the schedules more similar to your division opponents…
In ’13/’14 MSU plays Indiana, Purdue & Illinois and missed Wisconsin, Ohio State & Penn State…
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/5928267/penn-state-could-have-fought-the-ncaa-and-won
Lawyerin’
The NCAA’s legal authority to punish its members is somewhat murky. In NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was subject to antitrust law. That ruling reversed more than 30 years of college football TV policy. Conferences—not the association—could now sell television rights. The NCAA had derived much of its early authority (and funding) from a 1952 dispute in which two schools, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania, briefly fought an association-wide fiat that only the NCAA-approved “Game of the Week” could be televised.
[snip]
That changed in 1984, when the court ruled that college football was big business and that the NCAA couldn’t restrict it. Power shifted heavily in the conferences’ favor, since the NCAA had no more football to sell.
But a 1988 decision, NCAA v. Tarkanian, affirmed the NCAA’s power to punish schools without regard for due-process standards. Even though the association included state universities—governmental organs—as its members, and even though it held a great deal of authority over those members, the court ruled that the NCAA was not a state actor itself.
Since then, we’ve been left with two different standards for NCAA punishment: The organization can intervene in matters concerning individuals—eligibility and the like—but mostly cannot in big financial matters.
Penn State’s punishment is a mix of the two, which is why Kessler says PSU’s case isn’t perfect. The school violated the NCAA’s equivalent of MLB’s “best interests of baseball” clause, John Infante of the Bylaw Blog told me. But NCAA president Mark Emmert had to seek special authorization from the organization’s directors to negotiate with Penn State. The agreement is only definitely legal thanks to Penn State’s total acquiescence.
LikeLike
Whether the NCAA is setting guidelines and process for its members or making punishment, it still must comply with federal law. The 1984 supreme court decision with regard to television was not a punishment against the NCAA. It was simply a ruling based regarding a guideline the NCAA had on its members. The Supreme Court determined this guideline was a violation of federal law and quoted the specific law it was violating.
If PSU can prove that the punishment the NCAA is attempting to levy is violating some sort of federal law, then they have a case. There’s a reason why the NCAA didn’t levy a TV ban on Penn St. Cause then the Big 10 Network and ESPN could take the NCAA to court. Now, giving them a bowl ban and taking away scholarships? Um…not sure what they’re violating here.
LikeLike
Brian Murphy (@Murphsturph) on the WAC and Boise St
Jeff Hurd, WAC commish: Don’t believe FBS football is feasible as a conference for 2013. Maybe in future
WAC commish Hurd says there isn’t enough schools looking to make move up in 2013. Would need 6 more.
Hurd: Not counting on Boise State for 2013-14. Boise State told WAC intention was to pursue Big West membership.
WAC says it has not extended invitations to any schools.
WAC commish says possibility of deal with Big Sky “has lost momentum in the last week.” “More unlikely than likely to happen.”
WAC commish Hurd: “Much more likely than not that New Mexico State and Idaho will play as independents in 2013.”
According to emails obtained by @IdahoStatesman, Big East made offer to Big West on Boise State’s behalf in early June. No details tho.
LikeLike
Big Sky deal made no sense for Big Sky.
If WAC doesn’t sponsor football in 2013 (and I think the deadline for moveups was June 1 so I don’t think its possible), do they have the ability to add moveups? Is there some type of grandfather clause that would allow that? Schools can no longer move up without an invite from a FBS conference.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/podcasts/stewart_mandel/listenlive.player.html?file=http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/stewartmandel/audio/2012/07/25/072512.mandel_infante.mp3&sct=cf_t2_a7
Stewart Mandel has the author of the Bylaw Blog on his podcast. They discuss the NCAA’s role in the PSU mess.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing. Interesting comments by Mandel and interesting interview afterward.
Montana (AD, coaches covering up sexual assults by fb players) will be interesting. Infante said covering up crimes by the football team wasn’t really an NCAA violation either. And the NCAA seemed to have passed on investigating a course set up for athletes not to attend at UNC since some non-athletes found out about it also.
I’m pretty sure Montana gets penalized (if they don’t, PSU should be very unhappy). I’m disappointed the NCAA lets the academic fraud pass (it would seem to me to go to the question of their eligibility to play). Its interesting how narrowly they interpreted the rules in allowing the QB of the #1 team (and later MNC) to stay eligible and avoiding any violations despite his Father shopping him around to the highest bidder. Academic fraud and buying players aren’t especially important to the NCAA even if they impact competitiveness, but heinous crimes and coverups are, even though it doesn’t really impact sports.
LikeLike
Cam Newton would have been treated differently if they had any evidence that AU was involved or Cam knew about it.
LikeLike
Plausible deniability.
LikeLike
USC was treated as “the parent is the child”. It is just as plausbile Reggie was as “ignorant” as Cam regarding parents dealings.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the problem that the NCAA felt the assistant coach knew or should have known?
LikeLike
Brian:
I believe that was part of the reasoning announced by the U of Miami’s Paul Dee, head of the infractions committee at the time. Some say it was said in a condescending manner. Carma is a bitch.
Can’t “should have known” be said in most rule violations? Is knew or should have known really a basis for being banned from coaching? I’d say knew and lied about it is.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
I believe that was part of the reasoning announced by the U of Miami’s Paul Dee, head of the infractions committee at the time. Some say it was said in a condescending manner. Carma is a bitch.
Everything the NCAA says sounds condescending.
Can’t “should have known” be said in most rule violations? Is knew or should have known really a basis for being banned from coaching? I’d say knew and lied about it is.
Even courts of law use a willful blindness standard. Things can become so readily apparent that any claim to not know isn’t reasonable.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8203615/northwestern-wildcats-coach-calls-committee-help-fill-title-game
Pat Fitzgerald wants the B10 to select a team to face the West champ in the CCG this year instead of automatically putting in the East champ. This is a terrible idea for several reasons:
1. It violates NCAA rules, so the CCG would have to be the 12th game instead of an extra game. Rule 17.9.5.2.c:
17.9.5.2 Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS] The maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:
…
(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game
between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;
2. Any West team will have already played the West champ, so that guarantees a rematch. We know how well those do on TV, especially if the champ won the first time around.
3. How can a committee of ADs be unbiased when voting on this?
4. The East champ should be pretty good. WI is coming off of back to back Rose Bowls, and hosts OSU which should give them an edge.
5. He has no problem with 1 team being ineligible, so saying two is a problem seems arbitrary. What if it was IN and IL instead of OSU and PSU?
Now, if he wanted to make the bigger argument that the NCAA rules should be changed to always allow conferences to choose two teams to play in their CCG, that would be a different issue. I think that would work poorly for a 12 team league because there would be too many rematches, but it would be more useful for a larger conference where scheduling disparity is a major factor.
LikeLike
I thought of 1 as soon as I heard it.
LikeLike
It’s sad and/or scary that fans know parts of the rulebook better than the coaches.
I actually would prefer it if the CCG game exemption went away, though. Make the last week a flex-scheduled week (end of season rivalries move to the 11th game – still on T-day weekend). Pair teams as close to 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10 and 11/12 as possible without any rematches (higher seed hosts). It’s key to not have rematches, or else you’re right back to OSU/MI potentially playing back to back games. After week 12, the standings determine the champion. Multiple games should impact the race that week and there are no rematches to worry about.
Pros:
No rematches
No extra games for players to get hurt in
Assures the top teams play each other
No tied co-champs that didn’t play each other (OSU/IA in 2002)
Eliminates division balance as a factor
Leads to 9 conference games (want 4/4 split to determine seeding)
Cons:
No CCG money (flex week should add some value, though)
Could have tied teams
LikeLike
NE fans, I feel sorry for you. Those new uniforms are hideous. Of course, that means the kids will eat them up. I didn’t think it was legal to have the player numbers be that small, though.
LikeLike
They’re terrible. The retro uniforms they wore a few years ago were way better.
LikeLike
I really don’t know what they were thinking with this. It just did not come off well.
LikeLike
I’m anticipating a whole lot more N is for ‘nowledge jokes. Like ‘nowing what your school colors are, and that a black helmet doesn’t really evoke thoughts of black shirts.
At least it’s adidas so NE can avoid the N is for Nike jokes.
LikeLike
It’s bad luck even seeing something like that.
LikeLike
Is it even a requirement to have numbers on the front?
LikeLike
Richard,
From – 2011 AND 2012 NCAA® FOOTBALL RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS
Rule 1.4.c.3
“3. Numerals. The jersey must have clearly visible, permanent Arabic
numerals measuring at least 8 and 10 inches in height front and back,
respectively, of a color(s) in distinct contrast with the jersey. All players
of a team shall have the same color and style numbers front and back.
The individual bars must be approximately 1-1/2 inches wide. Numbers
on any part of the uniform shall correspond with the mandatory front and
back jersey numbers.”
Yes they have to have them, and no NW’s aren’t big enough. These jerseys as is do not meet the current rules. That said, MI was allowed to do a similar thing for their throwback jerseys. I can understand a one time waiver for a throwback uniform, but not for the regular uniform.
LikeLike
Sorry, brain fart. I meant Nebraska there. I just replied to you about the NW jersey so I had NW on my mind.
I still don’t know why the NCAA allows these clear violations of the rules if it isn’t a copy of an old uniform.
LikeLike
1. Those *are* hideous.
2. I’m not loving the new Northwestern Unies, but they aren’t bad. What I haven’t heard are the ones with the horizontal bands are there 3rd unies or their new template.
3. The real question is: Will Michigan State wear those ubersweet Greek-inspired uniforms with the Bronze helmets again this year? Because, seriously, those are the most awesome uniforms I’ve ever seen. For the first and only time, I was jealous of another team’s uniforms.
LikeLike
That’s the new template, and all their sports teams will get new looks featuring the stripes in some way.
LikeLike
Supposedly Osborne rejected the initial Adidas design… those had to be bad.
Scanning the complaints on a Nebraska board I saw a design for Oregon that I actually like.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8206548/donors-mixed-future-givings-penn-state-nittany-lions
The story is mostly about donations to PSU and how much they’ll change after the scandal. But there was also this tidbit:
Now a PSU alumni group is considering suing the NCAA over the penalties. I have no idea why they think they have legal standing to sue the NCAA, but whatever.
LikeLike
And the NCAA had standing to fine PSU $60MM?
LikeLike
Yes. They thought so, and so did PSU. That said, legal standing is only an issue in trials. The NCAA didn’t sue PSU.
LikeLike
PSU fans, let’s talk football. What are your expectations for this upcoming season? How did the NCAA’s announcement change them, if at all? What impact will losing players have (RB Redd maybe, K/P Sera maybe, Fortt maybe, others?)?
My previous expectations:
* Solid D, especially against the run
* Good ST
* Bad passing O
* Solid running game
* 8-4 or 9-3 with a decent bowl
Changes this week:
* Assuming Redd leaves, PSU’s O will really suffer
* That cascades to the D being tired
* 7-5 or 8-4 with no bowl (obviously)
Am I off base? Are others leaving? Will the team collapse? Will the team shock the world?
LikeLike
Without knowing their OOC schedule, I see them struggling to go 5-3 in the B10, more likely to go 4-4.
LikeLike
OOC – Ohio, @ UVA, Navy, Temple
4-0 is certainly possible.
B10 – @ IL, NW, bye, @ IA, OSU, @ PU, @ NE, IN, WI
WI and NE are probably losses, but the other 6 are winnable depending on what you think of OSU. Certainly IN, IL, PU and NW are beatable, and IA isn’t elite either.
LikeLike
I expect significant attrition (depth as much as top talent) and have them pegged as a loss vs Ohio along with Nebraska, Wisconsin… Probably win 1 of 2 against Iowa/Illinois, which would have them as 4-4 in conference.
LikeLike
That’s about where I have them. The OOC schedule is light enough for them to still end up with 7-8 wins, though. That’s all I was saying.
LikeLike
https://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Group-Member-Criticizes/133213/
A member of the team that produced a 267-page report condemning the response of Pennsylvania State University’s leaders to a serial child molester believes that the NCAA’s use of that document was insufficient to justify the punishment it handed the university this week.
“That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA’s decision making,” a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. “It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing.”
LikeLike
It really doesn’t matter what he/she thinks, though. They created a document that was made public, so of course the NCAA would use it. Since the NCAA was kept in the loop during the investigation, they knew which stones were left unturned. Realistically, Freeh’s group had more access than the NCAA would have had, so their report is more fair than what the NCAA would have generated. I understand that punishing people for honestly investigating what they did wrong can lead to schools not being so thorough, but the NCAA couldn’t ignore the report either.
Here are the alternatives that I can see:
A. The Freeh report is still made public but the NCAA does their own investigation
1. The NCAA reads the Freeh report.
2. The NCAA picks out the damaging parts that they think could lead to punishment.
3. The NCAA asks all the same people to verify what the report says.
4. The NCAA asks PSU to verify relevant documents (emails, etc).
5. The NCAA punishes PSU.
You get the same net result, but force the NCAA to waste time and money retracing the Freeh group’s steps.
B. The Freeh report isn’t made public
1. PSU gets accused of a cover up
2. The NCAA asks PSU to see the Freeh report because they know it exists.
3. Either Option A happens or the NCAA uses the Freeh report
C. The Freeh report is done secretly
1. Word leaks out about the report
2. See Options A and B
D. PSU never investigates itself
1. PSU is accused of a cover up
2. Bad news leaks out daily as the legal system investigates
3. The politicians are forced to get involved
4. The DOE gets upset about Clery Act violations
5. The NCAA investigates on top of using these governmental investigations
6. Everyone punishes PSU worse for not looking cooperative
LikeLike
The NCAA did what they did. Instead of whining about the Freeh report, Penn Staters need to find evidence that contradicts it. Sprinkled around the perhaps unnecessary editorializing in the Freeh report, is a significant amount of evidence and a chronology that speaks for itself. I hear a lot of what the Freeh report does not say that would convince Penn Staters to accept the penalties, but I do not hear much about evidence suggesting that the ultimate conclusions were incorrect.
But if PSU can come up with “newly discovered evidence” that exonerates it, the NCAA has the discretion to back off the penalties. See http://wp.me/p1WL5K-g2
And I suspect that there may be a push for leniency in a few years. Look at all the retroactive remorse over SMU.
LikeLike
The problem for PSU is that there aren’t facts that will contradict the report in most of the damning areas. People can try to offer a reasonable explanation for the facts, but the facts won’t change. That means PSU fans have to hope the defense of one or more of the administrators includes previously unknown facts (more emails, documents, photos, video, voicemails, etc) that tell a very different story. But if they had those, why wouldn’t they have used them already to avoid this mess?
LikeLike
I guess that’s my point though. If you don’t HAVE facts to refute the Freeh report, you are going nowhere. You can complain all you want about the NCAA, but I don’t see PSU being a sympathetic figure in challenging the NCAA. The B1G is largely appalled by Penn State’s conduct. Sure, FANS OF B1G teams are sympathetic, but fans don’t make decisions. Presidents do.
LikeLike
Plenty of B10 fans aren’t at all sympathetic. I promise many OSU fans remember PSU fans getting on their moral high horse over tattoogate and are enjoying the karmic result.
LikeLike
I agree with you in regards to the push for leniency. The NCAA enjoys flexing its political muscle but I think 2 years in they peal back the bowl ban and perhaps the scholarship reductions. 75 totals is much more “humane”. 65 is a program killer in my opinion.
It looks like PSU may be able to hold the key pieces to the 2013 class. That would be huge for the school. The 2014 recruiting class will have limited effects of the bowl ban. Especially if they redshirt.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I agree with you in regards to the push for leniency. The NCAA enjoys flexing its political muscle but I think 2 years in they peal back the bowl ban and perhaps the scholarship reductions. 75 totals is much more “humane”. 65 is a program killer in my opinion.
I disagree. The NCAA started off wanting a 4 year death penalty and got talked down to the current punishment. They’ll feel no sympathy or remorse unless new facts come out. Doing the math, 65 versus 75 makes little difference except in 2013. Attrition will drop them well under that unless you count walk-ons getting scholarships.
It looks like PSU may be able to hold the key pieces to the 2013 class. That would be huge for the school. The 2014 recruiting class will have limited effects of the bowl ban. Especially if they redshirt.
I disagree about the 2014 class. PSU can’t go to a bowl in 2013-2016, but they’ll be really bad in 2017. They may not reach a bowl again until 2019 if you follow the numbers. Even with a redshirt, the 2013 and 2014 classes probably will never see a bowl. The 2015 class will have to redshirt to see one. 2016 will have to wait for their 4th year. Unless PSU greatly exceeds expectation in the next few years, the 2017 class should be the transition year to it getting easier to recruit again.
The 2013 class will do OK because they’ve been building a relationship with PSU for a while. That said, it’s too early to know how many (if any) PSU will lose from what would have been the class. How many were still considering them before this mess and now won’t? How many will change their mind between now and February and sign elsewhere?
LikeLike
http://www.onefootdown.com/2012/7/25/3156643/those-who-stay-will-beat-some-solid-teams-bo-schmebechler-nearly
I found this interesting. A ND blogger does a factual breakdown of Bo Schembechler’s career at MI. He starts by saying Bo was a very good coach, then explains why he thinks he was overrated.
I linked this not because it attacks Bo (you could use many of the same arguments against Woody and others) but because I liked the level of detail and found it interesting. It also says a lot about B10 history.
LikeLike
B10 was awful in the ’70s and not much better in the ’80s. When Bo played tough games against OSU, ND or a bowl game; M did really poorly other than holding serve against Ohio. But they always beat who they should’ve; he won close to 77% of his games, regardless of his competition.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
“B10 was awful in the ’70s and not much better in the ’80s.”
It certainly lacked depth.
8+ win seasons:
IL – 83, 89
IN – 79, 87, 88
IA – 81-87
MSU – 78, 87, 89
PU – 69, 78-80
MN – none
NW – none
WI – none
Total of 19
Just for comparison:
MI – 69-83, 85-89 (all but 1984) = 20 total
OSU – 69-70, 72-77, 79-86, 89 (all but 1971, 1978, 1987-8) = 17 total
Bo was 11-8 against those other teams.
“When Bo played tough games against OSU, ND or a bowl game; M did really poorly other than holding serve against Ohio.”
He certainly had some John Cooper in him when it came to ND and bowl games.
“But they always beat who they should’ve; he won close to 77% of his games, regardless of his competition.”
And that’s an underrated skill. Jim Tressel was also great about avoiding upsets. If Pete Carroll could have avoided upsets, how many NC would he have won (even if they got vacated later)?
2003 – lost to Cal (would’ve been 12-0 and in NCG vs OU instead of )
2006 – lost to OrSU and UCLA (would’ve been 12-0 and in NCG vs OSU instead of UF)
2007 – lost to Stanford (would’ve been 11-1 and in NCG vs OSU instead of LSU)
2008 – lost to OrSU (would’ve been 12-0 and in NCG vs OU instead of UF)
Not only would USC have more titles, CFB would be a totally different world with the SEC not having such a dominant run and Urban Meyer not being such a star since he’d have no titles.
LikeLike
@Frank
You have to flip it to red occassionally to save room for the cuts that you really want. You can always flip back to green. Sounds like you didn’t have enough caparinhas while eating.
LikeLike
@bullet – Oh, I hear you. #baconwrappedfiletmignon
LikeLike
Exactly the thought going through my mind when I wrote that!
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8208925/penn-state-president-rodney-erickson-says-school-covered-lawsuits
Premiums are going up for customers of one insurance company I bet.
LikeLike
So…that’s why we got to see that random interview with Phelps in the middle of the Opening Ceremony?
Any thoughts on why NBC chose not to air that? I would think the U.S. would be one of the most sympathetic audiences…
LikeLike
I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course, I didn’t watch the opening ceremonies nor have I watched any NBC coverage of events (I prefer actual events to personal stories and false drama).
But I’ll guess NBC chose not to air “that” because they’re run by dumbasses, especially since Comcast bought them. Look at their average TV ratings for a week.
LikeLike
Sorry, was replying to Frank’s latest tweets. NBC chose to air a Phelps interview during the opening ceremony rather than showing a tribute to the British victims of terrorism that was actually shown.
LikeLike
@Ross – Yes, that was pretty ridiculous. NBC obviously thought the Opening Ceremonies were important enough that it’s the only event that they won’t even show live online, yet they cut a substantive portion out of it. So, it’s not even so much about the content of what they cut, but the fact that they cut anything at all as a sports/news organization. The wacky ode to the British health care system was exponentially more of a political hot button for Americans, yet that was kept in. NBC also didn’t truncate the parade of nations at all (which would be the one part of the ceremonies that could actually benefit from tape delay editing).
LikeLike
@Brian – The prime time NBC compilation is often filled with a lot of schlock. I do like the cable offerings, though. Bravo is dedicated to tennis while DirecTV has 2 separate channels dedicated to just basketball and soccer, all of which are pretty much straight game/match coverage. Between those channels and the ample coverage of beach volleyball on all of the channels, I’ve been able to avoid the sappy stories pretty well.
LikeLike
Agreed. I watch the other channels, just never NBC.
LikeLike
NBC just doesn’t understand sports. They buy these outlandish packages for enormous sums of money, then they don’t even air them properly. I think the leadership hates sports in general, which is odd considering how badly they could use it to fill the (huge) void in their lineup.
For the record, I’m not going to anoint them or their methods for their large ratings like everyone else; I think they’re riding on top of a huge wave from 2008’s stars and successes, and all the credit they recieve is undue.
LikeLike
While we’re on this subject, it seems that NBC is now business partners with twitter, who coincidentially banned Guy Adams, the Los Angeles bureau chief for the Independent and flag bearer for the anti-NBC Olympic coverage cause.
http://deadspin.com/5930153/nbcs-no-1-tweeting-critic-has-been-suspended-from-twitter
LikeLike
Well, it’s just hard to know what Comcast wants NBC to be right now given that the whole thing is in transition with NBC Sports recently “launched” and the top leadership changes.
As for the ratings, the Olympics always drive ratings and tape-delay is a necessity as far as garnering large primetime audiences. It’s not like most people have the time to watch/follow online, so whatever NBC stuffs into the 3 hour window is whatever most of middle America will follow.
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh @SportsBizMiss
As experts predicted, ESPN will pay $80m/year for the Champions Bowl per SBD this morning. Same money as Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/disney-cbs-pay-tv-pricing-popular-channels/#more-309603
Full study isn’t available online (at least I can’t find it), but this article details the winners and losers if cable went a la carte.
LikeLike
No surprise that Disney tops that list: they use the demand for ESPN to leverage everything.
LikeLike
Yeah, the real surprise is how much CBS would benefit (+454.2%).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8215649/safety-tim-buckley-becomes-first-player-transfer-penn-st
The first domino has fallen – a backup safety (RFr) has transferred to NCSU
LikeLike
That’s a “walk on” backup safety. According to College Football Live the first scholarship athlete is gone as well. They said that qb Rob Bolden is going to LSU. Rob was the 3rd string qb coming out of spring.
LikeLike
Bolden left PSU a little while ago I heard. I hadn’t heard that LSU was his official destination (I knew he was looking at LSU).
Redd is still considering USC, and he would be the biggest blow obviously. Any news on Sera?
LikeLike
Brian,
Yeah, Redd would be big. Khairi Fortt the linebacker would be a huge loss too. He’s said to be looking at UConn and Cal. There is a freshman running back, Akeel Lynch, that is still undecided and would be a big loss, especially if Redd leaves, considering the depth at RB.
I think you mean Fera, not Sera, and no I haven’t heard whether he’s headed to Texas or not. The only ones that are official that I know of are Buckley the walk on, Bolden and Ryan Nowicki (from Arizona) who is now at Illinois.
The mods are keeping a running list at http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=9169670
LikeLike
Thanks, and sorry for the typo.
LikeLike
Fortt is transferring to Cal.
LikeLike
I guess he wants one more shot at OSU.
LikeLike
http://blog.ctnews.com/overtime/2012/07/31/redd-transferring-to-usc/
Well, it’s official. Redd is gone to USC.
The backup RB is a question mark for PSU right now. Belton was a WR and ran the Wild Lion offense. Dukes is a big back who missed spring practice and may leave. Lynch is an incoming recruit who has considered switching to IA.
Anyone else we should keep an eye on at RB PSU fans?
LikeLike
Brian,
There’s a rs sophomore named Zach Zwinak that was a 3 or 4 * coming out of hs. That’s it for scholarship kids IINM.
LikeLike
That’s not good. You’ve got to think a recruit or two will join with Redd gone and all the PT available.
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/zwinak_zach00.html
Apparently Zwinak was a FB, but at 226 he can move back to RB. That doesn’t bode well for shiftiness in the hole or outside speed, though.
LikeLike
With Redd leaving I guess it is more likely that Curtis Dukes will stay. He has been rumored to be considering Syracuse. The freshman Akeel Lynch is also more likely to stay now. Here’s the latest update that I’ve seen:
Current Players with Mixed Reports
Justin Brown (considering Oklahoma)
Anthony Fera (considering Texas)
Brian Gaia (considering Rutgers)
Mike Hull (considering Pitt)
Akeel Lynch (considering Iowa)
Ryan Nowicki (Illinois/ASU)
Current Players Leaving
Tim Buckley (walk-on) – NC State
Rob Bolden – LSU
Khairi Fortt – Cal
Kevin Haplea – FSU
Jamil Pollard – Rutgers
Silas Redd- USC
LikeLike
joe4psu,
The numbers aren’t too bad all things considered, but there are some valuable players on that list unfortunately. I suppose it’s better to lose them all now than have them leave 1 every few weeks, though.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/54579/iowa-dismisses-deandre-johnson
Potentially bad news for PSU. IA kicked their best RB off the team, so they now have no experienced RB (top returning, healthy guys went 7/32 and 10/20 last year). Does this sway Lynch to switch to IA or does Redd leaving make Lynch stay?
And seriously, can any RB in the B10 avoid trouble?
IA – the usual litany of issues
WI – Ball attacked
MI – Fitz got busted
OSU – Hall’s freak injury and Dunn’s citations (he passed a drug test, though)
PU – Bolden arrested
LikeLike
Brian, I wouldn’t call Johnson the best RB on the team, but he was the oldest as a redshirt sophomore. There isn’t a best RB, Johnson had only a handful of career carries. Ferentz isn’t tolerating much of anything these days, and I can’t blame him. I don’t know how much this impacts Lynch’s decision, the RB race was already wide open. At this point, the candidates are a true sophomore with 19 career carries and two true freshman. Lynch would be in the mix right away, but that was true before Johnson got kicked off.
LikeLike
greg,
“Brian, I wouldn’t call Johnson the best RB on the team, but he was the oldest as a redshirt sophomore. There isn’t a best RB, Johnson had only a handful of career carries.”
He had more carries than the rest of the competing RB combined last year. Granted that isn’t saying much, but experience counts for something. Doesn’t him playing more mean he was better than them? Wasn’t he 2nd string to Coker before issues happened? He may have been only slightly better so IA was going to use a RB by committee anyway. I grant you that.
“I don’t know how much this impacts Lynch’s decision, the RB race was already wide open. At this point, the candidates are a true sophomore with 19 career carries and two true freshman. Lynch would be in the mix right away, but that was true before Johnson got kicked off.”
One less competitor for the spot ups his odds of starting, so it has to be a small factor. Redd leaving PSU should be a bigger factor.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8216470/sources-big-east-discusses-new-bowl-game-champion
BE wants to start a new bowl for their champ in FL. May I suggest they use the Gator Bowl instead? It’s a perfect match since the Gator used to be pretty important, but now is clearly second class and a shadow of its former self.
Also of note, apparently the BE wants to do a zipper alignment with a 6-1-1 schedule. I’m not too surprised about the zipper, but I am surprised they want to play only 8 games.
LikeLike
They probably want to play only 8 games for a few reasons:
(1) The Big East, more than the Big Five leagues, badly needs every opportunity to present its home fans (i.e., each team’s consumers) with strong non-conference home games because those games are likely to be the best ones on the schedule. (Think USF or UCF vs. FSU or Miami, or perhaps even Cincinnati vs. Ohio State at Paul Brown Stadium.) The Big East vs. Big East games, unfortunately, aren’t likely to be the most appealing home games. Take Louisville, for example. That school is capable of perfectly respectable-sized crowds, and I think that, with the right schedule, could expand Papa John’s to well past 50,000 and sell it out, but going beyond four Big East home games in a league where Boise and Cincinnati are the only consistent Top 25 programs just doesn’t help.
(2) The Big East also needs the best opportunity to have strong non-conference home games for TV purposes. Adding more Rutgers-vs.-SMU, UConn-vs.-Memphis, or even Boise-vs.-Louisville just doesn’t add as much value as more games like Boise-vs.-Oregon, UConn-vs.-ACC team, or Rutgers-vs.-Big Ten team.
(3) Four non-conference home games allows the chance (if done right) for a stronger strength of schedule for playoff & major bowl posturing. Granted, if it’s not done right, some teams’ schedules could be watered down with more Sun Belt, MAC, MW, C-USA, or 1-AA games, but I think the BE knows that it cannot get away with weak non-conference scheduling the way that the more powerful leagues can, even including the ACC.
(4) Other leagues’ reduction to three non-conference games limits the BE’s ability to get strong non-conference games as it is. Reducing non-conference opportunities from five down to three (instead of just four) would make it that much harder to get those good non-conference games.
(5) There’s just not the same kind of demand for more Big East games in that conference that there is in the older, more established leagues, nor is there the kind of commitment to create league unity via a round-robin (or at least closer to round-robin) schedule that there is the Big 12. Big Ten teams like playing Big Ten teams. Purdue, for example, wants to play the league’s kings as much as possible, but they even like the idea of playing more Minnesota or Northwestern. In the ACC, same story; plenty of Clemson fans, for example, wish they didn’t have to wait so many years not just to play Virginia Tech, but also Virgina, with whom they had a pretty decent history of tightly contested games. In the Big East, not so much.
LikeLike
All of that is true, but the only two big leagues that stayed at 8 did it for the reason that their biggest stadiums produce a lot more revenue.
The Big East is much more similar to the schools in the ACC (minus FSU), Big 12 (minus Texas/OU), and Pac-12 in not needing those home games.
And as mentioned by several Big East ADs, they’ve been paying a lot for the guarantee games against the weakest foes and those buy games aren’t getting cheaper.
So I’m not sure they stay at 8 if they don’t have to; it’s not like it’s going to be easy for them to get games against the Big Ten and SEC, and ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 schools aren’t going to have too much space for non-conference games…
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh – I also think that this was a critical concession to get Navy to join (who was arguably more important to the Big East for expansion than Boise State). Navy is locked-in with non-negotiable rivalries with Army, Air Force and Notre Dame. If Air Force doesn’t end up joining the Big East, Navy would end up with having no flexibility for non-conference games with a 9-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
Frank,
That’s possible, but does Navy hold enough value for the BE that the other teams would be held hostage by them? Perhaps this is a short term plan until AF can join, especially since the old BE schools are only used to 7 conference games.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
I agree with all of your points, but I think they are trumped by:
1. Smaller stadiums mean BE home games don’t pay that well
2. The BE TV deal doesn’t pay that well
3. Buying games is getting more and more expensive
4. Many AQs don’t want to play a home and home versus a BE school
Combining #1-3 means it probably doesn’t make financial sense to play 8. #4 means that 4th OOC game probably won’t be too exciting.
LikeLike
@Brian – Throwing some speculation I’ve heard out there: the new Marlins Park is who would want a new bowl.
LikeLike
Perhaps they want to fill some seats for a change.
I think baseball stadiums can make great sense for lower tier bowl games. Their capacity is much more in line with the crowd size than a football stadium. That presumes that a field will comfortably fit within the walls unlike Wrigley, of course.
LikeLike
Frank,
I saw your tweet about the BE over-thinking things by doing a zipper. I’m not sure I agree.
1. Everybody wanted access to FL (and TX to a lesser extent)
2. A geographic split puts all the travel on a few teams. Why shouldn’t everyone share that burden equally?
3. They want to grow their brand nationally. By zippering, they get more E/W games and that can open more TV windows for them.
4. A geographic split would have put at least 4 new members in the west (SDSU, BSU, SMU, UH), making it hard for them to feel like a part of the group.
East – UConn, RU, Temple, UC, USF, UCF
West – SDSU, BSU, SMU, UH, Memphis, UL
5. Navy probably wanted to play in CA, TX and FL
I’m not saying a zipper is for sure the best plan, but that doesn’t mean is doesn’t make some sense.
LikeLike
@Brian – I just think that the Big East’s biggest challenge is how dispersed it is geographically and having an east/west alignment would alleviate a lot of those concerns. At the same time, the main market value argument that they have to offer is a concentration of schools within the Northeast, but those schools will likely have to be separated at some level if they want a zipper format.
A lot of the zipper format discussion is probably driven by Louisville, who I’ve been told will vehemently fight against being in a western division that’s separated from the legacy Big East members. I certainly understand it from their own school’s perspective, but I think the Big East badly needs to keep some semblance of geography with their divisions.
LikeLike
I think the Big East badly needs to keep some semblance of geography with their divisions.
Why? If it doesn’t matter for membership then why should it matter divisional alignment? The Big East’s membership is so fluid that they don’t have to worry about branding issues (think Atlantic and Coastal) since no one is going to know who is in which division anyways.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I just think that the Big East’s biggest challenge is how dispersed it is geographically”
I’d say the lack of quality football programs is their biggest challenge, but the geography is also a major concern.
“and having an east/west alignment would alleviate a lot of those concerns.”
Would it? The problem is the split:
West – SDSU, BSU, UH, SMU, AF (maybe)
Northeast – UConn, RU, Temple, Navy (2015)
FL – UCF, USF
Middle – UC, UL, Memphis
The numbers say the middle 3 should maintain their old Metro Conference ties and go with the NE schools and while the FL school join the west. However, the NE schools want the FL access and that division would be all newbies plus USF.
“At the same time, the main market value argument that they have to offer is a concentration of schools within the Northeast,”
In hoops, yes, but they aren’t even a plurality of the FB conference and FB has more value generally. Despite the name, I don’t think they should focus on the NE, especially since that region doesn’t like CFB as much as other areas..
“but those schools will likely have to be separated at some level if they want a zipper format.”
Yes. But that also gives them access to better recruiting grounds. It’s not like the remaining BE schools in the NE have any rivalries to speak of, but they can preserve some of those games via locking a crossover opponent.
“A lot of the zipper format discussion is probably driven by Louisville, who I’ve been told will vehemently fight against being in a western division that’s separated from the legacy Big East members. I certainly understand it from their own school’s perspective, but I think the Big East badly needs to keep some semblance of geography with their divisions.”
They can do geography without splitting UL from the NE. The cost is aggravating USF instead and putting all the good recruiting states in one division:
A – UConn, RU, Temple, UL, UC, Memphis, eventually Navy
B – SDSU, BSU, UH, SMU, UCF, USF, maybe AF
A zipper may make more sense to balance their various interests, though.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline)
A few remain skeptical of Boise State and San Diego State every playing a fball game as members of the Big East
But majority believe that, when all is said and done, Boise State will buy its way into the Big West
Big West schools need the revenue and Boise would subsidize travel in exchange for admittance
That, in turn, allows BSU to leave fball in Big East for time being.
If Big West deal falls apart for Boise, then all bets are off re: BSU and SDSU in Big East
They’d go back to MWC, which would split into 2 divisions and have title game
Also heard, per source: NBC a likely partner for Big East (fball component) while ESPN would remain bball partner
LikeLike
NBC makes a world of sense for the Big East football situation.
NBC Sports needs cheap football content and the Big East will have a lot of that (at the highest level of quality outside of the Big 5).
LikeLike
And they’ll be bad enough to make ND look good by comparison, adding value to that deal. Certainly having more than just ND is helpful for cross-promotion and developing on-air talent.
LikeLike
Ugh: http://www.lostlettermen.com/penn-state-uniform-change-a-huge-mistake/
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised to see small changes to the base uniform, though. Names on the jerseys, maybe some stripes, that sort of thing. If PSU is lucky, they just get subjected to the Pro Combat treatment once a year like other powers lately. If not, they could get duckified.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8222969/purple-heart-recipient-daniel-rodriguez-cleared-join-clemson-tigers
Here’s an NCAA decision we can all support. They cleared an Army vet who earned the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart to play at Clemson.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8222521/lawyer-says-jerry-sandusky-upset-penn-state-nittany-lions-sanctions
Two tidbits:
1. Jerry Sandusky is upset about the PSU sanctions.
2. George Mitchell was named the Athletics Integrity Monitor at PSU. As long as players aren’t juicing, they should be OK.
LikeLike
Jake, Alan, bullet, etc,
How excited are TCU fans about getting the UT game on Thanksgiving? What about UT fans? Will the rivalry return, or only one-sided?
LikeLike
I wonder if the Big 12’s Thanksgiving weekend games, traditionally the weekend with the most rivalry games played, will align in a way that capitalizes on natural rivalries a little more, at least from this outsider’s perspective. TCU-Texas certainly could be a good rivalry in its own right, but short of the A&M game returning to Thanksgiving weekend, Texas Tech seems like the next best thing for a Thanksgiving rivalry for the Longhorns. Because they never split up after the SWC dissolved, there’s just a lot more recent history between UT and TT. They’re both public universities. Baylor-TCU makes a lot of sense, too, especially since, unlike TCU-UT, there haven’t been as many breaks in that rivalry since the SWC broke up.
While I’m at it, Kansas-West Virginia over Thanksgiving weekend makes no sense. Clearly, this season WVU was just taking over Missouri’s schedule, but in 2013 forward, things can and should change.
Shouldn’t the Thanksgiving weekend games for the Big 12 should go one of two ways? The first would be all Big 12-vs.-Big 12 rivalries. The other way feature some Big 12-vs.-Big 12 games, with others featuring Big 12 teams against historic rivals that simply belong at the end of the season.
So, I’m thinking the matchups should be either these:
1) UT vs. Tech
2) Baylor vs. TCU
3) OU vs. OSU
4) KU vs. KSU
5) ISU vs. WVU
or
1) UT vs. TAMU
2) OU vs. OSU
3) K-State vs. Iowa State
4) KU vs. Mizzou
5) WVU vs. Pitt
6) Baylor-TCU-Tech*
*Two of these teams would play Thanksgiving weekend, with the third one not playing. Then, on CCG weekend, the third would play one of the teams that played over Thanksgiving weekend, while the other would either have CCG weekend off or play another Big 12 team, most likely UT.
LikeLike
I think they would be better off making Bedlam an annual season closer. Last year the conference intentionally scheduled it for the week after Thanksgiving so they would have a “premier game” to go against the other conferences’ CCGs and I think they will regret not doing so again.
LikeLike
I agree the season ending games are important here now too. I’d leave at least one or two bigger games that last week, but they don’t necessarily have to be rivalries.
LikeLike
TCU fans couldn’t be happier. If the game sticks at Thanksgiving it will instantly become their biggest annual game.
As for UT? Well they like playing on Thanksgiving and it gives them something to rub in the Aggies face, but it will never be what The Lone Star Showdown was.
LikeLike
Not sure that UT will be able to rub anything in A&M’s face, seeing as how A&M ended up replacing the annual Thanksgiving UT game with LSU. A&M 1, UT 0
LikeLike
#2 – that’s not a done deal – just rumors at this point. LSU/A&M and Arky/Mizzou make sense, but Arky hasn’t signed off. If LSU/A&M at the end of the season actually happens, I doubt you’ll ever see a Thanksgiving night game in Tiger Stadium. Also, I think college football will lose Thanksgiving night to the NFL, since the NFL Network is now televising games in that slot. Maybe the SEC should offer LSU/A&M to CBS in a Friday night slot. I could go for that..
LikeLike
LSU and A&M want it to happen though, so it is just a matter of time. Also it needs to happen for scheduling purposes since Mizzou also needs a year-end game since A&M is no longer their permanent rival and the KU rivalry is over.
LikeLike
I doubt LSU-A&M actually ends up on Thanksgiving night. Black Friday maybe, but not Thursday.
LikeLike
My guess is that it ends up rotating some. TCU, Texas Tech, and maybe Baylor will rotate into the Thanksgiving spot vs. Texas for 2 game stretches. For the first 2 years, TCU makes the most sense as they the new one coming in with a lot of attention. The other two can play each other that weekend too.
LikeLike
Brian – TCU is very happy to be sitting at the gown-up table again. Is TCU excited about the UTx game? In June I was on campus and the bookstore already had TCU/UTx game day t-shirts for sale.
TCU should start out 7-0, but their final stretch is at OK State, at West VA, v. K-State, open, at Texas, and v. Oklahoma. Since LSU has an open date, I’ll try to make the trip to Stillwater.
LikeLike
USAToday Coaches Poll is out. LSU Fightin’ Tigers are #1.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
Ranked teams by conference:
SEC (7) – #1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #6 Georgia, #9 South Carolina, #10 Arkansas, #23 Florida & #25 Auburn.
Big XII (6) – #4 Oklahoma, #11 West Virginia, #15 Texas, #17 TCU, #19, Oklahoma State & #21 K-State.
B1G (4) – #8 Michigan, #12 Wisconsin, #13 Michigan State & #16 Nebraska.
Pac-12 (3) – #3 USC, #5 Oregon & #18 Stanford.
ACC (3) – #7 Florida State, #14 Clemson & #20 VA Tech.
MWC – #22 Boise State
Ind – #24 Notre Dame
LikeLike
Notes for the B10:
1. MI is overrated here. They rode an easy schedule and a lot of luck to an 11 win season.
2. MSU fans are presumably irate as they are ranked behind MI despite beating them yet again.
3. OSU would be ranked but they can’t be in the coaches poll due to sanctions.
LikeLike
Responsive Notes for the B10:
1. Wrong.
2. No one cares about MSU.
3. Who cares.
LikeLike
“1. Wrong.”
Really? Let’s examine the parts of what I said:
A. MI was lucky on the way to winning 11 games
All the undefended arm punts to beat ND. The same in the bowl game plus the call going against VT on the catch. OSU not connecting on that late pass. That’s 3 wins that needed luck, With average luck, they lose at least 1 of those and don’t win 11 games.
I stand by MI being lucky last year to get 11 wins.
B. The 2011 schedule was easy
2011 OOC – ND, WMU, EMU, SDSU
2012 OOC – AL, @ND, AF, UMass
The AL game is much harder than anything MI played in 2011, the ND game is harder because it’s on the road, and AF is a tougher game due to their style than SDSU or the MAC schools were.
2011 B10 – @NW, @IL, @IA, @MSU, MN, PU, a bad OSU, NE (Bold = loss)
2012 B10 – IL, NW, IA, MSU, @MN, @PU, @NE, @ an improved OSU
The IL, NW, MN and PU games are a wash. MSU is easier at home, but @NE and @ a much improved OSU makes the 2012 slate harder. MI didn’t play a single BCS bowl team until their bowl game in 2011, and really only 2 quality teams (MSU – loss, NE – win).
So, the OOC schedule is much harder and the B10 schedule is also harder, meaning the schedule is harder. The teams on the 2011 slate added up to a whole lot of meh plus NE and MSU.
I stand by MI playing an easy schedule last year to get 11 wins.
C. MI is overrated at 8
This partially depends on how you look at preseason polls. Is it how good a team is, or a prediction of where they will finish?
As for team quality, MI lost a lot on the DL from last year and they aren’t deep there. They also lost some OL that will be hard to replace.
As for a predicted finish, this team faces a much harder schedule. They could be better than last year’s team and still go 9-3 or 8-4.
I see MI as more of a 11-15 type of team much like WI, MSU and NE.
“2. No one cares about MSU.”
I noted it because it’s humorous to me how worked up some of their fans get over perceived slights like this.
“3. Who cares.”
People who want to evaluate how many teams from each conference are ranked as a measure of conference strength should consider quality teams that aren’t ranked for outside reasons. A fair evaluation of the P12 last year considered USC, and a a B10 evaluation should consider OSU (based on all the other polls they’d make the top 25 if the coaches could vote for them).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions
Double whammy for MSU fans – Jerry Palm’s bowl predictions are out.
NCG – LSU vs USC
Rose – MI vs OR
Fiesta – WI vs OU
Orange – BSU vs FSU
Cap 1 – MSU vs GA (again)
That’s 3 MSU opponents in the BCS, but not MSU. Ouch.
Other B10 bowls:
Outback – NE vs FL
Gator – IA vs MS St
BWW (was Insight) – IL vs TCU
TC – PU vs Toledo
MCC of Texas – NW vs Baylor
Pizza – no eligible team
Staying at home – OSU, PSU, MN, IN
LikeLike
Preseason ranked teams on each schedule:
1. LSU – 5
2. AL – 4
3. USC – 3
4. OU – 6
5. OR – 2
6. GA – 3
7. FSU – 3
8. MI – 4
9. SC – 5
10. AR – 4
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-07-30/college-football-preseason-top-25-rankings-sporting-news-lsu-alabama-usc?eadid=EL/SICOM&sct=cf_t11_a3
For comparison, here is the SN top 25.
LSU
USC
AL
OU
VT
KSU
FSU
MI
SC
TX
OR
WI
MSU
GA
Clemson
ND
NE
AR
UW
Utah
GT
OSU
UC
WV
FL
LikeLike
Not that they have been any good for the last two years, but I wonder if over time perception of the Big East will change slightly as their rankings improve by getting more votes in the coaches poll. Right now there are seven conferences that have from 5-7 votes in that poll, while the Big East only has 4.
LikeLike
Phil,
The problem is the BE is losing their best programs. Adding Boise will help, but who else in the BE would deserve votes in most years?
LikeLike
Teams leaving will create opportunities for other teams to move up, just as Rutgers, Cincinnati, Louisville and USF did at times after the first ACC raid. The odds are in a 12 team conference there will be teams besides Boise that make runs.
LikeLike
Phil,
That assumes the BE football will maintain a constant quality. Those other teams won’t necessarily improve just because the better teams leave. They may win more, but it takes a better record in a weak conference to get ranked so I think that’s a wash. They need programs to improve, and I’m not sure how a small TV deal and teams leaving helps them build better programs.
LikeLike
As a change of pace, here are some Olympic stats as we are nearing the transition from water sports to track and field:
Medal count top 10:
1. USA 37 (13.0% of all medals so far)
2. China 34 (11.9%)
3. Japan 19 (6.7%)
4. Germany 17
5. Russia 17
6. France 16
7. UK 15
8. S Korea 14
9. Italy 11
10. Australia 11
11. Canada 7
Almost 25% of all medals so far have been won by 2 countries, and nobody else is close to a double digit percentage of the total. Only the top ten countries have reached double digits in medals.
Medal points (using a 3/2/1 system):
1. USA 82 (14.7% of all points so far)
2. China 81 (14.5%)
3. Germany 33 (5.9%)
4. France 32
5. UK 31
6. S Korea 30
7. Japan 29
8. Russia 29
9. Italy 24
10. Australia 20
11. N Korea 13
The gap is even wider when you scale by points. The USA and China have over a quarter of all the points so far and almost 3 times as many as 3rd place (double in medal count). The top 15 all are in double digits, but only 2 countries will make triple digits.
Oddities:
Kazakhstan and South Africa both have 3 golds and no other medals, the best record of any nation. The only other perfect records are 3 countries with 1 gold each. Next best is North Korea with 4 golds in 5 medals.
Conversely, Canada has 7 medals but no gold. Mexico is runner up at 0-4.
The 8 nations with exactly 2 medals have combined to win only 1 gold.
The USA and China each have almost 20% of all the gold medals. Nobody else is near 10%.
LikeLike
I know we were having Title IX debates earlier; this is probably one area where it helps (if you care about this sort of thing).
Track and field is really going to show how much stronger the US women are than the rest of the world, but the US has a much deeper pool of female athletes to draw from given how much the pool has expanded in part due to Title IX.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8228544/ncaa-new-bowl-game-tiebreakers-include-fcs-wins-5-7-teams
Ugh. New bowl selection rules. If there are not enough bowl eligible teams, there’s a new 6 tier procedure to pick the filler teams:
1. 6-6 teams with a win against any FCS opponent (normally they have to use all 63 scholarships to count)
2. 6-6 teams with 2 FCS wins
3. 6-7 teams that lost a CCG
4. 6-7 teams that played 13 regular season games (HI and their home opponents)
5. FCS teams transitioning to FBS
6. 5-7 teams with a top 5 APR
What amused me was this quote:
“For me, personally, I’d be disappointed with that,” Indiana center Will Matte said. “I think teams earn the right to go to bowl game, and I think that (getting in at 5-7) cheapens that a little bit.”
Really? 6-6 with a horrible OOC schedule like IN plays doesn’t cheapen it, but 5-7 would?
Here were the latest APR scores:
1 Northwestern University: 995
2 Boise State University 989
2 Duke University 989
4 Ohio State University 988
5 University of Northern Illinois 987
I’m guessing NW and Duke are the most likely to use that rule based on being top 5 most often and being borderline in terms of success. The top 5 was similar in 2011, with RU in and Boise out (#7). In 2010, replace OSU and NIU with Rice and AF. In 2009, Stanford replaces NW.
LikeLike