I Once Got Busy in a Burger King Bathroom: B1G Orange Bowl News, BlogPoll Ballot, Parlay Picks and Classic Music Video of the Week

Posted: September 14, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, Chicago Bears, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, NFL Football, Sports
Tags: , , , , ,

Between the Bears and Illini, the respective quarterbacks of my teams have thrown a total of 8 interceptions over the past 6 days.  I’m not in a state of mind to make jokes about this right now, so let’s move on:

(1) Orange Bowl Tie-ins with Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame – Lost in the shuffle of Wednesday’s massive news of Notre Dame joining the ACC as a partial member was this quote from Jack Swarbrick:

That’s a pretty significant development in the otherwise trickle of substantive news regarding the new postseason system since the powers that be agreed upon a playoff format.  The new ACC/Notre Dame partnership reportedly allows for Notre Dame to take an ACC tie-in for bowls other than the Orange Bowl (provided that Notre Dame is within 1 win of the ACC team that it’s replacing).  The Orange Bowl itself, though, is an ironclad tie-in for the ACC with the opponent now apparently coming from a pool of Notre Dame, the Big Ten and SEC.  Seeing that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and SEC commissioner Mike Slive are far from shrinking violets, I’d expect them to be negotiating the following parameters:

(a) The Rose, Champions and Orange Bowls will rotate semifinals in a manner where none of them will ever host the semis in the same year. (This is likely more of a demand from ESPN than from the conferences.)

(b) When the Rose Bowl is hosting a semifinal, Big Ten #1* goes to the Orange Bowl.

(c) When the Champions Bowl is hosting a semifinal, SEC #1 goes to the Orange Bowl.

(d) If Notre Dame is ranked higher than Big Ten #1 or SEC #1, as applicable, then the Irish go to Orange Bowl instead, except that Notre Dame may only replace each of the Big Ten and SEC once in a 6-year cycle.

(* This should go without saying, but the #1 pick means the top selection from the conference that isn’t playing in the semifinals.)

The upshot of this would be that ACC #1 will be playing either Big Ten #1, SEC #1 or a highly-ranked Notre Dame team in the Orange Bowl in any given year, which will likely yield a media rights payout for the ACC that will be in line with what the Big Ten and Pac-12 are receiving for the Rose Bowl and the SEC and Big 12 are receiving for the Champions Bowl.  Thus, any chicken little beliefs that the ACC is going to end up playing subpar opponents in the Orange Bowl are going to go by the wayside.  For the other side of the Orange Bowl, in a 6-year cycle, Notre Dame would be capped at 2 appearances while both the Big Ten and SEC are guaranteed 1 invite each under this arrangement.  This would meet Notre Dame’s goal of having a strong relationship with a top bowl while having the flexibility to go to other “Access Bowls”.  In the meantime, the Big Ten and SEC effectively have backup tie-ins for their #1 selections, which means that those conferences are going to be swimming like Scrooge McDuck in a vault full of new postseason money.  If the above scenario occurs, this is looking like a great deal for everyone involved.

(2) BlogPoll Ballot

Nothing too crazy here except that I dropped Nebraska, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Oklahoma State like bad habits.  Last week was pretty ugly for the Big Ten.  The conference is going to need Michigan State to come through against Notre Dame.  Speaking of which…

(3) College Football Parlay Picks (odds from Yahoo! and home teams in CAPS)

MICHIGAN STATE (-6) over Notre Dame – Michigan State along with bowl ineligible Ohio State are probably the only 2 Big Ten teams worthy of cracking the top 10 in the rankings this year based on the early returns.  Weird stuff typically happens in favor of Sparty whenever they play the Irish in a home night game.

MISSOURI (-4) over Arizona State – Arizona State rolled up a lot of points last week, but let’s face it, that was against an Illinois team without a functioning quarterback.

BYU (-3.5) over UTAH – I’m sure Utah is going to be pretty focused for this rivalry game after last week’s debacle, but I don’t think it will be enough.

(4) NFL Parlay Picks (odds from Yahoo! and home teams in CAPS)

PACKERS (-150 total yards) over Bears – GAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!

Raiders (-1) over DOLPHINS – The ’72 Dolphins might have to pop champagne for Miami’s first win this season.

SEAHAWKS (+3) over Cowboys – Coming off of a huge division win, this is exactly the type of game that Tony Romo loses.

Ravens (+1) over EAGLES – I know that you can’t take too much away from the first week of the season (as evidenced by the Bears and Packers), but I have a hard time passing up taking points with Baltimore.

(5) Classic Music Video of the Week: “The Humpty Dance” by Digital Underground

All that I’ll say about this song is that I know these lyrics as well as I know the Pledge of Allegiance:

Enjoy the weekend!

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

About these ads
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Minnesota -2.5 over Western Michigan.

    Like

  2. Penn State Danny says:

    So, is it safe to assume that one semi will always be NYE night and that the other one will be on New Year’s Day at the locked time of the bowl? (1:00 for the Orange, 5:00 for the Rose and 8:00 for the Champion)

    Like

  3. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Frank – not having a “functioning QB” didn’t stop my Tigers from winning 40 games over the last 4 seasons with the likes of Andrew Hatch, Jordan Jefferson, and Jarrett Lee under center.

    Also, scuttlebutt regarding the Champions Bowl: Houston is rumored to have the high bid, but they aren’t assured of getting the game. From what I’m hearing down here, Houston may beat out Atlanta and Orlando for the last access bowl spot.

    Like

    • Andy says:

      who does the scuttlebutt think will end up getting it? Sugar or Cotton?

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Andy – I don’t know. The decision on the location of the Champions Bowl is supposed to be made in the next few weeks. GEAUX NOLA!

        Like

    • bullet says:

      But they didn’t turn it over 4 or 5 times a game. Texas 2010 with Garret Gilbert. Texas outgained 9 of 12 opponents that year and went 5-7 because they were something like 119th in turnover margin. Nearly as bad every other game with David Ash last year and then the Baylor game with Case McCoy (who didn’t throw an interception all year until 4 in the final game). I’m hoping Ash (who’s the starter again) has developed better judgement. We’ll start finding out this week.

      Like

  4. Denogginizer says:

    Add

    Like

  5. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    This morning I mentioned in another thread that Louisiana has the most football talent per capita, and an article is published this afternoon on the same topic.

    http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2012/09/louisiana_ranks_no_1_in_nfl_pl.html

    While LA is the #1 state per capita for NFL roster spots, here are the raw number rankings:

    1. California (207)
    2. Texas (200)
    3. Florida (189)
    4. Georgia (92)
    5. Ohio (81)
    6. Louisiana (61)

    Like

  6. [...] Frank the Tank is FAR more optimistic that the Orange Bowl opponent will be a high-quality SEC or B1G opponent, [...]

    Like

  7. Andy says:

    What happens to the ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 #1s on the years that their tie-in bowls are hosting a semifinal? Will they get backup tie-ins like the SEC and B1G got? Maybe in the Fiesta and whichever of the Sugar/Cotton doesn’t get the champions bowl?

    Like

    • jbcwv says:

      In that vein, this would seem to do away with “backup bowls” that had been discussed before. My understanding had been that when the Rose was hosting, that both the B1G and Pac 12 #1s would go to the same access bowl. Same with Champions bowl. Seemingly, that is not the case. I can’t imagine that any of the conferences would accept the loss of a top berth of some sort (this includes situations when the Rose is hosting the semifinal but ND is ranked higher than the B1G champ). Seems like there’s got to be more encroachment by the Big 5 conferences on the access bowls before all is said and done.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        jbcwv,

        “In that vein, this would seem to do away with “backup bowls” that had been discussed before. My understanding had been that when the Rose was hosting, that both the B1G and Pac 12 #1s would go to the same access bowl. Same with Champions bowl. Seemingly, that is not the case.”

        Nope. I asked this specific question of Stewart Mandel after he talked with TPTB. The champs are still guaranteed a spot, but the match-ups won’t necessarily be preserved. I’d think it makes financial sense to preserve the match-up if both teams don’t make the semis.

        “I can’t imagine that any of the conferences would accept the loss of a top berth of some sort (this includes situations when the Rose is hosting the semifinal but ND is ranked higher than the B1G champ). Seems like there’s got to be more encroachment by the Big 5 conferences on the access bowls before all is said and done.”

        The 5 champs are promised a spot no matter what. Only the location can change. The big 5 will also tend to fill the at-large spots, of course, and those bowls should be more geographic.

        Like

        • jbcwv says:

          So, to clarify, the #1s are guaranteed a spot in an access bowl, but the matchup would be against some other at-large?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Yep. It may work out that the match-up is preserved sometimes, but they don’t have to do that. It will depend on who the at larges are.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Andy,

      “What happens to the ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 #1s on the years that their tie-in bowls are hosting a semifinal?”

      They play in an access bowl.

      “Will they get backup tie-ins like the SEC and B1G got? Maybe in the Fiesta and whichever of the Sugar/Cotton doesn’t get the champions bowl?”

      No. Unless they change things, only the three contract bowls can have tie-ins. The other 3 are open to take up to 4 teams dislocated by the semis plus 2 at larges.

      Like

  8. bamatab says:

    RTR!

    Like

  9. frug says:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsbyusports/54883871-65/byu-dame-notre-football.html.csp

    BYU’s announcement regarding ND to the ACC;

    “Like most universities, BYU continues to monitor the ever-changing landscape of college athletics, including today’s announcement by Notre Dame. BYU is pleased with its status as an independent football program.”

    Nothing surprising, but the paper’s BYU beat writer believes Notre Dame may attempt to cancel the last four games of the schools’ six game series and BYU’s statement wasn’t exactly reassuring.

    Like

  10. Andy says:

    Missouri’s QB James Franklin out for the Arizona State game with a hurt elbow. Burst a sac in the elbow late in the game vs. Georgia and it’s very swollen. He’s expected to be out 1-2 weeks.

    Mizzou had a 17-9 lead late in the 3rd quarter, but was outscored 32-3 down the stretch, with Franklin committing several turnovers. Looks like they should have pulled him from the game after he got hurt.

    The backup Corbin Berkstresser is supposed to be pretty good. I guess we’ll see how he does over the next week or two.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I understand 5 of your top 10 lineman are out as well. Not clear how many got hurt in the UGA game.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        We already had 4 out before the GA game and lost another one. One is expected back in the next week or two and another one is out for 3-4 weeks, but three seem to be out for the season. Hard to withstand that many casualties. It will be a real test tomorrow night against the sun devils.

        Like

  11. Peder Rice says:

    Go Big Red! I’d love to see us back in the Orange Bowl against Miami someday.

    Like

  12. duffman says:

    Alan,

    Looks like that TCU home and home just went to a single game in JerryWorld

    Would the Tigers try for a return game in Chick-Fil-A?

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Distance between TCU and Jerry World is tiny compared to the distance between LSU and the Georgia Dome. As a return “neutral” site game, shouldn’t it be in New Orleans?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Too bad for TCU. I’m sure they would have loved to host LSU in their newly expanded stadium. Getting the spotlight game is nice, though.

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        duff, MiR & Brian – I was really looking forward to the home and home with TCU, especially since my daughter is a TCU freshman. She was really looking forward to having all of her TCU friends making the road-trip to Baton Rouge. The Cowboys Classic will be a lot of fun, though. I would expect more LSU fans at the game. The Cowboys season ticket holders, if they attend, will probably be for the ‘Frogs, though.

        Bigger picture, look for the SEC to go to a 9 game schedule in 2014 to coincide with the kick-off of the SEC/ESPN network. 2014 is when ESPN gets back the FSN and CSS SEC games they farmed out. With the FSN, CSS, and the 9th game, that should be enough inventory for the new network, and preserve the syndicated SEC game, as well as the third-tier PPV game.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Alan,

          Do you have unnamed sources for the SEC going to 9 games or is it just an opinion? I’d like to see it for a bunch of reasons.

          1. SEC teams miss too many teams from the other division to have balanced schedules. UGA missing all the top teams from the west is just silly, for example. The schedule shouldn’t determine the champ.

          2. Maybe the SEC champ won’t go undefeated for once. For all the depth, it seems odd how often their teams have a perfect SEC record.

          3. The B10 would, hopefully, feel pressured to match everyone else at 9 games. It probably wouldn’t start until the new TV deal in 2017, but that’s OK.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Brian – I’m hearing the 9 game SEC schedule in 2014 from multiple folks close to the LSU Athletic Department & the Tiger Athletic Foundation, and the the LSU Rivals site behind their paywall. Their reporter, Bryan Lazarre, is a pretty reputable Vandy grad. Unlike many of the other Rivals reporters on other sites, he deals with LSU at arm’s length and doesn’t report anything without multiple sources.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Alan,

            How do the LSU fans feel about it? The coaches certainly want nothing to do with a 9th game, and many fans I’ve seen side with them.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian
            There was an article talking about the SEC network a while back where it was mentioned as being considered strongly.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Brian – initially the fans’ knee jerk reaction was against the 9 game schedule. Now, I think most are coming around to the idea.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            I know the idea is out there. I was just curious if Alan was hearing this from people in the know or just the standard sources.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          Well, I expect TCU to be able to bring at least 50K (if they can get tickets). Stadium will probably be half-half.

          As for the 9th conference game, that would preclude UGa, UF, and SC from ever playing an OOC away game (and likely neutral site games) again other than with their in-state ACC rival. Not a concern for UF since they pretty much never did anyway. UGa did play in neutral site games (and they have a big one in their bad yard). SC might be OK with 6 home games one season if a neutral site game paid well enough.

          Saban won’t be able to schedule a neutral site game every season. LSU could still play 1 quality OOC opponent each year.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            UGA is changing their scheduling philosophy anyway. The new AD from UF sees no need for road OOC games ever. As their current contracts run out, look for them to stick to playing GT and buy games. Maybe a rare neutral site game, but they already play one of those every year.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            Brian – Not all of the coaches are against a 9 game SEC schedule. Saban has been pretty outspoken on several occassions that a 9 game schedule is best for the SEC since we went to 14 teams. With that said though, the majority of the SEC coaches were against it at the last SEC meetings. The coaches at the schools that aren’t normally in contention for the SEC/BCS championships usually need the extra patsy home game to help them become bowl eligible. Plus UF, UGA, USCe, & UK already have a tough non-conference cross-state opponent that they play every year, so it would mean that they would probably never play another decent OOC game again (not that UF has been to anyways).

            Richard – I wouldn’t necessarily writeoff a neutral site game for Bama even in years where we have 5 home conference games. Saban seems to love openning the season with the neutral site bowl-esque game. We normally make a pretty good bit of money off of it also (maybe not as much as a home game, but close enough to justify it). And trust me, if Saban says he wants to do it, no one in Tuscaloosa will fight him on it. Bama would just have to live with a 6 home games/5 away games/1 neutral site game schedule.

            Here is an interesting article about the prospect of a 9 game SEC schedule by Barnhart: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19616796/saban-makes-it-clear-nine-games-is-best-for-sec-but-not-everybody-agrees

            In the article Slive hints that part of the playoff selection criteria will probably strength of schedule, and has started using that to soften up some of the internal resistance. Another factor that this article doesn’t mention, but Alan did, is the upcoming SEC Network. While Slive is probably using the strength of schedule line with the ADs, I’m betting his underlying reason is for more content for the network. I’m with Alan in believing that by 2014, the SEC will go to a 9 game schedule.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bamatab,

            True enough, Saban has always been willing to go to 9 and I’ve given him credit for that before. But the coaches vote was overwhelmingly against going to 9 as you noted. It seemed a reasonable generalization to say the coaches were against it.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            I think the defining moment will be the OOC part of the equation in 8 + 1 or 9

            If ratings are good for the cross conference rival and marquee games then the 8 + 1 will stay in place. I can not see South Carolina + Florida + Georgia + Kentucky playing 9 conference and keeping the high profile OOC games. Money will make this decision in the end.

            I see ESPN moving for more ACC vs SEC games and both teams staying at 8 + 1 because it probably means more money for them.

            Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Brian – I’ll be attending the TCU/UVA game next week at the new TCU stadium and will file a report with FTT. Its TCU’s family weekend. I’m thankful that the TCU game is at 11am, and the LSU/Auburn game is at 6pm.

        I’ll also be attending the TCU/Oklahoma game later this season. Sorority Dad’s weekend, but its the same day as the SEC CCG. The things you do for your kids.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Alan,

          That should be an important game for OU if things hold to form. Those are always fun to watch.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            Alan,

            Being a dad has all kinds of upsides and time with the daughter beats anything you can tape :)

            What house did she go with and how big is the greek system at TCU?

            Like

  13. duffman says:

    jj,

    Sparty on man, as I picked you guys to beat the Irish.

    Like

  14. Brian says:

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828a004e/article/which-college-football-program-produces-most-nfl-talent

    I saw this linked elsewhere. It looks at which schools and conferences the NFL talent comes from over the past 5, 10 and 20 years (through the 2011 draft). No real surprises, just a bunch of interesting numbers compiled in one place.

    Past 20 years
    By school:
    1. OSU 117
    2. USC 111
    3. TN 109
    4. FL 106
    5. NE 103
    6. ND 96
    7. GA 94
    8. PSU 90
    9. MI 86
    10. AL 81
    10. OU 81

    By 2011 conference affiliation:
    SEC 576 (ave = 48/team)
    B10 396 (33)
    P12 250 (20.8)
    ACC 186 (15.5)
    B12 224 (22.4)

    Past 10 years by school
    1. USC 69
    2. OSU 66
    3. GA 57
    4. LSU 56
    5. FL 54

    Past 5 years by school
    1. USC 42
    2. LSU 30
    3. OSU 27
    3. FL 27
    5. TX 26

    Most starts from past 20 years of draftees by school
    1. OSU 3958
    2. TN 3760
    3. MI 3756
    4. FL 3463
    5. GA 3298

    Like

  15. Brian says:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0915-northwestern-athletics–20120915,0,5426786.story

    NW’s BOT approved a multipurpose athletic building for $225-250M. One more committee needs to vote tomorrow to give final approval. Selling their souls for sports or just finally doing their part to compete in the B10?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Well there’s been a 2 year tug-of-war on whether to use some of the precious lakeside space for it…, but I wouldn’t really call it selling out.

      Northwestern’s been planning another major fundraising campaign, and this is only going to be a small part of it from what I’ve heard.

      Other thing is, they’ll need another one of these to renovate the stadium/arena at some point in time if this is just for the athletics facility…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        I read the part about whether that key lakeside property with views of Chicago should be used for academics instead. Why, exactly, do academic buildings need nice views again? Shouldn’t the students be looking elsewhere? I think the fact this building is for everyone, not just football, is what made it acceptable.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, well, it’s been a major issue of contention ever since the idea was proposed. But I agree with you. I spent 4 years there, and I never once was in a classroom with a great view of anything, so I’m really not sure why the academics have been all up in arms about this.

          I’m just glad that they’re finally getting on with building the thing; I don’t think Northwestern’s ever had comparable facilities in the modern era. My only question is when they’re going to get around to renovating the stadium and arena, but I’d guess that’s another $200-300M in the future…; best to just get the facilities for the athletes out of the way first.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            Can’t NW’s alumni find $300M by just looking under the sofa cushions? I’m sorry, I meant by having the help look under the sofa cushions.

            Like

  16. Brian says:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/la-sp-0913-dufresne-college-football-20120913-11,0,5792220.column?page=2

    Interesting tidbit:

    “•Three Pac-12 schools — UCLA, Oregon State and Arizona — recorded wins last weekend over AP top 25 opponents. The last time that happened was Jan. 1, 1985, when UCLA, USC and Washington all defeated ranked opponents in bowl games.”

    27 years since they last had 3 wins over top 25 teams? That seems like a long time, but I have no reference point.

    Like

  17. duffman says:

    Rumor coming out of the ACC that with Notre Dame in the ACC the Outback Bowl will drop the B1G for the ACC. Since Outback was started by a Kentucky alumni my guess is the SEC will remain but anybody else on here heard anything on the B1G?

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I had to figure that the ACC was due for an upgrade in its bowl lineup, in all likelihood at the expense of the Big Ten or SEC. There is an increase in the ACC’s attractiveness for bowl games due to additions (especially with Notre Dame). There is also somewhat of a decrease in attractiveness for the SEC & B1G to its second-tier bowl partner since they’re getting access to the Orange Bowl, although less so for the SEC because of its own expansion.

      My guess has been that the ACC would get the Gator Bowl back. I would be surprised if either the SEC or B1G lost the Outback. Those games already sell out with their current tie-ins of 8-4 to 10-3ish teams. The Gator is where SEC/B1G match ups have dropped off in ticket sales. The records of the teams in those games creates mediocre fan interest, even for teams with large fan bases like Michigan, Florida, and Ohio State. Even with the risk of lightly traveling Wake Forest or Boston College, the ACC overall should be able to sell tickets better with a higher Gator Bowl pick (teams having roughly 8 or 9 wins) than the SEC and B1G have had with 6- and 7-win teams.

      The Capital One and Outback are doing very well with their current pairings. As an ACC guy, I’d love for the ACC to get the higher payout and better location with one of those games, but those games are doing too well without the ACC for them to make a change. At least that’s my $0.02.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        If the SEC lost the Outback with their sponsor being a SEC guy I would be shocked but it could happen. That is why I figured it had to be the B1G but maybe it means it will become an ACC vs B1G bowl.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        The ACC could lose the Chick Fil A Peach bowl. Atlanta may become one of the 6 BCS bowls.

        Like

        • @bullet – Yes, that’s true, so ACC #2/ND is going to be open. If the Cotton moves up, that also means SEC #3/4 and Big 12 #2 are going to be searching for homes. Maybe the SEC could offer its #3 team without restrictions. I could certainly see ACC #2/ND vs. SEC #3 being really attractive. Generally speaking, though, I think the SEC and Big Ten are going to be the ones to choose to leave certain bowls as opposed to bowls choosing to drop them. From the Big Ten perspective, I definitely believe that they would want to keep both the Capital One and Outback (both hitting Big Ten snowbird and vacation sweet spots and bowls that have had long big Ten tie-ins), whereas they’re much more likely to get out of the Gator (whose main attraction was being a historical New Year’s Day bowl).

          Like

      • Andy says:

        It would make sense for the SEC to have more bowls than the B1G since the SEC has 14 schools and they typically have more bowl eligible teams.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Michael,

        The B10 has also expanded since the last bowl negotiations (adding Nebraska). Also, the Orange Bowl deal simply means that the B10 champ when the Rose is a semifinal will go to the Orange instead of another access bowl. It doesn’t actually guarantee a spot for a second B10 team.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      I fully expect the B10 to lose either the Gator or Outback to the ACC/ND.

      However, the BE slot in the Russell Athletic (2nd Orlando Bowl) will open up. Probably the BE slot in the Charlotte Bowl as well. Also the B12 slot in either the Holiday or (less likely) formerly-known-as-Insight Bowl (or maybe the NYC Pinstripe Bowl). Possibly the ACC slot in the Sun Bowl.

      None of those match the Outback in prestige (though they are generally on par with the Gator in payout), and I expect the B10 to pick up one of them as a replacement.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It’s safe to say the B10 won’t pick up the slot in the BWW (nee Insight) Bowl since we already have the other slot.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Right about that. Gator/Outback may be exchanged for Charlotte, 2nd Orlando, or Holiday. Possibly Pinstripe.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Hopefully we lose the Gator. I’d be fine with adding the Pinstripe or the Tangerine. Charlotte’s kind of a meh bowl location and they’d need to more than double their payout. I don’t like the B10 in the Holiday bowl. B10/P12 should only be in the Rose, and traveling to San Diego for a lesser bowl is wasteful when other conferences are closer. We already schlep to Phoenix for a bowl. I would like to see 1 B10/ACC game replace a B10/SEC game for diversity. I’d also drop one of the TX bowls for another more eastern one if it’s a game.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            FWIW, an outdoor game in NY in January isn’t high on my list of destinations unless its for a playoff game.

            Like

          • What I think the Big Ten has done well during the past 2 bowl cycles is to have bowl tie-ins that make sense. They have either been in locales that people from the Midwest actually like traveling to in December/January (Florida, California and Arizona) or key recruiting locations (Florida and California again along with Texas). They all fit into what the Big Ten wants to do for its alums and football profile as opposed to being in random places that serve little purpose.

            If I was running the Big Ten, I’d keep the Capital One, Outback, and Buffalo Wild Wings (f/k/a Insight) without question. I’d swap out the Gator and Texas Bowls for the Alamo and Holiday (with the understanding that the Big Ten is going to have to offer at least a #3/4 selection to get the Alamo back). If we want to fill out the rest of the tie-ins with the Pinstripe and bowls closer to the Midwest, then that’s fine, but the top 6 that I’ve named would be the priority.

            I think that’s actually a fairly reasonable target for the Big Ten. People are starting to forget that the Big Ten added arguably the best bowl traveling school of them all (Nebraska) since the current bowl contracts were signed (and the Big Ten already has the best bowl lineup after the SEC). No bowl is replacing a Big Ten tie-in unless it’s the Big Ten choosing to leave.

            Like

          • If you haven’t noticed, I’m big on bowls in locations that people would want to travel to whether there was a bowl there or not. That’s a big drag on places like Charlotte (even if they have a solid bowl in a fast-growing market). The Big Ten bowls should be in nice winter vacation destinations for the top selections and closer to home for the lower selections.

            Like

          • Last remark – I’d envision this Big Ten bowl lineup:

            #1 selection – Rose vs. Pac-12 (or Orange vs. ACC)
            #2 – Capital One vs. SEC
            #3/4 – Outback vs. SEC
            #3/4 – Alamo vs. Big 12
            #5/6 – Buffalo Wild Wings vs. Big 12
            #5/6 – Holiday vs. Pac-12
            #7 – Pinstripe vs. ACC
            #8 – Motor City vs. MAC

            I’d like to see a lower level bowl created in Indianapolis for Big Ten #8, if I had my druthers as opposed to the Motor City, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “FWIW, an outdoor game in NY in January isn’t high on my list of destinations unless its for a playoff game.”

            At least it’s in NYC. Why would anyone want to go to Charlotte in winter?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank,

            I agree the B10 has done some things right over the past few bowl cycles. On the other hand, they’ve gotten too many SEC opponents, too many weak TX bowls and screwed up timing by having all the 1/1 games overlap.

            Current bowls:
            1. Rose, P12 #1, Pasadena
            2. Capital One, SEC #2, Orlando
            3. Outback, SEC #3/4 (with Cotton), Tampa
            4/5. Gator, SEC #6, Jacksonville
            4/5. BWW (was Insight), B12 #4, Tempe
            6. Car Care, B12 #6, Houston
            7. TicketCity, CUSA #6/7 (with New Orleans Bowl), Dallas
            8. Pizza, MAC #1/2 (with GoDaddy Bowl), Detroit

            Proposed changes:
            I’d like to drop the Outback Bowl match-up with the SEC and play the ACC #3 instead, but I doubt the bowl would go for it. I’ll settle for playing ACC #4 in the Tangerine instead of the Gator.

            I suppose we need to keep an AZ bowl, so the BWW will do. Downgrade it to always be #5 since the B12 has shrunk and we’ve grown.

            Drop the Car Care for the Pinstripe Bowl and play against the ACC.

            Keep the TicketCity, but replace CUSA with the BE. It’ll often be the same teams (SMU, UH), but the BE sounds better.

            Keep the rest as is. Move some of the games off of 1/1 so we can watch them all, though.

            Like

          • @Brian – I’d agree about the weak Texas bowls and the overlapping 1/1 games. The high number of SEC matchups is a function of the fact that SEC vs. Big Ten is the gold standard for bowls both in terms of ticket sales and the TV networks. From a fan perspective, I agree that mixing in an ACC tie-in would be more interesting than having so many SEC games, but the payouts are simply highest for the Big Ten-SEC pairings. This could become an even greater factor if the conferences start taking control of the media revenue for the lower level bowls like they have done with their top bowls (which is what I expect to happen). If the Big Ten and SEC are going to get paid TV revenue directly for the Capital One, Outback, etc., then that’s a massive financial incentive to keep playing each other as much as possible since all of the TV networks will pay the most for that conference pairing.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @Brian – I’m not advocating for Charlotte, places like San Antonio, Orlando, and San Diego are much better places to visit in January and would draw more casual fans for a lower tier bowl where ticket sales are much more important than the major bowls.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “@Brian – I’m not advocating for Charlotte, places like San Antonio, Orlando, and San Diego are much better places to visit in January and would draw more casual fans for a lower tier bowl where ticket sales are much more important than the major bowls.”

            I was responding to a comment that mentioned Charlotte as one of the options.

            We already have 3 FL bowls and 2 TX bowls, and they’re grouped by order. We also have 2 western bowls. I’d prefer more varied locations so fans don’t get bored with the same destinations over and over.

            Why should midwestern fans travel all the way to San Diego for a weak bowl? There are closer locations that work fine.

            I like having only 1 B10/P12 bowl and the Holiday would have to be against the P12. It should remain a P12/B12 game.

            As for ticket sales, that’s a problem for the bowls, not the fans.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “The high number of SEC matchups is a function of the fact that SEC vs. Big Ten is the gold standard for bowls both in terms of ticket sales and the TV networks.”

            I know that, but I don’t have to like it. It’s bad for the B10 to be the conference playing the top SEC teams every year. With the addition of ND to the ACC, their bowl value should jump as well. All around, adding an ACC game is a good idea.

            “This could become an even greater factor if the conferences start taking control of the media revenue for the lower level bowls like they have done with their top bowls (which is what I expect to happen). If the Big Ten and SEC are going to get paid TV revenue directly for the Capital One, Outback, etc., then that’s a massive financial incentive to keep playing each other as much as possible since all of the TV networks will pay the most for that conference pairing.”

            But they can’t justify playing on 12/31 or 1/1 due to the competition. That means these games are moving back into December, I think. At least that should kill the overlap. And don’t tell me playing against ND in a bowl wouldn’t pay well for the B10.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            If Houston doesn’t get a BCS/whatever-they-call-it slot, and they don’t drop the B10 for B12 vs. SEC, I’d much prefer keeping Houston and dropping Dallas. I’d even put Houston ahead of San Diego in terms of desirability. It costs less to get to Houston and it’s generally just as warm. Plus we get more recruits from the Houston area than the SD area.

            Otherwise, I like Frank’s lineup. Maybe add the St. Louis bowl near the bottom if they ever get that off the ground.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            That would give the B10 2 bowls in FL, 2 bowls in TX, 2 bowls out west, and 2-3 bowls nearby, which is a pretty good distribution for both alumni and recruiting.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            I’m largely indifferent to Houston versus Dallas. The order of games could easily shift, too, depending on who wants to pay more. I’d just like to see a nice spread of opponents, locations and game times. I don’t like playing only the SEC or playing just in FL at the top. I’d like to see another site break up the FL set and another conference break up the SEC stretch.

            And to Frank’s point, I don’t care if it means less bowl money. Bowls are a small percentage of the total revenue for the B10, especially after the BCS/playoff games.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Brian:

            Weather in Houston is better, as is the stadium.

            Rumor has it that TicketCity also had trouble paying out the payout they promised the first year (you could say their organization was underwhelming). Not sure about last year.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            The weather difference isn’t that big (ave. 1/1 high of 56 vs 63). It’s not like we’re talking FL versus MI.

            I’m sure Reliant is nicer than the old Cotton Bowl but I don’t really care. It’s a football game. You find your seat and watch a game.

            I’m not saying Houston isn’t a better host city, just that I don’t consider that a major factor in this. Other people do, I’m sure.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Cotton Bowl is outdoors. Reliant is indoors.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            The 50s is perfect football weather and January is the second driest month of the year for Dallas.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I forgot that for recruiting and alums, DC is a great place for the B10 to be.

            So, assuming that Houston will get the SEC-B12 game and the ACC/ND manage to get the Gator back, here’s what I foresee (want to see?) For the B10 (assuming no Alamo because they very well could match up B12 #2 vs. Pac #2):
            1. Rose
            2. CapOne
            3. Outback
            4. AZ
            5-6-7. Pinstripe/Holiday/2nd Orlando
            8. DC
            9. Motor City

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “I forgot that for recruiting and alums, DC is a great place for the B10 to be.

            So, assuming that Houston will get the SEC-B12 game and the ACC/ND manage to get the Gator back, here’s what I foresee (want to see?) For the B10 (assuming no Alamo because they very well could match up B12 #2 vs. Pac #2):
            1. Rose
            2. CapOne
            3. Outback
            4. AZ
            5-6-7. Pinstripe/Holiday/2nd Orlando
            8. DC
            9. Motor City”

            What happened to TX games? You have 3 in FL and 3 out west but none in TX. You reject Dallas for the weather and have NYC and DC?

            My ideal line-up off the top of my head:
            1. Rose vs P12
            2. Cap 1 vs SEC
            3. Outback vs ACC
            4. Insight vs B12
            5. Tangerine vs SEC
            6. Houston vs B12
            7. Pinstripe vs BE
            8. DC vs ACC
            9. Pizza vs MAC

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Outside the Cotton, Alamo, and Houston (and Sun, but they’re closer to Pac territory than where the people are in TX), the other TX bowls are crap.

            NYC, DC, and Houston are all better destinations than Dallas (for recruiting and alumni purposes, they aren’t worse either; NYC is close to NJ, which is a good B10 recruiting ground).

            Your list isn’t much different from mine, except that I assume Houston does get promoted. So who would you suggest replaces Houston if they get promoted?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            If Houston goes away, you still need a TX bowl so I guess that leaves Dallas.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Dallas has what, 3 bowls now? And late December early January is just prone to bad weather in Dallas. 1st week of December (ccg week) is normally great football weather. That’s why they have the Dallas Marathon that weekend. Houston weather is often much nicer than Dallas around January 1. Houston doesn’t get really cold very often or have the ice storms Dallas periodically has. To give an example, Houston (and the whole country) had a very cold spell on Christmas Day one year back in the 80s (86?). It was the 3rd lowest temperature ever in Houston, 11 degrees. The high that day was 28. The high was lower than the previous record LOW of 30 degrees.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Brian:

            Delany probably agrees with you, though I would prefer the Holiday, Pinstripe, Charlotte, or even DC over the TicketCity.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            Well, I already had NYC and DC, and Charlotte is no better than Dallas. I’m just not a fan of San Diego as a B10 bowl site. I know a lot of people disagree with me on that, but I think 1 in AZ and 1 in CA is enough.

            Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      What do you all suppose the Pac 12 #2, Big 12 #2, and Big East #1 tie-ins will be?

      Currently, the Pac-12 #2 goes to the Alamo against Big 12 #3. I suspect that Colorado and Utah do not help them with keeping that tie-in. Furthermore, the Big Ten may have a shot at it, as well as the now-in-Texas SEC.

      The Big 12 #2 currently goes to the Cotton, which is all but set to get rolled in periodically as a semifinal bowl (and possibly as the Big 12 #1’s tie-in.) Would The #2 go to the Alamo,to a Florida bowl, or perhaps to a new bowl in Houston (which apparently was able to outbid New Orleans and Arlington for the Champions Bowl)? Would the BWW Bowl in Arizona be an option?

      How about Conference USA, 2.0 (aka, the Big East)? Would that league’s champion be able to go to anything better than the Bell Bowl in Charlotte? How would it compare in attractiveness to bowls with the Big Ten or SEC #4 or #5? How would it compare with the Big 12 #3 or #4 (out of 10)?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Michael in Raleigh,

        Honestly, I have no clue what the bowls will be outside of the contract bowls. Between the playoff, realignment and the stated desire to reduce the number of games after 1/1, I have no clue how it will all shake out.

        We know when 6 of the 35 bowls will be played. The other 29 have to fit into about 2 weeks, I think. Maybe they’ll decide to keep some small bowls between 1/1 and the NCG, which would ease the scheduling. How will the new dates impact the payouts? How will they impact who plays where? What about all the tams that changed conferences? It’s too many moving parts to really know the answers right now.

        B10 – added 1 team
        ACC – added 3 teams including ND – major value increase
        BE – lost their bigger names but added TX and western schools
        B12 – traded 2 teams for 2 new ones
        P12 – added 2 teams and expanded into the mountains
        SEC – added 2 teams and expanded into TX

        The BE and SEC should be looking for TX bowls to add. The B12 may be looking for something back east. The BE may want a western game, too. The ACC, B10, P12 and SEC all need to add at least 1 bowl, too.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Since the last bowl negotiations, the B12 actually lost 4 and added 2, and while WVU is almost as desirable out east as TAMU in TX & TCU is about as desirable in TX as Mizzou, you can’t really replace Nebraska.

          In terms of who loses bowls, I believe the BE will pretty much lose all their mid-level bowls (which are the top of the list for them): The 2nd Orlando bowl, NYC, and Charlotte.

          B12 will lose at least 1 top/mid-level bowl (Alamo, AZ, or Holiday).

          If that were all the changes, then the shuffling would be finished, with the ACC, B10, SEC, and maybe Pac picking up 1 extra mid-level bowl a-piece (and some of the conferences aligning bowls more geographically).

          However, that’s not all; the Cotton will be going away (impacting the SEC & B12, as will the Houston/Atlanta bowl (impacting the B10/B12 or ACC/SEC).

          Thus, to hold serve, you’d have to add at least 1 impact program (which the ACC, B10, & SEC did).

          The B12 may lose 2 of their bowls and have to replace with 2 of Independence/Dallas/Ft.Worth.
          The BE bowl lineup will look close to CUSA/MWC’s.

          Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        The Alamo Bowl stepped up it’s payments a few years back to get Pac 10 # 2 and Big 12 #3. They wanted to be one of the top non-BCS bowls, even if their 2 conferences don’t get the ratings of the Big Ten and SEC. Unless the SEC or Big Ten is willing to send one of their best teams to San Antonio, I think they’ll try and keep that match-up, maybe even trying to get Big 12 #2 if the Cotton Bowl becomes the Champions Bowl or an Access Bowl.

        It will be interesting to see what happens with the ‘Cotton Bowl match-up’ if Jerryworld moves up to playoff-affiliation. With the Champions Bowl, there might not be a need to have another high-level SEC/Big 12 bowl (though I’d expect at least 1 mid-level bowl featuring the 2 conferences). If they wanted to keep it, they could have it in Houston, San Antonio, or the Dallas/Fort Worth area (in the original Cotton Bowl, or in a second bowl based in Jerry World).

        Like

  18. vp19 says:

    I was just thinking about a Lenn Robbins New York Post story from April 2003 stating the ACC would eventually have 14 members, adding Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh and Syracuse to its nine at the time. Essentially, that’s what ultimately has happened, although ND won’t play as an ACC football member and Virginia Tech was added to the mix. Could something like this have been Swofford’s plan all along?

    Like

    • Andy says:

      Makes sense. I doubt they got to this point by accident.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      It always made sense though; the ACC never had anywhere to expand in the south outside of raiding the Big East for Miami. After that, the goal was to consolidate the rest of the Northeast outside of Penn State.

      Like

    • dhs3120 says:

      Yeah that was the ACC plan all along. I was working with the decision makers at that time. Four of the five you named are correct, the fifth was close but not quite. Knowing the powers that be (but having not talked to them in a very long time), I’d have to imagine the final target has changed.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      I made an error. Virginia Tech was in Robbins’ 14 in 2003, not Pittsburgh. This came in the midst of the Mark Warner UVa arm-twisting, when it looked as if the ACC would have to choose between SU and BC for #12.

      Like

  19. frug says:

    By the way, for all of you Digital Underground fans, the 12 foot tall 16 foot wide Humpty Hump head from the Return Of The Crazy One video can be yours free of charge!

    http://www.avclub.com/articles/12foottall-humpty-hump-head-needs-a-home-wonders-i,84213/

    Like

  20. Brian says:

    Some progress for the B10 today. They start 5-0, but MN and OSU looked shaky.

    Pitt whipped VT, so that takes the pressure off. ULM took Auburn to OT as well. This year looks like a few great teams and a bunch of meh.

    Like

  21. Indy doug says:

    Nice showing by the “superior” ACC vs. Big East today!! 0-3 including the best ACC team losing to Big East’s worst (Pitt over Va. tech) And why is that conference at “the Table” & the Big East is not?

    Like

  22. jj says:

    Can’t wait for the b10 season to start.

    Like

    • jj says:

      That was prob the worst I’ve seen state play nd in a long time.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        That game always is weird for some reason. Was it really that much worse than 31-13 last year? At least you have a new QB this year. Cousins had no excuses.

        Like

    • Craig Z says:

      At least then only half the Big Ten teams will lose each week.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Hey now. The B10 went 10-2 today. Many of the wins were ugly, but it wasn’t 6-6.

        Like

        • Craig Z says:

          They stopped the bleeding, at least temporarily, but this is the worst I’ve seen this conference.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            2000?

            Only 3 ranked teams, the winner was 8-3 (3 way tie). PU went to the Rose Bowl.

            Records before the bowls (rankings are final AP rankings):
            #11 MI, #13 PU, NW all 6-2, 8-3
            OSU 5-3, 8-3
            #23 WI 4-4, 8-4
            MN 4-4, 6-5
            PSU 4-4, 5-7
            IA 3-5, 3-9
            IL and MSU 2-6, 5-6
            IN 2-6, 3-8

            Like

          • bullet says:

            There was a year, 90, 91 or 92 when the Big 10 had a losing ooc record.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            1990 and 1992 were both weak, but 1992 was terrible.

            1992
            In order of the B10 standings:
            9-0-3 MI
            8-3-1 OSU
            5-6 MSU
            6-5-1 IL
            Everyone else had a losing record

            Like

        • bullet says:

          Why was Ohio St. so close? They seemed to have it under control at halftime. This was a Cal team that lost to Nevada and was only up on Southern Utah 20-17 going into the 4th quarter.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Why was Ohio St. so close?”

            Several reasons, but the main one was allowing big plays. I’m sure you’ve seen the highlight of the RB going 81 yards. We had him stopped, but the last guy didn’t wrap up. Make that tackle and Cal still has to drive down the field instead of getting a cheap 7 points. The RB also had a 59 yard TD run where the DB came up and went for the knock out shot but lowered his head and whiffed. Make that play and it’s just a short gain. Both of these were in the second half, so maybe the D started to get a little complacent.

            Like

          • jamesinsocal says:

            Miller only rushed for 30 some odd yards. I think the reason the offence went stale was Meyer was trying to get Jordon Hall up to game speed after missing the first 2 games. Too many times during that game, Miller started to take of but instead of trying to juke to get clear, he stopped and sat down. I think that was more Meyers instruction than Cal’s defence.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Because Cal does not have a decent place kicker. If they did, Ohio State probably would have lost. And speaking of bad place kickers, the last BCS buster candidate (BYU) lost due to missing field goals. Could not even make a redo 15 yards closer to put the game against Utah into overtime. Utah State could not hold on against Wisconsin, leaving only 3 undefeated non-BCS teams (compared to 29 BCS teams):
            Ohio (MAC): Only beat Marshall by 3 points and with PSU their only BCS game could go 13-0 and not break through.
            UTSA (WAC): Plays no BCS teams. Does not look like it can even win WAC
            La Tech (WAC): Starts it BCS schedule with IL. With TxA&M later, actually has the schedule to be a BCS buster if it goes undefeated. Not much chance of that.

            Like

          • jamesinsocal says:

            At Bullet, I agree. What happened to wrapping your arms around the ball carrier? It looked like the OSU D was trying to make big hits instead of stopping the play. And I also noticed that they seemed more focused on trying to strip the ball than get the ball carrier down.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Texas got sloppy in the 2nd half on defense also against Ole Miss and didn’t wrap up, giving up 3 very long TDs. Should have been a bigger win than 66-31. They won’t get away with being that sloppy against better teams.

            Like

  23. Kevin says:

    As a Badger fan I think I saw the worst team in 22 years. The B1G is terrible this year. I don’t know who is the best team. Northwestern?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      At this point, of the bowl eligible teams, only Northwestern has done anything of note…

      Ohio State is probably the best team in the conference, but I could easily see everyone having 3 losses or more…

      We’ll be lucky if the conference champion has 10 wins…

      Like

  24. Andy says:

    4 injuries on the O-Line. QB out with an injury. Gary Pinkel quote after the game: “You got a redshirt freshman quarterback, a redshirt freshman center, a freshman out of high school left guard, walk-on right guard and a redshirt sophomore right tackle that had never played before, it ain’t gonna look pretty all the time…It doesn’t matter, we’re gonna have to battle through it.”

    Final Score: Missouri 24, Arizona State 20.

    Like

  25. frug says:

    I don’t know who the broadcast team working the BYU-Utah game was, but they were horrible at the end, saying the game was over after the blocked field goal. How did they not realize that was a live ball penalty, and BYU was entitled to an untimed down?

    Like

  26. frug says:

    Against AQ Teams-

    Northwestern: 3-0
    Rest of the Big Ten: 1-8

    Left to play:

    Penn St. vs. Temple (not even an AQ when scheduled)
    Minnesota vs. Syracuse
    Michigan @ ND

    Minnesota will be favored, Michigan will be an underdog and Penn St.-Temple is probably even.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      With the way this year is going, I’m just hoping that Northwestern doesn’t drop the game against SD…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        NW should be thinking Rose Bowl right now. Get one upset of MI/MSU/NE, beat the other 5 to go 6-2 and hope the tiebreakers go your way. OSU plays all 3 of those teams and they play each other, so getting 2-3 losses each is plausible.

        Make the CCG and there’s nobody from the east that NW doesn’t have a decent chance against. Then you can go face OR’s offense in the Rose Bowl.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          You’re basically talking 1995 all over again. Avoiding Ohio State is the key once again…

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Pretty much. There just isn’t much separation between teams right now. All the west teams play 3 harder games (OSU, MI, MSU and/or NE). If NW wins 1 of them and doesn’t get upset, they’ve got a decent chance.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          I’m actually very confident that NU will get at least 1 win against the trio of Nebraska/Michigan/MSU.

          I’m much less confident that NU will sweep PSU, Illinois, Minny, and Iowa. If you know NU’s history, winning all games where NU is the favorite is a much more daunting task than pulling one big upset a year.

          Specifically, the games @PSU and vs. Illinois are worrisome. Illinois still has talent, and they may gel by the end of the year. PSU has lost a bunch of talent, but beating them in Happy Valley still promises to be tough.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            I agree with your sentiment. That’s why I said “if.” But the 5 other B10 games are all very winnable. The bright side for NW is the top 3 don’t look good enough right now to assume they’ll win their other 5 games either. A 6-2 or 5-3 champ seems likely.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      “Against AQ Teams-

      Northwestern: 3-0
      Rest of the Big Ten: 1-8″

      Let me fix that for you:

      NW 3-0
      OSU 1-0
      Rest of the B10 0-8

      Like

      • mnfanstc says:

        Remind me why now why I despise OSU?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          mnfanstc,

          “Remind me why now why I despise OSU?”

          Because OSU is 43-7 against MN?

          Seriously, I pulled OSU out because 2 teams are undefeated against AQs. I would have pointed out anyone else that was perfect, too. I wouldn’t have pointed out anybody if they were 1-1 or worse.

          Like

  27. duffman says:

    The ranks of the undefeated week 3 :

    AQ schools 28 of 72 = 38.9% of population : 28 of 124 = 22.6% of total

    Big 12 (8) of 10 => 80%
    3-0 = Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas, Texas Tech
    2-0 = Oklahoma, Baylor, Texas Christian, West Virginia

    SEC (6) of 14 => 42.9%
    3-0 = Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi State, Alabama, Louisiana State

    PAC 12 (5) of 12 => 41.7%
    3-0 = Oregon, Stanford, Arizona, UCLA
    1-0 = Oregon State

    Big East (3) of 8 => 37.5%
    3-0 = Louisville and Rutgers
    2-0 = Cincinnati

    B1G (3) of 12 => 25%
    3-0 = Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State

    IND (1) of 4 => 25%
    3-0 = Notre Dame

    ACC (2) of 12 => 16.7%
    3-0 = Clemson and Florida State

    .

    Non AQ schools 3 of 52 = 5.8% of population : 3 of 124 = 2.4% of total

    WAC (2) of 7 => 28.6%
    3-0 = Texas San Antonio
    2-0 = Louisiana Tech

    MAC (1) of 13 => 7.7%
    3-0 = Ohio

    Sun Belt (0) of 10 => 0%

    CUSA (0) of 12 => 0%

    MWC (0) of 10 => 0%

    .

    Undefeated pairings for week #4

    Clemson @ Florida State
    Kansas State @ Oklahoma
    Oregon State @ UCLA
    Arizona @ Oregon

    Like

  28. Brian says:

    Is parity a good thing? I can make a case for 9 of the 10 eligible teams to go to the Rose Bowl this year (sorry, IN).

    Any of IL, PU or WI could win the east. They all have weaknesses that can be exploited and strengths that can win games. IN looks to be all weaknesses at this point, especially since they’re down to their 3rd string QB. OSU looks to be the least bad team in the division, so it’s up for grabs.

    In the west, MI, MSU and NE look to be the top tier and any of them could win the division based on how their round robin goes. IA, MN and NW seem to be a second tier of peers, and any of them could be their 2 peers and get 1 upset of the top 3. Add in that OSU plays all 3 of the top tier and anybody could hope to win the tiebreakers.

    It should keep the regular season interesting as every game really matters, but the conference is out of the national picture already and should be dreading 1/1. It’s almost guaranteed the B10 only gets 1 BCS slot now, which will make up for OSU being ineligible. Still, picture this:

    BCS – AL, LSU
    Rose – OR/USC/Stanford vs MI/MSU/NE
    Cap 1 – GA/SC/FL vs MI/MSU/NE
    Outback – GA/SC/FL vs MI/MSU/NE

    Cotton – MO/TAMU?
    Peach – GA/SC/FL

    Gator – TAMU vs IL/PU/WI/IA/MN/NW
    BWW – B12 #4 (TCU?) vs IL/PU/WI/IA/MN/NW
    Car Care – B12 #6 (Baylor?) vs IL/PU/WI/IA/MN/NW
    TicketCity – CUSA #6/7 (SMU/UTEP?) vs IL/PU/WI/IA/MN/NW
    Pizza – MAC #1/2 (Ohio/???) vs IL/PU/WI/IA/MN/NW

    Rose – L
    Cap 1 – L
    Outback – L
    Gator – L
    Car Care – ?
    TicketCity – ?
    Pizza – ?

    Ugh. here’s hoping some B10 teams improve a lot during the season.

    Like

  29. duffman says:

    Week 3 :

    B1G : AQ = 3-1 : NAQ = 5–1 : FCS = 2–0 : OFF = NONE :: U = MN, NU, and Ohio State
    ACC (1-0) : B1G (DNP) : BE (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (1-0) : SEC (DNP) : IND (1-1)
    CUSA (DNP) : MAC (3-1) : MWC (DNP) : SB (1-0) : WAC (1-0) : FCS (2-0)

    ACC : AQ = 2-6 : NAQ = 1–0 : FCS = 3–0 : OFF = NONE :: U = Clemson and FSU
    ACC (2-2) : B1G (0-1) : BE (0-3) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) : IND (DNP)
    CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SB (1-0) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (3-0)

    B12 : AQ = 2–1 : NAQ = 3-0 : FCS = 3–0 : OFF = Oklahoma :: U = 8 teams
    ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : BE (DNP) : B12 (1-1) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (1-0) : IND (DNP)
    CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (1-0) : SB (2-0) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (3-0)

    BE : AQ = 4-1 : NAQ = 0–0 : FCS = 2–0 : OFF = Temple :: U = UC, UL, and Rutgers
    ACC (3-0) : B1G (DNP) : BE (1-1) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) : IND (DNP)
    CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SB (DNP) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (2-0)

    IND : AQ = 1-2 : NAQ = 0–1 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = Notre Dame
    ACC (DNP) : B1G (1-1) : BE (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (0-1) : SEC (DNP) : IND (DNP)
    CUSA (DNP) : MAC (0-1) : MWC (DNP) : SB (DNP) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (DNP)

    PAC : AQ = 2-3 : NAQ = 2-1 : FCS = 3-0 : OFF = Oregon State :: U = 5 teams
    ACC (DNP) : B1G (0-1) : BE (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (1-1) : SEC (0-1) : IND (1-0)
    CUSA (1-0) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (1-1) : SB (DNP) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (3-0)

    SEC : AQ = 3-3 : NAQ = 6–1 : FCS = 1–0 : OFF = NONE :: U = 6 teams
    ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : BE (DNP) : B12 (0-1) : PAC (1-0) : SEC (2-2) : IND (DNP)
    CUSA (2-0) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SB (3-1) : WAC (1-0) : FCS (1-0)

    .

    Best schedulers = IND – 75% were AQ’s and no FCS games
    Worst schedulers = B12 – No Top 25 OOC, 1 OFF, 3 AQ’s, 3 FCS

    .

    Observations :
    The B1G rebounded going 10-2 and NU beat BE, SEC, and ACC – the good
    The B12 yet again played nobody and won, MSU played ND and lost – the bad
    Southern Cal loss means another Bama vs LSU BCS MNC – the ugly

    The B12 showed again they are over rated at this point
    – The best B12 defense allowed the worst SEC team to score 31 points
    – #15 KSU allowed 21 points to North Texas at home
    – #16 TCU struggled with the worst team in the B12
    – Baylor was behind a FCS school by 10 pts at halftime, and allowed 23 points
    While many will say I am B12 bashing again even David Ubben who follows the B12 for ESPN called them out for close calls and a weak early schedule.

    Congrats to Northwestern, Ohio State, and Minnesota for staying undefeated so far. Special shout out to Northwestern for doing it against all AQ teams. Not a good day for Sparty but the loss was to a team with a BCS bowl possibility by year end, so it will help the SoS for MSU.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      duffman,

      “The B12 yet again played nobody and won

      The B12 showed again they are over rated at this point
      – The best B12 defense allowed the worst SEC team to score 31 points
      – #15 KSU allowed 21 points to North Texas at home
      – #16 TCU struggled with the worst team in the B12
      – Baylor was behind a FCS school by 10 pts at halftime, and allowed 23 points
      While many will say I am B12 bashing again even David Ubben who follows the B12 for ESPN called them out for close calls and a weak early schedule.”

      The B12 won. Yes, they played nobody good, but they won. How does that show they are overrated? I think it proved nothing because nobody plays their best against weak teams.

      How long did UT keep their starters in against Ole Miss, and how do you know it’s the B12’s best defense?

      Was UNT’s last TD a garbage score (the drive started with under 7:00 left and KSU up 35-13)?

      TCU held KU to 2 field goals, both in the first half, and did it while losing 4 fumbles. That’s sloppy offense but highly effective defense.

      As for Baylor, I’m guessing they came in fat and happy after whipping SMU and then having a bye week. They played the team that lost the NCG in I-AA lost year and took a while to wake up. It happens. OSU had problems like that under Tressel on occasion. It doesn’t mean the team is that bad, just that they played that poorly.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      You could also say one of the Big 12’s weakest offenses last year scored 66 points on an SEC defense (and that was taking a knee on 3rd and 4th down from the 6 inch line with 1:25 left and giving the ball back to the opponent with 30 seconds left-Mack Brown plays a little differently than Steve Spurrier). As I said above before seeing yours, Texas played sloppy on defense in the 2nd half, giving up a 100 yd kickoff, a 75 yd pass and 48 yd run where several people missed tackles.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I wouldn’t say that the Big Ten rebounded this past weekend. They played 12 home games and were favored in all 12 right?

      Sparty losing especially hurt because it eliminates the argument that the Big Ten has any elite teams (Ohio State struggling with Cal doesn’t help that argument either and Northwestern is a rebuilding squad this year even though they’re more talented now than past rebuilding squads).

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      Can you imagine the meltdown that the non-SEC world would have if Bama & LSU made it back into the BCSCG this year? I can’t imagine that the voters will willingly do that. But they may not have a choice if there isn’t another team in the same neighborhood at the end of the year, and right now Bama and LSU look to be a step ahead of everyone else…at this point in time anyways.

      As an SEC guy (and a Bama guy) I kind of would like to see it just for the entertainment from the ensuing meltdown that would occur. It would probably be pretty epic. :)

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think the TV people would have the biggest meltdown based on the ratings last year and guessing at the increased level of outrage this year, especially now that a playoff is officially coming.

        Like

        • bamatab says:

          Heck, a playoff would probably increase the likelyhood of a BCSCG repeat if Bama & LSU happened to be placed is separate semi-final games. Both teams would favored, and may be favored by double digits if the odds were given as of now.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            It wasn’t the rematch that bugged people as much as having an unnecessary rematch forced on us. There was a viable alternative that was ignored. At least in a playoff they would have to beat the other top contenders first, so there’d be more of a sense of them earning it..

            Like

      • Richard says:

        Oregon may make it to the title game (and if they or USC or FSU or even OU end the season with only 1 loss, the voters will almost certainly pick them over the ‘Bama-LSU loser), but I don’t see them winning it with their defense.

        Right now, FSU looks like the only team outside of the Duopoly with a chance of winning the national title.

        Like

  30. duffman says:

    Only the undefeated teams should have been in bold in the previous post.

    Like

  31. duffman says:

    Sagarin conference rankings sunday morning (today) update :

    1 BIG 12 – who has played nobody
    2 SOUTHEASTERN
    3 PAC-12
    4 BIG TEN
    5 ATLANTIC COAST
    6 BIG EAST
    7 I-A INDEPENDENTS – already played 3 B1G, 2 PAC, and 1 inter conference

    Based on schedule already played the IND schools should be higher and the B12 should be lower.

    .

    Sagarin SoS ranking and SoS for B12 :
    # 3 Oklahoma : SoS = 166
    # 4 Texas : SoS = 111
    # 8 Oklahoma State : SoS = 107
    #13 TCU : SoS = 197
    #17 West Virginia : SoS = 106
    #20 Kansas State : SoS = 143
    #22 Texas Tech : SoS = 189
    #28 Baylor : SoS = 132
    #32 Iowa State : SoS = 77
    # 96 Kansas : SoS = 101

    .

    Sagarin SoS ranking and SoS for IND :
    # 5 Notre Dame : SoS = 26
    #30 BYU : SoS = 97
    #102 Navy : SoS = 2
    #126 Army : SoS = 45

    All 4 IND schools have SoS under 100 while only 1 of 10 (10%) of the B12 schools do. How is Notre Dame ranked #5 with a SoS near the Top 25 while Oklahoma and Texas are ahead of the Irish and neither has a schedule so far in the Top 100?

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Sagarin: “The teams are NOT WELL-CONNECTED and so all three ratings are BAYESIAN.”

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Interpretation-Sagarin says his poll is meaningless until sometime in October.

        Like

        • koxinga says:

          sorry mate, but this is different from any other poll how?

          the whole exercise of polling anywhere before midway through the season is merely an exercise in reinforcing preconceptions of teams. How good is UCLA? Oregon State? Stanford? Arizona? Since none were ranked highly to begin with, but all beat teams who were very highly ranked in the preseason, what does this say about the preseason polls? or about these teams? This does little more than tell us that the preseason polls are inaccurate. Sagarin does what the other polls do not by recognizing this issue.

          Polling in the preseason only ossifies error.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Others post their rankings and we debate their merit. Sagerin posts that once all teams are well linked only objective current season results effect the rankings. Until then perception/prejudice contained in early rankings have weight. The difference seems obvious. One rectifies preseason errors, others compound them.

            Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      While the top of the SEC might be as strong as ever, it doesn’t have the depth it’s recently had. The past several years the SEC west was 5 strong teams + Ole Miss. This year Arkie & Auburn have both fallen sharply, while I think everyone’s withholding judgment on MSU and A&M.

      The SEC East may have risen a bit, though Vandy appears to have taken a slight step back and Kentucky is as lost as ever. Congrats to Mizzou for a tough win over ASU without their starting QB and apparently most of their offensive linemen. We’ll figure out more about this division later in the year when they play cross-divisional games against LSU and Alabama, as well as those end-of-the-year matchups against FSU and Clemson.

      I will stick up for a few non-conference games the Big 12 played. I’m sure BIll Snyder was pouting about it all week, but you can’t fault KSU beating Miami, even if Miami hasn’t lived up to it’s reputation in years. Also can’t complain about ISU having Iowa as the best non-conference opponent, even if the Big Ten has been poor this year. OU with ND is certainly fine, and OSU with Arizona is OK, I guess.

      And before anyone comments, yes, I know my own school’s non-conference slate is lousy this year, though LA Tech seems more intriguing than many AQ schools right now.

      I wish the top 5 conferences would get together, agree to each play 8 conference games + 2 games minimum against each other (or ND/BYU) every year. That would increase the value of each conference’s TV contracts, more than enough to offset 0.5 games per year lost.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The Big 12’s ooc schedule is weaker than usual this year, but a lot is due to conference realignment and the switch to 9 conference games. That played havoc with everyone’s scheduling. Some is timing, such as Miami with KSU. When Texas signed Ole Miss, they were just off a Cotton Bowl bid (behind a former UT QB) and appeared to be on their way back up. The schedules all look better in the future. For Texas, next year is BYU/UCLA/NMSU, then Notre Dame/Cal/Rice, ND/Cal/UTEP, USC/Maryland/UCF with return matches with Maryland, USC and future dates with Notre Dame and Arkansas.

        There are actually several of the big name schools around the country that are signing some big games in the future, moreso than the last few years.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          Realignment has messed with a lot of schedules, as has going to 9 games. The B12 is suffering from that now, not that duffman would acknowledge it. The ACC is about to go through it. If the rumors are true, the SEC will soon face it, too. Hopefully the B10 as well.

          Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            The Big 12 could have had one less team go through it.

            Nobody put a gun to Oliver Luck’s head to make him cancel the FSU game, which left us with that awful Savannah State match up. WVU could have canceled Maryland, James Madison, or maybe even Marshall, although the latter would have been hard to cancel due to political pressures.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Michael in Raleigh,

            While there is a small chance they would have dropped MD instead of FSU, look at it from WV’s POV. They are moving from 7 conference games to 9 and they’re upgrading from the BE to the B12. Playing a name brand OOC was not in the cards. The coaches already have to prepare for a whole new slate of teams (ask NE how easy that is).

            2011 ranked opponents – LSU, UC
            2012 ranked opponents – OU, UT, KSU, TCU

            And you expected them to keep FSU, too? Be realistic.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Michael

            Actually Luck’s only options were FSU or Maryland. James Madison was a neutral site game so they had a separate contract with Fed Ex Field that may have been unbreakable on short notice (certainly would have been tougher than any other game where their only contract is with the opponent).

            As you said, Marshall was undroppable for political reasons (the series was set up by the governor and their are corporate interests and outside sponsors as well).

            That left Maryland and FSU, and since they needed the extra home game to finance the Big East exit penalties the FSU game (which was on the road) had to be dropped.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            They could have postponed the FSU game, however.

            How they handled it doesn’t reflect well on WVU.

            Like

          • jbcwv says:

            It would reflect more poorly on Oliver Luck if he prioritized the needs of a team in a conference that jilted his school over the needs of his own program. Florida State didn’t have to agree to a $500,000 buyout on the game, but they did, so there’s no real justification to complain.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            bullet,

            It was my understanding the Texas vs Ole Miss game was scheduled in 2006 when Ole Miss was coming off an 8 loss season. I think this was the same year LSU and TCU agreed to their series. I am not sure Texas Tech has ever been a hard scheduler or was the majority of the conference. If you can link the later date please do as the Cotton bowl games against Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were a few years later. Here is a comparison of Texas and Southern Cal over the same time period. Ranked teams at the time are in BOLD and bowl games are not included as they are not scheduled well in advance.

            Texas OOC in the BCS era :
            (B12 was playing an 8 game conference schedule most of these seasons)
            1998 = New Mexico State / UCLA / Rice
            1999 = NC ST / Stanford / Rutgers / Rice
            2000 = LA LA / Stanford / Houston
            2001 = New Mexico State / UNC / Houston
            2002 = North Texas / UNC / Houston / Tulane
            2003 = New Mexico State / Arkansas / Rice / Tulane
            2004 = North Texas / Arkansas / Rice
            2005 = LA LA / Ohio State / Rice
            2006 = North Texas / Ohio State / Rice / Sam Houston State
            2007 = Arkansas State / TCU / Central Florida / Rice
            2008 = Florida Atlantic / UTEP / Rice / Arkansas
            2009 = ULM / Wyoming / UTEP / UCF
            2010 = Rice / Wyoming / UCLA / Florida Atlantic
            2011 = Rice / BYU / UCLA
            2012 = Wyoming / New Mexico / Ole Miss

            .

            Southern Cal OOC in the BCS era :

            1998 = Purdue / SDSU / Florida State / Notre Dame + 8 conference
            1999 = Hawaii / SDSU / Notre Dame / La Tech + 8 conference
            2000 = Penn State / Colorado / SJSU / Notre Dame + 8 conference
            2001 = SJSU / Kansas State / Notre Dame + 8 conference
            2002 = Auburn / Colorado / KSU / Notre Dame + 8 conference
            2003 = Auburn / BYU / Hawaii / Notre Dame + 8 conference
            2004 = Virginia Tech** / CSU / BYU / Notre Dame + 8 conference
            2005 = Hawaii / Arkansas / Notre Dame / Fresno St + 8 conference
            2006 = Arkansas / Nebraska / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            2007 = Idaho / Nebraska / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            2008 = Virginia / Ohio State / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            2009 = SJSU / Ohio State / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            2010 = Hawaii / Virginia / Minnesota / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            2011 = Minnesota / Syracuse / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            2012 = Hawaii / Syracuse / Notre Dame + 9 conference
            ** Virginia Tech game was BCA Classic Game @ FedEx in MD

            I did not do the other 8 “brands” but I am guessing their schedules look more like Southern Cal and less like Texas. Texas is scheduling Notre Dame now because of realignment but not because they would normally schedule them. B1G and PAC schools have Notre Dame on their schedules EVERY season, not just special circumstances.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Didn’t see your post until you referred to it.

            I’ve said on here the Pac 12 schedules tougher than anyone else. The obvious fact is there’s not much difference between what the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC do. The ACC has “AQ” games, but also schedules more FCS teams than anyone else. There are only 3 teams that have never scheduled FCS-UCLA, USC and Notre Dame. Texas has only played North Texas (3 times-they were FCS 1982-1994 and two were realignment games-SMU death penalty 88 and Arkansas leaving 92)

            I think if you look at the other powers, Texas is normally tougher than most. If you look at Texas prior to the BCS era and in the future (which I posted elsewhere), its stronger than that stretch when Mack Brown 1st started (he did soften it some). 1981-1997:
            81 OU#10, UNT, Miami#14
            82 OU, Missouri, Utah
            83 OU#8, Auburn#5 (Bo Jackson), UNT
            84 OU#2, Auburn#11, Penn St.
            85 OU#2, Missouri, Stanford
            86 OU#16, Missouri, Stanford
            87 OU#1, BYU, Auburn#5, Oregon St.
            88 OU#10, UNT, UNM, BYU
            89 OU#15, Penn St., Colorado#14
            90 OU#4, Penn St.#21, Colorado#20
            91 OU#6, Auburn#13, Miss. St.
            92 OU#16, UNT, Syracuse#9, Miss. St.#21
            93 OU#10, Syracuse#6, Colorado#11, Louisville#24
            94 OU#16, Pitt, Colorado#4, Louisville
            95 OU#13, Notre Dame#21, Pitt, Hawaii, UVA#14
            96 Big 12 started so OU was conference
            Notre Dame#9, UVA#19,NMSU
            97 Rutgers, UCLA, Rice

            Most years Texas had 2 ranked ooc opponents. Noone does that. In one year there were 4!.

            And in that 98-current period period, there was UCLA, Ohio St. and Arkansas, along with Stanford and NCSU (Texas lost to the latter two). Texas doesn’t have anything to apologize for.

            Like

          • @bullet – I’d agree with this. I don’t have any real issue with the Big 12’s non-conference scheduling (particularly since they have a 9th conference game). At the very least, they have about the same type of non-conference scheduling practices as the Big Ten and SEC. This is in contrast to the Pac-12, which clearly has the toughest non-conference schedules year-in and year-out.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            jbcwv:

            How does cancelling (vs. postponing) help WVU’s needs?

            Like

          • jbcwv says:

            Richard, due to the distance to the other Big 12 schools, it appears the new non-con scheduling strategy involves trying to schedule other regional teams. In addition to the Maryland series, there has been talk of renewing Pitt and Virginia Tech. It appears the future schedule is going to involve one cupcake home game, one regional rival (MD, Pitt, VT), and either a second regional rival or a high profile neutral site game (Alabama and BYU are currently on the schedule). There are also ECU games on the schedule; I assume those will ultimately be sacrificed to make room for the other scheduling priorities. But if FSU had just been postponed, I think that would make 14 games on the tentative 2014 schedule. I’m just not sure it was practical to even postpone that series.

            As much as I was looking forward to the FSU and Michigan State series, those made a lot more sense for a team in the 7-game Big East than for a mid-Atlantic team playing in the 9-game Big 12.

            Like

  32. Brian says:

    The new AP poll:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1/week/4

    “1 Alabama (58) 3-0 1498 1
    2 LSU (2) 3-0 1433 3
    3 Oregon 3-0 1356 4
    4 Florida State 3-0 1275 5
    5 Georgia 3-0 1203 7
    6 Oklahoma 2-0 1181 5
    7 South Carolina 3-0 1081 8
    8 West Virginia 2-0 1051 9
    9 Stanford 3-0 1009 21
    10 Clemson 3-0 899 11
    11 Notre Dame 3-0 854 20
    12 Texas 3-0 816 14
    13 USC 2-1 776 2
    14 Florida 3-0 743 18
    15 Kansas State 3-0 683 15
    16 Ohio State 3-0 680 12
    17 TCU 2-0 535 16
    18 Michigan 2-1 448 17
    19 UCLA 3-0 429 22
    20 Louisville 3-0 366 19
    21 Michigan State 2-1 318 10
    22 Arizona 3-0 296 24
    23 Mississippi State 3-0 106 NR
    24 Boise State 1-1 95 NR
    25 Nebraska 2-1 80 NR

    Others receiving votes: OREGONST 68, Baylor 55, NORTHWSTRN 41, Ohio 20, Oklahoma State 19, Rutgers 19, IOWAST 15, Virginia Tech 13, Cincinnati 9, Tennessee 6, Wisconsin 5, Texas Tech 5, Texas A&M 4, Missouri 4, Georgia Tech 3, FRESNOST 2, Utah 1″

    Not many valid complaints for the B10. KSU maybe shouldn’t have passed OSU and NW deserves more respect. How in the heck does WI get even 5 points?

    Like

    • duffman says:

      I would argue Notre Dame should be in the top 5 – 10. The demolished Navy overseas and beat a top ranked Michigan State at Michigan State. Sparty had already beaten Boise State and the Broncos are currently in the Top 25. I agree tho that Northwestern should have cracked the Top 25. The Wildcats could easily be 6-0 and they could take 3 of their remaining 6 which would give them 9 wins by seasons end.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        duffman,

        PSU also crushed Navy, so that win for ND is devalued. And since MSU dropped to 21, ND doesn’t really get credit for beating a top 10 team. 11 is a reasonable ranking for now considering PU gave ND fits.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Brian,

          Navy is still better than a FCS school or a bottom non AQ. I am willing to bet Navy would beat Savannah State too even if the margin was not as great as Oklahoma State or Florida State. Even if you drop Boise State they are still a ranked team, as is Michigan State. The Purdue game is the longest rival Notre Dame has so even if the Boilermakers were not ranked that is not a given win. I would rank that line up ahead of anything Texas or Oklahoma has played so far. As pointed out by acaffrey at least Notre Dame has played teams worthy of making them ranked as opposed to B12 schools who get love for beating pitiful teams.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            You can choose to believe that, but it requires you to take an ESPN approach and ignore what actually happens on the field.
            Penn St. 34 Navy 7
            UVA 17 Penn St. 16
            Georgia Tech 56 UVA 20
            Virginia Tech 20 Georgia Tech 17
            Pitt 35 Virginia Tech 17
            Youngstown St. 31 Pitt 17

            If you add that up, Navy has underperformed Youngstown St. by 99 points. What has happened on the field indicates that Navy is in for a long year.

            B1G has been discussed here. ACC and BE need no discussion. SEC-UK has lost to UL and WKU, 3rd in their own state, Arkansas lost to LaMo, Auburn nearly lost to them, Ole Miss gave up more points than they have since 1917. As for the Pac 12-Cal, Colorado (14-69!), Utah, Washington St.(crushed by BYU, barely beat UNLV and EWU)-look at how rough they have had it. Meanwhile the Big 12 is 22-2 ooc, only losing Okie St. at Arizona and Kansas to Rice. Doesn’t tell you quite how good the top of the Big 12 is, but tells you for sure that the bottom of the Big 12 is a lot better than anywhere else.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            bullet,

            Youngstown better than Navy by 99 points seems pretty far fetched for anybody who follows college football year after year. Here are the schedules for each school

            Navy
            Notre Dame in Ireland L, 50-10
            Penn State @ Penn State L, 34-7
            VMI @ Navy
            San Jose State @ Navy
            Air Force @ Air Force
            Navy @ Central Michigan
            Indiana @ Navy
            East Carolina @ ECU
            Florida Atlantic @ Navy
            Navy @ Troy
            Texas State @ Navy
            Navy vs Army @ Lincoln Financial Field

            .

            Youngstown State

            @ Pittsburgh W 31-17
            H Valparaiso W 59-0
            H Albany W 31-24
            H Northern Iowa
            @ North Dakota State
            @ Illinois State
            H Southern Illinois
            @ South Dakota State
            H South Dakota
            @ Western Illinois
            H Indiana State

            If Navy had the schedule Youngstown State Had, I can see them going undefeated. If Youngstown State had Navy’s schedule I can not see a similar outcome. Even arguing Navy is a 99 point to a FCS school is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

            ps, I notice you did not respond to my Texas vs Southern Cal post above. Could it be your “Texas schedules tough” argument does not hold water before or after the last realignment?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            Nobody ever argued that UT schedules harder than USC, mainly because that’s a very high bar. USC has to have a loaded schedule every year to draw fans in LA. They also get a free boost by having the ND rivalry. On top of that, I’d argue the B12 is harder than the P12 so USC can better afford an extra AQ team OOC. Long term I’d like to see UT-TAMU return but there are too many hurt feelings right now.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @duffman

            He doesn’t need to respond because everyone already knows UT doesn’t schedule as tough as USC because no one schedules as tough as USC. They play (at least) 11 AQ teams per year and never 1-AA teams.

            It’s like comparing other WR to Jerry Rice, it’s an impossible standard.

            Like

      • acaffrey says:

        Northwestern should be ranked. They have defeated three BCS-conference teams. While Syracuse, Vandy, and BC are far from murderer’s row, the media should stop merely complaining about teams beating up on FCS opponents like Savannah State and reward the teams that take on challenging early season schedules. All three NW opponents went to bowl games 2 years ago, IIRC. BC went to a bowl game for roughly 10 straight years before last year. Not like NW was scheduling a patsy. I think NW deserves to be 24th-in place of Boise State.

        Also, Louisville has beaten Kentucky and UNC. While Kentucky’s loss to W. Kentucky hurts, and UNC’s loss to Wake Forest looks worse after the 52-0 meltdown against FSU, this is again a Big East school playing SEC & ACC foes. I think the Cards deserve to be 17th, with everyone else dropping.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          I agree, why reward the weak schedulers and alter the perception of pollsters. Face it folks are lazy when doing the polls and most look at W – L and not SoS. If they do, they look at Sagarin who has the B12 as the toughest conference so far even when they have played the weakest schedule. This is the basis of n=my arguments as they get the “honeymoon” halo for the rest of their season based on unimpressive OOC games.

          The B12 has played a weak OOC and have only played one conference game so far (the TCU vs KU game) while the other conferences have played tough OOC and multiple conference games. Hence, the B12 is gaming the system until the national media forces them to play on a more level field.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            As I pointed out before, Sagerin acknowledges that for the first few weeks his polls are dependent on rankings (and their bias’). Once enough data is available rankings are discarded and only current season game results matter.

            For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight
            in the process(BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all WELL CONNECTED, then
            the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal
            and the RATING, ELO-CHESS, and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR) are then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on.
            The teams are NOT WELL-CONNECTED and so all three ratings are BAYESIAN.”

            Like

        • Mike says:

          Northwestern should be 7-0 in October when Nebraska comes to town.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      How does VT get 13? Pitt lost to Youngstown last week.
      I’m surprised USC dropped that far. I was surprised, but I guess I shouldn’t be, that Notre Dame jumped that much.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Polls were pretty similar. One interesting note was that the writers rated every Big 12 team lower than the coaches except for Baylor.
      OU 6 vs 5
      WV 8 vs 7
      UT 12 vs 10
      KSU 15 vs 13
      TCU 17 vs 16
      BU 27 vs 28
      OSU 30 vs 25

      Ohio St. at #16 was the only one not eligible in the coaches poll, so that made little difference.

      One of my arguments for them expanding (with the right teams) is that they are in smaller media markets and will get ignored over the long run.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Could some of it be due to the AP including USC & Ohio St.?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          USC is in both polls this year. Ohio St. only impacts those ranked 16 or lower in the AP.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          Biggest differences of teams ranked in one poll or the other (after factoring in Ohio St.)
          Wisconsin 16 places higher in coaches (whoever fills out coachs’ forms isn’t paying attention)
          Notre Dame 4 places higher in writers (media loves ND)
          Oklahoma St. 4 places higher in coaches (media doesn’t like Okie St.)
          Boise St. 4 places higher in writers (media loves underdogs)

          After factoring in Ohio St.’s probation, noone else differed by more than 2 slots (UNL 3 25 vs. 22, but would be 23 with Ohio St.).

          Like

          • @bullet – Not surprising. Probably the only place in college football where Notre Dame faces a disadvantage is in the coaches poll. There isn’t any cadre of fellow conference coaches to serve as a voting base for Notre Dame in the same manner that I’m presuming Big Ten and Big 12 coaches are respectively propping up Wisconsin and Oklahoma State.

            Like

  33. frug says:

    Interesting idea about what a hypothetical Big East-Mountain West alliance could have looked like if they had it been conceived a couple years ago.

    http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2012/9/10/3307786/marrinattos-missed-opportunity-big-east-mountain-west-football

    Short version, is that all the MW schools would have joined the Big East for FB only and kept their non-FB sports in the MWC (which would have ceased sponsoring football).

    The football divisions would have looked like this:

    Big East Division: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rutgers, South Florida, Temple

    Mountain West Division: Air Force, Boise St, Colorado St, Nevada, New Mexico, San Diego St, UNLV, Wyoming

    I’d say the MWC certainly would have been better off under this scenario (particularly BSU and SDSU who wouldn’t have had to park their non-FB sports in the Big West) but I’m less sure about the Big East. True they wouldn’t have had to water down the BB conference by adding SMU and UCF but they would have been splitting FB revenues 16 ways instead of 12.

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      It’s all mid-majorish.

      The Big East needed to add Boise State and San Diego State (plus another) before losing Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, and TCU. I tend to think a WVU-Boise State CCG might have generated some national hype, and added some oomph to the BCS bid.

      But once the 4 programs left the Big East, it really looks like C-USA.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Now the entire country is virtually accounted for by the Big 5.

        The Big East’s former Northeast group is entirely accounted for in the ACC now; ND’s move is just the nail in the coffin to cement that.

        The Big East is basically just a nationalized conference of 2nd tier teams now. That’s why they had to keep Pitt/Syracuse/WVU (and by extension ND). They had to remain essential in the Northeast part of the country to whatever extent they were prior to the ACC taking over that region…

        Like

  34. OrderRestored83 says:

    add

    Like

  35. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    AP Rankings by conference:

    SEC (6): #1 Alabama, #2 LSU, #5 Georgia, #7 South Carolina, #14 Florida, and #23 Miss State
    Pac-12 (5): #3 Oregon, #9 Stanford, #13 USC, #19 UCLA, and #22 Arizona
    Big XII (5): #6 Oklahoma, #8 West VA, #12 Texas, #15 K-State, and #17 TCU
    Big Ten (4): #16 Ohio State, #18 Michigan, #21 Michigan State, and #25 Nebraska
    ACC (2): #4 Florida State and #10 Clemson
    Ind: #11 Notre Dame
    Big East: #20 Louisville
    MWC: #24 Boise State

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      The ACC looked pretty ugly this weekend (and I’m tired of having to say things like that, especially for a league that is second only to the SEC in producing NFL players), but I think the ACC will show itself to have more Top 25 teams by season’s end. Georgia Tech’s pretty good. NC State is too. Via. Tech will bounce back.

      But sheesh, 2 top 25 teams looks really bad.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I’ll take it a step further: I’m pretty concerned how weak the ACC is this year because of how it might hurt Florida State. What happens if those teams I listed do end up with typical ACC mediocre records, and Clemson goes all Clemson on us by losing to Georgia Tech AND South Carolina AND FSU AND someone like Via. Tech AND their bowl team? Florida State could potentially go undefeated (one game at a time, I know) and get Boise like treatment, on the outside of the NCG looking in, while LSU and Bama rematch again. Or while a one loss USC faces one loss Bama.

        How concerned should I be? Will the weakness of the ACC hurt FSU in the computers or the polls so much that it keeps FSU out of the NCG? If that were to happen, then that’s where I draw the line. I enjoy FSU being in the ACC more than most FSU fans, but not enough for it to cost FSU a shot at a title because the league is so weak. (That’s about the only scenario where I would jump on the pro-Big 12 bandwagon.)

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Well at least the ACC has two NC contenders right now; the Big Ten has a whopping 0, so it’s got that even though it probably has more bad teams than the Big Ten (which isn’t saying much since they’re both full of mediocrity this year).

          As for FSU in the NC hunt, they really only have to worry about Oregon, Oklahoma, WVU, and Stanford. That is to say, you need to worry that an undefeated Pac-12 or Big 12 team will have way more credibility with the computers than an undefeated FSU.

          But it’s only going to matter this year and next year; once we move to a 4 team playoff, there’s almost no scenario where an undefeated FSU gets left out of the hunt. And that $50M buyout…, yeah…

          Back to this year, I think FSU only gets left out if one of those 4 teams goes undefeated. I think the computers would raise an undefeated Oklahoma, WVU, or Stanford above FSU. The only way they might not is if Florida goes on a tear to pump up FSU’s schedule.

          Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            For the life of me, I am trying to understand why anyone would care about whether or not your conference relatives are “in the hunt”… This whole conference ranking/bragging rights thing is so overblown… and soooo lame! Do you really root for your biggest rivals when they are playing other teams??? That’s so hypocritical…

            If my team sucks (and they have for too long)… I am still rooting for my team… AND I still love to see the teams I love to hate, LOSE… whether they are in the same conference or not…

            7 make believe national football titles, 18 conference titles…
            5 honest to goodness earned national hockey titles, 20 frozen fours…
            These are just a couple things that are not lame…
            Go Gophers!!

            Like

          • Brian says:

            mnfanstc,

            “For the life of me, I am trying to understand why anyone would care about whether or not your conference relatives are “in the hunt”… This whole conference ranking/bragging rights thing is so overblown… and soooo lame! Do you really root for your biggest rivals when they are playing other teams??? That’s so hypocritical…

            If my team sucks (and they have for too long)… I am still rooting for my team… AND I still love to see the teams I love to hate, LOSE… whether they are in the same conference or not…”

            It partially depends on what the reasonable ceiling for your team is. If you have a team that can win 10+ games, then conference quality really matters. You need others to be good so you end up highly ranked for beating them or don’t drop too much for a loss. Remember, everybody is fighting to make the top 2 and/or top 12 now. The reputation of your conference matters for that.

            If you have a team that can realistically win 9 games max, then it doesn’t matter at all. Root for everyone else to lose. As a MN fan, the latter approach makes more sense. To an OSU fan, the first approach can make a lot of sense.

            There are other factors, though. Some people are so sick of the hype for certain conferences that they’ll root for a rival if it hurts that other conference more to lose (see MI/AL for many OSU and MSU fans). Another factor is the schadenfreude of ruining a great season for your rival. As a Buckeye, few things were more fun for me than the 2006 win over MI because we crushed MI’s dreams of a national title. The wins over the RichRod teams weren’t nearly as enjoyable.

            I should note that fan bases split on this. Some people will never root for their rival while others take a pragmatic approach based on the crappy BCS system that forces us to care how good or rivals are.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Michael in Raleigh,

          No need to worry yet. The human polls are 2/3 of the rankings and the voters like FSU. As for conference strength, that mostly factors in when comparing teams with equal records.

          13-0 FSU will make the NCG over any 12-1 team and a perfect team from the B10, BE or non-AQs. It might be close versus a 13-0 P12 or B12 team depending on which team it is (OR, UT or OU > FSU probably, others probably < FSU). The same will hold true if you add a loss to everyone. FSU can't pass a 13-0 SEC team, but they don't need to. There can only be 1 of them.

          Like

      • Richard says:

        “and I’m tired of having to say things like that, especially for a league that is second only to the SEC in producing NFL players”

        Per capita? Per capita, I’m pretty certain that the SEC led everyone (but not by a ton), but the B10/B12/Pac/ACC were all tighly bunched together.

        Like

    • 8-team Playoffs Now says:

      AP Rankings by conference:

      Let’s fix that for ya:

      Big XII (5 of 10 = .50): #6 Oklahoma, #8 West VA, #12 Texas, #15 K-State, and #17 TCU
      SEC (6 of 14 = .43 ): #1 Alabama, #2 LSU, #5 Georgia, #7 South Carolina, #14 Florida, and #23 Miss State
      Pac-12 (5 of 12 =.42): #3 Oregon, #9 Stanford, #13 USC, #19 UCLA, and #22 Arizona
      Big Ten (4 of 12 = .33): #16 Ohio State, #18 Michigan, #21 Michigan State, and #25 Nebraska
      ACC (2 of 12 = .17): #4 Florida State and #10 Clemson
      Ind: #11 Notre Dame (1 of who cares)
      Big East: #20 Louisville (1 of who cares)
      MWC: #24 Boise State (1 of who cares)

      Like

  36. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Week 4 brings 4 games between ranked teams and a few other games to watch.

    #10 Clemson at #4 Florida State
    #15 K-State at #6 Oklahoma
    #18 Michigan at #11 Notre Dame
    #22 Arizona at #3 Oregon
    #2 LSU at Auburn
    BYU at #24 Boise State (THU)
    Virginia at #17 TCU
    Mizzou at #7 South Carolina
    Oregon State at #19 UCLA

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Clemson-FSU is definitely the most pivotal game of the weekend; the winner is likely to be favored in all of their remaining contests (except perhaps Clemson-South Carolina).

      Kansas State-Oklahoma should also be interesting simply because both teams look relatively untested. Kansas State pasted a mediocre Miami squad, while Oklahoma hasn’t played anyone yet. Then again, Oklahoma is the home team and had the week off while Kansas State struggled with North Texas.

      Michigan-Notre Dame shouldn’t be the typical fireworks show that it’s been the past couple years if Notre Dame’s defense is truly legit this year.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Alan,

      “#2 LSU at Auburn”

      I see what you did there. As bad as AU has looked, that game isn’t getting much interest outside of the SEC footprint.

      As a sneaky good game, I’ll throw Syracuse at Minnesota out there for the B10. MN is trying for 4-0 and SU has two close losses (NW and USC).

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      Surely I’m not the only one curious about the Friday night game, Baylor @ Louisiana-Monroe.

      Baylor struggled against Sam Houston State last week, so this might be interesting.

      Like

  37. frug says:

    New Big East commissioner claims new Big East will still be best MBB conference top to bottom. Luke Winn runs the numbers and finds they will actually be the weakest power conference based on past 10 years of performance.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/luke_winn/09/14/Big-East-study/index.html#comments

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, I think it’s kind of impossible to argue that anymore.

      ACC and Big Ten will be stronger than rebuilt Big East for sure. Some of the other conferences will have a legitimate argument for being better as well (SEC’s had a bit more depth than regularly given credit for during the past few years).

      Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      Winn did a decent analysis, but there are always factors that can impact that. I know of no way to factor in the difference in officiating from league to league, or the impact of style of play (teams in a black and blue league get beat up during the season and get lower efficiencies, etc). There’s no good way to know if changing leagues in and of itself would change a team’s ranking.

      His overall point stands, though. Clearly the BE lost a lot in hoops and the ACC gained.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      duffman,

      This is the most important part of the article to me:

      “How the ACC’s opponent will be selected from Notre Dame, the SEC or Big Ten is still being determined.”

      2 of 6 years, the Orange will host a semi and this doesn’t matter. The ACC champ will play in an access bowl and the other team gets no promises.

      2 of 6 years, the Rose will host a semi and the Orange won’t. The B10 champ will often need a non-Rose slot, and is guaranteed a spot somewhere. Would the Orange prefer a champ/champ game to hosting an SEC runner-up that’s higher rated?

      2 of 6 years, the Champs will host a semi and the Orange won’t. The SEC champ may need a non-Champ slot, and is guaranteed a spot somewhere. Would the Orange prefer a champ/champ game to hosting a B10 runner-up that’s higher rated?

      My guess would be that the Orange does something like this:
      1. All three entities are each capped at 3 total appearances in 6 years including the semis.
      2. In the 4 non-semi years, each entity is capped at 2 appearances.
      3. In non-semi years, the Orange will take the higher rated between a displaced champ (B10 or SEC) or ND. If neither is eligible, they’ll take the higher ranked between SEC #2 and B10 #2.
      4. An entity can exceed their cap if the others cannot fill a slot.
      5. If none of the three can fill the slot, the Orange will get an at large team from elsewhere.
      6. All three entities will be paid a fixed amount annually plus more for actually filling a slot but with the bonus amount capped by the 3 appearance limit.

      Like

  38. bullet says:

    Per Kirk Bohls, Dallas will be Champs Bowl. Their bid blowing everyone else away is different from what we heard earlier. Also, BCS aiming to select next 3 BCS title game sites in Spring.
    See items #3 and #4 in his 9 things.

    http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-2459704.html

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I’d still be surprised to see them always play in Dallas, but maybe the rules don’t allow them to follow my plan of having both the Sugar and Cotton in the 6 playoff games and switching the Champs game back and forth when one hosts a semi. I’d still prefer the Sugar to the Cotton for the traditional SEC tie-in, but I’m not surprised they are following the money.

      Assuming this is true, I believe that also eliminates Houston from the playoff bowls. The Sugar is a lock, as is the Fiesta. They said they wanted 2 each in the west, south and southeast. Having Houston, Dallas and New Orleans seems like too tight a grouping. I’d look for this to become an Atlanta/Orlando battle now for the 6th bowl. Will the Citrus Bowl renovations be sufficient? Will the proposed new stadium in Atlanta be the deciding factor? What about Disney Dollars and ESPN? The weather?

      Like

    • Eric says:

      I’d have preferred it being in the Sugar Bowl, but am OK with the Cotton. Just so long as its a traditional bowl and we can drop the “Champions Bowl.”

      Like

      • bamatab says:

        As a SEC guy, I’d prefer the Sugar Bowl as well. But I can accept the Cotton also since I lived in Dallas until I was 13 and remember how big of a deal the Cotton Bowl was back then. I hate that the Fiesta Bowl got chosen over it for the BCS games. Plus I don’t think that the SEC Champ’s tie-in with the Sugar really started until Coach Bryant’s teams in the mid to late 70s. But I do kind of dread traveling to Dallas/Arlington in January. New Orleans is a lot more fun (as long as you don’t get mugged), and has better weather in January.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          The SEC spot became official in 1975, but the SEC champ usually played there from the very beginning in 1935.

          Like

          • bamatab says:

            While a SEC usually played in the Sugar Bowl, a lot of the time (maybe even half of the time or more) it wasn’t the SEC champion. Coach Bryant had a lot to do with making the Sugar Bowl the permenant home of the SEC Champion on a yearly basis.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Bamatab – from 1935 to 1995, the Sugar Bowls that didn’t include an SEC were 39, 42, 46, and 49. As you recall, Tulane and GA Tech were SEC members until the mid-60s. On a few occasions (53, 60, and 64), two SEC teams were matched up in the Sugar Bowl.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            Alan – Yeah, most of the time an SEC team played in the Sugar Bowl. But my point was that the SEC champion wasn’t tied/forced to go to it. There were a number of occasions when the SEC champ chose to go to another bowl instead. Here is a list of Sugar Bowl years in which the SEC champs that didn’t play in the Sugar Bowl:

            1938 – Bama didn’t play in it.
            1939 – Tennessee didn’t play in it
            1942 – No SEC team played in it.
            1943 – UGA didn’t play in it.
            1945 – GT didn’t play in it.
            1946 – No SEC team played in it.
            1948 – Ole Miss didn’t play in it.
            1949 – No SEC team played in it.
            1950 – Tulane didn’t play in it.
            1954 – Bama didn’t play in it.
            1956 – Ole Miss didn’t play in it.
            1958 – Auburn didn’t play in it.
            1959 – UGA didn’t play in it.
            1965 – Bama didn’t play in it.
            1966 – Bama didn’t play in it.
            1968 – Tennessee didn’t play in it.
            1970 – Tennessee didn’t play in it.
            1971 – LSU didn’t play in it.
            1972 – Bama didn’t play in it.
            Dec of 72 – No SEC team played in it.
            Dec of 74 – Bama didn’t play in it.

            So of the 40 years from 1935-1975, in 21 of those years an SEC champion did not play in the Sugar Bowl.

            Like

  39. Richard says:

    Thinking about the new bowl tie-ins, it occurred to me that the SEC may actually be one of the biggest losers when it comes to bowl tie-ins. This would be through no fault of it’s own, but if the Cotton and Atlanta bowls get promoted, they would lose 2 tie-ins with nothing that can match those payouts (because they’re already in all the highest-paying bowls in their region, and they can’t play themselves).

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Here’s the list of bowls by current payouts:
      Capital One Bowl ($9,100,000)
      AT&T Cotton Bowl ($7,250,000)
      Outback Bowl ($7,000,000)
      Chick-fil-A Bowl ($6,900,000)
      Insight Bowl ($6,650,000)
      Valero Alamo Bowl ($6,350,000)
      TaxSlayer.com Gator Bowl ($5,450,000)
      Champs Sports Bowl ($4,550,000)
      Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl ($4,150,000)
      Hyundai Sun Bowl ($4,000,000)
      Franklin American Mortgage Music City Bowl ($3,675,000)
      New Era Pinstripe Bowl (*$3,600,000)
      Belk Bowl ($3,400,000)
      Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas ($3,400,000)
      AutoZone Liberty Bowl ($2,875,000)
      AdvoCare V100 Independence Bowl ($2,300,000)
      TicketCity Bowl ($2,200,000)
      MAACO Bowl Las Vegas ($2,200,000)
      Military Bowl pres. by Northrop Grumman ($2,000,000)
      BBVA Compass Bowl ($1,925,000)
      Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl ($1,675,000)
      Little Caesars Pizza Bowl ($1,500,000)
      GoDaddy.com Bowl ($1,500,000)
      Sheraton Hawaii Bowl ($1,300,000)
      Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl (*$1,200,000)
      R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl ($1,000,000)
      San Diego Co. Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl ($1,000,000)
      Beef O’Brady’s Bowl St. Petersburg ($1,075,000)
      Gildan New Mexico Bowl ($912,500)
      Famous Idaho Potato Bowl ($650,000)

      CapOne and Outback almost certainly will stay SEC-B10.
      Without the B12 champ anchoring the Fiesta, the second AZ bowl likely pairs Pac 2nd with B10 4th instead. The Alamo may prefer teams higher in the pecking order, but will probably go with B12 2nd vs. SEC 4th. ACC 2nd goes to Gator vs. SEC 5th. However, ACC 3rd goes to the other Orlando bowl vs. B10 5th. Holiday still matches Pac vs. B12, but now it’s 3rd vs. 3rd.

      Sun will be hard to figure out, it could be 4th from the Pac, B2, or ACC, or 6th from the B10 or SEC. For prestige purposes, they may likely stick with the Pac-ACC matchup (they’re one of the few bowls that doesn’t need traveling support to make money), matching 4th vs. 4th.

      Music City is ACC 5th vs. SEC 6th. Pinstripe would be ACC 6th vs. B10 6th. Belk has ACC 7th and the Houston bowl has B12 4th. One will have SEC 7th and the other B10 7th. Maybe they’ll work out an arrangement to swap those picks (so that WVU can go to Charlotte instead of Houston and it’s B10 vs. SEC again in Houston).

      Liberty has SEC 8th vs. BE champ. Independence has SEC 9th vs. B12 5th. TicketCity has B12 6th vs. someone. Maybe Pac 5th, though I think B10 8th or SEC 10th are more likely.

      That leaves Pac 5th for the Las Vegas bowl vs. MWC champ. Personally, I’d rather have the B10 8th in DC (Military Bowl) vs. ACC 8th.

      SEC will send 10th or 11th to the Birmingham bowl vs. the CUSA champ.

      The rest of the bowls are too little to care about, but the B10 with send 9th to the Motor City Bowl vs. the MAC to be nice to the local bowl. BE will serve as backup (just as they’ll backup the SEC in the Birmingham Bowl). BE likely backs up in the DC and Dallas bowls as well.

      Pac only has 5 bowls so far (for 12 schools). B12 has 6 (for 10 schools). ACC has 8 (for 14 schools). So the Pac (6th) and ACC (9th) will almost certainly keep facing each other in the SF Fight Hunger bowl.

      Pac will send 2 more schools to 2 of Hawaii, New Mexico, or Poinsettia. B12 will send 7th to (probably) the Ft.Worth Bell Helicopters Bowl (maybe the New Mexico or New Orleans bowl instead, but doubt it). Would the ACC try to steal the GoDaddy.com bowl from the MAC or St. Petersburg bowl from CUSA for school #10? Could they?

      Only the Pac gains a little bit, but the B10 & ACC don’t lose that much. B12 and SEC lose a full top-tier bowl.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        You know, in my scenario, the B10 actually moves up at the bottom.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        “Only the Pac gains a little bit, but the B10 & ACC don’t lose that much. B12 and SEC lose a full top-tier bowl.”

        Before you discuss winners and losers you should factor in the NCS games. I’ll use the AP poll as a surrogate for the NCS committee. The numbers will be a little inflated since playing each other in conference would knock off some of these teams.

        2011:
        ACC 1
        BE 1
        B10 1
        B12 2
        P12 3
        SEC 4

        2010:
        ACC 1
        BE 1
        B10 3
        B12 2
        P12 2
        SEC 3

        2009:
        ACC 2
        BE 2
        B10 3
        B12 2
        P12 1
        SEC 2

        2008:
        ACC 1
        BE 1
        B10 2
        B12 4
        P12 2
        SEC 2

        2007:
        ACC 1
        BE 1
        B10 1
        B12 3
        P12 1
        SEC 4
        Other 1

        Average:
        ACC 1.2
        BE 1.2
        B10 2.0
        B12 2.6
        P12 1.8
        SEC 3.0

        Assume 1 each from the BE and ACC, 2 from the B10 and P12, alternating years of 2 and 3 from the B12 and 3 from the SEC.

        If the SEC is in 2 semis and the Champs/Cotton (or 1 semi, the Champs/Cotton and the Orange), I don’t think they lose out by having the Peach and old Cotton disappear.

        SEC bowl order
        Current – Future
        BCS – NCS
        BCS – NCS
        Cap 1 – NCS
        Outback – Cap 1
        Cotton – Outback
        Peach – Alamo
        Gator – Gator
        Liberty – Music City
        Music City – Belk/Houston
        BBVA Compass – Liberty
        Independence – Independence
        N/A – TicketCity
        N/A – BBVA Compass

        They add 1 NCS plus Alamo, TicketCity and Belk/Houston
        They lose Cotton and Peach.

        I don’t see a loss there. The NCS is better than the current Cotton and the Alamo is equivalent to the current Peach. They also gain 2 lesser bowls.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          OK, that makes sense. Using the past to predict the future for the B12 is a little more perilous, however, as their membership composition has changed so much.

          If bowls take in to account the NCS games, the SEC likely only has (at most) 10 tie-ins. Maybe 9. Pac would have 7 (for 12), and B12 would have 6 (for 10). B10 may still only have 8.

          TicketCity would be open to the BE (vs. B12 6th). Either Motor City or DC would be open to the BE as well.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I know it’s shaky to use the past due to all the movement, but I did use the new alignments to find the numbers. As I said, those years with 4 probably wouldn’t happen because they’d play each other in conference and knock at least 1 team out.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Richard,

      “Thinking about the new bowl tie-ins, it occurred to me that the SEC may actually be one of the biggest losers when it comes to bowl tie-ins. This would be through no fault of it’s own, but if the Cotton and Atlanta bowls get promoted, they would lose 2 tie-ins with nothing that can match those payouts”

      Somehow I think they’ll be OK. They’ll always have at least 2 teams in the NCS bowls, and often 3 or even 4. The Cotton will replace the Sugar, the upgraded Peach would be their 2nd BCS slot, plus the new system will also have them in the Orange and/or Sugar regularly. That should make up for any bowls they lose.

      “and they can’t play themselves).”

      Says who? They could easily turn the Birmingham bowl into an East/West match-up, like a junior version of the CCG.

      Like

  40. frug says:

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/09/penn_state_boards_handling_of.html#incart_river_default

    Pennsylvania AG may be investigating whether PSU BOT’s committed a breach of fiduciary duties in their handling of NCAA sanctions.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I will laugh my butt off if people like this guy get his way and they force PSU to rescind their consent decree with the NCAA. The NCAA is just going to come back and say the BoT has to sign it again. If they don’t, they’ll probably get the death penalty they barely avoided before ot get kicked out.

      Like

      • frug says:

        The interesting question (to me at least) is whether the AG could/would force the BOT to go to court to fight the NCAA penalties. The school would probably win in that battle (bypassing the COI and empowering the President to sanction PSU directly is likely a violation of Penn St.’s contract with the NCAA), but it would be a Pyrrhic victory because the PR cost to the the school would almost certainly exceed the costs of the sanctions. Plus, the risk of losing (a four year death penalty) is probably too high given that it’s not a slam dunk case.

        Also, as you said, even if they go to court and get all the sanctions thrown out the NCAA could still throw them out of the organization if they wanted to (there are procedures for voting out institutions if I believe).

        Like

    • bullet says:

      I’ve got to agree with the attorney quoted, Cohen, “I found it strange for the NCAA say its not about football but about lack of governance of the board, and then enter into an agreement without the board.”

      That’s not precisely the NCAA claim, but the gist is about bad governance. Then the NCAA itself circumvents their procedures. The handful of board members knowing about Sandusky once he was indicted is just like the handful knowing about the sanctions.

      Like

  41. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8391435/3-charged-attack-wisconsin-badgers-montee-ball

    3 WI students have been charged for attacking Montee Ball. I’m guessing a few thousand other students would like a piece of them right about now.

    Like

  42. Brian says:

    Reason advanced TV schedules are dumb #1:
    WI @ NE Saturday at 8 pm on ABC

    Like

  43. Brian says:

    http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/tom_oates/tom-oates-badgers-troubles-go-deeper-than-offensive-line/article_7735c878-ff66-11e1-b3c9-001a4bcf887a.html

    This article has a lot more info about the WI OL coaching change. Apparently the football issue was that Markuson introduced a zone-blocking scheme where WI was used to a man scheme. How does a head coach let that happen? First, how do you not know that the guy prefers zone blocking since he;s been coaching OL for years? Second, how do you not stop him from making the change unless you wanted to switch styles?

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      Wisconsin, under Bostad, always ran a combination of zone and power. But Markuson’s techniques were much different. Bostad ran a more physical practice preaching repitition and precision. Markuson’s practices were more standing around watching him teach pass pro.

      The Markuson hire is baffling. The questions you have are those shared by most Badger fans. Either Bielema completely whiffed on the hire or he was pushed on him by his boss. I think it’s probably a combination of the two. I believe the next few years will define Bielema’s coaching tenure as he inherited Paul Chryst from Alvarez. If he can be successful with his new staff then he deserves credit but if not it will become evident on who is deserving.

      The other issue is will or can Canada adapt and be comfortable coordinating an Offense out of a pro-style formation. The results so far are troubling but its difficult to determine since the O-line issues are so blatant.

      Like

  44. Brian says:

    http://herald-review.com/sports/illini/tupper-illini-have-attendance-problem-to-tackle/article_ce3a7336-ffbf-11e1-85f7-001a4bcf887a.html

    A good story about IL’s attendance problems. Maybe they should advertise more in the cities of the visiting teams. Any paying fan would help for now.

    Based on their schedule, this will be a weak year anyway. Their home games are WMU, Charleston Southern, LT, PSU, IN, MN and PU. You can’t even attract many visiting fans with games like that. Their road game are more appealing (WI, OSU, MI, NW), and 3 of those will be at home next year.

    Like

  45. bamatab says:

    Looks like “Project SEC” is one step closer to being finalized:

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/18/sbj-progress-made-between-espn-sec-on-conference-network/

    I got a little confused when they talked about the “local tv rights”. They said: “Those issues include obtaining local TV rights and rehashing marketing rights. Local right equate to one football game per school and roughly six to eight basketball games, plus other nonrevenue sports.” So is that saying that the new network would get the one football game & six basketball games to televise, or is that saying that the schools get to keep those games? I took it as the schools get to keep 1 football game & roughly 6 basketball games, but the way they stated it was a little confusing.

    Like

    • Mike says:

      Does this help?

      http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/09/17/Media/SEC.aspx

      Those 14 football games, even if they are the least attractive games on the schedule, plus close to 100 basketball games, will be critical to the new channel’s programming.

      Like

    • Jericho says:

      I think they’re talking about Tier 3 rights – something that the schools get to keep in the SEC. They need Teir 3 content to fill the network schedule. But the schools already have existing contracts that need to be bought out.

      Like

      • bamatab says:

        Yep, the article that Mike linked explained it better. I wonder what it’s going to cost the SEC to buy those back? I bet it’ll be pretty expensive for them, especially since they’ll have to buy them back from a few different outlets.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          With the Longhorn Network, ESPN is paying IMG 15% of the total payment to buy back their rights. Part of that was that IMG got commissions for selling advertising. ESPN seems to be going beyond the LHN in that they are selling corporate sponsorships. With Texas, my understanding is that IMG retained those rights.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            bullet,

            I got the impression from the contract floating on the internet that UT got about 11 million and IMG got about 4 million of the 15 million base. I think the Longhorns did better only if it hit certain marks which would raise the annual number past 15 million. That would mean IMG was getting closer to a quarter than a bit.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          All the PAC schools bought back their individual deals.

          Like

  46. Eric says:

    It’s been posted elsewhere, but didn’t see it here. There is at least some talk of there being 8 instead of 6 BCS bowls. I think that is a big mistake as 5 already lead to duds and 6 will lessen the importance of going to one. 8 is way too many. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443995604578002620320343316.html

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Eric,

      I don’t think the number matters that much. Unlike the BCS, the new system is supposed to have the committee generating all the bowl match-ups based on rank order (not polls, but how the committee ranks them), geography, etc. That means that the 2 extra bowls would match #13 vs #14 and #15 vs #16 and probably not be in the semifinal rotation.

      Issues:
      1. Which bowls?

      Assume the 6 are Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach and Orange. The next two would be the Cap 1 and one of Outback/Insight/Houston/Alamo. The Outback might make too many FL bowls, while the Insight would put 3 way out west and 2 in the same city. A second bowl in TX would be OK since Dallas is a ways away, the question is who steps up. Based on where schools are located, having 2 games in the SE and 3 in the S makes more sense to me than 3 in the W.

      2. Do all 8 host semis?

      The Rose would love to see 2 more bowls to further dilute the semis, I think. They could drop to only 3 times in 12 years instead of 4. The Champs may feel the same way. The other bowls presumably want as many semis as possible. I just don’t know if they want four tiers of bowls (contract, access, scrub and non-NCS).

      3. Timing

      1/1 and 12/31 are already full. Are the 2 extra games on 12/30 to start building momentum? 1 on 12/29 and 1 on 12/30 (both in prime time)? When do all the other bowls play?

      4. Actual access

      If the point is to let the little guys in, do they end up capping the AQs again? Taking 16 teams is no guarantee that any non-AQ gets in since all the top ones have joined AQ conferences. Or do they just end up taking 4 more AQs?

      5. Non-NCS bowls

      With all the top bowls and teams gone, the highest remaining AQ teams don’t have many great choices left. The Outback becomes SEC #5 vs B10 #4, for example. I think this could hurt the upper bowls that get left out of the NCS.

      Like

  47. m (Ag) says:

    So, my thoughts on the SEC’s future network schedule.

    If you ignore bye weeks & schools with more than 6 home games (which to some extent cancel each other out), the SEC has 7 games in an average week for its television partners (1/2 of 14 schools have a home game). My guess is they’ll want this arrangement:

    #1 pick CBS (3:30 ET)
    #2 pick ESPN/ESPN2 (generally night)
    #3 pick ESPN/ESPN2 or SECN (generally night)
    #4 pick Syndicated SEC package (12:20 ET)
    #5 pick SECN or ESPNU
    #6 SECN
    #7 SECN

    My guess is half the time there will be 2 games on ESPN & ESPN2; ESPN would take the 2&3 picks those weeks, leaving the SECN with picks 5-7. The other half the time ESPN will take the #5 pick for ESPNU, leaving the SECN the desirable #3 pick.

    If they negotiate with CBS to allow the weakest game of the week to air at 3:30, the SECN can have a full day of games without using any overflow channels.

    I’m guessing the Conference will try and work out scheduling so that the ‘buy’ games are even more spread out around the schedule than they are now, so there will be fewer weeks with 9 games and they’ll have 7 even late in the season. Going to 9 conference games will likely be a part of that.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      m(Ag):

      I really doubt, when the SECN gets started, that you’ll have a syndicated SEC package any more. You need a decent number of games to be able to get your network on everywhere in your footprint & it makes no sense to syndicate games that would compete with your own network.

      Plus, I don’t think getting overflow channels is really that big of a deal.

      Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        1) Internet rumors are that the SEC wants to keep the syndicated games. They’ve supposedly been quite profitable and help get the conference exposure from a 3rd source (CBS, ESPN, and a local station). The biggest advertisement for the SECN will be the SEC games people see outside the network.

        2) Airing 3/7 of the games on the SECN should get every team on for 2-4 conference games and 1-2 non-conference games per year. Likely enough to drive demand in SEC territory.

        3) With 2 more teams than the Big Ten (3 more than the Big Ten had when they started the BTN), the SEC can let more games on outside of its network while still keeping a large inventory.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          m(Ag)

          My big question in all of this is where the football ends and where the rest of SEC sports begins?

          There is certainly value for Kentucky basketball on the BBN and LSU baseball on COX among others. Schools that schedule heavily against tough non conference opponents will not be happy if the other SEC schools do not follow suit. Inside the confines of football will LSU be happy if Mississippi State plays a much weaker OOC in football?

          My other question is if such a network will require all SEC schools to engage in all SEC sports?

          I think several schools in the SEC do not participate in several SEC championship sports so I wonder if this deal will require them to fund such sports so the network has more content in the non football season.

          Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            I’ve suggested it before, but I hope the conference adopts some minimum scheduling requirements for schools. For instance, every school could be required to have 1 football home game per year against an AQ school (including ND or BYU) with Big East schools only applicable once every 2 years. A school that failed to do that would lose a bit of TV revenue that year (an exception would be made if there was a truly last-minute cancellation). Outlawing FCS games is a step that would improve the quality of the ‘buy’ games that would be on the network.

            As to your 2nd question, schools make money off a network in 2 ways: 1) They own a share of the network and thus get a cut of profits, and 2) the network pays money directly to the conference for rights to air games before any profits are measured (just like CBS pays the SEC to air games).

            Presumably, each school would get the same ownership share, but they might get slightly different amounts of money for game rights depending on which sports they offered. It wouldn’t be a big difference, because the big sports are football, basketball, and baseball, and all 14 schools offer those.

            It would be nice if the network leads to schools adding sports, but I don’t think Vanderbilt is going to start offering all the sports Florida does.

            Like

        • Andy says:

          it’s funny. a few months ago when I brought up the SEC network most everybody on here told me it wouldn’t happen for at least another 10 years.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            Not everybody

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I only remember a few who seem to have a bit of a B12 persuasion.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            I remember some B1G folks saying it too, although it was further back than just a few months ago. There were a few on this blog that said that ESPN would never allow the SEC to start a SEC Network back during the expansion craze and when aTm was in the midst of joining.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @bamatab

            I think for most on here the logic was a little more subtle. ESPN specifically (over) paid the SEC to prevent them from starting a network, so why would ESPN let the SEC start one on their own? It turned out, they didn’t start one on their own, they partnered with ESPN.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Right. I certainly didn’t believe that the SEC could get out of their ESPN deal and have a conference network to themselves (like the Pac). Partnering with ESPN to start a conference network was within the realm of possibility.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            There were a few on here that didn’t even believe that ESPN would partner with the SEC on a network. Back during the expansion craze, some were saying that there was no way that the SEC would expand because they wouldn’t be able to get enough money to even keep the same tv revenue payout per school, much less be able to convince ESPN to go along with a SEC Network the might be able to increase the payout per school. Now as time went on, those thoughts gradually gave way and people admitted that the SEC could partner with ESPN like the B1G did with Fox, but there for a while some on here didn’t believe that would happen. That was one of the main reasons that was given as to why aTm wouldn’t join the SEC back when that whole drama was playing out. I remember being part of those threads.

            Heck there also were people not too long ago that said, once it became evident that the SEC Network would happen, that the SEC Network won’t be as successful as the BTN once it gets up and running. I would guess that there are still some that believe that

            Like

          • frug says:

            @bamatab

            It’s tough to compare the likely success of an SECN to the BTN at this point because

            1) we don’t know what the model of the SECN will be
            2) success can have different meanings

            What I mean is, the standard for “success” varies greatly depending on how much (if any) equity the SEC gets in the network. There is a big difference between a partnership (like the Big 10 has with Fox) and just selling the rights to their games to a cable company (the LHN model).

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            frug – when the SEC signed their last ESPN and CBS contracts, they measured success by money and exposure. Almost anyone in the country can watch 3-4 SEC games each weekend, with non-regionalized coverage on CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, and the syndicated SEC Network game shown over broadcast channels in most markets. Additional games are seen on the FSN channels, CSS, and ESPNU – channels that most sports fans have in all parts of the country. The CBS SEC game routinely beats the ABC regionalized coverage of the other conferences. The ESPN and ESPN2 games are almost always on in primetime. Its hard to argue that the SEC wasn’t successful in gaining maximum exposure outside of its geographic footprint. With the SEC/ESPN network, the SEC will make more money as well. While the money will fluctuate based on when the other conferences TV contracts come up for renewal, its hard to see another conference ever surpassing the SEC in terms of exposure outside its footprint.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            @ frug – You are right in that we don’t yet know what the SEC/ESPN Network will look like as far as whether it will be a partnership like the BTN, or another ESPN fully owned network like the LHN. From what Slive has proven in the past when it comes to his delaings & negotiations, I’m betting on more of a BTN type deal, but we’ll have to wait to find out for sure.

            As far as my comment on a SECN being as successful as the BTN, I was mainly talking about being able to get into the top tier cable packages within the SEC footprint, and being succesful in the other packages outside of the SEC footprint. I know that there were some (probably still are some) that didn’t think that a true SECN would be as “in demand” nation wide as the BTN. That is what I really meant by being as successful as the BTN, not necessarily financially (although I believe it will be).

            You are right though, until we know how the SECN will look like, we can’t know how financially beneficial it will be for the SEC.

            Like

          • greg says:

            I’ve been bullish on a SECN since the beginning, maybe even more bullish than SEC homers. I thought they could go on the air with zero football games and still get carriage in the SEC footprint, although at a fairly low price. I did think they may have problems getting the football content, but expansion and buying back 3rd tier gives them enough of a foothold to include 14(?) games.

            I would guess SECN will get carriage within the footprint, but has a lower rate (2/3? 3/4?) than BTN due to less content. Network ownership will be something similar to BTN, a partnership with ESPN (ESPNU).

            Like

          • frug says:

            @bamatab

            I agree with most of that. I don’t think they will have any problem getting the network up in the region outside of perhaps Texas at a decent carriage rate. Outside the SEC footprint though will depend on how much live sports content is on the network itself. If it is comparable to the amount the BTN has it should command about the same amount as the BTN.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            @frug – When it comes to the Texas markets, I think it’ll come down to the individual markets. I don’t think they’ll have any trouble getting it up in the Houston market since there is a large number of a&m and LSU fans in that market, plus the fact that it is close to College Station. The DFW market will be the one to watch. While there are a good number of aTm & Arky fans there, there are also a lot of OU, and the other Big 12 Texas schools there who may put up a fight. that market will be interesting to watch. Now I think they will have the most trouble with the Austin & San Antonio markets due to the proximity of those markets to UT.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            I think they can get it up around Texas, but the problem will be negotiating for price.

            They’re not going to be able to charge the price per household they will in Alabama for it, and the price they can charge will vary from place to place around the state.

            Of course, the negotiations might be difficult everywhere with cable companies, but the cable companies might be more willing to play a game of chicken in Texas.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Alan
            The Big 10 ABC games last year that I checked were all on ESPN in the other regions. ESPN and ESPN2 usually have the 12 eastern slot with Big 10 games. When I lived in Houston, I would invariably get at least 4 Big 10 games a week, sometimes more than Big 12 games. The Big 10 already gets more coverage outside its region than the SEC. Those 2 are way ahead of the Big 12, Pac 12 and ACC. But the new contracts will increase the Big 12 and Pac 12 exposure and reduce that gap.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I didn’t see Alan’s post the first time.

            In any case, as bullet talked about, any B10 fan could catch any B10 football game (any conference or OOC home game) anywhere in the country so long as they got the right TV provider (DirecTV, Dish, AT&T or Verizon, among others) without having to pay extra (like ESPN Gameplan). No other conference could say that last year (I’m not sure about the PTN carriage so can’t say that this year).

            The SEC syndicated game is a case in point. It’s syndicated in many cities outside the SEC footprint, but not all, and if your team was playing in that game, I’m not sure what you do to see it if you’re in, say, Boise. If you’re a B10 fan, you just turn to either the BTN or ESPN family of networks.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I didn’t think it would happen for 2 reasons:

            1. SEC schools were already marketing their rights and it would be hard to untangle. That was true and is part of what is holding things up now, but its not as big a hurdle as I thought. They are buying people out.

            2. I didn’t think it would add value to the schools already making a lot of money like Florida, Georgia, LSU and Kentucky. When the Georgia and Florida ADs spoke favorably about it a month or two ago, then it became obvious that was not a hurdle.

            It was always obvious ESPN had to be involved because their contract stopped the SEC from forming a network on their own. That was an additional complication.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            On the SEC syndicated game package: the SEC website has a list on its website of channels that have the package. I think they say about 80% of the people in the country get it in their homes right now. In most areas, if you don’t have a local over-the-air channel that provides it, it’s been purchased by a regional cable sports channel. It’s certainly just as a available as the Big 10 network.

            I’m pretty sure the games are all on ESPN3 as well.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Richard & bullet – y’all are talking about access, while I was talking about exposure. Certainly a B1G fan in Baton Rouge can subscribe to DirectTV and get access to the BTN. Let’s look at tomorrow’s TV schedule to prove my point regarding exposure.

            SEC: noon – Ole Miss @ Tulane (FSN); 12:21p – Kentucky @ Florida (SECN & ESPN Gameplan); 3:30p – Mizzou @ S Car (CBS); 4p – Fla Atl @ Bama (PPV & ESPN Gameplan); 7p – LSU @ Auburn (ESPN); 7p – SC State @ A&M (FSN); 7p – S. Alabama @ Miss State (ESPN Gameplan); 7:30p Akron @ Tenn (CSS); 7:45p – Vandy @ UGA (ESPN2).

            B1G: noon – UTEP @ Wiscy (ESPN), UAB @ Ohio St. (BTN), & C Mich @ Iowa (BTN); 3:30p – Temple @ Penn state (ABC Regional & ESPN2 reverse mirror), Idaho St. @ Nebraska (BTN), S. Dakota @ Northwestern (BTN), E Mich @ Mich St (BTN); 8p Syracuse @Minn (BTN), LA Tech @ Ill (BTN).

            There are 114.7 million households that have a TV. All get CBS. There are 61.2 million households with Cable. All get CBS, and almost all get ESPN, ESPN2, and FSN. Most generic sports fans get ESPNU. CSS goes to Comcast subscribers and is farmed out to many other providers, such as Cox in Baton Rouge. The same could be said for the 34.7 Satellite subscribers and the 8.3 million Telco subscribers.

            The BTN, as I understand is available on most platforms within the B1G markets, and is available on DirectTV (but not Dish), and AT&T U-verse. So B1G fans have access, while all sports fans have SEC exposure. Additionally, ESPN shows the SEC games in prime time, rather than at noon.

            I understand that when the BTN was formed, the B1G wanted to maximize revenue. Mission accomplished. When the SEC signed their CBS & ESPN contracts, they wanted to maximize money & exposure. Mission accomplished. Two different models that work. While the B1G grants access to its fans all over the country, the SEC gets more exposure than any other conference.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Alan,

            “Most generic sports fans get ESPNU.”

            Do they? Comcast has it on the sports tier in Atlanta despite all the SEC content. Do we know that most sports fans get the sports package? I certainly don’t. Lots of people have basic cable (I’m including satellite in that) or no cable. A quick check shows ESPNU in 70-75 M households (unclear if that means they have it or that they have access to it), which is not much over half of the country. Depending on where those households are, it may or may not reach most sports fans and certainly might not reach most college football fans.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Alan
            When I was talking about those minimum 4 Big 10 games in Houston, that did NOT include BTN. Now BTN games may have been syndicated, but nearly every Saturday morning, you got 3 Big 10 games on basic cable in the 11 am central slot-ESPN, ESPN2, Syndicated (I think it was a local channel). Then you would always get the 2:30 game, either on ABC or ESPN. And sometimes you would get all 5 of the games that week (in the 11 team Big 10).

            Actually ESPNU is not only on the sports tier with Comcast in Atlanta. Its on expanded (or whatever terminology). There’s basic, there’s the next level which includes ESPN, then there is expanded which includes ESPNU, Encore, Lifetime and a few others like that.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            Yes, it’s not on basic (broadcast plus some community access and such) or on digital starter (about 70 channels). You have to upgrade to digital preferred, which is $80+/month I think.

            Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Here’s the latest on the proposed SECN:

      http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/09/17/Media/SEC.aspx

      Like

    • duffman says:

      Humm, a new Oklahoma football deal is worth less than the Kansas basketball deal signed several years ago. I know these are for the entire schools but the real value is in these specific sports for these schools.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        I don’t believe this is football specific. I’m not sure but it sounds like this is everything OU is going to get for teir three.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Mike, I got that part. Just looking at each base on the primary driver of value

          Normally we talk on here about how football drives the bus and here may be a case where it is basketball. Granted this is Tier 3 money and not Tier 1 or 2 but it is interesting to see.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            @duffman – I misunderstood you, my bad.

            I’ve been beating the drum that the one crap football game and assorted crap basketball games isn’t huge money maker that some believe. Even then I’m shocked Oklahoma can only get $7MM for its entire tier three (one football, a few basketball, coaches’ shows, radio, etc.). I thought they would be pulling in much more.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Mike

            Texas is getting $11 million so I don’t know that $7 million is all that unreasonable.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Mike,

            In the world of Tier 3, basketball is worth more because there are more games to broadcast so there is more content. If you deduct the 4 million going to IMG, UNC was making more on Tier 3 years before the LHN. Why? Because Texas basketball is not that valuable. Hence, Kansas basketball is more valuable than Oklahoma basketball.

            I think what may help Oklahoma incrementally in Tier 3 is that they have solid sports for women. Their basketball team has been to the Final four and their softball was the runner up to Alabama winning it all. While this may not bring the money football does it provides year round content so you have steady income streams.

            Say you can get 1.00 for Sooner football but people cancel it for 9 months of the year you took in 3.00

            Say you can get .50 cents for all sports (and you have MCBB, WCBB, baseball and softball to fill off month programming slots) and people don’t cancel it after october then you get 6.00

            6.00 > 3.00

            Like

          • nicepair111 says:

            From what I have seen, Oklahoma’s deal with fox doesn’t include any live football games. This year’s game vs FAMU was Oklahoma’s “tier 3” game and instead of being aired on fox sports as part of this new agreement, it was PPV as has always been the case.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            This is “new” revenue if you read the article. According to the Sooner’s board, they already earn $10 million and this is on top of that. This is basically the 1 fb game, a few bb games and the spring sports and coach’s shows. So that puts them at $17 million Tier 3.

            As for Texas, that $11 million (UT is $15 average with 15% to IMG, starting at around $11 million) is on top of the IMG contract, so Texas is around $21 million (don’t remember the exact number on IMG, but I’ve linked that contract on this board before).

            Like

  48. frug says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8398279/big-east-conference-divided-14th-football-member-sources-say

    Lot’s of good stuff in this article.

    The Big East is divided over whether to pursue Air Force or BYU as its 14th football member, while another option the conference is considering is creating a 16-team football league by adding Army, Air Force and BYU, industry and league sources told ESPN.

    Media estimates have projected the Big East’s deal annually will be worth between $60 million to $130 million. Those figures would translate to between $3 million to $6.5 million for each football-only member and $4 million to $8.7 million for each full member.

    BYU, Air Force and Army are being sought as football-only members.

    Among the holdups for Air Force has been the Falcons’ loyalty to the Mountain West, especially Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michael Gould. However, Gould is scheduled to retire next year. Air Force coach Troy Calhoun also said he wasn’t in favor of joining the Big East.

    BYU was close to joining the Big East last November, until the deal blew up essentially at the last minute when the Cougars refused to relinquish their home television rights. This issue would have to be resolved for BYU to have a chance to join the Big East.

    BYU and ESPN also have an eight-year television deal worth nearly $4 million a year through 2018 with an option for 2019, sources said. The deal also allows BYUtv, which reaches 55 million homes, to broadcast one home game and rebroadcast every home game and every game ESPN has the rights for.

    If McMurphy is right (and since he works for ESPN I assume he is) that means that BYU’s ESPN deal is worth less than half what has been widely reported ($9-$12 million a year).

    The article goes on to state that starting next year the conference will split into East-West divisions until Navy and team 14 join in 2015 at which point they will move to a zipper alignment with Red and Blue divisions. (He also states that team 14 would be paired with Memphis which I think would probably change especially if 14 is Air Force)

    Like

    • Andy says:

      BYU would be a good get for the Big East.

      Like

      • Brian #2 says:

        Agree. It is surprising to me that BYU would not want to wait for the Big 12, given the conference’s impending need to expand within the coming years and the brick wall Swofford put up around ACC schools with the new exit penalties.

        Like

        • frug says:

          No reason they couldn’t jump from the Big East to the Big XII.

          That said, I can’t imagine BYU would be real enamored with the Big East (especially since under the current plan they’d be paired with Memphis)

          Like

          • @frug – Yeah, what I hear from BYU is that the interest is much more on the Big East side than from BYU. It’s pretty obvious that BYU is much more valuable than Air Force, so the Big East saying that it’s “trying to choose” between those 2 schools sounds more like posturing in the likely event that BYU turns them down. (“You didn’t turn us down! We didn’t want you, anyway!”)

            Plus, the BYU demand for TV rights for all home games is a non-starter. Even a desperate conference wouldn’t agree to that. This is such a fundamental and basic issue that I find it hard to believe that this could have been a “last minute issue” unless LDS threw that in there to nuke the negotiations (which is more than possible). If that’s the position that BYU is going to take, then there’s no way that the Big East will take them.

            Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      If they’re seriously thinking about a 16 team football conference they should just go all west to have somewhat-sensible geographic divisions.

      Add, say, BYU, Hawaii, and Fresno State (or Air Force, or UTSA), and have a western division of:

      Houston, SMU, BYU, Boise, SDSU, Fresno State, Hawaii, Memphis

      (Yeah, as one of the last 2 in, Memphis gets put in the far away division)

      For football it would be effectively 2 conferences joined by a championship game and a TV contract. It would also be able to have small bowl affiliations on 2 coasts (a bowl in California would be confident there will be one school in their half of the country to play in the bowl).

      Like

    • greg says:

      For all the discussion the past few days (mostly by duffman) about the valuation of football compared to basketball, I’m surprised this Big East rumor wasn’t further discussed. The football-only schools would be receiving 75% of the all-sport schools. As a conference that considers themselves #1 in basketball (when they’re really #2 or #3) and is obviously #6 in football, 75% of their value from football shows how little basketball is worth.

      Like

  49. duffman says:

    @ Frank, Brian, and frug,

    While we all agree Southern Cal schedules well, I would add Oklahoma to them based on the schedule data below. This was a look at all 3 “brands” in the B12 at an equal space in time and equal conference and non conference games on the schedule. Big Red and the Sooners both did well to represent their conference when scheduling OOC games! Kings and Princes are BOLD for each schools OOC data. I put Virginia Tech and Miami in the ACC tho part of the time they were still in the Big East. I debated Washington and UCLA as Princes and how to treat the other Big East schools. In the end I left them off the Prince level as with TCU since we have no idea how they would do in a tougher conference.

    Oklahoma Sooners
    21 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
    (6) PAC / (4) ACC / (3) BE / (3) IND / (3) MWC / (2) SEC / (0) B1G
    8 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
    Florida State x 2, Alabama x 2, Miami x 2, and Oregon x 2
    7 OOC games vs ranked teams, 4 were played away

    ACC = (5) Florida State x 2, Miami x 2, North Carolina
    BigE = (4) Cincinnati x 2, Louisville, South Florida
    B1G = (0) NONE
    IND = (3) Notre Dame x 2, BYU
    PAC = (7) Oregon x 2, Washington x 2, UCLA x 2, Cal
    SEC = (2) Alabama x 2

    Nebraska Cornhuskers
    19 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
    (6) PAC / (4) B1G / (4) ACC / (2) BE / (2) IND / (1) MWC / (0) SEC
    4 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
    Southern Cal x 2, Virginia Tech x 2
    6 OOC games vs ranked teams, 3 were played away

    ACC = (4) Virginia Tech x 2, Wake Forest x 2
    BigE = (2) Pittsburgh x 2
    B1G = (4) Penn State x 2, Iowa x 2
    IND = (2) Notre Dame x 2
    PAC = (8) Southern Cal x 2, Washington x 3, Cal x 2, UCLA, Arizona State
    SEC = (0) NONE

    Texas Longhorns
    10 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
    (5) PAC / (2) B1G / (2) SEC / (1) MWC / (0) ACC / (0) BE / (0) IND
    2 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
    Ohio State x 2
    4 OOC games vs ranked teams, 2 were played away

    ACC = (2) North Carolina x 2
    BigE = (0) NONE
    B1G = (2) Ohio State x 2
    IND = (1) BYU
    PAC = (5) UCLA x 3, Stanford x 2
    SEC = (2) Arkansas x 2, Ole Miss

    .

    @ bullet,

    Being curious I did Texas / Oklahoma / Nebraska since they were all Top 10 brands and all spent most of the BCS era in the same conference. Here is the OOC for all 3 schools from 1998 until this year just to see how they stacked up. It is clear that Oklahoma was an exceptional OOC scheduler at this time. Nebraska was a good scheduler but that credit will accrue to the B1G as that is where they now play. Texas was not a good scheduler and falls more in line with the majority of current B12 schools.

    It will be interesting to see if Notre Dame will remain on future schedules now that they must play 5 ACC games each year. I hope the Southern Cal series in 2017 and 2018 comes to pass. If either fall off the Texas schedule then the rest of the games for the next decade will contain no games against “brand” teams or near “brand” teams. Nobody looks at Cal and Maryland the way they do Ohio State and Alabama.

    You are correct about Texas being soft in the Mack Brown era! Without his ties to UNC the Longhorns would have no games against ACC or Big East teams. Without realignment he may never have scheduled Notre Dame either even tho Oklahoma and Nebraska had the Irish on their schedules. On the other side I do not buy your premise that this was all realignment as both the other “brands” have still scheduled well. Again, the issue of Oklahoma being the exception more than the rule in the current Big 12 membership is what concerns me going forward. Unless I see all 4 texas schools make a concerted effort to strengthen their OOC schedules I will doubt their ability as top teams. I could give a pass to Iowa State for at least having the Iowa game and Kansas has never been a football powerhouse but Oklahoma State needs to step up if they want respect at the next level.

    .
    .
    .

    ******** Here is the actual data used ********
    Schools in BOLD indicate rank when played, not final ranking

    .

    Oklahoma OOC in the BCS era :

    1998 = N Texas / @ TCU / California
    1999 = Indiana State / @ Louisville / @ Notre Dame
    2000 = UTEP / Arkansas State / Rice
    2001 = UNC / @ Air Force / N Texas / Tulsa
    2002 = @ Tulsa / Alabama / UTEP / USF
    2003 = N Texas / @ Alabama / Fresno State / UCLA
    2004 = BGSU / Houston / Oregon
    2005 = TCU / Tulsa / @ UCLA
    2006 = UAB / Washington / @ Oregon #18 / Middle Tennessee
    2007 = N Texas / Miami / Utah State / @ Tulsa
    2008 = UT – Chattanooga / Cincinnati / @ Washington / TCU #23
    2009 = TX vs BYU #24 / Idaho State / Tulsa / @ Miami #21
    2010 = Utah State / Florida State #18 / Air Force / @ Cincinnati
    2011 = Tulsa / @ Florida State #5 / Ball State
    2012 = @ UTEP / Florida A&M / Notre Dame #?

    .

    Nebraska OOC in the BCS era :

    1998 = La Tech / UAB / @ Cal / Washington #9
    1999 = @ Iowa / Cal / Southern Mississippi
    2000 = SJSU / @ Notre Dame #23 / Iowa
    2001 = TCU / Troy / Notre Dame #17 / Rice
    2002 = Arizona State / Troy / Utah State / @ Penn State / McNeese St
    2003 = Utah State / Penn State / @ Southern Mississippi / Troy
    2004 = Western Illinois / Southern Mississippi / @ Pittsburgh
    2005 = Maine / Wake Forest / Pittsburgh
    2006 = La Tech / Nicholls State / @ Southern Cal #4 / Troy
    2007 = Nevada / @ Wake Forest / Southern Cal #1 / Ball State
    2008 = W Michigan / SJSU / New Mexico State / Virginia Tech
    2009 = Florida Atlantic / Arkansas State / @ Virginia Tech #13 / LA Lafayette
    2010 = Western Kentucky / Idaho / @ Washington / South Dakota State
    2011 = UT Chattanooga / Fresno State / Washington / @ Wyoming
    2012 = Southern Mississippi / @ UCLA / Arkansas State / Idaho State

    .

    Texas OOC in the BCS era :

    1998 = New Mexico State / @ UCLA #6 / Rice
    1999 = NC State / Stanford / @ Rutgers / Rice
    2000 = LA Lafayette / @ Stanford / Houston
    2001 = New Mexico State / UNC / @ Houston
    2002 = North Texas / @ UNC / Houston / @ Tulane
    2003 = New Mexico State / Arkansas / @ Rice / Tulane
    2004 = North Texas / @ Arkansas / Rice
    2005 = LA Lafayette / @ Ohio State #4 / Rice
    2006 = North Texas / Ohio State #1 / @ Rice / Sam Houston State
    2007 = Arkansas State / TCU #19 / @ Central Florida / Rice
    2008 = Florida Atlantic / @ UTEP / Rice / Arkansas
    2009 = LA – Monroe / @ Wyoming / UTEP / Central Florida
    2010 = TX vs Rice / Wyoming / UCLA / Florida Atlantic
    2011 = Rice / BYU / @ UCLA
    2012 = Wyoming / New Mexico / @ Ole Miss

    Like

    • duffman says:

      apology, that was supposed to reply to the discussion farther up the page.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      duff – LSU & Oklahoma have a home and home series scheduled alter this decade.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Makes sense as both seem to welcome good OOC opponents even if it means going to the other schools home or playing a neutral site. I just did Southern Cal and the former B12 brands but I have a feeling other Kings and Princes schedule well. Alabama seems to play solid OOC teams but not as sure about Arkansas. It will be interesting to see how TAMU schedules once they have been in the SEC for a few years. If TAMU vs LSU and Arkansas vs Missouri become the long term season ending games it will give the SEC west some solid TV games.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Note that kings who have small population bases tend to schedule well (OU, Nebraska, LSU, but Tennessee comes to mind as well; ND, which has no population base, schedules very aggressively). In part, this is because they know that they need to draw top recruits outside their state in order to be competitive, and playing top opponents & visiting talent-rich areas out of state help. USC is an anomaly despite the huge amount of SoCal talent because they have to schedule well in order to draw fickle SoCal fans (this is true for UCLA as well).

      A school like Florida or Texas (or Georgia) will draw huge crowds and interest from massive amounts of (in-state) recruits no matter what schedule they play.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        @ Richard,

        Interesting point, it would be telling to look at all 10 “brand” schools and maybe the next 5 – 10 to see how well that falls out. Maybe it is me, but it feels like Michigan and Penn State schedule well OOC but maybe part of that is the Notre Dame vs Michigan series and the Penn State vs Alabama series type games. Both are big state schools with access to first line recruiting in their home states. Georgia and Florida are limited because their in state rival game is out of conference so that takes up one OOC slot every season. I agree that Tennessee feels like they schedule well but I would have to actually research before saying it is fact.

        The CA schools, excluding Southern Cal, seem harder to pinpoint because they were so far in the shadow of the one school. The B12 with OK, NE, and TX has to be tougher than just OK and TX the same way the B1G would be less without Penn State or the SEC would be without Tennessee. Football in the ACC is newer and no 2 – 3 schools have been able to dominate since the ACC went to 12. Double schedulers should really be commended tho when you see Clemson play South Carolina and Auburn or Florida State play Oklahoma and Florida or Georgia play Georgia Tech and Boise State in the same season.

        The trade off for fickle fans in the PAC is offset by natural boundaries. Both the ACC / NC and PAC / CA have 4 core schools in their conference. On the west coast you need a plane to get there from the B12 or B1G. On the east coast a quick car ride puts you in Big East, B1G, and SEC country (and B12 now that West Virginia has a new home) so the barbarians are right next door.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Florida almost never plays on the road ooc. Florida hasn’t played out of state ooc in how long? Decades? How often does Michigan play on the road ooc?

          And I didn’t say Mack played soft schedules, just softer than Texas used to schedule. Under Mack, Texas has normally scheduled a game with a Houston team (Rice or UH), one good game, one buy game and then a 4th game. Most times since Mack took over, the 4th game wasn’t a strong opponent, unlike before. But unlike a some schools with big stadiums, in that 4th game, Texas will play a Wyoming or Central Florida on the road (and Rice and Houston were 2 for 1s). Unlike Alabama and Florida, Texas doesn’t play the Citadel or Georgia Southern, or a Georgia State in their 1st year of football….

          And even in your schedule, Texas played 3 top 6 opponents. Oklahoma had 1 in the top 10. Nebraska had 2 top 6 + a #9. Texas didn’t play Maine, McNeese, W. Ill., Nicholls St., S. Dakota St., UT Chattanooga or Idaho St.-ALL on Nebraska’s schedule. Texas didn’t play Indiana St., Idaho St. or Florida A&M-all on OU’s schedule. North Texas, an in-state school who at one time was considered for SWC membership, is the only FCS school Texas has EVER played. Alabama, Florida, Nebraska and OU should be embarrased about scheduling those FCS games.

          While Nebraska has long scheduled some tough games, they annually scheduled just about the worst team they could find as well. There was a Wall St. Journal article on money games about 10 years ago and talked about Nebraska paying Akron (who was REALLY bad at the time) and Pacific (who soon dropped football) to go to Lincoln to get stomped.
          Really, are you seriously saying S. Dakota St. (new in Division I), Idaho (bad in FBS), UW (really bad at the time-but perhaps unexpectedly so, and W. Ky (the worst FBS school at the time) is some powerhouse schedule (Nebraska 2010-and 2011 and 2012 are similar)?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Saw your post below. With regards to Michigan, I forgot about Notre Dame. So they do get credit for that.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            While Nebraska has long scheduled some tough games, they annually scheduled just about the worst team they could find as well. There was a Wall St. Journal article on money games about 10 years ago and talked about Nebraska paying Akron (who was REALLY bad at the time) and Pacific (who soon dropped football) to go to Lincoln to get stomped.
            Really, are you seriously saying S. Dakota St. (new in Division I), Idaho (bad in FBS), UW (really bad at the time-but perhaps unexpectedly so, and W. Ky (the worst FBS school at the time) is some powerhouse schedule (Nebraska 2010-and 2011 and 2012 are similar)?

            Judging by comments from Nebraska recently, Nebraska doesn’t want to play those games either. However, it’s very tough to get teams to come to Lincoln without a return trip or paying them tons of money (Boise St wanted over $1MM and turned down a two for one). Unlike Texas, Nebraska doesn’t have the stable of schools (relatively) nearby who would love to play them anywhere. Nebraska is attempting to schedule more two for one’s (see Wyoming, Fresno St) and has started paying for the better non-AQ teams (paid Arkansas St $1MM last week) to help keep those games off the schedule.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “Florida almost never plays on the road ooc.”

            You mean Florida almost never plays out of state on the road. They play at FSU every other year (Florida-FSU is pretty much the distance between ND-Michigan, so there’s a direct parallel in Big Ten country).

            Certainly Florida with FSU on its schedule has had a more difficult schedule than Texas most years. The distance is far less important than the quality of the opponent.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Mike;

            Basically, Nebraska’s ADs have been cheap. They have been outspoken for years about how expensive the buy games have been and have scheduled the FCS schools for that reason. Right now, those cost around 500k while FBS schools cost $1.0 million up. The Florida philosophy, which has been adopted by UGA with their AD from Florida, is to schedule easy and do as many home games as possible. They don’t mind being cheap also. Previously Georgia was scheduling schools like Arizona State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, trying to get a higher profile around the nation. They’ve dropped those sort of games in favor of Idaho St. & Coastal Carolina.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            Basically, Nebraska’s ADs have been cheap.

            They prefer to call it fiscally responsible.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            bullet – I really hate that you put me in the position of having to defend the Gators on anything, but whining about their OOC all being played in the state of Florida or that an OOC schedule with FSU on it is weak, is absurd and a red herring. Since Bobby Bowden got to Tallahassee, FSU has been the hardest OOC opponent anyone could schedule on a regular basis. From 1987 to 2000, FSU was a top 5 team – EVERY YEAR! Don’t penalize the Gators just because Gainesville isn’t that far from Tallahassee.

            I remember when the Gators had a game in Arizona, they played pretty well.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            When I think of Florida in Arizona, I’m reminded of that game in the 95 season vs. Nebraska.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            A little more about UF:

            http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-12/sec/2012-florida-gators-football-schedule.php

            They only play 3 games outside of FL this year – @ TAMU (W), @TN (W) and @Vandy on 10/13.
            In odd years they play 4 games outside the state, but in even years it’s been 3 since the UGA game is always in Jacksonville. That’s a huge advantage over almost everyone else.

            Like

          • m(Ag) says:

            Having games classified as ‘in state’ or ‘out of state’ don’t magically affect the difficulty of games. If Jacksonville was annexed by Georgia, Florida’s schedule wouldn’t be harder. If South Bend was annexed by Michigan, the schedule of U of Michigan wouldn’t be easier. TCU’s game against LSU in Jerryworld is not an easier schedule than a home and home series with Washington State.

            Anyone who thinks distance to opponent is more important than quality of opponent is foolish. Anyone who thinks state lines have any factor at all in difficulty isn’t even attempting to put forward a serious argument.

            If you want to say Florida should add an additional quality OOC game that’s fine, but you should hold the Big Ten schools to the same standard.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Really odd. Their last 3 games are out of conference.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Really odd. Their last 3 games are out of conference.”

            The price of playing conference games early and having an OOC rival to end the season. It’s one reason I don’t like September conference games. A team shouldn’t be “in the clubhouse” by 11/4.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Alan-Do you really defend this:

            MNC 2006 S. Miss, UCF, Western Carolina(FCS), @FSU
            2007 WKU (FCS), Troy, FAU, FSU
            MNC 2008 Hawaii, Miami, The Citadel(FCS), @FSU
            2009 Charleston Southern(bad FCS), Troy, FIU, FSU
            2010 Miami, USF, App. St.(FCS), @FSU
            2011 FAU, UAB, Furman (FCS), FSU
            2012 Bowling Green, La-La, Jacksonville St.(weak FCS), @FSU

            4 road games out of 28, 6 Sun Belt, 1 MAC and 7 FCS, including years when Florida won the MNC? Having FSU 7 times and Miami twice at home doesn’t offset that.

            Like

    • duffman says:

      @ Richard, here are the B1G 3 (covered Nebraska in previous post)

      Ohio State played more ranked teams at home but Michigan played more ranked teams on the road. Penn State and Ohio State played more MNC type teams. I put Penn State at the bottom just because of the move to schedule Temple as a yearly series where Michigan had Notre Dame. The +1 game for the Buckeyes was the PAC but it varied widely from top to bottom. All were pretty solid schedulers tho.

      .

      Michigan Wolverines
      25 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (5) PAC / (3) BE / (0) ACC / (0) B12 / (13) IND / (2) MWC / (1)WAC / (1) SEC
      3 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Oregon x 2, Alabama
      14 OOC games vs ranked teams, 9 were played away

      ACC = (0) NONE
      BigE = (3) Syracuse x 2, Connecticut
      B12 = (0) NONE
      IND = (13) Notre Dame x 13
      PAC = (5) Washington x 2, Oregon x 2, UCLA
      SEC = (2) Alabama, Vanderbilt

      .

      Ohio State Buckeyes
      18 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (8) PAC / (5) BE / (3) ACC / (2) B12 / (0) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC / (0) SEC
      7 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Miami x 3, Texas x 2, Southern Cal x 2
      13 OOC games vs ranked teams, 5 were played away

      ACC = (5) Miami x 3, North Carolina State x 2
      BigE = (5) Cincinnati x 4, West Virginia
      B12 = (4) Texas x 2, Missouri, Texas Tech
      IND = (1) Navy
      PAC = (10) USC x 2, Washington x 2, UCLA x 2, WSU, Cal, Colorado, Arizona
      SEC = (0) NONE

      .

      Penn State Nittany Lions

      16 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (2) PAC / (6) BE / (2) ACC / (2) B12 / (2) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC / (2) SEC
      6 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Alabama x 2, Miami x 2, Southern Cal, Nebraska
      10 OOC games vs ranked teams, 5 were played away

      ACC = (7) Miami x 2, Virginia x 3, Boston College x 2
      BigE = (7) Pittsburgh x 3, Syracuse x 2, Cincinnati, South Florida
      B12 = (2) Nebraska x 2
      IND = (3) Notre Dame x 2, Navy
      PAC = (3) Southern Cal, Arizona, Oregon State
      SEC = (2) Alabama x 2

      .
      ************ Here were the actual schedules ************
      .

      Ohio State OOC in the BCS era :

      1998 = @ West Virginia #11 / Toledo / Missouri #21
      1999 = NJ vs Miami #12 / UCLA #21 / Ohio / Cincinnati
      2000 = Fresno State / @ Arizona / Miami (OH)
      2001 = Akron / @ UCLA #14 / SDSU
      2002 = Texas Tech / Kent State / Washington State #10 / @ Cincinnati
      2003 = Washington #17 / SDSU / NC State #24 / BGSU
      2004 = Cincinnati / Marshall / @ NC State
      2005 = Miami (OH) / Texas #2 / SDSU
      2006 = Northern Illinois / @ Texas #2 / Cincinnati / BGSU
      2007 = Youngstown State / Akron / @ Washington / Kent State
      2008 = Youngstown State / Ohio / @ Southern Cal #1 / Troy
      2009 = Navy / Southern Cal #3 / Toledo / New Mexico State
      2010 = Marshall / Miami #12 / Ohio / Eastern Michigan
      2011 = Akron / Toledo / @ Miami / Colorado
      2012 = Miami (OH) / Central Florida / California / UAB

      .

      Michigan OOC in the BCS era :

      1998 = @ Notre Dame #22 / Syracuse #18 / E Michigan / @ Hawaii
      1999 = @ Notre Dame #16 / Rice / @ Syracuse
      2000 = BGSU / Rice / @ UCLA #14
      2001 = Miami (OH) / @ Washington #15 / W Michigan
      2002 = Washington #9 / W Michigan / @ Notre Dame #20 / Utah
      2003 = C Michigan / Houston / Notre Dame #14 / @ Oregon #22
      2004 = Miami (OH) / @ Notre Dame / SDSU
      2005 = Northern Illinois / Notre Dame #20 / E Michigan
      2006 = Vanderbilt / C Michigan / @ Notre Dame #2 / Ball State
      2007 = Appalachian St / Oregon / Notre Dame / E Michigan
      2008 = Utah / Miami (OH) / @ Notre Dame / Toledo
      2009 = W Michigan / Notre Dame #18 / E Michigan / Delaware State
      2010 = Connecticut / @ Notre Dame / Massachusetts / BGSU
      2011 = W Michigan / Notre Dame / E Michigan / SDSU
      2012 = TX vs Alabama #2 / Air Force / Massachusetts / @ Notre Dame #11

      .

      Penn State OOC in the BCS era :

      1998 = Southern Mississippi #21 / BGSU / @ Pittsburgh
      1999 = Arizona #4 / Akron / Pittsburgh / @ Miami #8
      2000 = NJ vs Southern Cal / Toledo / La Tech / @ Pittsburgh
      2001 = Miami #2 / Southern Mississippi / @ Virginia
      2002 = Central Florida / Nebraska #7 / La Tech / Virginia
      2003 = Temple / Boston College / @ Nebraska #18 / Kent State
      2004 = Akron / @ Boston College / Central Florida
      2005 = South Florida / Cincinnati / C Michigan
      2006 = Akron / @ Notre Dame #4 / Youngstown State / Temple
      2007 = Florida International / Notre Dame / Buffalo / @ Temple
      2008 = Costal Carolina / Oregon State / @ Syracuse / Temple
      2009 = Akron / Syracuse / Temple / Eastern Illinois
      2010 = Youngstown State / @ Alabama #1 / Kent State / Temple
      2011 = Indiana State / Alabama #3 / @ Temple / E Michigan
      2012 = Ohio / @ Virginia / Navy / Temple

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Here is Georgia / Georgia Tech / South Carolina / Clemson

        .

        Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
        25 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
        (0) PAC / (4) BE / (17) SEC / (0) B1G / (2) B12 / (2) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC
        2 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
        Auburn x 2
        13 OOC games vs ranked teams, 5 were played away

        BigE = (5) Connecticut x 3, Syracuse, Boston College
        B1G = (0) NONE
        B12 = (2) Kansas x 2
        IND = (9) BYU x 3, Navy x 3, Notre Dame x 2, Army
        PAC = (0) NONE
        SEC = (22) Georgia x 15, Vanderbilt x 3, Auburn x 2, Mississippi State x 2

        .

        Georgia Bulldogs
        21 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
        (2) PAC / (0) BE / (17) ACC / (0) B1G / (2) B12 / (0) IND / (0) MWC / (2)WAC
        0 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
        NONE
        12 OOC games vs ranked teams, 7 were played away

        ACC = (17) Georgia Tech x 15, Clemson x 2
        BigE = (0) NONE
        B1G = (0) NONE
        B12 = (2) Oklahoma State x 2
        IND = (0) NONE
        PAC = (4) Arizona State x 2, Colorado x 2

        .

        Clemson Tigers
        8 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
        (0) PAC / (0) BE / (6) SEC / (0) B1G / (2) B12 / (0) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC
        4 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
        Auburn x 3, Alabama
        11 OOC games vs ranked teams, 4 were played away

        SEC = (21) South Carolina x 15, Auburn x 3, Georgia x 2, Alabama
        BigE = (0) NONE
        B1G = (0) NONE
        B12 = (4) Texas A&M x 2, Missouri x 2
        IND = (0) NONE
        PAC = (0) NONE

        .

        South Carolina Gamecocks
        16 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
        (0) PAC / (0) BE / (15) ACC / (0) B1G / (0) B12 / (0) IND / (0) MWC / (1)WAC
        0 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
        NONE
        7 OOC games vs ranked teams, 3 were played away

        ACC = (21) Clemson x 15, NC State x 3, Virginia x 2, North Carolina
        BigE = (1) South Florida
        B1G = (0) NONE
        B12 = (0) NONE
        IND = (1) Navy
        PAC = (0) NONE

        .
        ************ Here were the actual schedules ************
        .

        Georgia Tech OOC in the BCS era :

        1998 = Boston College / New Mexico State / @ Georgia #12
        1999 = @ Navy / Central Florida / Georgia #20
        2000 = Central Florida / Navy / @ Georgia #19
        2001 = NJ vs Syracuse / Citadel / @ Navy / Georgia #19
        2002 = Vanderbilt / @ Connecticut / BYU / @ Georgia #5
        2003 = @ BYU / Auburn #17 / @ Vanderbilt / Georgia #5
        2004 = Samford / Connecticut / @ Georgia
        2005 = @ Auburn / Connecticut / Georgia #15
        2006 = Notre Dame #3 / Samford / Troy / @ Georgia
        2007 = @ Notre Dame / Samford / Army / Georgia #7
        2008 = Jacksonville State / Mississippi State / Gardner Webb / @ Georgia #11
        2009 = Jacksonville State / @ Mississippi State / @ Vanderbilt / Georgia
        2010 = South Carolina State / @ Kansas / Middle Tennessee / @ Georgia
        2011 = Western Carolina / @ Middle Tennessee / Kansas / Georgia #13
        2012 = Presbyterian / Middle Tennessee / BYU / @ Georgia #6

        .

        Georgia OOC in the BCS era :

        1998 = Kent State / Wyoming / Georgia Tech #18
        1999 = Utah State / Central Florida / @ Georgia Tech #20
        2000 = Georgia Southern / New Mexico State / Georgia Tech #18
        2001 = Arkansas State / @ Georgia Tech #25 / Houston
        2002 = Clemson / Northwestern State / New Mexico State / Georgia Tech
        2003 = @ Clemson / Middle Tennessee / UAB / @ Georgia Tech
        2004 = Georgia Southern / Marshall / Georgia Tech
        2005 = Boise State #19 / LA Monroe / @ Georgia Tech #24
        2006 = Western Kentucky / UAB / Colorado / Georgia Tech #15
        2007 = Oklahoma State / Western Carolina / Troy / @ Georgia Tech
        2008 = Georgia Southern / C Michigan / @ Arizona State / Georgia Tech #22
        2009 = @ Oklahoma St #9 / Arizona State / TN Tech / @ Georgia Tech #7
        2010 = LA Lafayette / @ Colorado / Idaho State / Georgia Tech
        2011 = Boise State #5 / Costal Carolina / New Mexico / @ Georgia Tech #25
        2012 = Buffalo / Florida Atlantic / Georgia Southern / Georgia Tech

        .

        Clemson OOC in the BCS era :

        1998 = Furman / Missouri / South Carolina
        1999 = Marshall / @ Virginia Tech / @ South Carolina
        2000 = Citadel / Missouri / South Carolina #25
        2001 = Central Florida / Wofford / @ South Carolina
        2002 = @ Georgia #8 / La Tech / Ball State / South Carolina
        2003 = Georgia #11 / Furman / Middle Tennessee / @ South Carolina
        2004 = @ Texas A&M / Utah State / South Carolina
        2005 = Texas A&M #17 / Temple / @ South Carolina #19
        2006 = Florida Atlantic / La Tech / NC vs Temple / South Carolina
        2007 = LA Monroe / Furman / Central Michigan / @ South Carolina
        2008 = GA vs Alabama / Citadel / South Carolina State / South Carolina
        2009 = Middle Tennessee / TCU #14 / Costal Carolina / @ South Carolina
        2010 = North Texas / Presbyterian / @ Auburn #15 / South Carolina #17
        2011 = Troy / Wofford / Auburn 21 / @ South Carolina #13
        2012 = GA vs Auburn / Ball State / Furman / South Carolina #6

        .

        South Carolina OOC in the BCS era :

        1998 = Ball Sate / Marshall / @ Clemson
        1999 = @ NC State / ECU / Clemson
        2000 = New Mexico State / Eastern Michigan / @ Clemson #14
        2001 = Boise State / Wofford / Clemson
        2002 = New Mexico State / @ Virginia / Temple / @ Clemson
        2003 = LA Lafayette / Virginia #15 / UAB / Clemson
        2004 = South Florida / Troy / @ Clemson
        2005 = Central Florida / Troy / Clemson
        2006 = Wofford / Florida Atlantic / Middle Tennessee / @ Clemson #24
        2007 = LA Lafayette / South Carolina State / @ UNC / Clemson #22
        2008 = NC State / Wofford / UAB / @ Clemson
        2009 = @ NC State / Florida Atlantic / South Carolina State / Clemson #15
        2010 = Southern Mississippi / Furman / Troy / @ Clemson
        2011 = NC vs ECU / Navy / Citadel / Clemson #17
        2012 = ECU / UAB / Wofford / @ Clemson #10

        Like

    • duffman says:

      Here is Alabama, Tennessee, and LSU. They are pretty close but only Alabama has played at least 1 team from all the AQ conferences. LSU has no fear of leaving Baton Rouge to play top ranked teams. Tennessee was odd since they were the closest of the 3 to B1G schools yet had no games scheduled. It looks like they have used Notre Dame and Cincinnati to fill the void. Like Ohio State the Tigers seem to schedule the PAC quite a bit.

      Alabama Crimson Tide

      12 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (3) B1G / (2) PAC / (0) BE / (3) ACC / (2) B12 / (0) IND / (0) MWC / (2)WAC
      4 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Oklahoma x 2, Florida State, Virginia Tech
      10 OOC games vs ranked teams, 5 were played away

      ACC = (5) Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke x 2
      BigE = (1) South Florida
      B1G = (3) Penn State x 2, Michigan
      B12 = (2) Oklahoma x 2
      IND = (1) BYU
      PAC = (2) UCLA x 2

      .

      Tennessee Volunteers

      12 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (0) B1G / (3) PAC / (3) BE / (2) ACC / (0) B12 / (4) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC
      3 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Miami x 2, Oregon
      7 OOC games vs ranked teams, 4 were played away

      ACC = (4) Miami x 2, NC State, Duke
      BigE = (4) Syracuse x 2, Cincinnati, Rutgers
      B1G = (0) NONE
      B12 = (0) NONE
      IND = (4) Notre Dame x 4
      PAC = (5) UCLA x 2, Cal x 2, Oregon

      .

      Louisiana State Tigers

      9 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (0) B1G / (4) PAC / (2) BE / (2) ACC / (0) B12 / (1) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC
      3 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Virginia Tech x 2, Oregon
      8 OOC games vs ranked teams, 6 were played away

      ACC = (3) Virginia Tech x 2, North Carolina
      BigE = (2) West Virginia x 2
      B1G = (0) NONE
      B12 = (0) NONE
      IND = (1) Notre Dame
      PAC = (7) Washington x 2, Arizona x 2, Oregon, Arizona State, Oregon State

      .
      ************ Here were the actual schedules ************
      .

      Alabama OOC in the BCS era :

      1998 = BYU / East Carolina / Southern Mississippi
      1999 = Houston / La Tech / Southern Mississippi
      2000 = @ UCLA / Southern Mississippi #25 / Central Florida
      2001 = UCLA #17 / UTEP / Southern Mississippi
      2002 = Middle Tennessee / @ Oklahoma #2 / North Texas / Southern Mississippi
      2003 = South Florida / Oklahoma #1 / N Illinois / Southern Mississippi / @ Hawaii
      2004 = Utah State / Western Carolina / Southern Mississippi #24
      2005 = Middle Tennessee / Southern Mississippi / Utah State
      2006 = Hawaii / LA Monroe / Duke / Florida International
      2007 = Western Carolina / FL vs Florida State / Houston / LA Monroe
      2008 = GA vs Clemson #9 / Tulane / Western Kentucky / Arkansas State
      2009 = GA vs Virginia Tech #7 / Florida International / N Texas / TN – Chattanooga
      2010 = SJSU / Penn State #18 / @ Duke / Georgia State
      2011 = Kent State / @ Penn State #23 / North Texas / Georgia Southern
      2012 = TX vs Michigan #8 / Western Kentucky / Florida Atlantic / W Carolina

      .

      Tennessee OOC in the BCS era :

      1998 = @ Syracuse / Houston / UAB
      1999 = Wyoming / Memphis / Notre Dame
      2000 = Southern Mississippi #22 / LA Monroe / @ Memphis
      2001 = Syracuse / @ Notre Dame / Memphis
      2002 = Wyoming / Middle Tennessee / Rutgers / Miami #1
      2003 = Fresno State / Marshall / Duke / @ Miami #6
      2004 = UNLV / La Tech / Notre Dame
      2005 = UAB / @ Notre Dame #8 / Memphis
      2006 = Cal #12 / Air Force / Marshall / @ Memphis
      2007 = @ Cal #12 / Southern Mississippi / Arkansas State / LA Lafayette
      2008 = @ UCLA / UAB / Northern Illinois / Wyoming
      2009 = Western Kentucky / UCLA / Ohio / Memphis
      2010 = TN Martin / Oregon #7 / UAB / @ Memphis
      2011 = Montana / Cincinnati / Buffalo / Middle Tennessee
      2012 = GA vs NC State / Georgia State / Akron / Troy

      .

      Louisiana State OOC in the BCS era :

      1998 = Arkansas State / Idaho / @ Notre Dame #10
      1999 = SJSU / North Texas / Houston
      2000 = Western Carolina / Houston / UAB
      2001 = Tulane / Utah State / Middle Tennessee
      2002 = @ Virginia Tech #16 / Citadel / Miami (OH) / LA Lafayette
      2003 = LA Monroe / @ Arizona / Western Illinois / La Tech
      2004 = Oregon State / Arkansas State / Troy
      2005 = @ Arizona State #15 / North Texas / Appalachian State
      2006 = LA Lafayette / Arizona / Tulane / Fresno State
      2007 = Virginia Tech #9 / Middle Tennessee / @ Tulane / La Tech
      2008 = Appalachian State / North Texas / Tulane / Troy
      2009 = @ Washington / LA Lafayette / Tulane / La Tech
      2010 = GA vs UNC #18 / West Virginia #22 / McNeese State / LA Monroe
      2011 = TX vs Oregon #3 / NW St / @ West Virginia #16 / Western Kentucky
      2012 = North Texas / Washington / Idaho / Towson

      Like

    • duffman says:

      @ bullet,

      Here are the schools in Florida for comparison. I think it pretty much ends the discussion on the Gators not leaving the state. The OOC schedule they play is tougher than most all of D I even if they play them inside the borders of the state. Not sure many folks would be happy having (2) Top 10 schools on their OOC in a given year.

      For Miami and Florida State I listed the games they played before both were in the ACC but did not count them in the overall numbers. While historically it would indicate a tougher schedule it would skew the data as viewed through Ohio State vs Michigan or Texas vs Oklahoma. While historically it affected their OOC schedule such a game today no longer exists. It does illustrate a point tho about the power of Florida Sate and Miami prior to having to play under the 12 team model and neither has returned to their pre 12 team ACC history.

      .

      Florida State Seminoles
      29 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (4) PAC / (4) BE / (16) SEC / (0) B1G / (3) B12 / (2) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC
      19 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Florida x 15, Oklahoma x 2, Alabama, Southern Cal
      19 OOC games vs ranked teams, 9 were played away

      BigE = (6) Louisville x 2, Syracuse x 2, South Florida x 2
      B1G = (0) NONE
      B12 = (4) Oklahoma x 2, Texas A&M, Iowa State
      IND = (5) Notre Dame x 2, BYU x 3
      PAC = (4) Southern Cal, Colorado x 3
      SEC = (16) Florida x 15, Alabama

      .

      Miami Hurricanes
      26 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (4) PAC / (5) BE / (5) SEC / (5) B1G / (6) B12 / (1) IND / (0) MWC / (0)WAC
      10 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Florida x 3, Tennessee x 2, Ohio State x 3, Oklahoma x 2
      17 OOC games vs ranked teams, 8 were played away

      BigE = (10) South Florida x 5, Louisville x 2, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh
      B1G = (5) Ohio State x 3, Penn State x 2
      B12 = (6) Oklahoma x 2, Texas A&M x 2, Kansas State x 2
      IND = (1) Notre Dame
      PAC = (4) Washington x 2, UCLA, Colorado
      SEC = (5) Florida x 3, Tennessee x 2

      .

      Florida Gators
      19 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (0) PAC / (0) BE / (18) ACC / (0) B1G / (0) B12 / (0) IND / (0) MWC / (1)WAC
      18 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Florida Sate x 15 , Miami x 3
      13 OOC games vs ranked teams, 8 were played away

      ACC = (18) Florida Sate x 15 , Miami x 3
      BigE = (1) South Florida
      B1G = (0) NONE
      B12 = (0) NONE
      IND = (0) NONE
      PAC = (0) NONE

      .
      ************ Here were the actual schedules ************
      .

      1998 = Citadel / NE Louisiana / @ Florida State #3
      1999 = Western Michigan / Central Florida / Florida State #1
      2000 = Ball State / Middle Tennessee / @ Florida State #3
      2001 = Marshall / LA Monroe / Florida State #20
      2002 = UAB / Miami #1 / Ohio / @ Florida State #23
      2003 = SJSU / @ Miami #3 / Florida A&M / Florida State #9
      2004 = E Michigan / Middle Tennessee / @ Florida State #10
      2005 = Wyoming / La Tech / Florida State #23
      2006 = Southern Mississippi / Central Florida / W Carolina / @ Florida State
      2007 = Western Kentucky / Troy / Florida Atlantic / Florida State
      2008 = Hawaii / Miami / Citadel / @ Florida State #23
      2009 = Charleston Southern / Troy / Florida International / Florida State
      2010 = Miami (OH) / South Florida / Appalachian State / @ Florida State #22
      2011 = Florida Atlantic / UAB / Furman / Florida State
      2012 = BGSU / LA Lafayette / Jacksonville State @ Florida State #4

      .

      1998 = NJ vs TAMU #14 / Southern Cal #18 / @ Miami / Florida #4
      1999 = La Tech / Miami #19 / @ Florida #4
      2000 = BYU / Louisville / @ Miami #7 / Florida #4
      2001 = UAB / Miami #2 / @ Florida #3
      2002 = MO vs Iowa State / @ Louisville / @ Miami #1 / Notre Dame #6 / Florida #15
      2003 = Colorado / Miami #2 / @ Notre Dame / @ Florida #11
      2004 = UAB / @ Syracuse / Florida
      2005 = Citadel / Syracuse / @ Florida #19
      2006 = Troy / Rice / Western Michigan / Florida #4
      2007 = UAB / @ Colorado / Alabama #24 / @ Florida #14
      2008 = Western Carolina / UT Chattanooga / Colorado / Florida #4
      2009 = Jacksonville State / @ BYU #9 / South Florida / @ Florida #1
      2010 = Samford / @ Oklahoma #10 / BYU / Florida
      2011 = LA Monroe / Charleston Southern / Oklahoma #1 / @ Florida
      2012 = Murray State / Savannah State / @ South Florida / Florida #14

      .

      1998 = E Tennessee State / @ Cincinnati / Florida State #8 / UCLA #3
      1999 = NJ vs Ohio St #9 / Florida A&M / Penn St #3 / @ ECU / @ Florida St #1
      2000 = McNeese St / @ Washington #15 / Florida St #1 / La Tech
      2001 = @ Penn State / Troy / @ Florida St #14 / Washington #12
      2002 = Florida A&M / @ Florida #6 / Connecticut / Florida St #9 / @ Tennessee
      2003 = @ La Tech / Florida #18 / ECU / @ Florida St #5 / Tennessee #18
      2004 = La Tech / @ Houston / Louisville #20
      2005 = Colorado / South Florida / @ Temple
      2006 = Florida A&M / @ Louisville #12 / Houston / Florida International
      2007 = Marshall / @ Oklahoma #6 / Florida International / Texas A&M #16
      2008 = Charleston Southern / @ Florida #5 / @ Texas A&M / Central Florida
      2009 = Oklahoma #8 / Florida A&M / @ Central Florida / @ South Florida
      2010 = Florida A&M / @ Ohio State #2 / @ Pittsburgh / South Florida
      2011 = Ohio State #16 / Kansas State / Bethune Cookman / @ South Florida
      2012 = @ Kansas State #20 / Bethune Cookman / IL vs Notre Dame / South Florida

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        duff – thanks for answering bullet for me. I just made it back from my son’s HS football game. Also, the Gators play LSU every year as their cross-division rival. Thus, LSU & Florida also play the toughest conference schedule in the toughest conference.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Alan,

          This is just OOC games. The trick is to factor back conference schedules as they are not all the same. ACC and Big East schools should be scheduling tougher OOC because their conferences are easier. The PAC and B1G would be tougher. The old B12 and SEC were probably the toughest when they still had Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU, and Missouri but those teams are gone. If the Iowa States of the B12 were not historically powerful why would this change overnight? Nebraska was a certified brand decade after decade and TAMU was solid. Colorado and Missouri were not the top but they were not the bottom either.

          The bottom issue is at this point in time the SEC is the power conference so playing 1 solid OOC is at least equal to the ACC playing 2 solid OOC games. If ULM is a baseline then a top B12 like Baylor is about as good as the bottom of the SEC in Auburn (and an Arkansas team reeling from the Petrino mess) without Cam Newton. One thing is certain from last night tho is yet again Baylor has an offense but did not prevent ULM from scoring at will. Oklahoma is 4 weeks in before they get their first test and Texas will be 6 weeks in before they face West Virginia. The B1G and SEC have already mixed it up with solid teams from other conferences. I just think until the B12 as a conference steps up their OOC they will be suspect on how good they really are.

          Like

    • duffman says:

      @ bullet,

      Here is TCU in the BCS going back to 1998 (first BCS) and looking at their OOC once you deduct their conference and B12 schools as they are now in the B12. I did the same thing to compensate for Miami and Florida State when I looked at their ACC history. The tale of the tape is telling that things will not be rosy if the B12 is so tough.

      .

      Texas Christian Horned Frogs

      12 OOC games vs schools making BCS bowl games
      (3) PAC / (7) BE / (1) ACC / (1) B1G / (0) IND / (0) SEC
      1 OOC games vs schools making BCS MNC bowl games
      Nebraska
      5 OOC games vs ranked teams, 3 were played away

      ACC = (3) Virginia x 2, Clemson
      BigE = (8) Louisville x 4, Cincinnati x 3, South Florida
      B1G = (5) Northwestern x 4, Nebraska
      IND = (15) BYU x 7, Army x 6, Navy x 2
      PAC = (5) Stanford x 2, Arizona x 2, Oregon State
      SEC = (2) Vanderbilt x 2

      Here are Notre Dame / BYU / Boise State / TCU

      I lumped BE and ACC schools as the “conference” of Notre Dame
      Interesting thing is they have been adding ACC teams over the past few years!

      I lumped WAC and MWC teams as the “conference” of BYU / TCU / BSU
      I listed the 2012 as TCU in the B12 for OOC view

      .
      ************ Here were the actual schedules ************
      .

      Notre Dame OOC in the BCS era

      1998 = UM / MSU / PU / S / ASU / Army / Baylor / Navy / LSU / USC
      1999 = Kansas / UM / PU / MSU / Oklahoma / ASU / USC / Navy / Tennessee / S
      2000 = TAMU / Nebraska / PU / MSU / S / Navy / WVU / Air Force / USC
      2001 = Nebraska / MSU / TAMU / WVU / USC / Tennessee / Navy / S / PU
      2002 = PU / UM / MSU / S / Air Force / Navy / USC
      2003 = Washington State / UM / MSU / PU / USC / Navy / BYU / S
      2004 = BYU / UM / MSU / Washington / PU / S / Navy / Tennessee / USC
      2005 = UM / MSU / Washington / PU / USC / BYU / Tennessee / Navy / S
      2006 = PSU / UM / MSU / PU / S / UCLA / Navy / Air Force / Army / USC
      2007 = PSU / UM / MSU / PU / UCLA / USC / Navy / Air Force / S
      2008 = SDSU / UM / MSU / PU / S / Washington / Navy / USC
      2009 = Nevada / UM / MSU / PU / Washington / USC / WSU / Navy / S
      2010 = PU / UM / MSU / S / W Michigan / Navy / Tulsa / Utah / Army / USC
      2011 = UM / MSU / PU / Air Force / USC / Navy / S
      2012 = Navy / PU / MSU / UM / S / BYU / Oklahoma / USC

      .

      Brigham Young OOC in the BCS era

      1998 = @ Alabama / Arizona State / @ Washington / Murray State
      1999 = Washington / Virginia / California
      2000 = FL vs Florida State #2 / @ Virginia / Mississippi State / @ Syracuse
      2001 = Tulane / @ California / @ Mississippi State
      2002 = Syracuse / @ Georgia Tech
      2003 = Georgia Tech / @ Southern Cal #4 / Stanford / @ Notre Dame
      2004 = Notre Dame / @ Stanford / Southern Cal #1
      2005 = Boston College #22 / Eastern Illinois / @ Notre Dame #9
      2006 = @ Arizona / Tulsa / @ Boston College #25
      2007 = Arizona / @ UCLA #14 / @ Tulsa / Eastern Washington
      2008 = Northern Iowa / @ Washington / UCLA /
      2009 = TX vs Oklahoma #3 / @ Tulane / Florida State
      2010 = Washington / @ Florida State
      2011 = @ Mississippi / @ Texas #21 / Central Florida / @ Oregon State
      2012 = Washington State / Weber State / @ Notre Dame #10 / @ Georgia Tech

      .

      Boise State OOC in the BCS era – AQ schools only

      1998 = Washington State L 21-33
      1999 = @ UCLA #17 L 7-38
      2000 = @ Arkansas L 31-38 / @ Washington State L 35-42
      2001 = @ South Carolina #21 L 13-32 / Washington State L 20-41
      2002 = @ Arkansas L 14-41
      2003 = @ Oregon State L 24-26 / @ BYU W 50-12
      2004 = Oregon State W 53-34 / BYU W 28-27
      2005 = @ Georgia #13 L 13-48 / @ Oregon State L 27-30
      2006 = Oregon State W 42-14
      2007 = @ Washington L 10-24
      2008 = @ Oregon #12 W 37-32
      2009 = Oregon #14 W 19-8
      2010 = MD vs Virginia Tech #6 W 33-30 / Oregon State W 37-34
      2011 = GA vs Georgia #22 W 35-21
      2012 = @ Michigan State #13 L 13-17 / BYU W 7-6

      .

      Texas Christian OOC in the BCS era – AQ schools only

      1998 = @ Iowa State W 31-21 / Oklahoma L 9-10 / Vanderbilt W 19-16
      1999 = Arizona #15 L 31-35 / Northwestern L 7-17
      2000 = Northwestern W 41-14 / @ Navy W 21-0
      2001 = @ Nebraska #4 L 7-21 / Army W 38-20 / Louisville W 37-22
      2002 = @ UC L 29-36 / @ Northwestern W 48-24 / @ Army W 46-27 / @ UL W 45-31
      2003 = Navy 17-3 / VU 30-14 / @ AZ 13-10 / Army 27-0 / UL 31-28 / UC 43-10
      2004 = NU 48-45 / @ TT 35-70 / USF 44-45 / @ A 21-17 / @ UC 10-21 / @ UL 28-55
      2005 = @ Oklahoma #7 W 17-10 / @ BYU W 51-50 / Army W 38-17
      2006 = @ Baylor W 17-7 / TX Tech #24 W 12-3 / BYU L17-31 / @ Army W 31-17
      2007 = Baylor W 27-0 / @ Texas #7 L 13-34 / @ Stanford W 38-36 / @ BYU L22-27
      2008 = Stanford W 31-14 / @ Oklahoma #2 L 10-35 / BYU #8 W 32-7
      2009 = @ Virginia W 30-14 / @ Clemson W 14-10 / @ BYU #16 W 38-7
      2010 = TX vs Oregon State #24 W 30-21 / Baylor W 45-10 / BYU W 31-3
      2011 = @ Baylor L 48-50 / TX vs BYU W 38-28
      2012 = [b]B 12 era[/]Grambling / Virginia / @ SMU

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Again, by your own standards, TCU was
        7-5 vs. current Big 12 (including a bowl win)
        4-2 vs. Big 10 (including Rose Bowl win)
        5-2 vs. Pac 12 (including bowl win-excluding Utah games)
        4-3 vs. current Big East
        2-0 vs. ACC
        2-1 vs. SEC (including bowl loss to A&M)
        24-13 is pretty good and they had a winning record against each conference.

        But now, of course, you will say they played too many games against NW and Vandy while giving NW and Vandy credit when they play each other because they are AQ.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          bullet,

          Like for Like

          Elite MWC is not Elite B1G or SEC

          If TCU is racking up wins against Vanderbilt and Northwestern neither are racking up wins in their own conferences. It is not saying TCU is terrible but says TCU would add a few more to the loss column when moving to a better conference than the MWC. Being good enough to beat Vanderbilt is not being good enough to beat Alabama. Beating Northwestern is not the same as beating Ohio State. They got thumped by a #2 Oklahoma and a #7 Texas. They did beat a #7 Oklahoma team in 2005 but that Sooner team fell from the Top 25 two weeks later after losing to an unranked UCLA and finished 8-4 never to return to the rankings for the season.

          An elite MWC may become an 8-4 team in the B12. Don’t get me wrong 8-4 is still great at many schools and I would be doing backflips if Indiana could 8-4 for several years straight. If that happened tho I am guessing nobody will put the Hoosiers in the Top 25 for going 8-4. Which is sort of my point about the long term value of TCU in the B12. Unless they can be #1 or #2 in the B12 the newness will wear off and they will just become another team instead of a BCS bowl game participant.

          Like

  50. m (Ag) says:

    The bowl in Cotton Bowl Stadium has a new owner, a new sponsor, and a new agreement with the city of Dallas. Conference USA, Big Ten, and Big 12 will still be involved, at least for now:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20120918-new-year-s-game-at-cotton-bowl-gets-new-owner-title-sponsor.ece

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Good to hear. The organization for the first TicketCity Bowl was a mess, and the participating teams evidently hadn’t gotten their guaranteed payouts by the time the next season started.

      Like

  51. mushroomgod says:

    How about some discussion of what, if anything, the BIG should do now that ND has moved on?

    The last expansion was for 3 stated objectives: a 12th team; BTN inventory/exposure; and “demographics”.

    Only the first objective was realized with Nebraska’s addition.

    Big 10 SHOULD have added MO and Rutgers as well, but chose not to do so.

    I also argued, alternatively, that the BIG should have given ND the same deal it just got with the ACC. People were too shortsighted to go for it.

    Developments since Nebraska’s addition have been much to the BIG’s disadvantage.MD and MO no longer look like viable options. The BIG has diminished in size and influence relative to the SEC and ACC. The SEC and PAC have begun networks which will eventually erase the Big’s current $ advantage. PSU had its ugly scandal and got screwed by the NCAA, with the Big’s blessing. The already hostile BIG-PSU relationship has deteriorated to the point where the PSU fans want the hell out of the BIG. With the addition to the ACC to the ACC for olympic sports andprobably, eventually football, there is little reason for PSU to hang around. All of their former are in the ACC. I know many of you will say “good”, but PSU, down the road, would be a hell of an addition to the ACC as #16. And it will happen unless……

    So what should the BIG do now? Something they won’t do…..add Rutgers.as a 13th team.

    Rutgers has the academic clout the BIG seeks, adds new territory/TV sets, and is a major flagship institution in a state of 12M(or so). It also provides the eastern partner the PSU fans and adm.have wanted for years

    No doubt it has some drawbacks. The overall athletic program is not now up to BIG 10 standards. And the AD hasn’t been very financially stable………….but, imo, the advantages outweigh the negatives.

    What about #14? Why does the BIG need one now? They went 20 years with 11. Add Rutgers to the “East” and keep on keeping on.

    Blast away all you with tunnel vision………..

    Like

    • Andy says:

      mushroom, I agree with what you’re saying.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        shroom,

        You know I was the one banging the drum for TAMU over UT and adding MU when the opportunity was there. I am not going to blast away on you because such action meant stopping your opponent when the opportunity presented itself. I will go as far to say that no matter what deal the B1G offered the folks in South Bend they were not going to join. I felt it then and I still feel it today in my interactions with folks in South Bend.

        I might go 1 step further than you do and add Rutgers and Maryland while the Terps are still fuming about the 50 million. At worst you have expanded into the highly populated east coast and at worst you have gone to 14 while waiting till everybody gets to 16. Both are AAU schools in single flagship states. Just like South Carolina flourished away from the ACC so could Maryland away from the ACC. In 2010 the Terp boards were all over a B1G membership as were the Missouri folks.

        “Faint heart never won fair maiden” is spoken for a reason.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I’m against any expansion for the simple reason that it will mess up the schedules too much. If we stick to 8 games then we go from playing the other division (non-locked-crossovers) 4 out of 10 years to 2 out of 12. If we go to 9 conference games, we go from playing them 4 out of 6 years to 2 out of 6. None of the potential expansion candidates makes me want to give up those kind of games against existing teams.

          Like

        • vp19 says:

          Rutgers and Maryland would be good eastern complements for a weakened Penn State, but in order to do it, Delany would have to strike while the iron is hot, particularly with Maryland.

          And despite the grumbling of some PSU fans, it isn’t leaving the Big Ten. You aren’t regularly going to draw 100,000 for ACC football. You don’t win national championships in volleyball and wrestling as an ACC member. And PSU officials aren’t going to give up the millions the university gets in research money from the CIC.

          Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          duff…..maybe on ND…but the antaganism with the BIG has been football-related, for the most part……it would have made a lot of sense for ND’s olympic sports to have been in the Big 10. Driving the women’s rowing and tennis teams all over the country can’t be too attractive…….which is another reason why PSU ends up in the ACC within 10 years….

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Uh, what?

            You’ve looked at a map recently, I presume? Actually, I have to presume not. How are Miami and FSU closer than Iowa and Nebraska? Other than a handful of close-by schools, most of the ACC is just as far away from PA as the B10 is.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            You’re better than that Richard. Take another look at that map. BC, Pitt, Syr, VA, VT, and MD are all closer than OSU, the closest BIG 10 school.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            troll,

            “BC, Pitt, Syr, VA, VT, and MD are all closer than OSU, the closest BIG 10 school.”

            You’re just blatantly lying, now.

            PSU to OSU is 322 miles
            BC is 441 and VT is 360

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Why would you add Rutgers and Maryland so that you played Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska and your local rivals less frequently?

            It was the same thing with the SEC. Noone wants to play Missouri in lieu of their traditional opponents. Arkansas and LSU have a history with A&M, but noone else wants A&M in lieu of Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, or Auburn. Most of the SEC fans aren’t even happy about having to sub Arkansas in for an old time SEC team.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Now expansion is about $, but you have to have either big $ or some other substantial value, like a national brand (Nebraska) or a good recruiting and TV market (A&M) to make up for what you lose.

            Maryland doesn’t offer that. Rutgers is just traditionally so weak, they won’t bring much in $ and it offsets the value of NY exposure.

            Like

    • acaffrey says:

      If Rutgers is the solution to any of the Big Ten’s problems, then things are far worse than your post even suggests. A school that has never won the Big East in football, has played exactly nobody OOC in going from awful to mediocre, has made the Big Dance a few times, has a divide between the athletic/academic departments, and has a “meh” factor for NYC in its best sport… and would somehow add value to the Big Ten?

      This is not even a ground-rule double for the Big Ten. It is a fielder’s choice. You add Rutgers and you remove a spot for someone actually useful to the conference.

      The Big Ten may have been planning to expand in a demographically interesting area, but it decided Nebraska was too good to pass up and made more geographical sense. The Big Ten was not expanding for the sake of expanding. That’s what adding any Big East school is at this point.

      Just sit tight and see where things go. No need to respond to the ND/ACC partnership at all.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      While I remain against expansion in most respects, I don’t think going with Notre Dame like the ACC did would have been a bad move at all. I never really understood why non-football members were such a big deal so long as they contribute where they are.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      PSU isn’t going anywhere without its TV rights.

      Not to mention that in all the sports PSU is good at, the ACC is undeniably a worse conference.

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        I don’t think that Penn State will be going either. Just not realistic.

        That being said, why is a contract with TV rights not negotiable issue too? Like everything else, it can be reduced to money damages and negotiated. And given where Penn State is right now, this would not be a bad time for Penn State to claim that its TV value is low.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          I think it’s very realistic, probable, and even inevitable if the BT does not, at some time, add another eastern school.

          Lets look at the arguments saying otherwise……

          The CIC? I read all the time that PSU won’t leave because they ‘share CIC research funds’. News flash……BIG schools don’t share research funds through the CIC. It is primarily a purchasing consortium, Look it up. There’s a website.

          Academics? With the addition of ND, I’m sure the avg. ACC school is rated higher than the avg. BIG school. I understand that does not include graduate studies, but there are great graduate/research institutions in the ACC, including NC, VA, and Duke. Pitt and MD aren’t shabby either. The only real “advantage” to the BIG for PSU is that more of the BIG institutions are large public institutions………but NC, NC ST., MD, Clemson, VT all fall in that category.

          Football? ACC’s been down a long time, for sure, but there’s no inherent reason FSU and Miami should continue to suck. See NEB, MICH, and OSU and their recent troubles. The ACC and BIG really match up well in their “fundamentals”. FSU, ND, Miami v. Mich, OSU, Neb. Clemson, VT, VA, Pitt, GT, SYR, MD, NC v. MSU, Iowa, WIS, ILL(potentially), Purdue. Yes, Wake and Duke suck and are hopeless, but so is IU and Minnesota.. In the long-run, ACC football will be as good as or better than BIG football.

          Wrestling and hockey”? Seriously? Yes, a small factor, but the ACC is better than the BIG in a lot of minor sports…

          Geography? BC, MD, Pitt, Syracuse, VA, VT are all closer than Columbus. That’s a lot of bus rides for the women’s tennis team and few opportunities for PSU fans to travel.

          History/Rivalries? PSU’s historic rivals were Pitt, Syracuse, MD, WV. Yes, they generally beat the crap out of those teams….but their fans were fine with that. Who wouldn’t be? I thought when PSU moved to the BIG it would develop rivalries with OSU and UM, but it really hasn’t happened. If you follow the PSU board, their fans talk all the time about the screwing they got from Ohio sportswriters in ’94, and the various screw jobs they got from the striped shirts playing Michigan in the ’90s. (which, by the way, happened, as I saw) The “rivalries” with OSU and UM are unhealthy in exactly the same way as the ND-UM rivalry……….

          $? The ACC could print $ if a recovered PSu(5-10 years down the line) joined the ACC with ND. ND may or may not eventually join the ACC in football. But if they join ANY conf. it will be the ACC……..and in the meanwhile their media machine will accrue to the ACC’s benefit.

          The RoRs? Zeek’s favorite topic………So let me ask……….if PSU BoT PUBLICLY goes to the BIG and says: “you know what, it just hasn’t worked out….we’ve asked you for 30 years to add another eastern team, and you’ve refused….and most of our rivals are in the ACC”….would the BIG hold then in the league against their will? How stable and certain are coaching contracts and exit fee contracts in college sports? Not so much…….and you’re going to hold an entire institution hostage when it wants to go? Won’t happen.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Can someone post the actual contract language in the Grant of Rights? I suspect that there are plenty of holes in that too. As a lawyer, I’d love to have a crack at reviewing it and finding those holes…

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            Even if PSU couldn’t get their grant of rights back, wouldn’t they have a case that they should still get an equal share of TV revenues until the grant of rights expires?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Like the B10 would ever make a contract public. That’s funny. As for having rights to TV revenue, they forfeit that when they voluntarily leave the conference. Would a judge say the B10 has to give them back their rights or pay them TV money? Maybe, since judges do whatever the hell they want. But the B10 would be owed a big penalty.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @m(Ag)

            I don’t know about the Big 10’s GOR on that matter, but the Big XII’s new GOR specifically states that if a school leaves its share of the conference distributions remains with the conference.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Mushroom:

            And yet you reject my plan which, along with adding an Eastern neighbor for PSU, actually adds football powers and big growing states.

            Instead, besides adding 1 non-football power in a non-growing state to appease PSU, you want to add another non-football power in an even smaller non-growing state.

            Where’s the logic in that?

            Then again, I suppose it’s too much to expect logic from a guy who thinks that PSU will join a league with the majority of schools just as far away but with less money, worse bowls, less support, less TV exposure, and fewer football brand names.

            Like

        • frug says:

          What you are suggesting would (essentially) be asking a judge to order the Big 10 to sell PSU its TV rights, but as long as the Big 10 was still planning on monetizing PSU’s rights (i.e. they would still broadcast their home games) I’m not sure a judge would.

          That would sort of be like Disney going to court to force Fox and Sony to give them back the film rights to X-Men and Spider-Man now that Marvel is producing its own movies and I just don’t think any court would agree to that so long as Fox and Sony continued to actually use those rights.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      mushroomgod,

      “How about some discussion of what, if anything, the BIG should do now that ND has moved on?”

      Rejoice that the long national nightmare is over. ND has picked their home and there’s nobody left the B10 wants and can get. 12 is more than enough teams.

      “The last expansion was for 3 stated objectives: a 12th team; BTN inventory/exposure; and “demographics”.

      Only the first objective was realized with Nebraska’s addition.”

      How did the B10 not gain inventory by adding NE?

      “Big 10 SHOULD have added MO and Rutgers as well, but chose not to do so.”

      Just because you think they should have doesn’t mean the data or the intangibles supported you. How much would those two add versus how much two more teams dilute the rivalries? Rutgers is IN football and NE basketball combined, but in a populous state and next to a very large city. MO is decent across the board but doesn’t stand out in any major category.

      It’s not clear to many people that going to 14 is a net gain. There is no financial boon for a CCG unlike going to 12. Scheduling presents more issues and rivalries are further diluted. Going to 14 including a home run school would be one thing, but doing it for two midpack schools is different.

      Even if one accepts that going to 14 is a net good, it’s not clear MO and RU would have been the best pair to add. You can make a case for them as well as several others.

      “I also argued, alternatively, that the BIG should have given ND the same deal it just got with the ACC. People were too shortsighted to go for it.”

      The B10 doesn’t believe in partial members. It is based on everyone being equal. Special treatment for 1 school tends to lead to acrimony. The B10 also doesn’t need ND to get a decent TV deal or to get decent bowl games. The B10 doesn’t need 13 schools for hoops and other sports, either. It should also be pointed out that ND prefers the ACC to the B10. ND wants a national schedule, not more midwestern games. It also prefers being with east coast private schools and public ivies (BC, Miami, Duke, WF, UNC, UVA, etc) with an undergraduate focus. The B10’s advantage would be purely in money, and ND is rolling in money already.

      “Developments since Nebraska’s addition have been much to the BIG’s disadvantage.MD and MO no longer look like viable options.”

      This assumes that expanding would be advantageous. Maybe teams being unavailable is good for the B10 as it prevents them from making a bad choice.

      “The BIG has diminished in size and influence relative to the SEC and ACC.”

      The B10 has done just fine being slightly smaller than the SEC for 20 years. As for influence, nothing has really changed. ND is still a separate voice from the ACC for football, and that’s where ND matters. Nobody is worried about ND in hoops or other sports.

      “The SEC and PAC have begun networks which will eventually erase the Big’s current $ advantage.”

      Facts not in evidence. Yes, they have started or are about to start networks. We have no idea how the money will shake out in 5, 10 or 20 years. The SEC is working on their TV deal now. The B10 will do there’s in a few years. Every year also brings the B10 closer to the end of Fox’s deal with the B10 for the BTN.

      “PSU had its ugly scandal and got screwed by the NCAA, with the Big’s blessing.”

      How does this possibly relate to expansion? it would have happened whether the B10 went to 14 or not.

      “The already hostile BIG-PSU relationship has deteriorated to the point where the PSU fans want the hell out of the BIG.”

      Some of them always did. I don’t think the numbers have changed that much lately.

      “With the addition to the ACC to the ACC for olympic sports andprobably, eventually football, there is little reason for PSU to hang around.”

      Except for little things like the CIC, football, hockey, the grant of rights, etc, there’s nothing keeping them.

      “I know many of you will say “good”, but PSU, down the road, would be a hell of an addition to the ACC as #16. And it will happen unless……”

      B10 fans have never wanted PSU to leave. You’re just making things up. Not everyone wanted to expand to 11 and add them, but that’s a different issue. It’s the difference between debating whether or not to have kids and booting a kid out of your house.

      “So what should the BIG do now?”

      Nothing.

      “Something they won’t do…..add Rutgers.as a 13th team.

      Rutgers has the academic clout the BIG seeks, adds new territory/TV sets, and is a major flagship institution in a state of 12M(or so). It also provides the eastern partner the PSU fans and adm.have wanted for years

      No doubt it has some drawbacks. The overall athletic program is not now up to BIG 10 standards. And the AD hasn’t been very financially stable………….but, imo, the advantages outweigh the negatives.”

      The COP/C has access to a lot more information than you do, and they seem to disagree. I’m going to side with the informed people who are paid to make these decisions.

      “What about #14? Why does the BIG need one now? They went 20 years with 11. Add Rutgers to the “East” and keep on keeping on.”

      Because 13 doesn’t mathematically work in divisions:
      A – 7 teams, B – 6 teams

      A plays 6 division games plus 2 crossovers for 8 total. That means 14 crossover games. B plays only 5 division games, so it needs 3 crossover games. That would mean 18 crossover games. To make 8 games work, the 4 teams in B with only 2 crossover games would have to play each other again instead. That’s not going to happen. The other choice is to make 4 teams in A play a 9th game, but that isn’t going to happen either.

      This only works with a 12 game conference schedule and nobody wants that.

      “Blast away all you with tunnel vision………..”

      Right, because there couldn’t possibly be any other reason to disagree with you.

      Like

      • frug says:

        You shouldn’t feed trolls. It just encourages them to come back.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Brian, did you used to work for Polaroid or IBM? You seem to lack the vision thing….

        You really didn’t respond to the fact that 2/3 major stated goals for expansion were not realized. Yes, adding NEB added “inventory” but not as much as going to 14. And demographics were barely touched. So lets give it a 3/10 for inventory and 1/10 for demographics.

        If you’ll recall, Delaney spoke of demographics more broadly than just meaning expansion to the south or west. He was speaking of state populations, # of students, and alums…which also translates into political influence within the NCAA and beyond. . Since NEB was added, the ACC has gone into NY and PA, as well as adding a midwest component in ND. The SEC has added Texas and MO, and 80000 students or so and their parents, aunts, and uncles.The BIG has unquestionably been diminished relatively in terms of eyeballs, attention, and influence.

        What about that data and those intangibles of which you speak? Well, the results of the famous study were never released. What was LEAKED, however, and widely discussed, was that a wider expansion made economic sense…and that Rutgers, of the expansion candidates other than ND, added the most(NEB was not studied). If you will also recall, Barry A. and Lloyd Carr spoke up about how adding Rutgers would benefit the BIG. And Delaney spouted out something to the effect that ‘conferences ignore the NY market at their peril’ Had Barry, Carr, and Delaney had their way, it would have happened.

        I could go on and on Brian, but I’ve already destroyed your major arguments and I’m getting bored.

        Why didn’t it happen? Because the traditionalists, like you Brian, are stuck in the 1950s. They cannot see the forest for the trees. They do not realize that Rutgers is presently the ONLY option available for the BIG 10 to move toward the LT goals expressed in the expansion debate.

        Unfortunate for the Big 10, but what the hell, I’ll be dead anyway.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          troll,

          “You really didn’t respond to the fact that 2/3 major stated goals for expansion were not realized.”

          I did respond, by pointing out you were factually wrong.

          “Yes, adding NEB added “inventory” but not as much as going to 14.”

          If maximizing inventory was the goal, the B10 should have added all non-AQs as well. A conference of 70+ would really have a lot of inventory. But, of course, the B10 never said their goal was to generate the maximum amount of inventory possible. They wanted to increase the amount and the value of the inventory, and they did.

          “And demographics were barely touched.”

          Such is life. You rarely get everything you want. If UT had joined the B10, then the demographic problem would have been solved. Maybe they should run ads encouraging midwesterners to have more kids.

          “What about that data and those intangibles of which you speak? Well, the results of the famous study were never released.”

          Imagine that. They paid for something and didn’t want to share the info with everybody.

          “Why didn’t it happen?”

          Because the presidents didn’t want it to happen. Period.

          “They do not realize that Rutgers is presently the ONLY option available for the BIG 10 to move toward the LT goals expressed in the expansion debate.”

          If adding RU is your best option, then you don’t have any good options.

          “Unfortunate for the Big 10, but what the hell, I’ll be dead anyway.”

          The sooner the better.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Well, the BIG DOESN’T have many good options. You kinda missed that point, didn’t you big boy? The question is ‘what is/are the best option(s) under the circumstances’? Your choice is to stick your head in the sand. Go ahead, nobody will notice.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            The B10 has a great option – to not expand any further.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            The difference between you and a broken clock is that the broken clock is right 2 times a day…….

            Like

          • Eric says:

            The problem is that with this round of expansion people have started thinking about college conferences like a game of Risk or Monopoly. They want to own a lot of states/areas and have to an extent missed site of the actual product. Adding Rutgers and Maryland would add more areas to the footprint, but the cost would be you’d have a lot fewer Ohio State-Nebraska, Michigan State-Wisconsin, Michigan-Penn State, etc games.

            The SEC probably made the right move by taking Texas A&M given what they bring, but the cost was that we now will only get 2 Florida-Alabama games in the regular season for the next 12 years. They admitted they underestimated the issues with 14 teams and while I think it was ultimately probably right for them to go that route anyway, Rutgers (or just about any other possible candidates) doesn’t bring nearly as much to the Big Ten as Texas A&M did to the SEC (Missouri adds to, but was brought on as a #14 team to balance things and wouldn’t have been a mover alone)

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom vs brian,

            a) Football vs non football
            b) Current success vs future success

            I think this is the core debate between the two of you even if you are not stating it as such. The core of the B1G is academics > football not the other way around. I spoke early on that I was not in favor of realignment past 12 but the economics governing sports meant my “old school” vision would be lost in the wave of $$$$ that media brought. I have a feeling if it was academics and the non football sports both Maryland and Rutgers would be a non debate. Both are large single state schools with strong academic standing and a B1G feel who would open large population states to “manufacturing” future B1G alumni. I have a feeling both of you can agree on these basic facts.

            The problem is when viewed in football terms neither looks like a Nebraska or Penn State. One of my first posts on FtT debated getting “brands” vs growing future “brands” and which strategy offered the best solution. Arkansas and South Carolina were starving in their old conferences yet both have been feed at the SEC teat to become solid sports programs. Pittsburgh and Syracuse had football history back in the day but got left behind in the last consolidations of the 90’s. Now they are in the ACC my gut tells me they will get better exposure and their football will become stronger. Colorado and Utah in the PAC will bear watching but with added exposure and money it is not impossible to think they will do better long term.

            In 2009 and early 2010 I suggested both TAMU and Missouri when the majority on here focused only on Texas and Notre Dame. The SEC took these schools and I have no doubt they will grow stronger in their new conference than the one they left. Missouri in the east should become a solid middle team as they pass Vanderbilt and Kentucky. In the west TAMU has the wealth, resources, and recruits to become another Florida in the west. I am an old guy so I am more enamored by the woman in the simple black dress and pearls than the woman in designer clothes and jewels. The first may not be flashy but they last and make for more stable marriage partners.

            TAMU, Missouri, Maryland, and Rutgers are all examples of schools you are adding because they have potential and they are more like you even if they are not a Texas or Notre Dame. The issue between the B1G and PAC is geography as the PAC has no neighboring threat where territory must be defended from other conferences. The B1G is not in such a similar geographic isolation as they have close neighbors in the B12, ACC, SEC, and Big East. If I am reading shroom correctly he is not trolling as much as he seems to observe the flip from 2009 rhetoric of going to 16 as contrasted with the current stay at 12 rhetoric today.

            The difference is that now several “territories” have been claimed by rival conferences:
            ACC got PA, NY, and IN (all territories the B1G indicated they desired)
            B12 got WV (a territory the B1G could raid without adding)
            SEC got TX and MO (territories the B1G indicated they desired)

            The issue is how to deal with a future that seems headed to 16 without the geography that enables the PAC to stay at 12? This is even more problematic if the PAC does raid the B12 in the next realignment to get to 14 or 16. If I am reading this correctly is what shroom is pointing out in his position. If the LHN flops then Texas will head west before they head east or north as they have indicated in both the 90’s realignments and the current realignment process with the Larry Scott offer.

            If the PAC goes to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State then the B1G would become the only conference in the Big 4 [ACC, B1G, PAC, SEC] with fewer good additions. Perhaps what shroom is suggesting is that taking Rutgers and Maryland now is an insurance policy on the next realignment that will happen in the early 2020’s. This would allow both schools football teams to grow their demand and footprint not so they are more valuable a decade from now. Like guns vs butter it just indicates different views on future conference membership. I have a feeling a decade from now Maryland and Rutgers will both be academic schools no matter what their football teams are doing and is not that the core of the B1G in the first place?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “a) Football vs non football
            b) Current success vs future success

            I think this is the core debate between the two of you even if you are not stating it as such.”

            I really don’t think it is. We disagree about what would lead to current and future success.

            MD – decent population (IN > MD > WI), strong academics, bad in FB, good brand in MBB, mediocre fan base strength

            RU – good population (MI > NJ > IN), strong academics, horrible in sports, weak fan base strength

            There is doubt as to how many more households the BTN would get into with either addition. B10 schools already recruit MD and NJ successfully, too. There is some value there, but the question is how much. Perhaps the B10 has detailed studies giving the numbers, but we don’t know them. Would they increase the B10 payout per team? If so, how much? Is it enough to justify playing longterm conference mates a lot less often and lose some cohesiveness in the conference?

            “In 2009 and early 2010 I suggested both TAMU and Missouri when the majority on here focused only on Texas and Notre Dame.”

            Were you saying TAMU was a better option than UT or ND? Plenty of people agreed TAMU would bring tremendous value to the B10 but also thought they would have a hard time fitting in. Many people included MO as a candidate in large part to serve as a bridge to UT and/or TAMU culturally. MO had decent everything (academics, population, sports, etc) but wasn’t a great addition in any one area. By adding another value to them (cultural bridge to a TX school), they became more appealing.

            “The SEC took these schools and I have no doubt they will grow stronger in their new conference than the one they left.”

            We’ll never know. We don’t know how they would have done with the recent money increase in the B12. TAMU almost has to do better by getting out of UT’s shadow, and joining the SEC helps then since they have new border rivals to play. MO may not change much in stature in football since they were already a top 25-30 type program and may be hurt in hoops.

            “If I am reading shroom correctly he is not trolling”

            He’s trolling because that’s what he does. Look back at some of his last posts before he disappeared for a while. If he wanted an honest discussion of the issue, he wouldn’t phrase things the way he did even in his first comment on the subject. He started off with insults because he’s a troll.

            “The difference is that now several “territories” have been claimed by rival conferences:
            ACC got PA, NY, and IN (all territories the B1G indicated they desired)”

            Adding Pitt doesn’t mean they own PA.

            “B12 got WV (a territory the B1G could raid without adding)”

            Why would the B10 want WV? The state is small and the school has relatively weak academics.

            “SEC got TX and MO (territories the B1G indicated they desired)”

            The B10 never said they wanted MO.

            “The issue is how to deal with a future that seems headed to 16″

            First, you need to show that that is the future. I don’t see any indications of 16 coming any time soon for the major conferences.

            Second, you have to show that 16 is actually a net advantage. With some additions it probably would be, but you don’t expand to 16 with just anyone because some fans want a bigger conference.

            “This is even more problematic if the PAC does raid the B12 in the next realignment to get to 14 or 16.”

            We have no reason to believe they can or will do that. If it happens, the B10 can respond then.

            “Perhaps what shroom is suggesting is that taking Rutgers and Maryland now is an insurance policy on the next realignment that will happen in the early 2020′s.”

            And if that realignment doesn’t happen or isn’t as dramatic as you hype it up to be?

            “This would allow both schools football teams to grow their demand and footprint not so they are more valuable a decade from now.”

            They can try. It doesn’t mean it would automatically work.

            “I have a feeling a decade from now Maryland and Rutgers will both be academic schools no matter what their football teams are doing and is not that the core of the B1G in the first place?”

            It’s part of the core, but it’s not all of it.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @duffman

            Texas AD said earlier this year that if Texas did leave the Big XII it would move to the East not the West.

            But anyways, the Big XII is bound together for another 13 by a GOR which means the PAC is stuck until then since they don’t have any other real options. And until the ACC actually signs a GOR (which will probably never happen) the Big 10 will always have options besides just the Big East. (Not that the Big 10 has any incentive to expand before they renegotiate their TV deal in 2016 anyways unless ND changes their mind)

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:

            It isn’t what the UT AD says, it’s what they are able to do. Until they decouple from OU, and politically from TT, and OU from OkSU, west is the only direction possible IF a move by UT is to happen. That assumes the PAC would revisit the 2010 proposal (which it may not). But it would require a very large realignment “quake” to instigate that decision, and I don’t see one coming.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @ccrider

            A&M’s departure set the precedent for UT to leave Tech behind if they want to. Texas actually talked to the ACC about joining last year but negotiations fell apart because they wouldn’t UT keep the LHN.

            As for OU, UT’s AD said they would keep playing that as an OOC if they ever split as long as Oklahoma was willing.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            aTm’s precedent involved having the B12 survive with OU and UT anchoring it. The Baylor stink up would be a factor greater, and from more than one school, if UT was to try alone.

            UT talked to everybody but the BEast in the last couple years. Has it changed their conference affiliation? Have any been left behind?

            Like

          • frug says:

            @ccrider

            Nobody knew what was going to happen to the Big XII when A&M left. Texas stuck around because no one else would take the LHN. It had nothing to do with politics.

            A&M proved that to get around the politicians (if you think they are going to be a problem) all you have to do is wait for the legislature to go out of session (it only convenes every two years). Then you can do everything you want.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Texas & the ACC talking is actually another reason to take FSU, Miami, GTech, and UMD. Once the ACC has added both ND and Texas (even as affiliate members), raiding the ACC would be much harder & they would be a legitimate threat to the B10’s standing. Take those 4 schools, however, and there’s no way for the ACC (or anyone else) to break in to the B10-SEC duopoly east of the Mississippi.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            @ Brian,

            My question to you is would Missouri be worth adding at #13 if it helped land TAMU as #14?

            Were you saying TAMU was a better option than UT or ND? Plenty of people agreed TAMU would bring tremendous value to the B10 but also thought they would have a hard time fitting in. Many people included MO as a candidate in large part to serve as a bridge to UT and/or TAMU culturally. MO had decent everything (academics, population, sports, etc) but wasn’t a great addition in any one area. By adding another value to them (cultural bridge to a TX school), they became more appealing.

            The point I have been saying since the beginning was the probability was too low for Texas and Notre Dame as a pair so you go for Missouri and TAMU to 14 to get Notre Dame and Texas as 15 and 16. Again, you are buying insurance to increase your odds not limit them. Notre Dame is now gone (and will allow ACC recruiting in Chicago / Detroit / Indianapolis) and Texas has shown a decided favoritism to the PAC. Maybe I am old school but a bird in the hand is always preferred. If the B1G added Missouri and Nebraska it had a very real shot at TAMU. Early on the TAMU boards were pro B1G but after the PAC move they shifted to the SEC. Missouri was pro B1G almost till the day they joined the SEC.

            I guess I prefer the folks that want to join as an equal partner than dealing with high maintenance prima dona’s that want it all their way. For a conference that extolls academics I watched 3 AAU schools go to the other big conferences while the school losing their AAU was added to the B1G. Again, thinking like you want your opponent to think does not mean they will actually do it if they have a better option.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I guess I prefer the folks that want to join as an equal partner than dealing with high maintenance prima dona’s that want it all their way.

            Trust me, the Aggies’ not stop whining is every bit as irritating as the Longhorns’ or Irish’s arrogance.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “My question to you is would Missouri be worth adding at #13 if it helped land TAMU as #14?”

            I still don’t see a need to grow that large. But if you want to hypothesize that expansion was necessary, then in general, sure. TAMU provides huge value so almost anyone would be worth it. That said, I don’t personally think TAMU would have been a good fit in the B10 culturally (which is why growing to 14 with them doesn’t excite me). I also don’t think they would have ever joined.

            “The point I have been saying since the beginning was the probability was too low for Texas and Notre Dame as a pair so you go for Missouri and TAMU to 14 to get Notre Dame and Texas as 15 and 16.”

            The odds for TAMU weren’t much better in my opinion. People there can read a map, too, and I don’t think the boosters wanted to head north. I also don’t think adding TAMU and MO, if it happened, would have significantly changed the odds of adding UT or ND.

            “Notre Dame is now gone (and will allow ACC recruiting in Chicago / Detroit / Indianapolis) and Texas has shown a decided favoritism to the PAC.”

            Neither one ever wanted to join the B10. Nothing was going to change that.

            “If the B1G added Missouri and Nebraska it had a very real shot at TAMU. Early on the TAMU boards were pro B1G but after the PAC move they shifted to the SEC. Missouri was pro B1G almost till the day they joined the SEC.”

            So your plan was to add NE and MO to get to 13, hoping that TAMU would make 14? And that was to try to get UT and ND as 15 and 16? What happens if TAMU, UT and ND all say no? The TAMU boards were in favor of anything that got therm away from TX, but after deeper thought I think they would have realized how large the cultural divide was. You can’t have everyone play 8 games in division with 13 total. Does the B10 get a waiver like the MAC, or do they look to the east? So now your plan has become a way to add MO and an eastern team like RU. To me, that grows the B10 while not improving it. It may even make it worse. And all because you initiated a plan that had a low success probability while disregarding the risks.

            Like

          • Frank the Ag says:

            Frug – the only people whining now are Longhorns. Go to any Texas fan site and it is non-stop crying about Texas A&M.

            Duff & Mushgod – A&M was never going to the B1G. This was always about joining the SEC for the Aggies.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Frug:

          I guess we agree to some extent, and disagree also. I see the LHN as the price that B12 members not named OU, TT, OkSU had to pay to not be scrambling for a decent home. Without it we would be starting the second year of the P16 (OkSU and TT included).
          There was a 2 for 1 deal no other conference was willing to make. Would they make it again? Perhaps, and perhaps not. Point is, that episode happened with legislature in session and was a done deal…except for LHN (unless LHN was just the public explaination why it was scuttled, not the reason).
          With the consolidation that has occurred I’d bet the Texas politicians realize the potential threat to the lessers and will have provisions in place long before the GOR expires.
          West is the only reasonable direction (I know…what does reason really have to do with it ?) that protects the greatest number, other than standing pat.

          Like

          • frug says:

            Guess we’ll just have to wait 13 years to find out…

            Like

          • duffman says:

            FWIW :

            In my above discussion I was not talking about now. If realignment happens on another earthquake level it will probably take all the contracts expiring in the early to mid 2020’s. I was not saying the PAC would make another run soon, just that they would take another run. I think the next decade will just be the smaller schools. As for the statement above that Texas would go east it seems to go against where they were headed in the 1990’s and where they were headed in 2010. The west cost makes the most sense for the longhorns and reading their boards they seem to favor west coast trips to midwest or east coast ones. In the end it will be alumni dollars affecting decisions and that seems to trend to the PAC.

            If the Carolina 4 still control the ACC a decade from now I find it hard to believe they will welcome Texas with open arms. At least with the B1G and SEC they have cultural ties but there are no such ties to the midwest. TAMU was more SEC in culture from their fans and they had flirted with the SEC going back to when Arkansas and South Carolina were added. I think Texas and Texas Tech may be more tied to each other in the future because TAMU has already parted ways.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @duffman

            Texas tried to join the Big 10 in the ’90’s but the Big 10 had institute a 4 year moratorium on expansion after Penn St. joined and was unwilling to wave it (a decision they no doubt regret).

            In 2010 they looked west because they were still tied to Tech et al.. It didn’t have anything to do with alumni preferring the West Coast to the Midwest or Atlantic Coast. (Especially since their years in the Big XII has had them playing regular games in the Midwest).

            Anyways, the extra exposure they would get by playing in the East would more than offset any upset fans (that’s exactly why Jerry threw a hissy fit when the Cowboys were originally placed in a Western division during the last NFL realignment)

            Like

          • duffman says:

            @ frug

            from the following ESPN link

            http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34237/a-lesson-on-the-history-of-the-big-12

            Here is a quote from 1990 :

            “What I was worried about was Texas would join the Pac-10 in 1990, kind of like the same thing we found last year and now,” Wefald told the paper. “They’d be leaving the Southwest Conference and that would be a powerful force to maybe trigger Oklahoma into joining the Southeast Conference.”

            Like

          • frug says:

            http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/category/big-10-expansion/

            Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT’s profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that 10 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.

            But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT’s overtures.

            Like I said, UT approached the Big Ten in the early ’90s. I never said they didn’t also talk to the PAC.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      However, I’ll bite. To start off, I don’t think any combination of Mizzou, UMD, or Rutgers ever makes sense under any scenario.

      However, there is one combination which I do think makes sense (and which I would aim to get if I was the B10): FSU + Miami + GTech + Maryland.

      Football brands? Check.
      Large growing populations in to which to expand the B10 brand? Check.
      Academics? Check for the most part. I believe Miami will be AAU in a decade or so. FSU is more problematic (mostly because they’re so dependent on the whims of the FL legislature), however, the B10 is still first and foremost an athletic conference.

      If FSU is willing to buy in to the B10 culture, I would send feelers to find out just how happy they are in the ACC. They have purportedly opposed all the recent moves by the ACC. The football, bowl lineup, money, and TV are all better in the B10. Unlike with the B12, the academics aren’t worse. With a few southern neighbors in the same pod, they actually wouldn’t even be playing significantly more games far away compared to their schedule when they were an independent. In fact, they would play teams within driving distance more often (right now, they barely play GTech in the ACC).

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Oh, and it would neutralize the ACC as a competitor in the Northeast (really, the eastern half of the US).

        I would be perfectly fine with the B10 and SEC being a duopoly east of the Mississippi.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        No thanks. The BIG needs to remain a northern conference. Add Rutgers and some other eastern school down the road (like U CONN, when it grows up) and you’ve set up a north v. south dynamic…….bring on the civil war football style.

        Like

        • Phil says:

          As an RU fan obviously I would love for them to get in the B10, and I can’t argue against the people who don’t favor that because RU hasn’t won, but I would offer the following;

          -RU hasn’t won, but there is nothing structural causing that. NJ and eastern PA is a pretty good football recruiting area and has a ton of bb talent. They don’t have to recruit out of their home area to be successful, and getting in an astronomically better conference would help that.

          -poor OOC scheduling was a Schiano thing and most of the fanbase has hated that. They already added Arkansas and Kansas series since he left with word of more to come.

          -Any academic or research $$ rankings you see for RU should improve because they finally recently gained control of much of the UMDNJ medical school that had been taken away from them by politicians in the 70’s

          -The athletic department has been running a deficit, but nothing that wouldn’t solved by anything that got them into a conference that pays more than the $3 million+ they make now for football TV rights.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Phil,

            It’s not so much that people hate the idea of adding RU (although many do), but that there is no pressing reason to expand just to add RU.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            There is no “pressing” need. The need is long term and structural. Therefore, there is no advantage to delay.

            Phil, you make a good point about recruiting. PSU to the Big 10 further opened the East to Big 10 recruiting. Wisconsin and Michigan have gotten lots of recruits over the years from NY, NJ, and PA. Given the weakness of the Big East, there was no “home team” so to speak. Adding Rutgers would solidify a recruiting advantage for the Big 10.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            The “long term and structural” need can be met by adding FSU, Miami, GTech and 1 of UMD/Rutgers, yet you reject that plan.

            That tells me just how good your ability to judge opportunities is.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          You talk about the “vision thing”, but “being Northern” has never been one of the objectives. Adding brands, attractive football games, and expanding the B10 brand in to big growing population centers have been.

          Your vision is to add schools in small states with bad football who would subtract from the B10 per capita TV revenue and bowl revenue. My vision is to add football powerhouses in big growing states who would grow (or at least keep even) the B10 TV and bowl revenues and make the B10 one of the undisputed top 2 football (and basketball) conferences in the country.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Since when is NJ a small state? Not to mention being next to NYC.

            Adding Rutgers doesn’t change the cultural dynamic much. Nor would have MO or Pitt. Adding GT, Miami or FSU is another matter. Those boys used to have a little custom they called “slavery”.

            I’d like to see the BIG be more of a “northern” v. just a midwestern league. Your proposal robs it of all cultural identity.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            CT is a small state. NJ isn’t small, but also non-growing.

            The civil War was 150 years ago. Some people have moved on.

            In any case, the B10’s cultural identity is tied to it’s being among the best in both athletics and academics/research.
            Did the SEC moving in to a distinctly Midwestern state rob it of its cultural identity? Did the Pac expanding in to the Mountain West rob it of its cultural identity? Did the B12 adding a school situated in Appalachia rob it of its cultural identity? Did the ACC moving out of the Mid-Atlantic rob it of it’s cultural identity? How similar are Tallahassee, Atlanta, and the SCarolina upcountry to Pittsburgh, Boston, and upstate New York?

            Do you realize how inane you sound by saying that if the B10 didn’t do anything, they would lose PSU to a league that is deemed desirable because it was willing to expand from Yankee Boston to the Dixie FL panhandle (and farther south), yet you argue against the B10 doing the same?

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Richard, you really are dense.

            Missouri has a split personality, with a lot of southern influence. And it’s adjacent to a current SEC state. Also, I never said MO to the SEC was a particularly great move for the SEC. Had they had their choice, they may have gone with NC, or Clemson, or FSU, or Texas, or Oklahoma. MO may have been the best AVAILABLE option, which is not the same as the best option. MO was a better move for the Big 10 than for the SEC, which shows how stupid it was to let MO go.

            As far as the Big 12 adding WV….that’s a short-term move for survival on both sides. It’s absurd that WVU is in that league, and they won’t be 20 years from now.

            Ass far as the ACC nmoving out of the Mid-Atlantic region, again that was a move for survival. There were a hell of a lot of Tobacco Road residents who didn’t want to do it, so YES, it did affect the league’s cultural identity.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            mushroomgod – Unfortunately FSU & Clemson were not on the SEC’s list because they never had the votes to be excepted. I think both would’ve accepted the invite if they had received one. I do agree with you in that UNC, UT & OU (and you can throw UVA & VT in that there as well) were higher on the SEC’s wish list. I think Mizzou was next, with maybe NCST & Maryland being right with Mizzou on the next teir of the list.

            As a SEC fan, I personally would’ve preferred FSU or CU over Mizzou. But in the end, I think once the SEC knew it could get aTm, they decided that the next school had to also deliver a new market to further their plan for a SEC Network. And neither FSU nor CU provided any additional markets. Plus the UF/UGA/USCe/UK block would’ve never voted for either of them.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I’m not dense at all, shroom.

            If you don’t believe that expansion is necessary for the B10’s “survival”, why are you advocating the addition of non-football powers like Rutgers and UConn? If doing nothing doesn’t affect the B10’s standing in the future, what’s the rationale for taking those schools? So that all the other schools can get less TV, bowl, and ticket revenue?

            As for the ACC culture changing, fine, I don’t care to argue that point. Now do you believe that the current ACC, with its culture changed, is stronger, or do you believe that the old Tobacco Road ACC that was in all of 4 states was stronger?

            I’m finding you to be the dense one, mushroom, as you don’t realize that if you want the B10 to be stronger than it is now, it would have to change.

            Like

      • joe4psu says:

        Richard,

        I’ve supported the idea of adding GT and Miami since around the time that the B1G announced it was studying expansion. Expanding into MD, GA and FL would help a lot with current and future recruiting areas and growth trends. I would go with RU as school number four instead of FSU though. Why add a second school in FL rather than a quality AAU school from NJ that is the B1G’s last chance to try and penetrate the NYC market? RU may not regularly move the needle much in NYC but they proved during their one 10 win season, 2006 I believe, that they can attract better audiences there than anyone else. If I’m not mistaken they still have the most watched *SPN game(s?) in the market. They may find it even more difficult to reach that level of success in the B1G but bring games against PSU, OSU and UM to the market and you can max out the B1G’s potenial there.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Because FSU is the only one in my 4 that can be guaranteed to be a power in the future. The U delivers FL about as well as and has about as many fans in that state as my school (Northwestern) does in IL.

          Thus only one of Maryland/RU should get in.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            What if we switch his proposal and make it FSU, GT, MD and RU? As you say, FSU delivers the state better than Miami.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Good enough for me, though it might not be good enough for FSU (their 2 biggest rivals would be OOC). I know FSU lived with that before, but that was back in the days when 6 home games in an 11-game schedule was deemed sufficient. Plus, Miami would definitely be a bigger draw than RU or UMD.

            FSU’s the big stumbling block; getting them, and getting them accepted by the school presidents.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “Plus, Miami would definitely be a bigger draw than RU or UMD.”

            Agreed. But RU and MD add to the B10 in a lot of ways:

            1. Each adds a state for the BTN (Miami doesn’t, but would still bring a lot of new subscribers)
            2. Each adds an eastern rival for PSU. This keeps PSU happy.
            3. The BTN can leverage the group to get more money from the major cities on the mid-east coast (DC, Baltimore, Philly, Newark, NYC).
            4. The B10 gets to play a lot of games on the east coast in front of alumni and potential new fans and students. This may lead to cracking NYC in the distant future.
            5. Each adds a state for extra research power (4 more senators, 20 more representatives).
            6. MD adds to hoops.
            7. As state flagships, each has more in common with the B10 than Miami.

            A good Miami is a better draw, but they don’t attend games, they don’t watch bad teams and they don’t have a big alumni base. Depending on how hard the NCAA hits them, Miami may collapse as a program for a while. What value do they have then?

            “FSU’s the big stumbling block; getting them, and getting them accepted by the school presidents.”

            Agreed on both points. I don’t think GT would be easy to get either.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            GTech would be much easier if FSU goes.

            Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      ‘shroom: It’s cute how you still take Delaney at his word.

      That comment about Demographics and inventory was a veiled threat to the Big East: force ND’s hand and make them come to the B1G or be raided. If it was anything else, the net result would not have been Nebraska.

      What I don’t think anyone anticipated while it spooked neither the Big East or the Irish, it did manage to show the world the cracks in the BXII (along with Larry Scott’s plan to expand eastward) with the threat for going from 6 Big Conferences to 4 Superconferences.

      I concur with Brian, the first thing the Big Ten should do is thank mammon that this should be the end of the great conference reshuffling for at least a decade.

      Eric: Unlike the B1G, I don’t think the SEC minds not playing each other. TAMU came for Arkansas, LSU, Bama, and getting the heck out of Texas’ house. I don’t think their fans really care if they don’t play Tennessee, S. Carolina, or Vandy more than a few times a decade. I doubt Mizzou even thought *that* far ahead. They just figured that like Pitt they were never getting a B1G invite and are just happy to be there (for now…)

      Duffman: South Carolina was an Independent for 20years, a former SoCon member, and deep in the footprint. Also, they were a well-supported team, and nowhere good enough to be a threat to the traditional powers. They still aren’t. Arkansas was getting out of a dying and Texas-centered conference (where have we heard that?) and went with a close conference with at least a couple rivals. They seemed worse than they were because…well, it was the SWC, and they were one of the few teams who *didn’t* get busted by the NCAA, IIRC. The Hogs won 13 SWC titles but have yet to win more than a division crown in the SEC. I don’t know that the either of the programs were “grown” by the SEC.

      I don’t think that the B1G wants, needs, or even *can* grow programs. I know PSU has not experienced the glories they did in the 80s when they feasting on their fellow eastern independents…and PSU should be the kind of team that should have been grown in 20 years to perennial national title contender.

      The Big Ten needs to focus on other issues before debating expansion. In just the second season of divisional play, the divisions are a joke.

      Designing them to be competitive seemed like a good idea, but what we found was how laughable the B1G ability to predict the future is.

      Right now one division has six teams eligible for any post-season play, two of them ranked in the top 25 and three others receiving votes. The other division has four eligible teams, and the only ranked team ain’t eligible. The Bleacher Report of all people posted an article by Adam Jacobi outlining how a 4-8 Indiana team can make the B1G Championship by merely beating Illinois and Purdue and getting a bit of tie-breaker help. And from there, it’s just one upset away from the Rose Bowl. THE 5-8 HOOSIERS CAN THEORETICALLY GO TO THE ROSE BOWL.

      That’s what the B1G brass should be trying to fix.

      Like

      • frug says:

        I think the demographics comment was sincere, but Nebraska was just too good to pass up. If there had been another available school with a similar brand but came from a larger state in another region then I think the Big 10 would have taken them.

        I’ll also add that when Delaney made that comment he made not have even known Nebraska was a possibility. Osbourne didn’t approach the Big 10 until after Missouri started publicly pleading for an invite.

        Like

  52. acaffrey says:

    This is kind of interesting. The ACC gets to determine the 5 opponents for Notre Dame each year.
    Not sure why, but I just never thought Notre Dame would give up the right to control all 12 games on its schedule. I am sure the ACC will run it by ND… but this is really is light years away from what ND pretended to offer the Big East previously.

    http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2012/09/19/acc-to-determine-notre-dames-5-football-opponents/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      That’s what ND wanted – to get 5 games scheduled for them so they didn’t have to deal with it. The ACC presumably said it would only be acceptable if ND plays everyone equally. Once ND accepted that, the ACC needs to do the scheduling because they have more issues to deal with.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      What I’m curious about is whether ND demanded TV rights over a greater share of the games (3 of 5 or 5 of 9) in order to hand over scheduling rights.

      For one, I would be shocked if ND plays Wake and Duke (and their home stadiums that are less than half the size of ND’s) on a HaH basis.

      For another, even if they’re not scheduling the games, they need to know how many home games that they’ll be getting from the ACC in any given year. I really doubt that ND would allow itself to be put in a situation where it has 5 home games one particular year, for instance.

      BTW, if the split is 3-2, then over 18 years (90 games), the split would have to be 54-36. 6 schools would have to agree to 2-for-1’s (for 24-12), the other 8 would be HaH (24-24), & the other 6 would have to be either at ND or neutral site (I suppose whichever schools agree to those terms).

      If you go by stadium size, Duke and Wake would agree to 2-for-1’s. Would Syracuse and BC agree to that? Likely only 1-1-1’s, at most. Next up are GTech and Maryland.
      ‘Cuse, BC, GTech, and Maryland probably would agree to 1-1-1’s where the neutral site game is in the NFL stadium closest to them by ND keeps the TV rights, but would the ACC be happy with that arrangement?

      Like

      • frug says:

        I don’t see why the ACC would agree to this deal if these aren’t balanced series. The whole point was to improve the quality of their TV contract so letting Notre Dame keep the broadcast rights to 60% of the games would be dumb.

        Plus, if the ACC has control over scheduling what possible incentive would they have to give ND 2 for 1’s? If Maryland wants to play Notre Dame at Fed Ex field because Dan Snyder will pay them a lot and it will get them a lot of attention in DC then they will, but I can’t imagine that Notre Dame will be able to force anyone to play off campus just because they have a small stadium.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I have to admit that I don’t really understand ND’s thinking, then, if they really are going to play Duke and Wake HaH. Are their non-revenue sports so important to them?

          If ND agreed to HaH’s with even the minnows of the ACC, then they’ve already become independent in name only. It would be no different from joining a conference that only plays 5 conference games (which leagues like the SEC did back in the old days).

          Like

          • frug says:

            I have to admit that I don’t really understand ND’s thinking, then, if they really are going to play Duke and Wake HaH. Are their non-revenue sports so important to them?

            Not as important as they are to Texas (who ruled out the Big East as an option because it was too weak in sports outside of basketball) but important enough that they wouldn’t let them be relegated to mid-major status.

            That said, ND’s AD confirmed that this move was a result of an inability to put together an adequate schedule.

            If ND agreed to HaH’s with even the minnows of the ACC, then they’ve already become independent in name only. It would be no different from joining a conference that only plays 5 conference games (which leagues like the SEC did back in the old days).

            It’s different because everyone else has to play 75% of their games in the conference instead of 42% and can’t have a separate TV contract for their home games. Also, if they joined a football conference that would actually join a football conference.

            For the talk about national exposure, the real reason Notre Dame is so obsessed with independence is the simple concept it. They believe it is part of their identity, that it is in their DNA.

            Last year Notre Dame’s athletic director said the number 1 priority of the athletic department was to preserve independence. That means every significant decision has to be viewed through this lens.

            In this case, Notre Dame had simply said their was no way they could continue to put together an acceptable schedule under their present circumstances, so they made a sacrifice. They gave up control of 5 games. But that still means they have control of the other seven, which means they can continue to (correctly) call themselves independent, and that is what is really important.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Why not, they need some automatic Ws, other tha Navy. Play WF or Duke on the road…automatic W, doesn’t hurt NBC’s ratings.

            Did I mention I hate ND?

            Like

        • vp19 says:

          Remember that Notre Dame played at Wake last year — and the game was in Winston-Salem, not Charlotte. Duke probably hasn’t hosted ND since the ’60s, but Alabama and Stanford have played at Durham in recent years.

          If Maryland wants to play ND at Byrd Stadium instead of FedEx, there’s probably nothing the folks in South Bend can do about it.

          Like

      • acaffrey says:

        Syracuse is already agreeing to play major programs in the NYC in lieu of having home games. See USC in 2012. Notre Dame and Penn State are also on the slate.

        I think we’ll see this evolve into a 2H, 2A, 1 Neutral situation in many years.

        I am sure ND and the ACC will work together to set it up so that ND gets the requisite # of home games it needs.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Hmmmm….Penn Stae playing in NYC against an ACC team…….

          Like

        • Phil says:

          The good thing for Syracuse is that hosting ND at the Meadowlands will sell it out, as opposed to the embarrassment of drawing less fans for their USC game than Rutgers did playing Howard University at the same time 20 miles down the turnpike.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            The only embarrassment is Rutgers not having the courage to schedule tough teams at the Meadowlands. When is the last time that Rutgers played an OOC game against an OOC football King ANYWHERE?

            As for attendance, Rutgers has 42,000 undergraduate students. Syracuse has roughly 13,500. USC has about 17,500. Howard has about 10,000 undergrads of its own, for that matter. Just think of the difference in alum # with those numbers over a long period of time. Rutgers should outdraw Syracuse when it is playing a game on campus and Syracuse is playing 400 miles from home against an opponent from the West Coast.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            As I mentioned above, poor scheduling was a Schiano thing that has ended.Rutgers is playing Arkansas at RU Stadium next year and has Penn State scheduled the year after that (it is not their fault that game has changed quite a bit) Why should they play in a pro stadium located well off-campus?

            Maybe Syracuse should have read the enrollment statistics you cited before they scheduled games in the Meadowlands and bought signage declaring themselves “New York City’s team”. They are NYC’s basketball team, especially when St Johns is down, but NOBODY cares about Syracuse football. Syracuse isn’t playing tough teams in the Meadowlands out of some sense of bravery. They have to play tough teams to draw casual fans, Syracuse football fans in the NYC area couldn’t fill the Red Bull stadium in Harrison.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Rutgers did have a home and home with Texas in the late 90s.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Syracuse wanted to play Notre Dame, USC, and Penn State… and would rather play them at a neutral site than schedule crap. And Syracuse is definitely New York City’s college team for basketball. Syracuse outdraws St. Johns in MSG. Not like they say “New York City’s College Football team…”

            Like

    • Eric says:

      While Notre Dame would have probably would have preferred to go into the ACC with no football obligations, they don’t view this as a terrible price. It will mean a few one and ones they wouldn’t agree to before, but the contract is almost certainly set-up so that Notre Dame will have an easier time scheduling in late October/November when its been toughest. It also doesn’t leave them in a bowl situation again like this year where they’ve used up there one time in the Champs Sports Bowl and thus need to either make the BCS or see which bowl has an opening it can’t fill.

      The only question left I have on it is if its 5 home and home games or if 1 of the games of the year in a neutral site game (where NBC might get the rights in return for other revenue going to the ACC). My guess is that it is straight up home and home with Notre Dame getting 3 home games one year and the ACC getting 3 the next.

      Like

  53. frug says:

    AP CFB writer is reporting on his Twitter account that the Big 10 and PAC are looking to set up a back up tie in to host a Rose Bowl matchup in years the actual Rose Bowl is hosting a playoff game.

    While good for the Big Ten and PAC it would be bad news for the Orange Bowl and ACC since it would mean no Big 10 #1.

    Like

    • frug says:

      The writer is Ralph D. Russo.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      Kind of makes sense. My guess is that they end up making it 7 BCS bowls and allow conferences to sign back-up contracts with access bowls in the event their contract bowl is a semi-final.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Eric,

        It looks fairly obvious:

        The Rose is backed up by the Fiesta, the Cotton by the Sugar and the Orange by the Peach/Cap 1. The extra bowl may get added, but I don’t know if it impacts this much. The plan before would have put teams into different access bowls is all.

        Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      So this means the highest ranked team according to the playoff committee, correct?

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      For last year’s example, the Orange Bowl would’ve featured a rematch the Bowl would like to avoid – Clemson v. South Carolina. I wonder if there are some provisions to trade teams with an access bowl or to bypass a team if that happens.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      The real issue is how the revenue is shared. Is it purely by appearances? If so, that favors the SEC. I expect part of the revenue will be shared by ND/B10/SEC with another part going to the team that plays there.

      Like

  54. Richard says:

    Oh, and to those of you who think PSU would love being in the ACC (with worse football, less money, a worse bowl lineup, and the majority of schools just as far away), compare the TV schedules for PSU and FSU. Last year (like every year since the BTN began), a PSU fan did not have to pay extra to catch every PSU game on TV no matter where they were in the country if they got the right TV provider. FSU, the premier football brand in the ACC, had 5 games where not everyone in the country could get their game without having to pay extra (ESPN GamePlan). There was 1 game that wasn’t televised on TV anywhere.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      This included their rivalry game with Miami, mind you.

      Like

    • joe4psu says:

      Richard,

      I don’t want to get into a big ACC versus B1G argument from the PSU perspective but you have to account for the addition of ND and PSU to compare apples to apples.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        ND in football once every 3 years. Is that such a huge deal? I would think that a school like PSU could find opponents comparable to ND to schedule OOC twice in 6 years if you guys wanted to.

        I don’t think you’re going to give “ND basketball” as a point in the ACC’s favor.

        Like

  55. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8402782/arkansas-razorbacks-coach-john-l-smith-bankruptcy-shows-257m-debt

    Losing to ULM wasn’t remotely the worst thing to happen to John L Smith last week.

    In any case, how bad does an investment plan have to be if you’re left with that much debt and nothing to show for it…

    Like

  56. Penn State Danny says:

    2 playoff questions:

    1) If there were undefeated teams from the B1G, PAC, Big XIII and ACC would they all make it if a 12-1 Alabama was available?

    2) Would an undefeated Big East team like Boise get picked over a 1 loss team from any of the Power Five conferences?

    Like

    • Mike says:

      My answer to both questions is maybe. There are too many variables to say for certain.

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      If they took ‘strength of schedule’ comments seriously, then the answer is ‘maybe’ for 1 (you’d have to look at the season and the schedules of the teams considered), and no for 2, unless Boise State has some strong non-conference opponents.

      Now, with an actual committee, I don’t see any way they’ll not put an undefeated team from one of the other ‘Power 5′ conferences in over a 12-1 SEC team. Whether they would put an undefeated Big East squad with an unimpressive non-conference resume in over a 12-1 power conference team would depend on the committee and how much they want the best team vs. how much they want the best stories (cinderella!).

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Sadly I think it will depend on who you are. An undefeated Michigan, Ohio St, Oklahoma, or USC isn’t getting passed up. However, an undefeated West Virginia (see 1993), Kansas St, Indiana, or Washington St? I could easily see them not getting the benefit of the doubt.

        Like

      • frug says:

        Remember though, SoS is only half the coin. If Boise St. is beating the living snot out of the Big East teams and ‘Bama was skating by you could still make an objective case for BSU in that scenario.