I’m finally back from a spring break vacation in Arizona (80 degrees for the White Sox spring training game that I attended last Wednesday compared to 30 degrees for Opening Day in Chicago yesterday), so let’s get a few updates since I haven’t posted in awhile:
(1) Big Ten Divisions – It appears that the Big Ten office is heeding the calls for the “Keep It Simple Stupid” approach of dividing the soon-to-be 14-team conference into East and West divisions, with Michigan State heading East with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland, the West having Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota and the only debate being where Indiana and Purdue will be placed. IU-PU will then be the only protected cross-division rivalry. Assuming that this comes true, my message to the Big Ten office is the following: THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! While I initially advocated Michigan State being placed in the West with both Indiana-based schools in the East, the newly rumored setup was the next best alignment from my perspective. The Pac-12 was smart in not trying to force any protect cross-division games outside of the California-based schools playing each other annually, so it’s great that the Big Ten reportedly will only keep the Old Oaken Bucket as protected while the West can continue to rotate through Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State more often in this KISS alignment. (Note that it’s a heck of a lot less heartburn for the West schools to see Indiana or Purdue falling off the schedule more often compared to Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, which was likely a large driver for Sparty getting placed in the East.) It still makes a lot more sense in my mind for Indiana to head to the East since it’s (1) actually further East than Purdue, (2) a school with a disproportionately large East Coast student population and (3) better for competitive balance purposes. The only reason that I can think of for IU pushing back on an Eastern placement is that it knows that it will never break its Rose Bowl drought competing in a division with resurgent Michigan and Ohio State programs. Regardless, the Big Ten seems to finally be making the right choices on its divisional alignment. Let’s just hope those right choices also extend to burying the Legends and Leaders division names next to Jimmy Hoffa*.
(* The Meadowlands aren’t that far from Rutgers, so it would still be in the Big Ten footprint.)
(2) Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion – The “new” Big East consisting of the old Catholic 7 schools poached Butler and Xavier from the Atlantic 10 and Creighton from the Missouri Valley Conference right before the start of the NCAA Tournament, which is likely going to trigger a massive realignment of the midmajor non-FBS conferences. While the MVC is celebrating Wichita State’s Final Four run, it is also the league most openly pursuing expansion/replacement options as of now (Missouri State’s president actually Tweeted that he’s out visiting interested expansion candidates)*. Various reports so far indicate that the MVC has had some conversations with Oral Roberts, UMKC, Loyola (Chicago), UIC** and Valparaiso. The latter three Chicago area schools don’t surprise me at all: I Tweeted a few weeks ago that my gut feeling was that those programs plus Belmont would be at the top of the MVC list if Denver wasn’t going to be considered. (Reading between the lines in this interview by MileHighMids of Denver’s athletic director, it appears that the MVC would have been interested in Denver if the school were to add more sports, but the AD isn’t willing to commit to that right now.)
(* For a great analysis of potential MVC candidates using Google Maps, check out this anonymous posting.)
(** For disclosure purposes, my parents met at and graduated from UIC, with my father then spending over 3 decades working at that campus. I don’t have any real rooting interest in the UIC Flames sports teams, but I’ll admit to having an affinity for the institution overall with my family connection.)
Perusing some MVC message boards and blogs, I’ve generally seen fans vomit over these choices with calls that they could either (1) do better or (2) stand pat at 9 schools. It reminds me of the recent UCLA basketball coaching search*, where much of the fan base seemed to be incredulous that they couldn’t lure the likes of Brad Stevens or Shaka Smart and had to settle for the protector of a rapist… er… Steve Alford.** The MVC fans seemed to have hopes for the likes of SLU and/or Dayton (the former of which is definitely going to be in the Big East, where it’s just a matter of when, while the latter likely will be there but has to sweat it out a bit with Richmond as a competitor for spot #12) and are now facing the reality that the realistic candidates aren’t nearly as desirable.
(* For what it’s worth, I believe that UCLA is an elite program with only Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana and those rat bastards from Duke being in the same class. However, the Bruins’ lack of a sexy hire was the result of an elitist approach to job security by the school and fan base. That is, they just fired a guy in Ben Howland who went to three Final Fours, pulled in a top-ranked recruiting class last year and won the Pac-12 regular season championship this year. At most schools, that record warrants a lifetime contract – Shaka Smart is going to be able to parlay a single Final Four run into perpetuity at VCU. I fully understand how many UCLA fans believed the trajectory of the program was going in the wrong direction with Howland and a change might have been needed simply for the sake of a change, but they might have failed to understand how top level coaches in stable positions aren’t exactly enthralled with the prospect of taking a job where a 3-time Final Four coach got canned right after winning a conference championship. Hence, the pool of interested parties was much more shallow than anticipated.)
(** I highly recommend Black Heart Gold Pants blogger Patrick Vint’s message to UCLA fans about Alford on Bruins Nation.)
From my perspective, the MVC isn’t going to be able to add any real home run additions on-the-court. Belmont has the best performance over the past few seasons of the potential candidates, but geographic fit seems to be an issue in that case and their attendance figures have been subpar. As a result, the MVC likely needs to concentrate on attacking its worst weaknesses as opposed to attempting to replace the irreplaceable Creighton in terms of basketball performance. To me, that worst weakness is that fact that Wichita is the MVC’s largest TV market at #69 overall in the US. Those of you that read me regularly know that I’m not in favor of expansion only for the sake of additional markets, but in the case of the MVC, having Wichita as your largest market is Charles Barkley turrible. Even if some of the candidates in large markets aren’t necessarily great TV draws, the MVC is eventually going to need them for recruiting purposes for long-term survival. (This is why even if SLU and Dayton end up leaving the Atlantic 10 on top of Butler and Xavier, that league is still in much better position going forward with its footprint.) That means that a school like Murray State, which has had solid attendance and on-the-court performance, might appear to be desirable for MVC fans but not so much for the conference’s university presidents.
As a lifelong Chicagoan, I have a particular interest in how the MVC is going to proceed since I firmly believe that it should have a better presence in the Chicago market than it does today. Illinois State, Southern Illinois and Bradley all predominantly draw students from and send alumni to the Chicagoland area (with Northern Iowa and Drake also sending large contingents to the region, too). However, the MVC doesn’t draw the coverage that it ought to considering the in-place fan base since it lacks a direct Chicago presence (which is critical unless you’re the University of Illinois or Notre Dame). Therefore, it’s not a shocker that two city schools (UIC and Loyola) and a university on the periphery of the metro region in Northwest Indiana (Valpo) are being visited by the MVC powers that be. The MVC leadership likely recognizes what I see in that Chicago is a large market that can be legitimately leveraged by the conference. It’s not so much that the MVC thinks that UIC or Loyola can “deliver” Chicago in a way that Illinois, Northwestern, DePaul or Notre Dame are able to, but rather that the critical mass of MVC students from and alums living in the area can give the league a solid presence akin to what the A-10 has in Philadelphia or Washington, DC. The MVC doesn’t have any type of major market anchor right now and that’s increasingly going to be a negative risk factor if it’s not rectified.
I haven’t forgotten that ORU’s crosstown neighbor of Tulsa just got invited to the “Old” Big East (or Conference TBD) today. I’ll have more thoughts on that the status of that league in a separate post. Until then, enjoy the Final Four!
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from mgoblog)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go Green!
LikeLike
Hawks #1 in the NIT.
LikeLike
Hail to the Lion!
LikeLike
So why doesn’t conference to be named buy the Conference USA name since virtually everyone in will have once been in that conference. Conference USA could then become the new Metro.
LikeLike
@Stew – I would go for a mashup: Metro USA.
LikeLike
I’ve heard they want to include “American”. “Ugly American”, maybe?
LikeLike
Glad to see someone else recognize how much IU needs the East Coast connection. As a Purdue and Illinois alumnus, I want to see my schools play each other. I also think Purdue should be playing Northwestern every year again. The rivalry wasn’t that great during the 11 team era, but the short road trips are great for students. Since Purdue will be a border team in either division, the immediate closeness of Illinois and Northwestern is better. Closest in the East? Michigan and Ohio State…
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
If I’m Wichita State, I try to cash in on this Final Four with a Mountain West berth. They only will have 11 basketball teams since they don’t want to take non-revenue sports to Hawaii. Wichita State is fairly close to the harder to get to Mountain West schools like Wyoming, Air Force, and CSU and would probably reduce their travel costs. The farther away schools like Boise State and San Diego State are all in airport towns and wouldn’t be so bad. In fact, I’ll bet those schools could get to Wichita easier and cheaper than some of the mountain schools. Plus, although neither Wichita nor all of Kansas are huge markets, they are larger than many in the Mountain West and they are new to the conference. The additional on the West Coast could greatly increase the schools national exposure and more importantly help with recruiting California kids. In exchange, the Mountain West gets a great basketball program that has been to two final fours, has become a tourney staple recently, and routinely sells out its home crowd. The baseball program is also very good I understand. If the Mountain West wants an even number for basketball and Gonzaga isn’t interested, I think Wichita State would be a great choice. I actually think that Wichita State’s long term potential is better than Gonzaga’s. seems like a win/win all around.
LikeLike
Does Wichita State play football? The Mountain West is a football league.
LikeLike
No, but they have an uneven number of basketball members because Hawaii is football only.
LikeLike
Hm, I guess it could work then.
LikeLike
Is having 11 basketball schools such a problem, though? Did the Big Ten have trouble scheduling BBall during the decades it was at 11?
I can see a conference with a FB-only school adding a BBall-only school to boost their RPI and chances at NCAA bids, but its not clear to me that it makes sense just to even up the numbers.
LikeLike
The problems mainly involve scheduling and tournament buys. They’re certainly not insurmountable but my understanding is that they’re very irritating for the conference.
LikeLike
Tournament byes? The difference between seeding the top four and an eight team first round and seeding the top five and a six team first round seems like a distinction without much of a difference.
And nine-team BBall conferences seem to be quite common.
LikeLike
For the Big Five leagues, NCAA Tournament units, as well as the bowl revenue prior to ESPN’s huge Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowl deals, are petty compared to the overwhelming television contracts for football. A Forbes article from a few months back where FBS conferences were ranked by revenue described NCAA Tournament units and bowl game revenue as a “rounding error.”
For the other leagues, NCAA Tournament units represent a substantial portion of the conference budget. One of the reasons the MWC and C-USA did not follow through with their merger was that one or both league’s would have had to turn over their NCAA Tournament units back to schools which would have been departed by the time of the merger. For C-USA, which had many rounds worth of units earned by Memphis, this would have been a major loss. The MWC would have lost all of BYU’s units as well as San Diego State’s, which, at the time the merger was canceled, was scheduled to join the Big West for non-football sports.
NCAA Tournament units also represent a substantial portion of income for soon-to-be-former Big East. Although the members who are joining the league may raise some objections, UConn, Cincinnati, and USF will most likely split the majority of units earned by Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova, not to mention Syracuse, Pitt, ND, Louisville, or the other C7 members. Those units do add up to something significant for a league that will only make a little over $2M/year/school.
This is why it would make perfect sense for the Mountain West to add Gonzaga for non-football sports. The Zags are the most reliable tournament participant in the western United States, and their ability to deliver NCAA Tournament units means a lot of revenue for a conference with a modest television deal. Gonzaga would do nothing to dilute the TV value for football but would enhance it for basketball better than anyone else in the West. They’d help solidify the Mountain West as a permanent power conference in basketball, rather than a league whose good 5-year-run is destined to cycle back down. The scheduling benefit of adding GU, resulting in an 12-member league, is merely an added bonus, not a reason in and of itself to expand. Some may ask why Gonzaga instead of Wichita State? Gonzaga is in the tournament every single year. Wichita State has been off-and-on for making the tournament. Gonzaga just seems like they’re here to stay in terms of basketball powere. WSU is TBD.
Likewise, the former Big East is in dire need of basketball power. The league may be wary of adding non-football schools after the divorce it is enduring, but one non-football school in a 12-team league is not the same as 8 in a 16 team league. They could add either Wichita State or VCU. Personally, VCU seems like the better choice because they make the tournament more often, but neither is a slam dunk over the other.
LikeLike
The Big East (C7) kept their NCAA BB units. The TBD conference retained the units of Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh (if any). I doubt UCONN, USF, and Cincy plan to keep these units from the new members since they are paid out over 6 years and they do not have the votes to keep this for themselves in future years. That is why they are taking all the exit money since it can be distributed before the new members can change it.
LikeLike
The C7 were a special case, since they had a rule added (I think the last time the Big East threatened to collapse) that they could leave as a group with a share of the assets ~ they actually gave up on some assets they might have had, if they had not wanted to leave this year and keep the Big East name. And the checks will still be received by the Big TBA, its just that the money corresponding to the C7 units will be forwarded, under the agreement settling claims.
How the Big TBA divides their assets is interesting ~ in part it will involve how they distribute NCAA units going forward. If all units are, for example, 50% to the school and 50% on an even conference payout, then at the very least 50% of the legacy units would be spread around the entire conference. Some conferences go Three Musketeers with the units, some have only a minority spread conference wide (I’ve read, though it wasn’t an official source, that the A-10 is 75/25 school/conference).
LikeLike
What about Wichita State joining the OBE/AAC?
LikeLike
I think it is more likely that Wichita State could wind up in the Sun Belt than the AAC.
But what I really think will happen is that the Shockers will use this Final Four appearance to wield more power in the MVC expansion planning.
The MVC has to know that losing WSU on the heels of Creighton’s departure would be a major, major hit. I have to think that Wichita State will privately get near veto power on the MVC expansion.
LikeLike
If The American wants to fill in the big gap between its top BBall schools and the majority several steps lower down, by having a non-FB “pair” for its FB-only Navy add, the questions are (1) whether VCU or Wichita would play that role more reliably and (2) whether VCU or Wichita would be interested in playing that role.
If the Military Wing strategy were to happen, they could make either one or three adds like that (assuming that the awkwardness of an odd number of BBall schools increases with the numbers that you are talking about, 11 more awkward than 9, 13 more awkward than 11).
LikeLike
I’ve heard people make similar arguments in favor of Gonzaga, but I don’t really understand them, since outside of football their really isn’t any advantage to having even numbers of teams.
LikeLike
The MWC would take Gonzaga if it could. I’m not sure Gonzaga wants the MWC though – it’s not a great fit. A private Catholic institution wouldn’t mesh well with all the MWC state schools.
LikeLike
I expect the Wichita State coach to leverage the final 4 appearance to get a new job by the end of next week. FGCU got a sweet 16 spot and the coach got a new job (at USC) within a week. Not clear that Wichita State can substain the success, especially with a new coach.
LikeLike
Why not WSU and VCU join up to work for a new Big East invite? If Dayton/SLU goes forward, as rumored, you’d have a good 14-school league encompassing some of the major markets in the North, with Wichita and Richmond as sort of outliers. Both VCU and WSU would have a lot of exposure on the Fox channels to counteract their being ignored by the ESPN channels.
LikeLike
I’ve heard that the Big East wants all private school members. Not just for “institutional fit” but to prevent FOIA requests, state legislatures, etc, that public schools have to deal with.
LikeLike
Who’s headed to the Barn? Howland? Someone’s got to want the Gopher job.
LikeLike
No idea, but Howland would be a good get. He might seem to similar to Tubby (coach with great success a while ago at a hoops king) for the fans, though. Maybe Jerry Kill can coach hoops, too.
LikeLike
I think the former Big East will go for the Javalin, Matador, and Pacer name of American Metro Conference (AMC). I’ll always think Pacer.
I think the MVC ought to go for three schools. Valparaiso for sure, probably one of the Chicago schools, whichever has more drawing ability (probably LUC) to get strong Chicago presence and then you have options for the 3rd. It could be another metro like Cleveland State, Milwaukee-Wisconsin, Missouri-Kansas City, or Belmont, or it could be something more pleasing to ADs like Murray State. But way take just one Chicago school? Take two.
LikeLike
As the Atlantic 10 has shown, a conference that isn’t part of the big six needs more than one rep in a major metro area to make any sort of impact. That’s why the A-10 works in Philadelphia, but is invisible in New York (Fordham) and Washington (George Washington)…and that would be true even if Fordham and GW were successful programs. Adding George Mason to complement the Colonials will elevate the A-10 in metro D.C., and I’m surprised the conference hasn’t pursued Hofstra, Manhattan, Iona or St. Peter’s to give the Rose Hill Rams a local A-10 rival. The MVC needs two Chicago-area schools (and no, Valparaiso does not fit that definition, though it’s certainly Valley-worthy in other ways).
LikeLike
M I Z – G O Blue
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Do you believe the MVC will add SDSU or the like, in addition to the aforementioned schools? It would bring the MVC & MVFC that much closer.
LikeLike
Frank,
“I’m finally back from a spring break vacation”
Thank God. That previous post was getting to be problematic.
“(1) Big Ten Divisions … THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!”
And to which I say BOO! And no, I’m not saying Boo-urns.
“so it’s great that the Big Ten reportedly will only keep the Old Oaken Bucket as protected”
Agreed. If they have to choose these terrible divisions, at least they aren’t locking a bunch of unnecessary games. Score one for us as we long ago predicted they might do this.
“while the West can continue to rotate through Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State more often in this KISS alignment. (Note that it’s a heck of a lot less heartburn for the West schools to see Indiana or Purdue falling off the schedule more often compared to Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, which was likely a large driver for Sparty getting placed in the East.)”
We’ve been over the math a bunch of times, but in a nutshell there isn’t much difference with 9 games. The western teams besides PU will play IN one less time every 9 years than they will the other eastern teams. It is not a significant difference.
Even distribution – 43%
IN/PU – 33% (plus 100% against each other, obviously)
Others – 44% (plus 33% against IN/PU, obviously)
Granted, if there is any team they would want to play less often IN would be at (or near) the top of the list. And certainly MI is a team they would want to play more often. It just isn’t a big enough difference to drive the decision.
“The only reason that I can think of for IU pushing back on an Eastern placement is that it knows that it will never break its Rose Bowl drought competing in a division with resurgent Michigan and Ohio State programs.”
If it was anyone but IN, that would be a very good reason. They can just shift to preseason hoops that much sooner now. I’m a little surprised RU and UMD haven’t pushed back against these divisions for the same reason, though. I realize they are used to not winning their respective conferences, but starting off with at least 3 Ls penciled in every year doesn’t help (OSU, MI, PSU, MSU and 1.33 of NE, WI and IA).
“Regardless, the Big Ten seems to finally be making the right choices on its divisional alignment.”
No, it doesn’t. Just some of the right choices.
“Let’s just hope those right choices also extend to burying the Legends and Leaders division names next to Jimmy Hoffa*.”
Several ADs have come out in support of the names.
“(2) Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion
…
As a result, the MVC likely needs to concentrate on attacking its worst weaknesses as opposed to attempting to replace the irreplaceable Creighton in terms of basketball performance. To me, that worst weakness is that fact that Wichita is the MVC’s largest TV market at #69 overall in the US.”
You use that to argue for adding 1 or more Chicago schools. Wouldn’t it actually move UMKC to the top of the realistic candidate list, though? KC is a big market and is already in the footprint, plus UMKC would have multiple rivals built in. In addition, KC is a less crowded market which could help them gain traction.
The real question is how large they want to be. I’d aim for 10, but they may want 12. They may also be concerned about balancing state and private schools.
If they want 3, I’d say UMKC, UWM and UIC would help them the most. I think they’ll be tempted to add at least 1 private school, though. Loyola should top that list but Valpo will be tempting with their success.
LikeLike
“Wouldn’t it actually move UMKC to the top of the realistic candidate list, though? KC is a big market and is already in the footprint . . .”
Kansas City is #31, while Milwaukee is #35, and Nashville is #29.
This would make Belmont more attractive than UMKC, in my opinion. Not only is the media market slightly larger, but Belmont has had more basketball success. UMKC has never made the NCAA tournament, and that would be a problem.
If I were to pick three teams for the MVC, I would go with UIC, Belmont, and Murray State. Yes, Murray State does have a very small market, but it has had some basketball success, and it would form a bridge between the current MVC schools and Belmont. I would go with UIC over Loyola because UIC has had more recent basketball success. Yes, Loyola won a national championship — but that was back in 1963. They haven’t been to the NCAA tournament since 1985.
With the loss of Creighton, the MVC’s public/private split would be 6-3, or a 2-to-1 ratio. The addition of those three teams would maintain that proportion.
LikeLike
Though if there are supermajorities in the bylaws, the private schools might prefer to return to the ratio before Creighton left to maintaining the split before Creighton left.
LikeLike
Sam240,
“Kansas City is #31, while Milwaukee is #35, and Nashville is #29. …
This would make Belmont more attractive than UMKC, in my opinion.”
Yes, but you skipped the part about KC already being in the footprint. It will be easier to get attention there since multiple schools will have alumni in KC. The local paper may already cover the MVC to a decent extent. Nashville won’t have nearly as many MVC grads and certainly the local media hasn’t been following the MVC.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/10/Media/BigTenNet.aspx
Way back in December, SBJ discussed how the B10 might try to leverage RU and UMD games to get BTN on basic cable. It’s the same strategy they planned to use with NE. They’ll withhold games from local distributors until enough of them move the BTN to basic.
Excerpts begin:
The fact that Maryland and Rutgers are joining the Big Ten Conference doesn’t guarantee that their games will be on the Big Ten Network. In fact, several of their games may not be available locally at all — TV or broadband — when they kick off their Big Ten seasons in 2014.
Maryland and Rutgers face the possibility of having at least two football games and at least 15 basketball games go untelevised locally when they join the conference in a year and a half.
…
Comcast is the dominant cable operator in the Washington, D.C., and Baltimore markets, and carries the Big Ten Network on its sports and entertainment tier. In New Jersey, Comcast and Cablevision carry the channel on a higher-priced sports tier.
But the school administrations and conference officials do not want to place any live games on sports tiers in the Big Ten’s home markets. If the Big Ten Conference opted to sell Maryland and Rutgers games to the Big Ten Network from the beginning, Cablevision, Comcast and Time Warner Cable would have no incentive to move the network off of their sports tiers. Instead, if the Big Ten Network is unable to reach a deal with the distributors, local Maryland and Rutgers fans only would have access to ESPN-produced games.
The Big Ten Network is 51 percent owned by Fox and 49 percent owned by the Big Ten Conference.
The most likely scenario would have the conference selling Maryland and Rutgers games to the Big Ten Network once the channel’s distribution hits a specific percentage of the home markets, most likely around 70 percent.
…
If only one distributor in Nebraska agreed to make the switch, the conference would provide games for that distributor to carry on a locally originated channel, sources said. The conference planned to sell rights to stations in the markets of Nebraska’s opponents. If Nebraska played Iowa, for example, the Big Ten Conference would sell the game to a local channel in Iowa, not in Nebraska.
Relevant facts:
1. The B10 needs to keep RU and UMD games off of ABC/ESPN and BTN to have leverage for this strategy.
2. Based on the ESPN blog post I linked on the last post, ABC/ESPN get up to 4 games per weekend.
3. The B10 wants to develop these new markets and maximize the number of big opponents that come to town.
4. To make things worse, 2014 is a double bye year, so there are fewer games per weekend on average. There are also only 8 B10 games
This is the scheduling issue I wanted to talk about. How does the B10 emphasize having kings playing RU and UMD while not putting them on TV much in order to leverage BTN money? Do we really think the fans will clamor for RU/IN? They need to have 2-3 better games on most weekends to keep RU and UMD off ESPN. The fans of the other team that is kept off of TV are going to be really angry with the B10 for this strategy, too. For extra difficulty, how do they deal with this in 2014 when they want to make a splash to announce the new members but also don’t want them on TV too much and there is the double bye with only 8 conference games?
Some early thoughts:
1. 2014 will probably open with OSU at UMD and MI at RU as a doubleheader on ESPN/ABC.
2. 2014 should end with PSU at RU or UMD.
3. Whichever team doesn’t host PSU will likely host NE at some point in 2014.
4. I don’t see the B10 having much leverage for a while.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73666/beware-the-b1gs-double-bye-is-coming
This is the ESPN blog post I mentioned.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2380/does-rutgers-really-bring-in-nyc-market
This post from Darren Rovell in November has some interesting and relevant numbers.
A New York Times blog published last year by statistician Nate Silver estimated that the New York City market has 607,157 Rutgers fans. Bill Nielsen, vice president of Scarborough Sports Marketing, said those numbers seem accurate based on data his company has compiled.
According to Scarborough research, 11 percent of the New York City population considers themselves avid fans of college football, compared to 21 percent of the general U.S. population. That’s 73rd out of 77 markets, on a percentage basis, that Scarborough measures. But when broken down by number of people, it’s 1.8 million people, which is second among U.S. cities. Nielsen’s data shows that New York City has 1.4 million Rutgers fans and about 45 percent of them — 609,900 fans — are avid fans of the team.
“If you want to try to get the New York market, you have no other option,” Nielsen said. “It’s really the only major-sized university that’s close that plays Division I football and basketball. Does Rutgers give you the penetration that Ohio State does in Columbus? Of course not. But this is more about the market than the team.”
On the other hand, the post continues with this:
Ed Desser of Desser Sports Media, who negotiated the Los Angeles Lakers television deal with Time Warner reportedly worth $3 billion, isn’t convinced.
“Rutgers might bring a small pocket of central New Jersey, but college football is not a New York-area sport,” Desser said. “What we’re talking about here is, is there enough interest in New York for Rutgers to get a person to change their cable carrier if that carrier won’t carry the Big Ten Network? I don’t think so. Rutgers belongs in the also mentioned category in a market that includes the Yankees and the Knicks.”
LikeLike
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
That is the Nate Silver blog referenced in my previous comment.
His numbers:
CFB fans in NYC = 2.9M (14% of 20.2M)
Fans in NYC of various schools:
1. RU – 607k (20.9% market share)
2. ND – 267k (9.2%)
3. PSU – 186k (6.4%)
5. MI – 144k (5.0%)
9. OSU – 65k (2.2%)
Just FYI, here is a rough DC distribution (50 mile diameter roughly around DC) from the Common Census map, assuming DC metro is 6M people and 20% are CFB fans (1.2M total):
1. UMD – 210k (17.5% share)
2. UVA – 132k (11.0%)
3. VT – 118k (9.8%)
4. PSU – 91k (7.6%)
5. MI – 48k (4.0%)
7. OSU – 34k (2.9%)
LikeLike
So, together, the Big Ten has about 35% of the NYC college football fans, according to those numbers. Will that one million people be enough to get what the Big Ten wants? It represents just under 5% of the total 20.2M.
I will say, I think one underestimated part of the college football carriage fight is that fans of college sports, or sports in general, I would think are the most likely viewers to actually call their cable companies or threaten to leave/actually leave than any other viewer. The live element, just as it makes ad spots more valuable, also makes them a tougher customer for the cable companies.
Someone who loses, say…Comedy Central (which I believe actually happened recently, did it not?) will have alternatives (say online, for example) that they may go to, rather than immediately threatening to leave their cable company. On the other hand, I remember discussions Nebraska fans had about threatening to leave/calling months before the Big Ten season started, in anticipation of potential missed games.
LikeLike
Phil has a very strong point ~ if half of the 5% are avid enough fans to switch to satellite from cable, then the BTN on the dish could be an awfully lot of leverage for getting BTN on the cable. You wouldn’t even have to black out games, if you restricted BTN on a sports package on cable in the contested area to the main feed without the overflow channel, and the BTN on the dish include at least one overflow channel. You just always schedule the eastern schools on the first overflow channel.
LikeLike
I disagree with the premise that there even needs to be some huge 500,000+ bloc of RU fans to get the BTN the price they want price in NJ.
Pay TV in NJ basically offers the following options:
1. Each town gives one cable company a monopoly on that type of service
2. Direct TV
3. Many NJ towns now offer Verizon Fios cable service
If the BTN network costs a company another $1 a month ($100 per 100 households), it doesn’t take a lot of cable customers threatening to switch to satellite/Fios (or vice versa) and take the $100-200 total monthly bill they pay the cable company with them, to force the issue (especially since the majority of customers don’t pay attention to what they are paying for each channel and won’t switch because their cable company just added the BTN).
Direct TV and FiOs were not as mature and weren’t considered the viable options during the YES and NFL network battles that they are now. The BTN just needs to get a foothold with Direct TV, Verizon OR one of the major cable companies and then everything else will fall into place.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s really much the B1G can do. I feel:
1. Getting the B1G Network carriage in Maryland/Baltimore should not be a huge problem
2. Getting it in NYC is going to be excessively hard.
Essentially, I’m agreeing with your 4th bullet point…there’s not much they can do. ESPN gets to pick whatever they want, and the B1G had a long standing policy (whether written or not) of avoiding non conference games once the season starts.
I’ll even go further and note that any attempt to gain the NYC market that doesn’t include Notre Dame is going to be futile. I don’t think even putting PSU, Michigan, and tOSU in Rutgers’ division is going to be enough.
LikeLike
Agreed. New Yorkers are ignorant about college football if Notre Dame isn’t involved.
Speaking of Rutgers, Mike Rice is outta here after public outcry about his treatment of players: http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/03/rutgers-fires-mens-basketball-coach-mike-rice/related/
OK, which is a more desirable vacancy at the moment — Rutgers or Minnesota?
LikeLike
@vp19 – That’s pretty easy. Minnesota was a top 10 team at one point this season, won a game in the NCAA Tournament, and has a pretty good hoops fan base. Rutgers hasn’t made the NCAA Tournament in over 2 decades and there’s going to be heightened scrutiny of the athletic director with this scandal (assuming that he survives this). The Gophers job is clearly more desirable and it’s not even close.
LikeLike
Did I miss something? Is there a reason to no longer believe that the Maryland/Rutgers add, plus the large number of alumni won’t be incentive in addition to the potential of Fox bundling BTN with YES?
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t think there’s an issue here over the long run. Sure over the shorter run, it may end up needing a bit of work, but over the longer run YES/FS1/FS2 tied to BTN should be enough to forcefeed it down the NYC market.
LikeLike
No, it is incentive. Bundling BTN with YES would do it, but I don’t see the benefit from the Yankees perspective. You already have a whole pie. Why share it?
I just think they aren’t playing with house money in NYC, unlike adding a king in Nebraska or pretty easy path to basic carriage in Maryland when you supplement Maryland with Penn State and Michigan.
LikeLike
1.The BTN is going to get what they want in NJ, and that in itself pays for the Rutgers addition.
2.The number of NJ transplants in eastern PA gives the BTN a decent chance of improving its rate in the PA portion of the Philadelphia market.
3. The NY portion of the NYC market will be difficult (although some areas, like Queens and Staten Island are actually located very close to RU and may have more of a connection).
LikeLike
Gregenstein:
Fox now has controlling interest in YES. Why the Yankees allowed that, I don’t know. But then again, I’m a fan of the PAC wholly owned model of conference networks, and their statement that its goal isn’t solely to generate the most money possible. There are other valuable benefits (control being one).
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I wouldn’t quite call it the Yankees “allowing” it to occur, but rather that they’re getting a crap ton of money back from them. I’ve seen in the past (and this was even before the current explosion in sports rights fees) that the YES Network has a higher market valuation that the New York Yankees franchise itself (and note that the Yankees are the most valuable pro sports franchise in the US, even topping the Dallas Cowboys, and rank #3 in the wolrd with only Manchester United and Real Madrid ahead of them), so I think the Steinbrenner family wanted to cash a lot of that in. It’s a give and take if you’re a conference or pro sports team – partnering with a media company provides a lot more instantaneous infrastructure and leverage with cable companies that may trump 100% control. Partnering with Fox was extremely critical for the BTN when it was launched since News Corp. owned DirecTV at the time. That gave BTN nationwide basic carriage on DirecTV from day one, which is ultimately what provided more leverage than anything else in the carriage disputes with Comcast since fans had a widely accessible competitor as an alternative. Maybe the Big Ten would have gone the 100%-owned route if it knew how successful the BTN would be, but it can’t be emphasized enough that it wasn’t clear at all that the network was going to be successful when it was announced in 2006. That was a *massive* gamble by both the Big Ten and Fox to start up the network and they were pilloried by fans more often than not during the first year of its existence when there were carriage disputes.
LikeLike
True. Even a blind man has 20/20 hindsight 🙂 . I understand (BTN gets an innovators exemption) but my position on P12N and future educational/commercial entities partnering is informed by an interview Steve Jobs gave some time after he had been “booted” from Apple. When asked what he had learned throu the process of creating and building Apple he responded: one thing, always own at least 51%.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Is there a reason to no longer believe that the Maryland/Rutgers add, plus the large number of alumni won’t be incentive in addition to the potential of Fox bundling BTN with YES?”
That assumes everyone already believed that. Clearly from the media reports many don’t buy that RU was enough. As for YES, it should help if Fox uses it to for maximum leverage. There’s no guarantee they will, or that they won’t settle for a lesser BTN fee to get YES back on.
LikeLike
Even a relatively small carriage rate (say .45 cents compared to current .10 cents) in the huge NYC market would be a huge influx in BTN revenues… Rutgers should have no problem carrying Jersey (getting BTN on basic cable/satellite), maybe not at the same rate as most other BTN states but similar.
LikeLike
The B10 has been known to hold out for a high rate before.
LikeLike
I like the East Coast end of season game approach of having PSU alternate between Rutgers and Maryland end of season, two year’s each, with the PSU home game in Philadelphia for Thanksgiving weekend. Penn State could be the launch of Big Ten season play for the other school.
LikeLike
Michigan State is going to end up unhappy with its season-ender if Penn State ends against Maryland or Rutgers every year.
The season-enders look to be:
Nebraska-Iowa
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Illinois-Northwestern
Purdue-Indiana
Michigan-Ohio State
Penn State-Maryland/Rutgers
Michigan State-Maryland/Rutgers
Michigan State would much more prefer a game against Penn State to close the season to Maryland or Rutgers. Maybe they’d prefer ending against Wisconsin in years when they’re on the same rotation, forcing Minnesota to face Maryland or Rutgers at the end. That way, instead of two upper end teams facing lower end teams (UW-Minny & MSU-Md/RU), the B1G would have one game with a potentially high ratings draw and one game between two leftovers. It would be all about maximizing TV ratings.
LikeLike
As Brian pointed out on the last thread, us PSU fans are pretty divided on our preferred final game opponent. Personally, I’d prefer Pitt. If we’re going to keep it in-conference, honestly Sparty doesn’t bother me as much as some. I think I’m leaning toward Rutgers. Honestly, if they’d just ask Coach O’Brien and go with whatever he says, other Nitters will fall in line. We’re used to the coach telling everyone things like “We can only afford to play Pitt 2 of 3 home/away” and other nonsense in order to settle debates. Sans that…might as well just go with whatever and realize only half of “us” are going to be happy anyway.
LikeLike
If only half of y’all will be happy anyway, would it be better to pick the one that’s best for the conference as a whole and stick with it, or rotate the final games to avoid making it a permanent sticking point? It could, indeed, be rotated annually among the three, MSU, MD and Rutgers, and the Home and Away over six years would work out.
LikeLike
Yes, but if MSU/PSU continues to be the end of season game, that leaves MD/Rutgers, and that might not be the best East Coast marketing strategy.
LikeLike
B10 imo is best off building up the PSU-Maryland rivalry, I think it’s got potential to be a very big one. That leaves MSU with Rutgers, not a very exciting matchup but I think the B10 would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.
LikeLike
What exactly would be the thinking in weakening the market where their fight for carriage will be tougher to strengthen the market where their fight for carriage will be easier?
LikeLike
Perplexed here. The season ending game doesn’t weaken Rutgers or the northeast and the Spartans aren’t a bad opponent to put Rutgers against as a new found rivalry game…
I’m sure Rutgers would love to have a season ending game with PSU, M or OSU but I don’t see any of them wanting that. If both Maryland and PSU want their season ending game to be against each other, it’ll happen. My uncle is a PSU fan from Pennsylvania and lived in northern Virginia for a decade, he sees PSU & Maryland as potentially major rivals.
LikeLike
Regardless, PSU is still going to play Rutgers EVERY season and MSU is going to play Maryland every season.
LikeLike
“Perplexed here. The season ending game doesn’t weaken Rutgers or the northeast and the Spartans aren’t a bad opponent to put Rutgers against as a new found rivalry game…”
It was your claim in the first place that, if true, would suggest that the Big Ten would be unlikely to want to see a PSU/MD, MSU/Rutgers season finale: “That leaves MSU with Rutgers, not a very exciting matchup but I think the B10 would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.”
It would seem that the one that the Big Ten would want to build up would be the Rutgers season finale. The notion of PSU alternating the two would be more a concession to a PSU fanbase that may not have any consensus preference for season finale.
LikeLike
Please don’t paraphrase me as you’re awful at it…
From what I gather from relatives who’ve lived in the east, PSU and Maryland would both like to play each other to end the season, it’s a potentially big rivalry in the making. PSU is glad to have Rutgers in the conference and in its division but doesn’t care much about building a rivalry with them, these are words from my uncle who is a PSU/Steelers fan. I’m not sure he speaks for the entire PSU fanbase.
LikeLike
Actually, “That leaves MSU with Rutgers, not a very exciting matchup but I think the B10 would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.” was a direct quote, not a paraphrase. And in your elaboration, I don’t see any additional reason WHY the Big Ten would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.
You’ve added something about why Penn State might happily sacrifice the latter, to build up the latter, and nothing about why the Big Ten as a whole should do so. As far as what the Big Ten should do, the first question to be addressed is when is the most strategically useful time for Penn State to play Rutgers.
LikeLike
“It was your claim in the first place that, if true, would suggest that the Big Ten would be unlikely to want to see a PSU/MD”
This is the part I don’t understand in the least. Where do you get that I think it’s unlikely the B10 wouldn’t want a PSU/MD matchup? I say the EXACT opposite, it would immediately become PSU’s 2nd biggest rivalry, after Ohio State and a boon for the B10.
LikeLike
My question is how scheduling Penn State as the Maryland finale helps increase the appeal of the Penn State / Rutgers game, in both northern NJ and across the border from Philadelphia, which ought to be expected to be the first priority for the Big Ten when considering the interests of the conference as a whole.
If Maryland and Penn State are such a natural rivalry, they would be able to set that game for any fixed position in the schedule and it would become an event, as “the third week in October” is in Knoxville. However, if the question is the interests of the conference, as opposed to the wishes of Penn State, you wouldn’t allocate the finale game between Penn State and Maryland unless some other date is the best time to be setting Penn State to play Rutgers.
LikeLike
I still say the best solution is to alternate two-year cycles — in years A & B, Maryland ends with Penn State and Rutgers ends with Michigan State, and in years C & D, Maryland ends with Michigan State and Rutgers ends with Penn State. No one’s completely satisfied, but no one is completely left out, either. And why should PSU end on the road every year, as Dartmouth did in the Ivies for so many seasons before it gained an annual season finale with Princeton? You can’t compare PSU’s scheduling to an independent like Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Is the idea of playing an alternate year Thanksgiving home game in Philadelphia against an eastern opponent ending on the road every year? Wouldn’t a lot of Penn State students would be away from campus that time of year?
LikeLike
I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.
If they decide that PSU/Maryland or PSU/MSU is the best game to schedule Thanksgiving week, that isn’t giving up on the New Jersey/New York TV market. Regardless of the order of the games, Rutgers will be playing Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Penn State every year, with 2 of those games at home. They don’t have to be the first or last conference games to be exciting for the fans.
Having PSU/Rutgers the week before Thanksgiving would still get a lot of coverage in NYC. Have it be the only Big Ten night game that week and it would get the attention of the entire Big Ten region.
LikeLike
Personally I think the most likely thing is that Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland rotate around for season ending games amongst each other.
With that said, if Michigan State really did want in the west (with a locked crossover with Michigan), then I wouldn’t be shocked at all if Penn State-Michigan State ended up as the season ender again. The logic will be that Penn State is already getting a lot of what it wants by making an eastern division with 2 new eastern schools (schools, most the rest of Big Ten country isn’t excited at all about playing given the lack of history/geographic footprint). Giving Michigan State the Penn State game for a season finale would be like kind of like giving Wisconsin the first Nebraska game and a season ender with Penn State in the last alignment.
LikeLike
“I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.”
Thank you!
I understand it when it is Michigan and OSU fans, as they have the tradition of playing in the last week. Penn State doesn’t have that and doesn’t need to force a year end rival. They have plenty of traditions of their own. Michigan State played Minnesota to end the year last season. I don’t recall anyone being up in arms about that. It’s hard enough to get everyone to play everyone else that they want to play as often as possible without worrying about when they play as well. Let’s leave a little flexibility in the schedule when possible.
LikeLike
“I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.”
I surely haven’t been overstating the importance, since I haven’t been making any claims regarding its importance. I keep posing the question when would be the best time for Rutgers to play Penn State from the perspective of boosting Rutger’s profile, but the Penn State fans on the board seem more interested in talking about whether Penn State is badly done by in having to play the Spartans in the last game of the season, and if so, how to fix that.
If, blank schedule, the best thing to do for Rutgers profile is to have Penn State open Rutgers’ Big Ten conference season, then Penn State SHOULD be scheduled to do that, and the question of who they play in the season finale comes after that is settled. If among the remaining games, the season finale is the best time to schedule Penn State with Maryland, from Maryland’s perspective, then that means Penn State and Michigan State play each other some other time of the season.
LikeLike
Rotating would be fine. It probably is best just to do whatever is best for the conference, so long as the eastern block teams are included somehow.
LikeLike
vp19,
“I still say the best solution is to alternate two-year cycles — in years A & B, Maryland ends with Penn State and Rutgers ends with Michigan State, and in years C & D, Maryland ends with Michigan State and Rutgers ends with Penn State. No one’s completely satisfied, but no one is completely left out, either.”
It’s certainly a reasonable option.
“And why should PSU end on the road every year, as Dartmouth did in the Ivies for so many seasons before it gained an annual season finale with Princeton? You can’t compare PSU’s scheduling to an independent like Notre Dame.”
1. The same reason the B10 is ignoring balance to force brands into the east. It’s better for building the new markets/programs. PSU will bring a ton of fans so the stadiums will look full, and more media is likely to be there than in State College.
2. It’s more convenient for many PSU students and alumni on Thanksgiving weekend than playing in State College.
3. It locks in a fairly benign road game for PSU every year, so why should they complain? They’ll get an easier November schedule because of it.
4. Why can’t we compare it to ND always ending in California? It’s simply an example of a team that does end on the road every year by choice, and they’re also a king like PSU. That’s seems relevant.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.”
Most of this discussion is based on these things:
1. The vehement PSU reaction to playing MSU in the last game. Thus they make the last game extra important. However, they don’t have a complete consensus on who to play or how much difference it makes.
2. The competition the final week. These 2 games have to compete with OSU/MI, NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN and a bunch of national rivalries for attention. Maybe PSU/RU and PSU/UMD would both be dwarfed by those games and should be played another time to get maximum value from PSU’s visit. Maybe one of them would do well
3. How difficult it can be to get to State College, especially on Thanksgiving weekend with so many people gone for the holidays. With all those PSU fans in DC and NYC on that weekend, it may be better for them to play there.
4. What is best for the B10?
5. What is best for RU, UMD and MSU?
“If they decide that PSU/Maryland or PSU/MSU is the best game to schedule Thanksgiving week, that isn’t giving up on the New Jersey/New York TV market.”
Or is it? Holiday weekends are different from regular weekends. Especially with so many PSU students and fans in DC and NYC for Thanksgiving, the choice for the final game could imply a lot.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“Penn State doesn’t have that and doesn’t need to force a year end rival.”
The last game being important and it being a rivalry are two separate things. You don’t have to “force a rivalry” to have a reason to choose a certain game or games to end the year. It can be just a sound business decision.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
The Group of Five merry-go-round continues, with the Sunbelt hosting the FCS/FBS transitions of Appy State and Georgia Southern, as widely expected, and also inviting WAC-orphans Idaho and NMSU back to the Sunbelt FB-only (of course, both of those along with Utah State originally left the Sunbelt to join the WAC in the middle of last decade).
Then before Tulsa from CUSA to the Big TBA was actually announced, so that the Big TBA could have 12 teams when (if?) Navy joins in 2015, Western Kentucky was announced as moving up (if you count by current TV contract, possibly moving laterally by quality of the football) from the Sunbelt to CUSA, setting off the next round of speculation as to who the Sunbelt will next promote from the FCS to the ranks of the sorta-FBS, with James Madison widely speculated but not without some doubters.
The MAC is rumored to have or be about to put their ultimatum to UMass to play all-sports, as they negotiated the right to do two years after an exit by either UMass or Temple, though no telling how much of that rumor is simply due to the fact that they do have that card to play.
LikeLike
I was kind of surprised C-USA used Western Kentucky as the replacement for Tulsa. Troy (for football success and recruiting territory), South Alabama (for Mobile TV market and recruiting), and Georgia State (for Atlanta TV and recruiting) would have been my guesses for expansion candidates. WKU isn’t in as rich an area for football recruiting, nor is Bowling Green a very populated area. I suppose C-USA may have decided to shore up basketball a bit in order to at least give itself a shot at having multiple bids to the NCAA Tournament, and WKU helps with that more than other options. Also, C-USA may have been thinking short-term: “Let’s get WKU. They have Bobby Petrino, therefore we’re sure to have a big name coach in our league for years to come!”
LikeLike
I think it may be the BBall, as a pair with Middle Tennessee. CUSA had one bid this year, and Memphis leaves in July, while the Sunbelt had two, and after dropping down from being a four-bid conference, that has got to stick in the craw. Both those two Sunbelt bids were Middle Tennessee, already slated to move to CUSA, and Western Kentucky.
LikeLike
A10 is talking about going to 18 league games and UMass is required to play 4 MAC basketball games a season. That is 22 ,so that leaves them with just 7 out of conference games they can schedule (if not playing in a tournament). Their in a bad position both ways. A10 is far superior basketball conference, but going independent is football will be tough.
LikeLike
Not sure A10 will remain a far superior bb conference. When SLU and Dayton or Richmond leave, there aren’t many schools left who draw much and a lot of deadweight-Fordham, St. Bonaventure, Duquesne.
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
The American Athletic Conference? AACk!
LikeLike
Big East is now AAC:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9130997/sources-former-big-east-named-american-athletic-conference
LikeLike
The ‘double A’, the ‘A, A’, the ‘Amath’? What’s it gonna be? It sure as hell won’t be called the American Athletic Conference!
LikeLike
Be thankful this league won’t be spelled in ALL CAPS. Press releases would look like a 1930 editorial from one of William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers.
LikeLike
Inspired by Bill the Cat (if you are too young to remember-look it up). AAACCCKKKK!
LikeLike
Too young? I feel like I was here before Gutenberg!
LikeLike
Their name reminds me of the comic Cathy. Jerks!
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes! I loved Bloom County and Outland back in the day. (That was the golden age of comic strips in the late-80s/early-90s with Calvin and Hobbes going on at the same time.)
First thing that came to my mind: Billy Joel singing that the name gives me a heart attack AAC AAC AAC AAC.
LikeLike
Berke Breathed was actually at UT when I was there. My roommate got an autographed copy of a book he published of his “Academia Waltz” cartoons in the Daily Texan. He told me that Berke would be big. He was right. I agreed Berke was great, but figured someone hitting it big in the comic business was a long shot. I did not get my autographed copy. But a lot of people did.
I also loved Calvin and Hobbes. My son has discovered it and is checking out all the C&H books at his school library. And back then Doonesbury was funny before he became too partisan.
LikeLike
You didn’t quote the most fitting part of those Billy Joel lyrics:
“If that’s movin’ up, then I’m movin’ out,” says Boise St.
LikeLike
Double A: “Alcoholics Anonymous Conference”
Though if the ACC gets raided, then the AAC may as well stand for “All Aboard Conference”.
LikeLike
I guess “Generic Sports Conference” was already taken.
LikeLike
Since they didn’t invite any MAC teams from the Great Lakes, they could have called it the Gulf and Atlantic Conference (just thinking of G names after your GSC suggestion).
LikeLike
So if Boise State and San Diego State stayed, they could be Gulf+Western?
Clearly they want to trick Cincinnati and Connecticut into thinking they’ve succeeded in seceding.
(Note to Delany: Check the trademark status of Engulf & Devour.)
LikeLike
Or Atlantic & Pacific? But I think they would have trouble with the A&P trademark.
LikeLike
I think “Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives” is now available.
I don’t really think having a generic name is such a horrible thing. After all, while the Big East held up to the ambition of its name in Basketball, in Football it was often referred to by skeptics as the Big Least.
LikeLike
The jokes will continue no matter what name they choose. So it shouldn’t matter to them, either way.
I read that now ex-bb coach Mike Rice cried in his interview with a reporter. Jeez! But typical with wannbe-authoritarians. As soon as somebody calls him on his behavior he reverts to being small.
LikeLike
It could be worse ~ when they go to a CCG in 2015, they could call their divisions “Leaders” and “Legends”.
LikeLike
Authoritarians? Psychopaths (often the one and the same).
All of the Soviet secret police heads that Stalin (who was a psychopath himself) and Khrushchev had liquidated were pathetic pleading begging sobbing messes when they were shot even though they themselves had destroyed countless lives and tortured numerous people with zero regard for the suffering they caused.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/03/ncaa-football-auburn-violations-gene-chizik/2051041/
Not looking good for Auburn
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9131624/auburn-tigers-coaches-bribed-players-altered-grades-broke-recruiting-rules-gene-chizik-according-report
Is anyone shocked by this at this point? The UNC situation was just the tip of the iceberg. This has to be going on at a lot of schools.
LikeLike
In retrospect, perhaps SEC expansion to 14 was triggered by Slive in case Auburn received the “death penalty” and had to shut down football for two years. Without expansion, the SEC would be down to 11 members, and thus ineligible to hold a conference championship game. It could still be done with 13 members. although the league might have to obtain temporary dispensation from the NCAA to alter its setup (as the MAC did).
I’m not necessarily saying that’s ultimately what will happen here — an SEC program, especially representing a public college in a football-crazed state, may be politically “too big to fail,” unlike Southern Methodist more than a quarter-century ago — but you never know.
LikeLike
@zeek – Even Captain Renault can’t feign shock at that one. I don’t see the death penalty happening, though. SMU kept it up after being caught, leaving the NCAA without much choice. Postseason ban, loss of scholarships, etc.
LikeLike
Some help for our friends in the SEC .You should consider playing by the rules . The path you are on is not a good one ,the result down the road is more than 1 death penalty . The drive for the NC is causing more and more cheating. This cheating is coupled with the idea that what ever you do you can get away with. Read some of your SEC posts you believe cheating is a joke. It’s not ,stop and think . The SEC is at the edge of the cliff.
LikeLike
There were worse allegations during the Cam Newton era. Nothing ever came of it. I suspect the NCAA will fail to find anything here either.
LikeLike
They’ll probably end up reusing the UNC scandal logic that kept them away from that case.
LikeLike
Emmert has already started trying to sweep it under the rug. Here is a link to an interview with him: http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2013/04/ncaa_president_mark_emmert_on.html#comments
Here is a quote that caused me to do a double take: “So you obviously believe that those allegations are true and you have evidence that they’re true and you’re saying, Okay, here’s the facts, so why don’t you throw the book at Auburn?” Emmert said. “We have a higher responsibility when we’re saying somebody’s committed some offense than reading a newspaper story. I mean, obviously when anything like that comes out, we conduct an investigation and look into it.”
LikeLike
How is basically saying he won’t discuss a current or pending investigation, apparently frustrated and exasperated that a blog report was being offered as proof of guilt and showed a reluctance to enforce, sweeping something under the rug? Sound like a longer version of “we don’t prosecute or punish simply based on a “news” story.
LikeLike
The NCAA has been investigating auburn since 2010. The same stuff being talked about in this latest rash of articles, is basically the same stuff that has been talked about since 2010. Heck, 4 or 5 former auburn players went on HBO’s sport show in 2011 and said that this same stuff was going on back then. They didn’t need this news story to alert them as to what as been going on down on the plains.
LikeLike
I just don’t have a problem with what he said. I might not have been as cryptic, or, I might have gotten way out of line. To me he was just responding to someone needling him. Almost refreshing to have a human reaction instead of the usual nonresponseve corporate canned “response”.
LikeLike
Re: Howland, see this SI article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130325/ucla-ben-howland/
The gist: supposedly, in the summer of 2009, Howland badly mismanaged the recruiting of a local so. california Bball player and alienated a segment of the so. california AAU bball coaches who, thereafter, steered their players to other programs. supposedly Howland compounded the problem with other recruits post-2009 by showing no interest in the local talent and trying to land recruits from other parts of the nation.
if you anger the local coaches, even three Final Fours won’t save you.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22001576/big-ten-acc-in-discussions-with-pinstripe-bowl
No shock here, but the B10 and ACC are talking with the Pinstripe Bowl about a deal for 2014 and beyond. It’s a no-brainer, they just need to figure out where it fits in.
LikeLike
Liberty University to Sun Belt?
I’m fascinated with this prospect, partly as a Husker fan I would be excited to see Turner Gill build another program at the FBS level, but also because Liberty University is a strange beast.
Liberty is private Evangelical university in Virginia that was created in 1971 by Jerry Falwell. It has 12,500 students, but is working on new dorms and buildings that would allow the university to expand to 20,000 residential students. It has a law school and will be opening a medical school in the fall. It’s football is not good, it’s attendance is good though, and it has plans to expand the stadium to 30,000 on 2015.
Liberty would be the first private school to move up to FBS since it split and it appears to have the means to dump some serious cash into the prospect. It already have 20 varsity sports.
http://www.vuhoops.com/2013/4/3/4179616/expansion-apocalypse-caa-exhales-as-sun-belt-focus-shifts
LikeLike
They have deep pockets. That has to appeal of any conference in this environment.
LikeLike
Now that the old Big East has a new name, how would you rank college basketball conferences going forward over the next 5-10 years? I’m not asking who’s the best this year (which was clearly Big Ten at #1 and the Big East at a solid #2), nor next year. Rather, which conference will perform the best over the long haul?
For these rankings, please do not list conferences based on what their makeup MIGHT be. That is, the Big Ten should not be given credit for UNC, Duke, FSU, or any other speculative new member. The ACC shouldn’t get credit for UConn, Cincinnati, or anyone else, either.
Here are my rankings:
1) ACC. It edges out the Big Ten thanks to the strength of Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse and Louisville. Pittsburgh and Notre Dame have been tournament regulars. Florida State, Virginia, NC State, and Miami provide further depth and have proven capable of developing and/or recruiting some serious talent. Clemson and Virginia Tech are capable of making the NCAA in any given year. BC, Georgia Tech, and Wake Forest are admittedly dead weight these days.
2) Big Ten: I’d call this league a very close #2. Reasonable minds could disagree. Iowa, Penn State, and Rutgers are about the only real dead weight in this conference, and even Iowa and Penn State can be very competitive. It speaks volumes when this conference sends 7 out of 12 teams to the NCAA’s, not even including one of its traditionally strongest teams in Purdue. Nebraska is pouring lots of money into facilities. Northwestern is, too, and just made a pretty decent hire with Chris Collins. Maryland, though it’s not the power it was 10 or 11 years ago, will provide depth for the conference.
3) Big 12: Nine of the league’s ten head coaches have made the NCAA Tournament in the past 2-3 years. Kansas’ Bill Self, K-State’s Bruce Weber, Texas’ Rick Barnes, Texas Tech’s Tubby Smith, and West Virginia’s Bob Huggins have made it to the Final Four. TCU is the only real dead weight.
The rankings get murkier after the top three…
4) SEC: Kentucky is one of the true blue bloods. Florida has made three straight Elite Eights and won two straight national titles in ’06 and ’07. They’re both pretty solid. This past year was a down year, but over time, I see a lot of depth. Missouri is a top 20 program. Arkansas is improving under Frank Haith. Over time, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Mississippi State, and Alabama generally perform very well. Ole Miss may even pove to be more than a flash in the pan after winning the SEC Tournament this year. South Carolina has Frank Martin and ought to be in tournament in the next few years. I’m not so sure about LSU, Texas A&M, and Georgia.
5) Big East: I couldn’t rank this league, given its upcoming makeup, ahead of any of those above because it’s so hard to imagine one of its teams winning a national title. Teams go deep in the tournament, but going all the way hasn’t happened since 1985, although Butler came awfully close in 2010. It is, however, a really strong league, thanks to the schools’ commitment to basketball and, even more so, to the big-time coaches in the league. Georgetown and Marquette are the most consistent programs. Butler, Xavier, and Villanova make the Sweet 16 fairly often. Creighton makes the Dance more often than not. DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence (even with this year’s tournament team), and St. John’s have to show me more before the Big East gets ranked ahead of those above them.
6) Mountain West: I hesitate to put this league ahead of the Pac-12, but it’s just been plain better lately. That could change, but I don’t see evidence of that (yet). There’s no program at the level of UCLA or Arizona, but it’s a deep league nonetheless. New Mexico, Colorado State, San Diego State, Utah State, Boise State, and UNLV provide a lot of punch at the top.
7) Pac-12: UCLA is a major brand name. It’s a great but not outstanding basketball program, and I can’t see Steve Alford doing better than Ben Howland did. Arizona is a great program, and I’m confused why it’s not more dominant. Other programs like Cal, Stanford, USC, Washington, and Oregon are capable of being much better, but they haven’t been. Colorado’s been better in the Pac-12 than expected. Utah has been much worse. Oregon State has just about never been good. Washington State is just a hard place to win, being so isolated.
8) American Athletic: At the top, it’s really, really strong. UConn is in that tier immediately below a blue blood. I’d put UConn alongside Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State, Ohio State, Arizona, and Florida. Memphis is very consistent and strong as well. Cincinnati is a consistent NCAA tournament team, as is Temple. The problem is that those four schools have hardly any challengers to finish in the top four, and it will be a stunner if someone other than those four schools wins the regular season without the aid of losing one of those schools to the ACC. Maybe South Florida could challenge for NCAA bids. Maybe SMU will do an amazing turnaround under Larry Brown, but I’m not holding my breath. Maybe Tulsa will improve under Danny Manning. But Houston is not the Houston of Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler. ECU is having its best season ever–with just 20 wins, several of which were earned in the weak CIT tournament. UCF has potential but few results.
9) Atlantic 10: For now, it still has VCU and Saint Louis both better than any MVC program, including Wichita State. Richmond, Dayton, George Mason, St. Joseph’s, and LaSalle provide decent depth, but it’s weak at the bottom.
10) Missouri Valley: It’s not as strong at the top as the A-10, but all programs are capable of making the NCAA in any given year.
11) West Coast: It’s often a multi-bid league, thanks to Gonzaga and St. Mary’s.
Past those, it’s pretty much single-bid, mid-major leagues. Horizon, MAC, C-USA, CAA, and OVC usually produce teams in the 9- to 13-seed range. Other leagues pretty much fill out the bottom of the bracket.
LikeLike
I’d go with your top 3
1) ACC
2) B1G
3) Big 12
4) Pac 12-down now but programs with history who care about basketball
5) Big East-the question is how much not having football hurts its publicity. But I think the C7 all improve.
6) SEC-down now with too many programs whose fans don’t care about basketball
7) MWC-developing lots of solid programs with good fan support
8) Missouri Valley
9) Bill the Cat conference-some solid programs, but lots who haven’t been good for a while
10) West Coast
Atlantic 10 has been gutted. I think they slip into equality with the MAC/Sun Belt group in that 11-18 range.
LikeLike
SEC’s basketball attendance was ranked #2 after the Big Ten. The idea that SEC fans don’t care about basketball is a myth that I once believed but found to be false. They care about football more than they do about basketball, but they care about basketball just as much as other leagues do.
LikeLike
One of the SEC’s advantages in football, High School spring football, is also one of it disadvantages in Basketball.
I know that Knoxville cares a whole hell of a lot about Volunteer basketball, but there are large numbers of rabid fanatics about Volunteer football all over East Tennessee, and with the number of simultaneous head coaches they are paying bucketloads of money to refrain from working as the head coach, they surely have had to penny pinch a bit in basketball in the past few years. If their finances recover, their basketball team is likely to recover too.
LikeLike
Tennessee still manages to draw around 19k basketball fans per game, which is 5th in the country. Kentucky averages 23k, good for 1st. Vandy is 18th at nearly 14k. Missouri and Arkansas are at 12k (athough both can draw into the 15-16k range for most conference games and qulaity noncon games), Alabama and South Carolina are near 11k, Florida’s at 10k, etc. There’s a lot of basketball fan support. Yeah they care about football more, but believe it or not they’re capable of caring about more than one thing.
And when Missouri came into the league, I was worried that SEC basketball interest wouldn’t be high. But truth is it’s just as high or higher than the Big 12. The quality of play was pretty bad this year, but I think that will turn around. The SEC was the #1 conference in Sagarin just a few years ago. It’s cyclical. It’s not like the Big 12 was any good this year either.
LikeLike
“Tennessee still manages to draw around 19k basketball fans per game, which is 5th in the country.”
Yes, as I said, Knoxville cares a whole hell of a lot about Volunteers basketball.
LikeLike
Oklahoma’s Lon Kruger made it to the final four as well.
LikeLike
Micheal – you may not be sure about LSU, but I’m telling you that my Tigers will be back, and soon. This season, they exceeded everyone’s expectations. After going 0-4, to begin SEC play, the Tigers finished out going 10-6, to finish .500. I know the SEC was bad, but we all expected LSU to be terrible. According to Rivals, LSU has the #6 recruiting class signed for next season, including three of the top 66 players in the nation. First year coach Johnnie Jones is an LSU guy, having played for and coached with Dale Brown. Jones recruited many of the Parade All-Americans that played for LSU in the 80s and 90s, including Shaq, Chris Jackson, and John Williams. We all knew Jones could recruit, and were all pleasantly surprised to find out that he is also a pretty good sideline coach as well.
I expect LSU basketbaqll to be a top 5 basketball program in the SEC over the next several years..
LikeLike
I’ll take your word for it, Alan. I said, “I’m not sure about LSU,” because, well, I don’t really follow the team and haven’t a clue as to whether they’re headed in a good direction or what.
But if LSU does come back, it just adds to to my reasons that I anticipate a reasonably strong SEC in the coming years. Kentucky and Florida are very much mainstays in the top 20, with the exception of an off year now and then. Missouri, Mississippi State, Tennessee, South Carolina (under Frank Martin), Alabama, LSU… the league will be back. It certainly won’t get the media recognition that the Big Ten, Big East, and ACC get because those leagues have so long been regarded as the top basketball conferences, but it’ll be a solid league.
LikeLike
With the BCS going away, along with the emergence of the Mountain West and the split of the Big East, I’m hoping that the media stops giving elevated status to “BCS conferences” in basketball. The “Big Six”–SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, Pac-10/12–have been treated as the only major conferences, with all remaining conferences, including the Mountain West, C-USA, the MVC, the West Coast, and the Atlantic 10, being regarded as mid- or low-majors.
Going forward, there is no logical explanation for why the Mountain West, the non-football Big East, and the “AmeriCon” not to be regarded as major confernces on par with the SEC or Pac-12. They’re not “BCS conferences” or “Contract Bowl conferences.” They may be part of the “Gang of Five,” or in the case of the Big East, not part of FBS at all, but they are absolutely power conferences.
So, for basketball, aren’t there at least 8 power conferences? How could a league with UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, and Temple not be a “power conference”? Or a league with 5 out of 9 teams making the NCAA Tournament not be a power conference? Or a league with Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, Butler, Xavier, and St. John’s, not to mention the possibility of Saint Louis?
LikeLike
Except the BCS is not going away, its just mutating, and the Big Six are becoming the Big Five. And of course the media are still going to put the lion’s share of the attention on the Big FIve, they possess the lion’s share of the national fanbases.
If a non-Big Five conference finishes in amongst the Big Five in basketball, conference wide, for a few seasons, it’ll be granted recognition as a Basketball Major, since the alternative would be to view one of the Big Five as NOT being a BBall Major, which will upset their fanbases, which the media won’t do. So that’s the target for the New Big East, Mountain West, and the American in BBall, to get recognized as finishing as a conference in amongst the Big Five.
Obviously the longer the SEC stays in its current down phase in basketball, the better their chances of that.
LikeLike
I think it will be a lot like football. You will have the big 5 and a gang of 4 or 5 mid-majors including MWC, AAC, Big East (C7) and A10. Four of the 5 slots that the Big East got into the Men’s/ Women’s final 4 this year are future ACC members. There are revenue and facility differences between the big 5 and other conferences. There will always be a few exceptions in the mid-majors, but that does not translate across these conferences. Gonzaga has not make the quality of WCC competition much better despite many years of success.
LikeLike
Yeah, but the Big East (Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, Butler, St. John’s) and the AmeriCon (UConn, Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati) is much more analagous to the Pac-12, SEC, or even the Big 12 in basketball than the MWC or AmeriCon are to the Big Five in football. They’re at a level playing field in basketball. The Big East and AmeriCon are also going to have tons more exposure than Gonzaga’s WCC or the A-10. They may not be on FS1/ESPN as much as the Big Ten or ACC, but they’ll get similar exposure to the other Big Five leagues. Why wouldn’t they?
Moreover, there is a big difference between the WCC, where the entire league has relied mostly in vain on Gonzaga to lift the quality of play for everyone else, and the new Big East, where there are already plenty of tradition-rich, high-quality programs.
Another thing: the coaches are not treating the Big East like it’s a mid-major conference. Buzz Williams, Greg McDermott, Brad Stevens, John Thompson III, Jay Wright, Chris Mack… these guys show little sign of leaving. They have a track record of success that stands up well to other Big Five leagues.
Granted, I can easily imagine the MWC, AmeriCon, and Big East being dismissed as being below the quality of the Big Five, but it would take an awful lot of spin to do that. They’d have to ignore rankings (which, in any given year, likely will include several from each league), coaching, NCAA Tournament appearances & results, and Final Four appearances (UConn, Butler, Memphis all in recent years).
LikeLike
That’s why I’d expect if a conference is in amongst the Five Majors in BBall, on member top-25 rankings, number of NCAA bids, tourney success, and various conference power ratings, the media would be more likely to treat them as “a Basketball Major” than to try to put the dividing line between the BBall Majors and Mid-Majors anywhere that would exclude one of the Big 5.
But any one year can always be given a backhanded compliment along the lines of being especially strong this year, so it might take a couple of years for it to become entrenched.
LikeLike
There is a reason there was a Big 6 (now 5). The NCAA basketball distribution per school by conference for 2011 (based on 2006-11 units) is given below. Look at the table and it is clear where the majors end and mid-majors begin. After the mid-majors you have the single bid one and done conferences that collect about $200-$250K per school. These numbers are before most of the recent conference changes. If the Big East had kept its members it would clearly be a basketball major. It is less clear if either the AAC or BE will retain this status going forward.
I agree with Bruce. To the extent the BE (C7+3) have tournament results that give it a payout exceeding the SEC (or whatever Big 5 conference is bringing up the rear) it will be considered a basketball major. The same goes for the AAC after adjusting for its current membership. The AAC will be at least #6 and far above the other conferences for at least the next two years due to retaining the units of the top two schools (Louisville, Syracuse) after they depart for the ACC. Both of these conferences could retain major status If they continue to recruit and win. However, the other conferenes require improvement to get out of mid-major status. With the recent school movement from CUSA, A10, Horizon, and MVC these conferences have taken a step back rather than forward.
Conference and payout per school for 2011 (covers 2006-11 performance)
Big 12* $1,893,346
Big East $1,661,670
Big Ten $1,537,844
ACC $1,517,872
Pac-12 $1,338,124
SEC $1,298,180
CUSA $ 579,188
Horizon $ 505,957
WCC $ 503,735
MVC $ 503,294
MWC $ 503,294
A10 $ 359,496
* Divided by 10 in 2011 (still had Mizzou, A&M) No units earned in previous 5 years by NE or CO who had left.
LikeLike
The Big East makes it as a basketball major on both NCAA units and TV contract. Not so much the American or MWC. The 2013 $ per school are adjusted to the the units earned by the current schools (-3 B12, +1 P12, +15 SEC) with the future Big East and American below the P12. The BE is in solidly above the SEC and P12. The ACC will increase with its new members and the BE is likely to move lower, but not below the level of the C7. With the loss of members CUSA and A10 will be trying to hang on to mid-major status.
$ in 2011* $ in 2013 Conference
$1,517,872 $1,915,009 Big 12
$1,677,648 $1,861,815 Big Ten
$1,661,670 $1,849,539 Big East
$1,517,872 $1,493,544 ACC
$1,358,096 $1,245,107 SEC
$1,605,749 $1,104,813 Pac-12
$1,701,614 $1,669,495 Big East (10)
$1,369,509 $1,227,570 Big East (C7)
$818,852 $859,299 American
$503,294 $662,888 MWC
$505,957 $654,704 WCC
* This was just before the Nebraska move
LikeLike
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2012/05/wichita-state-football-returns-with.html
Article from last year talking about Wichita State’s club football team. I thought the last sentence was interesting:
“The group’s eventual goal is to become an NCAA division I program.”
Good luck with that!
LikeLike
Arch – Wichita State used to be D-1 in football. In fact for my first LSU game, I witnessed Bill Arnsparger’s Tigers thrash the Wheat Shockers 47-7.
LikeLike
The NCAA is so much more corrupt than I ever even thought:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/9133514/frank-haith-deserves-name-cleared-miami-mess-men-college-basketball
LikeLike
Wow. Investigators misleading witnesses and suspects. Shocking! Just imagine if the police find out about this.
Oh wait, they already know about it; it’s a basic interrogation technique. I don’t get it the big deal.
LikeLike
That’s a fundamental part of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, “well look Duane/Eddie, I know that you are trying to protect Eddie/Duane, but HE says you were the mastermind and he just followed along because he was scared of what you would do to him.”
LikeLike
The NCAA doesn’t have the legal right to do this, and it’s against their own rules.
Also, it sounds like it didn’t lead to anything anyway. As far as I can tell, the only testimony they got against Haith was from a convicted felon.
LikeLike
The NCAA doesn’t have the legal right to do this
Yes they do
it’s against their own rules.
No it’s not
Also, it sounds like it didn’t lead to anything anyway.
Agreed.
LikeLike
Actually, I’ll amend my reaction to this statement
it’s against their own rules.
Despite Miami’s assertions in their letter to the NCAA, the Cadwalader report did not declare that lying to witnesses was impermissible. It said their were no formal rules regarding the practice, but that it could be regarded as “beyond the pale”.
So, I guess my more accurate response should be “depends who you ask” instead of “no it isn’t”.
LikeLike
I guess we’ll see what the courts decide.
LikeLike
Who from the NCAA has been arrested and is headed to court?
LikeLike
lawsuits.
LikeLike
Rooting for the NCAA and its Dictator Head is like rooting for North Korea and Mr. Kim
LikeLike
Uh, not quite. I’m not proclaiming the NCAA or Mark Emmert as innocent of wrongdoing, but come on. North Korea is threatening to kill millions of people with a nuclear blast, while leading an entire country that is one giant cult blind to any truth from the outside world.That’s not the same thing as a few comparably petty college sports scandals.
LikeLike
I’m curious what happens next to Rutgers. They had a coach committing a crime, and an athletic director or president covering it up. The last time this happened the school got as close to the death penalty as the NCAA can give and keep a straight face. Of course, the last time didn’t involve athletics — just a retired coach who wasn’t involved in recruiting, or dealing with players. And it was low-hanging fruit for the NCAA due to the moral aspects of that earlier matter. This one, with the gay slurs, has some of that but not enough to make the NCAA look like heroes. So what happens?
LikeLike
You are embarrassing yourself by making a comparison between the Rutgers coach and Sandusky.
LikeLike
He’s not making a comparison between Rice & Sandusky. He’s making a comparison between how PSU & Rutgers handled the cases.
LikeLike
That IS making a comparison between Rice and Sandusky.
It wouldn’t matter how two separate schools handled two separate cases if you aren’t comparing the acts at the center of each case.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk said:
“He’s not making a comparison between Rice & Sandusky. He’s making a comparison between how PSU & Rutgers handled the cases.”
Welcome back, Scarlet_Lutefisk!
Since you didn’t answer my question before you left, let’s review the history of your claim about the Big Ten’s “intentions”.
Here’s the first post of mine to which you replied. I said (to Brian):
“With respect to MSU, you’re overstating Penn State fan disagreement tremendously. Nothing against MSU, or even playing them (it’s often a good game). It’s the forced rivalry. Notice that PSU hasn’t even played them the last two years; when Nebraska entered the league, MSU was dumped for Nebraska. The evidence is clear. You are misstating it.”
My post mentions the lack of Penn State fan disagreement, includes the context of Penn State’s current schedule (has any group protested against the lack of MSU?), and contains NO CLAIM — not even a mention! — of the Big Ten or the Big Ten’s intentions.
Scarlet_Lutefisk, here’s how you entered the discussion (this is the beginning of your first sentence):
“How in the world is the B1G changing scheduling to accommodate a new member ‘evidence’ of …”
Look carefully: from the very beginning you claimed that “the B1G chang[ed] scheduling to accommodate a new member”. Then you doubled down: your next post made explicit what was already clear in context: that your words meant that the Big Ten’s actions were NOT EVEN PARTLY intended to accommodate Penn State! 🙂
Scarlet_Lutefisk, up to this point you’ve pretended that I have something to prove about your wild claim. But enough of that silliness! (And no more word games.)
Scarlet_Lutefisk, do you have proof for YOUR claim?
😉
LikeLike
Carl:
“Scarlet_Lutefisk, up to this point you’ve pretended that I have something to prove about your wild claim. But enough of that silliness! (And no more word games.)
“Scarlet_Lutefisk, do you have proof for YOUR claim? ;-)”
Well, it’s been another week with no answer from Scarlet_Lutefisk. Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:
A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard and smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face, and the egg, frowning and looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and mutters, “Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question!”
😉
LikeLike
mouse is drawing a semantic equivalence between what the schools did in covering up what Rice and Sandusky did, “covering up a crime”, which is valid if and only if the crimes covers up are equally heinous. They are not, so the semantic equivalence is playing word games.
Redirecting pot stirring skills to controversies other than institutional cover-ups is simple prudence, given the circumstances.
LikeLike
He got suspended for 3 games and fined $75,000. Hardly a coverup.
LikeLike
RU’s lead counsel left his position today and the story is that his advice in December was that the tape was not grounds for firing Rice. Now, that probably means it wasn’t grounds for firing Rice and not paying him.
The point is, it seems like this decision went way above Pernetti and he is getting crucified because he is the one who had to sell it.
ESPN seems to be working very hard on getting Pernetti fired. I’m sure it has nothing to do with him being one of the ringleaders of the Big East turning down ESPN’s contract extension 2 years ago.
LikeLike
New Dude post, and it is surprisingly well reasoned
http://www.sportsmancave.com/why-the-wait/
Why hasn’t the Big 10 moved? Why hasn’t Jim Delany put his “Delany Doctrine” into place? What’s the holdup?
Over the weekend I did some investigating into the matter to see what could be causing the delay. The consensus answer surprised me – the Big 10 just doesn’t feel any need to rush.
The Big 10 isn’t being lackadaisical, the multitude of factors that comprise the motivations and deterrents driving realignment are just not as time sensitive as we think. Nothing has to be settled before 2015 when the NCAA implements the playoff format and playoff shares become important.
…
The truth is that only Jim Delany knows the Big 10’s timeline for expansion. All we can do is try and understand the contributing factors affecting the timeline.
#1 Big 10 plans to expand to 18 – Michigan and Illinois still cool on FSU
…
#2 UNC wants time to save the ACC
…
#3 Everyone saves (except the ACC) money on the exit fee by waiting
…
#4 Realized Revenues
…
#5 Big 10 cashes in in 2016
—-
Of course being the Dude he couldn’t help posting some rumors at the bottom.
1. FSU has the votes to join the Big Ten contrary to reporting
2. Mizzou is the Big Ten’s top choice to take the place of UNC if they pass on FSU after taking UVA and G-Tech and the Tarheels go south
3. BC would be considered for spot #20 if ND joined the Big Ten.
LikeLike
That’s the third time in two weeks that his story has completely changed. Like dramatically changed. This guy is a clown. And you guys keep giving him the time of day like he’s serious. And with every new fanciful story you say “oh, sounds quite reasonable” and then talk about it like it’s true.
LikeLike
One post about Dude recognizing his time line has been wrong. Some reasonable explanations that anyone who thinks the B1G isn’t done expanding (whether in favor or against) might surmise, too. A soft bit of ridicule for the Dude being the Dude. What in that gets your knickers in a twist?
LikeLike
He’s entertaining, and I think just about everyone here realizes that at the end of the day he will have predicted about 90 of the next 3 realignment moves.
LikeLike
This guy is a clown. And you guys keep giving him the time of day like he’s serious
That’s the whole point. He’s amusing and makes just enough rational points to be entertaining.
LikeLike
frug,
Great post from an impeccable source. Glad to see it. Let’s discuss it in depth.
“Why hasn’t the Big 10 moved? Why hasn’t Jim Delany put his “Delany Doctrine” into place? What’s the holdup?
Over the weekend I did some investigating into the matter to see what could be causing the delay. The consensus answer surprised me – the Big 10 just doesn’t feel any need to rush.”
Why would they? The UMD lawsuit and the coming new TV deal means later is better for the B10. It also gives the B10 a chance to get RU and UMD integrated into the conference before having more newbies. Playoff money could be an incentive, but that really only applies to FB powers like FSU or maybe ND.
“The truth is that only Jim Delany knows the Big 10’s timeline for expansion. All we can do is try and understand the contributing factors affecting the timeline.”
Well said.
“#1 Big 10 plans to expand to 18 – Michigan and Illinois still cool on FSU”
You left out the parts about UVA, and likely GT too, being signed, sealed and delivered. The debate seems to be over #17, and he says FSU is the leading choice. The final question is who is #18, with UNC being the obvious choice. But if the B10 wants to add all 4 at once, they need to get #18 on board first.
“#2 UNC wants time to save the ACC”
Of course they do. We’ve all said they would be the last to leave the sinking ship of the ACC if they ever leave. There was also this nugget:
“Everyone I speak to, including those in the SEC, believe that given a choice between both the B1G and the SEC that UNC picks the Big 10.”
I agree with him that the ACC is unlikely to be able to match the future revenue streams of the B10 and SEC, so this may all be a delaying tactic until the new TV numbers come in to prove to the old guard that UNC can’t afford to stay put.
“#3 Everyone saves (except the ACC) money on the exit fee by waiting”
Exactly. Why leave with the UMD lawsuit pending?
“#4 Realized Revenues”
Again, the ACC’s treatment of UMD comes to the fore. Since they are withholding all money from UMD, the others would be foolish to leave until the lawsuit is settled.
“#5 Big 10 cashes in in 2016”
Heck yes we will. Having hard numbers may be the last piece of evidence needed to get UNC to say yes. There’s no point in splitting the current money more ways.
“Of course being the Dude he couldn’t help posting some rumors at the bottom.”
That’s his role in this.
“1. FSU has the votes to join the Big Ten contrary to reporting”
It’s possible that the B10 would prefer to swing another vote or two before making the decision. They prefer unanimity to divisive votes.
“2. Mizzou is the Big Ten’s top choice to take the place of UNC if they pass on FSU after taking UVA and G-Tech and the Tarheels go south”
An odd choice. UVA and GT make 16. FSU is #17. How does MO fit in? Wouldn’t another eastern school make more sense? Duke? Miami? BC?
“3. BC would be considered for spot #20 if ND joined the Big Ten.”
Unavoidable I suppose. It’s similar to the RU decision, but for a lesser school. ND is big in Boston, but BC is the biggest CFB team in the northeast. MI and PSU are pretty big there, too. Boston is another huge market the B10 would love to have.
LikeLike
Another aspect to this is the O”Bannon case, and how that turns out. But most important, is picking the right schools. You don’t want to waste a spot on say Georgia Tech or Virginia when you can have a shot at North Carolina.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Another aspect to this is the O”Bannon case, and how that turns out.”
I don’t think that’s a major factor, actually, unless the B10 actually chooses to de-emphasize sports.
“You don’t want to waste a spot on say Georgia Tech or Virginia when you can have a shot at North Carolina.”
I doubt the B10 sees it as wasting a spot. They see it as gaining half of metro DC, all of VA as well as Atlanta, plus some great academics for the CIC.
LikeLike
B10 wants all of Virginia, NC and Georgia Tech and is willing to go to 18-20 members. There are some B10 presidents/AD’s who don’t want GT unless UNC is added too, which makes it harder to pry UNC loose unless you have GT on-board…
I’ve shared it here before but I have it on good authority GT has been very active in selling itself to the B10 and not the other way around. GT doesn’t see a future in the SEC and much like Maryland aren’t much at all ‘tied’ to the ACC. They are lacking natural rivals, their biggest is an SEC member…
B10 at first didn’t seriously consider GT but Delaney has convinced B10 presidents/AD’s GT is a great fit academically, athletically and provides a tremendous market. Atlanta is arguably the best CFB market in the US and GT is that markets home team. That would put Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska games on in Atlanta.
LikeLike
If possible, you take UVa and GT first, hoping to put the squeeze on UNC down the road.
LikeLike
If the B1G does go to 16 with GT and UV (or anyone else for that matter) I hope they (successfully) petition the NCAA and dispense with divisions or pods altogether, matching instead the top two in the standings for the CG. With 16 schools, protecting 3 rivals per school with a 9 game B1G schedule allows for each school to visit on every other at least once every four years.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“There are some B10 presidents/AD’s who don’t want GT unless UNC is added too, which makes it harder to pry UNC loose unless you have GT on-board…”
I understand the desire for contiguous states, but GT is an academic prize and Atlanta is easy to get to. GT is closer than NE to PU, IN, MI, OSU, PSU, RU and UMD anyway, not to mention any future ACC additions (UVA, UNC, Duke, FSU).
“I’ve shared it here before but I have it on good authority GT has been very active in selling itself to the B10 and not the other way around. GT doesn’t see a future in the SEC and much like Maryland aren’t much at all ‘tied’ to the ACC. They are lacking natural rivals, their biggest is an SEC member…”
They should be selling themselves. They have no hope of joining the SEC even if they wanted to, and they’d greatly prefer a B10 with some other former elite academic ACC teams to the B12 even with some ACC neighbors. GT’s rivalries will stay virtually the same – UGA and AU are their top 2.
“Atlanta is arguably the best CFB market in the US and GT is that markets home team.”
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
According to Nate Silver, it’s #2 behind NYC with LA a close 3rd. Then it’s bog drop to Dallas at #4. But considering the high percentage of CFB fans in Atlanta compared to NYC and LA, you could argue it’s the best market.
“That would put Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska games on in Atlanta.”
That’s better than NYC and DC to me. At least people in Atlanta care about CFB, not that the B10 will ever really own this market.
LikeLike
If the B1G does want Atlanta, and GT is not enough to dominate the market (because of UGA), then FSU becomes more attractive. I think I’ve read that Atlanta has the highest number of FSU alumni outside the state of FL. Sure, UGA would still be the top draw in that area, but GT/FSU would make a very strong foundation for the B1G in one of the best college football markets.
LikeLike
RIP legendary film critic (and Illinois alum) Roger Ebert.
LikeLike
Still the best film critic I’ve ever read in my life.
LikeLike
And a helluva writer on all sorts of topics, too…
http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com/591335.html
LikeLike
RIP Roger Ebert
http://www.suntimes.com/17320958-761/roger-ebert-dies-at-70-after-battle-with-cancer.html
LikeLike
Just to give this a loose sports connection here is an absolutely fantastic article from Deadspin a couple years ago
http://deadspin.com/5482198/my-roger-ebert-story
Next time I am in Champaign I will eat an entire Papa Dels’ pizza in Ebert’s honor.
LikeLike
Can someone try to explain what Pernetti was thinking?
I personally think he should be fired.
LikeLike
I don’t have any idea what he was thinking, but I don’t think he should be fired. He’s been a good AD and helped get them into the Big Ten, for goodness sakes. He blew this call, but he wasn’t the one abusing players and using homophobic slurs, and I don’t think one bad call should make him lose his job.
LikeLike
He was the one who essentially said abusing players and using homophobic slurs is no big deal as he didn’t fire his subordinate for doing those things.
Also, Pernetti didn’t get RU in to the B10. UMD joining, the state of NJ having a lot of people, and RU being close to NYC got RU in to the B10.
LikeLike
“UMD joining… got RU in to the B10.”
This point has been underemphasized. Maryland was the harder school to get. No ACC school had left the conference since South Carolina left in the early 70’s (a choice for which the school suffered until the early 90’s when it was invited to the SEC). Maryland took some convincing because the revenue gap was not nearly as large. Additionally, all of Maryland’s long-time rivals, except for WVU and Penn State, were still in the league, although Maryland was scheduled to play those schools much less often. Rutgers, on the other hand, had no attachment to the Big East, especially with Syracuse and Pitt headed out the door. More importantly, the revenue difference was so large that Rutgers was begging to get into the Big Ten for years. For the Big Ten, it was simply a lot easier to get a Big East school to leave its conference than to get a second ACC school, let alone one that wasn’t in Maryland’s financial straits, to leave.
And, no, I’m not implying that Rutgers got in simply because the Big Ten didn’t have to work as hard to get them as it would have for an ACC school, but the idea of Rutgers as low hanging fruit didn’t hurt, either.
LikeLike
Pernetti didn’t seem to have his head wrapped around what kind of activity can be covered up successfully and what kind of behavior is impossible to cover up indefinitely. Since sweeping things under the carpet is such an important part of an AD’s job, and he’s been caught trying to sweep under the carpet something that couldn’t possible be swept under the carpet, I think he should be sacked for rank incompetence.
LikeLike
You are assuming he made the decision in December and more facts are coming out that imply that is not the case.
LikeLike
Which, that he made the decision, or that it was made in December?
If it was made higher up, then it may indeed have been a lack in sufficient political skills and/or influence to get the decision he wanted, as opposed to incompetence in judging what decision should have been made.
If the decision was made further up but it was a decision he went along with happily, it’d still be inadequate judgment in what can and what cannot be successfully swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist.
LikeLike
That a bunch of whiners were making too big of a deal out of things?
LikeLike
I think that being capable of judging what is deemed socially acceptable behavior should be a required skill in those who are hiring people to jobs where being a role model is part of the job description and who will represent their organization to the public.
LikeLike
I always thought that, if the MWC wanted a Chicago presence, UIC made more sense than either Loyola or Valpo.
Loyola is roughly half the size of UIC, private, and worse in basketball.
Valpo is better at bball than Loyola, but a third the size of Loyola (thus a tiny fraction of the size of UIC) and isn’t even in Chicagoland (doesn’t help for getting Chicago recruits or reaching out to alums in Chicago).
If UIC got even a small fraction of their students and alums to attend, their attendance would become respectable, and joining a conference that regularly lands multiple NCAA bids should get them there.
LikeLike
I really don’t think Valpo or Belmont make sense. Both are small. Belmont is relatively new to Division I. Loyola or UIC make sense. Loyola does have a championship. Not many schools can claim that.
LikeLike
Hope the PAC looks somewhere other than the NBA for a new coordinator of BB officials.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9135767/pac-12-conference-ref-boss-ed-rush-resigns-technical-foul-bounty-scandal
LikeLike
Sounds like an NBA official. This obviously was no April Fool’s joke.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22014207/rutgers-fires-athletic-director-tim-pernetti
Tom Pernetti has been fired as Rutgers AD.
LikeLike
*Or forced to resign.
LikeLike
Not a Rutgers fan by any stretch, quite the opposite, but this seems a bit unfair. The guy gets a middling athletic program into the lucrative and prestigious Big 10 and he loses his job for this? I think he made a huge mistake in glossing over the issues with Rice… but c’mon. I am not sure that the zeal to fire everyone is always the best solution. I think it is a bigger loss for Rutgers than it is a gain. Send the guy to sensitivity training, management courses, whatever. That stuff failed the coach, but the AD could gain from it. But to part ways just seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
If I think of any more cliches, I will reply to myself. 🙂
LikeLike
“The guy gets a middling athletic program into the lucrative and prestigious Big 10”
From everything thats been published about the Rutgers/Maryland addition, I feel pretty confident that Pernetti had zero to do with it, and maybe even had zero knowledge before it was announced. He doesn’t deserve any credit for it happening.
LikeLike
Who has published anything that suggests that “he had zero to do with it.”? I’d like to see it. If so, then so be it.
What the guy did do was participate in the Big East’s rejection of the ESPN deal. But that helped lead to the breakup of the Big East. That helped make Rutgers “very available.” If the Big East was still whole, maybe there would have been a battle between Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers as to that last spot. Maybe Rutgers still wins, but who knows?
LikeLike
Getting Maryland into the Big Ten? That was Loh’s work, not Anderson’s.
LikeLike
Off with their head! Standard response nowadays. You have to remember the AD is a human being dealing with human beings. Sometimes that can lead to a loss of perspective. Sometimes that is a good thing. He really should have fired the guy the first time, but that doesn’t mean he should be fired.
LikeLike
If failure to fire is a firing offense, then everyone above (to the very top) is guilty and should be gone. Sounds like a great way to build cohesion, trust, loyalty, longevity, respect, teamwork within an organization. (Sarcasm)
Why don’t we just name a group of media members to decide these issues for the schools, since the seem to drive the process now. They certainly have no stake in it (other than a sensational story sells better than a investigation and disciplinary process).
LikeLike
Not everyone; just those who saw the video and made the judgement call that it was no big deal.
The simple facts are that this incident (and its exposure) cost RU several times more in money and reputation than Mike Rice brought in.
LikeLike
Next phrase: those who knew, or SHOULD have known…
LikeLike
Can you quantify the cost of embarrassment, and let us in on what costs a wrongful termination suit (or suits) will be?
LikeLike
Losing recruits. Losing donors. Possibly even losing applicants.
A full economic study would have to be done, but it’s almost certainly more than what value Mike Rice provided (since he didn’t seem to provide much).
Also, again, who’s wrongful termination, and how would it be wrongful?
LikeLike
Pernetti (mutually agreed “resignation” 😉 ), and Rice, who went through the universities review and discipline process, and was sanctioned. Now has suffered double jeopardy. And this only comes to light because Pernetti and/or others wouldn’t pay the cost (blackmail) to eliminate the video.
LikeLike
It’s going to be hard for Pernetti to claim wrongful termination considering that he wasn’t actually, you know, terminated.
As for Rice, I would actually like to see him sue, just for the hilarity. He would be laughed out of court.
LikeLike
Yes, it would be amusing, but I’m not sure he loses (in actual court, not the public opinion one). He pays 75K penalty, serves suspension (3 game?), attends behavior modification classes, which the school legal council recommended over termination. Is there evidence of continued problems since that point? Bobby Knight wasn’t fired for his practice problems that everyone remembers. It was breaking the zero tolerance policy when he grabed a kid crossing campus who said ” hey, Knight” and told him: its Mr. or coach Knight. A repeat offense. If Rice has repeated, screw him. If not, what use is there in following any rules? Why bother trying to change? The legal argument isn’t about Rice or his behavior. It is about process, and this case reeks of lynch mob.
LikeLike
Are you a lawyer?
I’d like to hear from one or several of them, because from my understanding of the legal system, he would get laughed out of court.
LikeLike
Nope. Not a lawyer. I believe you don’t need to be one to see the potential when the school and legal advisors won the argument over whether to fire or not back in December. Details of internal investigation (and knowledge of the video’s existence) were withheld, but it wasn’t kept completely out of sight. His fine and suspension was announced. Are all schools now (public and private) required to open all disciplinary proceedings for inspection?
I’d hope we still adhere to rules and procedures rather than depend on a public outcry or a media driven story to formulate remedies to problems. Are the talking heads and talk show callers really who we need setting university policy?
LikeLike
I very much doubt the attorneys said that Rutgers *couldn’t* fire Rice. What was more likely was that they said that they couldn’t fire Rice without incurring some type of financial penalty or settlement. As a practical matter, a highly compensated white male in an authority position is basically the weakest type of wrongful termination plaintiff that you could find. If Rice attempted a wrongful termination suit, he would have been crushed.
LikeLike
Past tense?
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
Pernetti is very highly thought of by RU fans and there is an uproar over his firing. No one is saying he is blameless and that some discipline isn’t warranted for his being involved in a bad decision to only suspend Rice.
However, we already know that:
-he brought in an outside investigator
-the president was involved in the decision
-The school’s counsel (also removed this week)recommended the suspension over firing
-just leaked today is that at least 3 members of the RU Board were informed and approved of the suspension decision
Firing him because there is a media frenzy that he somehow covered this up is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Will the media kick in to help cover RU’s costs when they lose the upcoming wrongful termination suit?
LikeLike
Who’s termination and how is the termination wrongful?
LikeLike
“Pernetti is very highly thought of by RU fans and there is an uproar over his firing.”
Seems to me that RU fans don’t have their priorities straight, then.
LikeLike
You are obviously ignorant of the history of the RU athletic department over the last 30 years and why Pernetti might be viewed favorably in comparison to what some previous ADs have done.
As far as the uproar goes, it is a reaction to the idea RU rushed to use him as a scapegoat when evidence is mounting that keeping Rice wasn’t Pernetti’s decision (and now in his letter of resignation Pernetti even says he wanted Rice fired immediately and was overruled).
LikeLike
Perhaps I am.
_Something_ is rotten in Denmark.
LikeLike
“Seems to me that RU fans don’t have their priorities straight, then.”
It’s like the SEC masquerading as an Eastern school within the Big 10? A perfect partner for Penn State? And so on…
LikeLike
Welcome to America 2.0
LikeLike
I think there’s some fear among RU sports fans that the next AD would be a political pick and not someone who could take athletics forward. At least from my reading at one RU board.
LikeLike
After a politically inspired sacking of the AD? I would be SHOCKED if the next AD was a politically inspired pick! And also if there was gambling at Atlantic City.
LikeLike
I didn’t expect it to get that far but I guess this is the 24/7 twitter/youtube/viral media world that we live in nowadays where mistakes are amplified and the echo chamber reverberates a lot stronger.
The loss of him is a pretty big loss considering that he played a direct role in their move to the Big Ten, and no doubt it was his vision of Rutgers athletics that the Big Ten saw in its meetings with Rutgers officials.
It’s going to be hard to recapture that given how close Pernetti was to the school.
LikeLike
I’ll say this, the loss of Barchi would be a much bigger loss than that of Pernetti.
Barchi played a fairly large role in the debate over the UMDNJ-Rutgers merger, and I’m not sure how the loss of him would affect that in anything but a negative manner. That’s probably Rutgers’ biggest priority given how large an undertaking a university-medical school merger is…, far larger than athletics.
LikeLike
Well, we’ll see. The governor of NJ has basically said that Barchi can stay at his job. Probably was a necessary move, given the circumstances RU finds itself in.
LikeLike
Delany needs a do-over with the RU and UMd adds. What a mess.
LikeLike
LOL at the B1G for taking Rutgers. No NCAA tournament appearances in 20+ years. One of the losingest football programs in NCAA history. Pitiful fan support. And now on top of that a very ugly scandal that should set their athletic department back years. I just don’t see how a school like that is going to do much for the B1G as far as making headway into the NY market. They are a joke.
I’ve long said that the B1G would regret not moving more aggressively to get Missouri before they went to the SEC. I think the B1G’s mistake is becoming more and more clear. Mizzou may not be a king of a program, but they sure kick Rutgers’s ass. Both are AAU schools from populous states, but it doesn’t do much good to have a high population state if you don’t have any fans or successful sports. Mizzou vs Rutgers: 30 bowls vs 8 bowls, 65k attendance vs 45k, 26 NCAA tournament apperances vs 6 NCAA tournament apperances. Missouri’s also quite a bit better at baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, women’s soccer, and more. I’m not really sure if Rutgers is good at anything. I looked and couldn’t find anything.
So enjoy Rutgers, guys. You’re stuck with them now.
LikeLike
@Andy.
You really have to stop with posts like this. You are embarrassing your alma mater. Awhile back, I did not have too many thoughts/knowledge of Univ. of Missouri. Now, when Missouri comes to mind, I think of you, Andy, who is, concerning realignment, angry, bitter, aggressive, argumentative and always looking for a fight. If every Mizzu fan is like you are on this Blog, Andy, then the B1G dodged a bullet and woe to the SEC.
Further, none of this ends well. Every success in the SEC leads to “see, B1G, you should have taken us,” a sentiment that will not endear you to the SEC and its fans. If the B1G changes its mind and offers Missouri, every success in the B1G will lead to “see, B1G, you should have taken us earlier.” Every failure, of course, offers easy fodder for needlers.
My suggestion is that you move on and just be really really really happy that your school escaped the dumpster fire that is the BXII.
Finally, you are being intellectually dishonest with posts like this. You know perfectly well that realignment for the B1G is not about being “good” in various sports. It’s about branding and tv markets. If the UofM main campus was a 25 minute train right from Manhattan, UofM would have been invited to join the B1G. But it’s not. With due respect, stop writing things that make us wonder about your IQ.
LikeLike
Andy, given some of the problems Mizzou’s athletic program has had over the years, criticizing Rutgers is pot calling out to kettle. Just let it be.
Oh, and as a side note: When Missouri was invited to the SEC, some of that conference’s bloggers criticized it for being in a state where pro sports was viewed as more important (one pointed out that Mizzou items were next to invisible at airport gift shops in St. Louis and Kansas City), and that it didn’t apparently worship college football like other SEC states do.
LikeLike
I just gave you a head to head comparison of the two athletic programs’ accomplishments. Pot? Kettle? Black? Rutgers could greatly exceed their historical output and Missouri could underachieve theirs and Rutgers wouldn’t catch up to Missouri for decades. But keep lying to yourself about it if it makes you feel better.
LikeLike
I’m kinda hoping the rumored move of Mizzou to the Big Ten does happen. Not because I particularly want them to leave the SEC, but because I would enjoy seeing all the comments that would be posted here in the aftermath.
LikeLike
To be honest, I doubt it would be all that interesting. Outside of Andy I don’t think anyone on this board has any strong feelings on Missouri either way.
Really, confusion would likely dominate the discussion since MIzzou wouldn’t really fit with the Big Ten’s East Coast strategy.
LikeLike
Well said, his act is getting really old.
LikeLike
BuckeyBeau, I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you so pissed off. Haha!
As I clearly demonstrated, Rutgers is a whole ten notches below Missouri all around when it comes to athletics and fan support. No doubt. Missouri would have to fail pretty much nonstop for the next 60 or 70 years to sink to Rutgers’s level.
And if you don’t like me then tough titties. I certainly know of a few Buckey fans that are just as bad or worse than me, ::cough:: ::cough:: Brian ::cough:: ::cough::.
And this forum is absolutely filled with utter crap and nonsense on a weekly basis. The stuff I post isn’t anywhere near as dumb as a ton of the stuff I read on here.
Anyway, what annoys you most about me is the fact that I’m totally right. And you know it.
LikeLike
To justify my 60 or 70 years comment: over the last 50 years, Rutgers has been to 8 bowls (0.16 per year). Missouri has been to 20 (0.40 per year). Rutgers has been to 6 NCAA tournaments (0.12 per year), Missouri has beent to 25 (0.50 per year).
So if Missouri’s output dropped by 50% and Rutgers climbed by 50% they’d be about even. If Missouri’s dropped by two thirds and Rutgers’s increased by 3 times then they’d gain on Missouri by about 0.10 bowl and tournament per year, so they’d catch up in around 200 years.
But how likely is that considering Rutgers’s athletics department is even more a dumpster fire than ever, and Missouri has been to 8 bowls in the last 10 years and 4 straight NCAA tournament appearances?
The facts are totally on my side here, folks. All the personal attacks and insults you throw my way won’t change that one smidgen. It will only prove that I got to you. Ha!
LikeLike
And yet the B1G saw more value in Rutgers.
“And this forum is absolutely filled with utter crap and nonsense on a weekly basis. The stuff I post isn’t anywhere near as dumb as a ton of the stuff I read on here.”
When I don’t read your posts this forum is, or has been, one if the most civil, informative, and thoughtful sources of speculation and information I have visited. When I do, it’s like visiting a flame fest. Thanks for single handedly diminishing the experience, and Missouri.
LikeLike
Wow, cherry pick your periods much? Boasting about Missouri’s football prowess versus Rutgers in the first half of your “last 50 years” is like boasting about Missouri’s football prowess versus Harvard in the last 50 years.
I expect you could make a similar argument over the past quarter century, without making it look like you have to pad the numbers to get a favorable comparison.
LikeLike
Bruce: pre-50 years ago, Missouri went to 10 bowl games. Rutgers went to 0. Nice try though. Try using wikipedia before your next “gotcha” attempt. Putz.
LikeLike
ccrider, don’t know how you missed all the other flaming. I’ve been posting on here for years and have seen tons of it. No idea how you missed it.
LikeLike
Bruce, here is Rutger’s all time bowl history:
1978 Garden State Bowl
2005 Insight Bowl
2006 Texas Bowl
2008 International Bowl
2008 PapaJohns.com Bowl
2009 St. Petersburg Bowl
2011 New Era Pinstripe Bowl
2012 Russel Athletc Bowl
Meanwhile Missouri has been to 30 bowls dating back to the 1940s, including 3 Orange Bowls, 2 Sugar Bowls, 2 Cotton Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, 3 Gator Bowls, 2 Sun Bowls, 2 Holiday Bowls, etc
Not. Even. Comparable. At. All.
But nice try.
LikeLike
Andy, it’s apples and oranges. For decades, Rutgers was an ersatz Ivy in football, playing the likes of Princeton and Columbia, as well as other Ivy wannabes such as Lafayette and Lehigh. It wasn’t a big-time program, and didn’t really start to grow into one until the late 1970s (when it won at Tennessee in ’79, and gave Alabama a tough game at the Meadowlands in 1980). If you’re going to use bowl games as your sole criteria, then you must relegate Army’s long football history, as well as that of Virginia’s. Neither played in a bowl until the 1980s.
LikeLike
The thing is Rutgers hasn’t been any good *ever*. Look at the bowls they’ve been to since the 80s. All crap bowls. Every single one.
LikeLike
Andy, just looking at your list shows what absurd cherry picking you are engaged in ~ claiming that Missouri in the 1940’s, 1950’s or 1960’s was stronger than Rutgers in those years is a lot like saying that Missouri in the 1940’s, 1950’s or 1960’s was stronger than Denison University (nee College) in those years.
“Bruce: pre-50 years ago, Missouri went to 10 bowl games. Rutgers went to 0. Nice try though. Try using wikipedia before your next “gotcha” attempt. Putz.”
Don’t be willfully obtuse. You are answering me pointing out that you are OBVIOUSLY padding the comparison by pushing AS FAR BACK as 50 years, and your answer is that if you pushed EVEN FURTHER back, you could have padded the comparison even more?
Why am I a “putz” to notice that you are obviously padding the comparison? I didn’t even claim that making a fair comparison would change the result in any fundamental way, because I don’t think it would. I think you probably could have supported your argument WITHOUT padding the numbers.
However, for a lot of people, when they see somebody claim “since the 40’s” or “the past fifty years”, they are naturally am skeptical that the record in the more recent past is as strong, and think its quite possible that they are reading something from somebody sitting on dry and dusty laurels. Otherwise when comparing to a school that wasn’t even pursuing serious college football success in the 60’s, they would make the comparison over the past twenty five or twenty years, and wouldn’t include the earlier years to pad their resume.
LikeLike
Bruce, I can’t believe you’re even trying to argue with me. Rutgers basically just started going to bowls in 2005, and every single bowl they’ve been to is some rinky dink crap bowl. They suck. Period. Doesn’t matter when they started, they suck. And aren’t they a founding member of the Big East? That means they’ve been playing football since way before 2005. Jesus, man. You don’t even try to make sense sometimes.
LikeLike
Andy, please. Of course they have played FB for a while. In fact, longer than anyone except the team they played, Princeton, in the first ever NCAA FB game (on the same field they still play on?). Would Princeton be a terrible addition, assuming they would accept, or even entertain the idea?
Obviously Rutgers was chosen over many who would have accepted that had a better W/L record in many areas. Doesn’t that tell you something about what actually was the selection criteria? Joining the B1G is a very different deal than simply joining athletic departments. The PAC and ACC (so far) is similar, but not the same, for various reasons.
LikeLike
Andy, you OBVIOUSLY can believe that I am arguing with you, since you keep ignoring what I am saying and instead pretend that I am arguing with you.
I simply pointed out that you are so dedicated to absurdly biased evidence that you present an absurdly biased evidence WHETHER OR NOT it is required for your argument, and you first response was to present evidence that was even more absurdly biased.
Your claim is valid ~ even a school like Missouri, which is, after all, no real big deal in college football, has a much stronger record in college football than the Rutgers program. If Rutger over the past twenty years has been weaker than a school that would not be considered a Prince, let alone a King, then clearly it was chosen for something other than the quality of its football program.
Its a pointless argument, since nobody credibly argues that Princeton has a program as strong or stronger then even an occasional contender like Missouri, let alone a King or a Prince … but it is such a safe argument that it would be absurd to set out to unnecessarily pad the evidence.
And yet, you felt the need to do so. It seems as if you can’t bring yourself to presenting a fair argument for a point even when a fair argument would win you the point.
LikeLike
Alright, so Rutgers was an Independent until joining the Big East in 1991. But if you look at their historical schedules, they were playing a lot of the same teams that ended up in the Big East as far back as 40 years ago. So maybe 50 years was too far. I just picked 50 because it was a nice easy number to work with. But the point remains, Rutgers has never, ever been good at football. And they were good at basketball once: 37 years ago. They are not good at sports and they don’t have many fans. So I’m not sure how they’re supposed to deliver New Jersey let alone NYC without any athletic tradition to speak of. Missouri on the other hand has a huge following in a state of 6.1M people. Also both are respectable AAU schools. Rutgers is a bit better academically, but not tremendously so.
The only reason to take Rutgers is as a long term investment, under the hope that many years from now they’ll build themselves into something substantial and then they’d be able to deliver some of those huge markets that they’re located next to. But that may never happen. If history is any indication, it probably won’t happen. And now they just hit another big stumbling block with this scandal.
LikeLike
So you admit your posts are “dumb”. I would agree.
LikeLike
My posts are dumb. But they’re also true. They’re dumb because they’re pointless flaming. They’re true because they’re factual. Plenty of posts on here are dumb and untrue, so at least I beat those.
LikeLike
Except a post from someone who is misinformed on a point, and learns from the response is by no means worse than pointless flaming. Pointless flaming is worse.
LikeLike
That’s a matter of opinion I assure you.
LikeLike
Well, Andy, another way of looking at it is that Rutgers got more national media publicity from their scandal this week than Missouri ever got for any of their success so maybe there is something to the idea of RU’s proximity to NYC having a lot of value.
LikeLike
That’s only because Missouri has never had a scandal this ridiculous.
Missouri has never had any probabtions in football. Ever.
The last scandal in basketball was the Ricky Clemons allegations 10 years ago (that Quin Snyder paid him), and the NCAA was never able to prove those. The best they could prove was that he got some free flip flops and cheese sandwiches.
But if ghastly, embarrassing scandals are the standard for value then Rutgers wins hands down. Ha!
LikeLike
How about the fact that your basketball arena was named after a girl who cheated her way through college and you had to, consequently, rename it. LOL
LikeLike
It was never named after Paige Laurie. That was the plan but it ended up not happening. She’s the daughter of one of the Wal-Mart multi-billionaires. Sam and Bud Walton are originally from Columbia, MO. They give many millions of dollars to the University. Other than that she has no connection to Mizzou whatsoever. Didn’t go to school there. Never worked there. Nothing. It’s not like we had a coach beat our players and then the athletic director covered it up.
LikeLike
And there was SO much more to the Ricky Clemens scandal than you suggest. The guy earned 24 credits during summer school via on-line classes with the help of the Missouri basketball program so that he could become eligible. This is for a guy who was a terrible student. He violated his work-release program by attending a party at the University president’s house and crashing an ATV. I could go on. The whole episode was one huge embarrassment for the University of Missouri.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The NCAA investigated all of the Ricky Clemons stuff thoroughly for many months and found almost nothing as far as wrongdoing by Mizzou. Just flip flops and cheese sandwiches. That’s it. Look it up.
LikeLike
I agree that RU’s basketball coach should have been fired, but maybe I have just grown completely out of touch. In a world where truly horrible events and atrocities happen, my first reaction is to question the sense of a person who can characterize as “ghastly” a coach throwing basketballs at 18 years old and calling them names.
LikeLike
This is one of the uglier basketball scandals of the past 20+ years. It brought down the coaching staff and the athletic director. It was also very ugly and shocking in nature.
If you don’t like “ghastly” then how about ugly, shocking, offensive, unpleasant, deplorable, unsightly, repulsive, distressing, disgusting, etc. You pick an adjective. Certainly a lot of sharp words have been said of Rutgers basketball of late in articles and comments sections. It was not a good moment for them.
LikeLike
Just clearing a space in order to upgrade?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22020860/former-ucla-coach-ben-howland-would-be-interested-in-rutgers
LikeLike
“ugly, shocking, offensive, unpleasant, deplorable, unsightly, repulsive, distressing, disgusting, etc”????????
If watching a basketball coach throw the ball at some players evokes such a strong reaction in you, I would imagine watching the nightly news can get you curled up on the floor in the fetal position.
LikeLike
Phil, I’m pretty sure you didn’t pay much attention to this scandal.
cc, if they hire Howland more power to them. They haven’t been good at basketball in nearly 40 years so he’ll have a challenge on his hands, but he’d be a step in the right direction for them. We’ll see if they pay what’s needed to get him.
LikeLike
But really, tell us more about these sour grapes.
LikeLike
Oh you know I’m right. Rutgers sucks. No doubt.
LikeLike
Rutgers didn’t take athletics seriously till the late 80’s…
B10 cares more about markets than the success of revenue sports.
LikeLike
If Rutgers took athletics seriously since the mid 80s then why haven’t they been to an NCAA tournament in the last 23 years?
LikeLike
It takes awhile to build an entire athletic department. Alumni support was nil and there was uproar when the athletic department borrowed money from the university…
If the B10 wanted the better athletic program, it would’ve taken Missouri. They wanted the Jersey/NYC markets, that is all it comes down too.
LikeLike
The Rutgers add is mystifying. Should have added Maryland and created a free-for-all for the 14th spot. Maybe take Rutgers anyway, but perhaps break lose someone else. Not like Rutgers was going anywhere. And maybe they could do better in a watered-down American Athletic Conference.
LikeLike
In what way is it mystifying that they added a 14th that they wanted when a 13th presented itself that they really wanted?
Indeed, if one is engaging in conference expansion with an eye to the twenty and fifty years ahead, then this scandal highlights the risk of waiting ~ trying to take Rutgers now would present a much greater risk of it falling apart. If nobody more desirable was available, the Big Ten might have had to invite a revenue diluting add like Pitt.
LikeLike
Keep telling yourself that, Brucie. Rutgers was a horrible addition. Maybe in 20-30 years they’ll rise up to the level of a Purdue or a Minnesota. We’ll see.
LikeLike
It will take more like 100 years to rise to the level of Minnesota, since first they have to rise to being a feared football program, and then they have to decline from that peak, and then they have to stay in decline long enough for it to be a faded memory.
LikeLike
well then I guess the B1G should have waited a few decades to pick Rutgers. Clearly they’re not ripe yet.
LikeLike
And yet, Rutgers has more NCAA Final Four appearances in their history than Missouri (1 > 0). LOL
LikeLike
If they want to hang their entire sports history on that one season 37 years ago they are free to do so.
LikeLike
Lord know you would– fortunately, Mizzou has to settle for elite eights.
LikeLike
LOL. Sorry if already posted, but the AAC already exists and won’t be giving up its URL.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22014305/original-aac-big-east-didnt-call-about-american-athletic-conference-name
Apparently, the newly named conference formerly known as the Big East is going to go by the shortened name “American”
LikeLike
another article from CBSSports. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22007551/commish-mike-aresco-describes-the-naming-process-for-the-american-athletic-conference
LikeLike
T-shirt fan here and I read The Dudes link and say UGH. These moves are about money and the B10 channel, right? So why make two weak efforts into big markets that dilute and over extend your product, i.e. Rutgers getting NY market and Georgia Tech gettin ATL market. Seems this blog is come to the consensus you need Notre Dame for NY and Georgia for ATL. Now if B10 gets Virginia, then why couldn’t they just have gotten virginia and maryland to begin with? Maryland is in debt and Virginia is enamored (per internet talk). Why assume that just obtaining Virginia and Maryland was off the table, after the Nebraska expansion, but now magically Virginia is on table! These latest and potential future moves just seem weak especiailly if you already have the pull of B10 network and loaded with CIC universities and have a huge contract in 2016. I get the feeling that Delaney and presidents could be more aggressive. If you make the decision to expand and all the positive and negatives that come with it, then why half-ass it? If you haven’t guessed I don’t like the idea of Georgia Tech and Rutgers in B10…I can stand maryland and viriginia.
LikeLike
Though if it was not magic that has put Virginia on the table, but rather the instability caused by the fact of Maryland deciding to leave, and Virginia will wait until the Maryland exit fee is decided before making any final decisions, then the “Maryland / Virginia” move would not have been on the table.
LikeLike
In the ACC pecking order I view Virginia higher than Maryland. A lower level univ leaving shouldn’t rattle an upper level college into leaving a strong conference, not with tobacco and florida schools intact. I don’t think the addition of Maryland with Rutgers is what sold Virginia into PROBABLy joining the B10. If Virginia joins I think it will be more of a ‘we should have got you the firt time’ and left Rutgers and Georgia Tech alone mentality among the B10 higher-ups. Also those additions will signify they didn’t act aggressive enough to get the two properties they really wanted.
LikeLike
“A lower level univ leaving shouldn’t rattle an upper level college into leaving a strong conference”
Except its not like a light switch, all on or all off. Maryland leaving changes the assumptions of lots of people, and changing people’s assumptions about what kind of moves are possible affects what kinds of moves are possible.
It would be one thing to argue whether the destabilizing effect is sufficient on its own to flip UVA from 0% chance of moving to 100% chance of moving, but that’s not the argument. Its much more plausible to argue that the destabilizing effects of having a founding member raided by a higher status conference factor in, and if Maryland wins a reduction in the exit fee, that factors in as well.
LikeLike
I suspect that the leadership at Virginia has decided it would be good to join the B1G. However, the leadership needs to build a consensus. Having MD move to the B1G and not having all of the detractors screaming about a 50 million dollar exit fee are two things that are helping the leadership build the consensus with the fans, administrators, coaches, and alumni necessary to make the move.
LikeLike
Delaney wants the BTN on all those cable & satellite TV’s all the way from NYC, through Jersey, to Philly, through Maryland, to DC, through Virginia and in Atlanta…
Virginia & Maryland get you Maryland, Virginia & DC… Adding Rutgers & GT too nets you Jersey, Atlanta and at least a foot in NYC. Delaney’s ‘demographics’ issue is solved and he still has room for university #18; 1 of NC, ND or FSU.
LikeLike
They’re going to twenty and it’s going to be all three.
LikeLike
If it takes Notre Dame to get to 20, then the Big Ten is not going to 20 anytime soon.
LikeLike
To be honest, I couldn’t care less if ND is number 20. If we get to 19 with the teams being discussed, 20 is going to be icing on the cake. I just happen to believe it will be them. Sure, they could join the Catholic league, or even the Big 12 with an ACC-like deal, but both those options are long term losers. Independence issues aside, the B1G would be their dream conference at that point. I suppose a more likely scenario is that the Big Ten stops at 18 for a few years until ND joins, but I don’t think the Big Ten’s interest in ND is nearly as obsessive as many believe.
MgoBlue!
LikeLike
Although I think the population issue was a ‘red herring’ to get everybody onboard for expansion, Delany could still get all those areas without adding fluff univs. At somepoint you can over dilute your empire and compound that with over extention of your influence (conflicting cultures and loyalties)…especially when the product (football) is not top notch. B10 football is 3rd or 4th right now behind SEC,B12,and PAC12. If the game Delany is playing is to create a good sports channel under the facade of old univ education priorities then he’s gotta start adding football powers to keep the channel affloat. The addition of fluff univs and alienating your fan base ,in these short 4 years, could undo what took decades to create. They have to realize this is a bubble and they are in a strong position and shouldn’t accept anything less than the best.
LikeLike
Depends on what your priorities are. To the B10 presidents (unlike presidents of certain other institutions of higher learning), academics/research overshadows athletics because (again, unlike certain other schools) the revenue from football & other sports is a small fraction of the money from research. Demographics is _not_ a red herring. These are massive research institutions and they need to go where the people, money, and corporations are increasingly located. I really believe that the B10 presidents (again, unlike presidents of certain other schools) see athletics as a branding/alumni relations vehicle; as means to an end rather than the end-all-be-all.
Also, keep in mind that the O’Bannon case could make spending a ton of money on athletics really unworthwhile, which would tip the emphasis of the B10 schools even more towards academics & research from athletics (BTW, if “O’Bannon” gets players a significant cut of TV revenues, what you will see is a ton of non-revenue sports being dropped; particularly non-revenue men’s sports). That’s why, while as a fan, I really want to see FSU in the B10, the B10 will likely wait to see what the verdict in the O’Bannon case will be. If the status quo holds, adding FSU makes sense. If the revenue from sports is really curtailed, the B10 may pass (and wait for UF & UGa, if they ever come)
LikeLike
The thing is though is that this is a sports driven expansion. If it was academics primarily, it would likely have occured earlier and could be done with the CIC and not the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Athletics, not CIC was driving the Johns Hopkins rumors?
LikeLike
The ‘likeness’ suit would likely have gone their way, the class action suit is probably a bridge too far. I do think, however, that any major expansion will be on hold until that ruling comes down (some time next year). I don’t think it should win on the merits but when you consider the Judge/Court involved, anything is possible.
LikeLike
Florida, and especially Georgia, will never join the BIG 10. Both Universities have an identity that is so wrapped up in the SEC that it would be impossible for them to leave due to legislative and alumni action unless the SEC was essentially destroyed. If they did leave, it would be to either go independent or found a new, Southern conference with themselves as pillars. I would put the odds of Florida joining the B1G in the next 50 years at less than 0.5% and of Georgia doing the same at less than 0.01%.
LikeLike
“Demographics is _not_ a red herring. These are massive research institutions and they need to go where the people, money, and corporations are increasingly located. I really believe that the B10 presidents (again, unlike presidents of certain other schools) see athletics as a branding/alumni relations vehicle; as means to an end rather than the end-all-be-all.”
As we project the competitive landscape a decade from now, why would anyone believe that geographic location (or more formally, geographic propinquity) will be a key factor in determining awareness and communication with people or companies or to attract money? Geography matters if you are not elite. If you are elite, people, money and companies will find you, no matter where you are located.
In addition, of the 14 members, which universities do you believe attempt to leverage “Big 10 membership” as a key reputation asset? I would hope, none. E.g., “Enroll with us, with have good programs, but more importantly, we are members of the Big 10″? Who would be attracted by this claim?
Again, if football is all that matters to the Big 10, then adding MD, RU, GT and Virginia is a bust — it will not close the actual and perceived gap between the SEC and the BIg 10 at all — and today, the Big 10 could not even go head to head against the PAC-12 — although I am sure that the BTN would proudly carry WSU vs. Rutgers on a Wednesday night (actually 4:45 pm pst kick-off) ”
I agree with one point you make, the best bet is that there will be no increased return of “profits” from the athletics program to the academic side of the ledger due to this expansion: additional revenues generated will be spent on additional athletic expenditures (both current items — salaries, facilities, and recruiting and newer or rapidly escalating items — athlete salaries, health insurance premiums and liability).
LikeLike
rich2,
“In addition, of the 14 members, which universities do you believe attempt to leverage “Big 10 membership” as a key reputation asset? I would hope, none. E.g., “Enroll with us, with have good programs, but more importantly, we are members of the Big 10″? Who would be attracted by this claim? ”
Actually, I’ve heard that used with grad students and it works quite well, but it was about CIC membership not B10 membership. Being able to go to your school of choice while also using a premier facility at another school for a while can be the best of both worlds, for example.
LikeLike
The University of Maryland a “fluff” university? It’s won more ACC titles in all sports than Virginia has (though Virginia has a heckuva athletic program, particularly in recent years), including more in football and men’s basketball. Moreover, Maryland is one of the few schools to win national titles in football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball. It’s also been an AAU member since 1969.
I can understand some skepticism over Rutgers, as it’s relatively new to big-time athletics, but Maryland has legitimately been in top-tier collegiate competition since the late 1940s. College Park has made some administrative mistakes in sports in recent years, but once those are resolved, it’s certainly Big Ten-worthy (as Rutgers will also be in time).
LikeLike
If memory serves me correctly, only FIVE Universities have the won the NCAA in both football and basketball. Michigan and OSU are two and Maryland is definitely another. Not sure about MSU, but I can see them being another for the B1G. Terps Women’s basketball makes it three Natties for the Terps. I do realize that the NCAA championship in football was a long time ago, but with entry of Wilson Elkins from Texas as President and the exit of Jim Tatum, the Terps run in football has then been mediocre at best. And with guys like Bear Bryant as coaches back in the day, we had a nice thing going. By the way GO BLUE–beat Louisville!
LikeLike
Ever? Only 5? That seems low.
LikeLike
I think he was talking about FB only when he mentioned “fluff”.
LikeLike
In the four, almost five, whole days since the announcement of the “American Athletic Conference,” I would say it’s a successful choice. Considering that there was going to be pushback from some people regardless of what name was chosen, the objections seem to be fairly minimal, at least so far. Some people will insist it should have stayed Big East based on the idea that the Catholic 7 left the Big East, not the other way around; therefore, this conference should still be the “Big East.” Some people will argue that it should have been “Metro Conference,” which I personally favored. Many were just salivating over the opportunity to make fun of the new name no matter what it was going to be called simply because they enjoy the act of ridicule.
I still would have preferred the “Metro Conference,” but American Athletic works just fine. When you think about it, what’s wrong with the name, anyway? As long as they don’t go overboard with the patriotic theme, which has been a smart move by the Mid-American Conference, for example, I think they’ll avoid a Legends/Leaders-type of corniness (for lack of a better term) for their brand. So far, the lack of an uproar is a good thing.
Getting the logo to be attractive without being corny will be key. I think they ought to hire the same people who came up with Pac-12’s logo a few years ago. Even the Big Ten’s new logo, which, remember, was very unpopular at first, has caught on pretty well. We see “B1G” typed all the time–which is a sign of success.
LikeLike
The biggest knock against the name is that it is too vanilla. Which isn’t that much of a knock ~ how vanilla was the Big Ten’s original name? For a group of football programs constantly knocked as the “Big Least”, maybe a vanilla name that doesn’t make any claims to grandeur is for the best.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“how vanilla was the Big Ten’s original name?”
Which one, Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives (official name) or Western Conference (common name)? In 1896, I think either was a decent name. In 1899 it was the Big Nine with 9 schools, then in 1917 the B10 with 10, then Big Nine again after Chicago dropped sports in 1946, then back to Big Ten in 1949. Only in 1987 did Big Ten become the official name rather than ICFR.
LikeLike
Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives, Western Conference was itself fairly vanilla, given the balance of population at the time.
It was a conference that had the “Big” applied to it by others, rather than applying it to itself. Calling yourself Big and then making it stick (in Basketball at least), like the Old Big East, that’s brash. Calling yourself “Big” when nobody else would, as with the Big West, is a bit silly.
Calling yourself “Big” when you used to be a bigger deal than you have become, as “Big American” or “Big Metro American” (aka Big Mac) would have been, smacks of desperation.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
I think declaring it will be the “American” for short was a mistake.
1. You don’t get to tell people what to call your conference.
2. Many will call it the Ack to rhyme with the WAC, MAC, MEAC, etc regardless.
3. Some will now call it the Ack just out of spite.
“When you think about it, what’s wrong with the name, anyway?”
1. Another conference is the AAC already.
2. It implies everything else is un-American.
3. Some groups of vets/patriots/etc get very upset with people appropriating “American” for commercial purposes.
4. It’s bland enough to make Wonder bread seem exciting.
5. Being called the Ack is not good PR.
To put it another way, one could ask the same question about the B10 division names.
“As long as they don’t go overboard with the patriotic theme, which has been a smart move by the Mid-American Conference, for example, I think they’ll avoid a Legends/Leaders-type of corniness (for lack of a better term) for their brand. So far, the lack of an uproar is a good thing.”
Many people are paying zero attention to it right now. Wait for football season before judging.
“Getting the logo to be attractive without being corny will be key.”
Most conference logos suck. It makes no difference.
“Even the Big Ten’s new logo, which, remember, was very unpopular at first, has caught on pretty well.”
Has it? Or do millions of people just not care and many of the rest mock it?
“We see “B1G” typed all the time–which is a sign of success.”
It is? Many people do it to mock the Big Ten for having more than 10 teams. Others do it to mock the logo. Some do it because it is the logo. B10 fans being aware of the logo doesn’t mean they like it. They know the division names and even use them quite often. That does NOT indicate success for those names.
LikeLike
“Some groups of vets/patriots/etc get very upset with people appropriating “American” for commercial purposes.”
FWIW, the presence of the Naval Academy may help legitimize the league as the “American Athletic” for at least a portion of that group. Adding West Point and the Air Force Academy would help, too.
As for the Big Ten’s logo, I don’t sense much pushback against it anymore. “Legends” and “Leaders,” on the other hand, still gets mocked. But that’s just my perception.
LikeLike
Lack of pushback doesn’t mean people like it, just that the battle isn’t important enough to fight if they don’t like it. We all know they wouldn’t change it even if all the fans hated it, so how much energy should people invest in pushback?
LikeLike
Small point on the Big Ten logo. The originally introduced logo was completely light blue and read out “B1G Ten” It was almost universally criticized. The “B1G” logo with the B being a different color was realized shortly afterward as a side logo (although I think the designers themselves wanted it to be the main one). That one didn’t get nearly as much criticism and the conference quietly dropped the full one.
LikeLike
Another reason to be proud to have Nebraska in the Big Ten.
It’s only a minute long and you won’t regret it. Here’s the back story.
Jack Hoffman is a 7-year-old brain cancer patient, but that didn’t stop him from scoring a touchdown in Nebraska’s spring game Saturday afternoon. Jack, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 and is currently on a break from his chemotherapy treatment, came into the game for a fourth-and-1 on the 31 yard line. With the help of some blockers, Jack ran the ball all the way into the end zone in front of more than 60,000 fans.
LikeLike
Are they sure that kid didn’t play for WI they way he ran past the D?
LikeLike
@Brian – after the initial moment had passed, I thought the same thing.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t mean to belittle the moment. It was just a bit of deja vu with the untouched outside run for a long TD. The kid ran pretty well once he got started, at least. Maybe it’s genetic in NE to be a Husker tailback?
LikeLike
Some numbers on Nebraska’s travel expenses and impact.
http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/husker-sports/few-travel-headaches-in-move-to-big-ten/article_b681a039-1c90-5ac2-b53f-e0a1472099d7.html
LikeLike
I am really surprised that the B1G doesn’t move to the East/West divisions model for the other sports in order to reduce travel expenses.
LikeLike
Interesting article. It means that Nebraska is spending between 1-2 million a year to play in the Big 10, kinda bites into the theory that schools will jump for money unless it is a large amount. (I;m looking at you WV nuts who keep waiting for the ACC to fall apart). I mean 2 mil can hurt you if your only making like 3-5 mil more. I wonder what Maryland will be spending now that they have to travel by plane to Indiana, Ohio, Penn?, and Michigan.
LikeLike
Going from 4.7M in average travel expenses the last two years in the B12 to 5.3M for first year in B1G. Doesn’t seem an amount to be concerned about (and isn’t adjusted for increase in cost for travel in general). Certainly not enough to go about splitting the conference in sports that don’t require it.
LikeLike
SpaceTetra,
“I am really surprised that the B1G doesn’t move to the East/West divisions model for the other sports in order to reduce travel expenses.”
Most sports play too many games to do that. If the B10 expands more, I think you’ll see more home and homes with local teams and single games against those far away. Why should the schools in the middle be forced to play one set of neighbors much more than the other? Why risk a lack of balance or a need for a convoluted championship?
LikeLike
I think something that is really hurting the B1G Ten’s chances of landing Notre Dame is the speed with which the conference is expanding, or at least the speed which it is making it look like it plans to expand. The truth is, every single conference would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat, so there is absolutely no need for them to decide anything for the foreseeable future. Notre Dame knows that if the B1G goes to 16, 18, or even 20, (whatever is eventually decided) and has no possible room for Notre Dame, than Notre Dame can join the ACC (or whatever remains of it, which I think will be pretty much the entire conference), the Big 12, the SEC, the Pac -12, or even the American Athletic or Mountain West,(if the school held out on independence for too long) all of which would welcome the school, and honestly be a better match for the school than the B1G.
If Notre Dame wants to recruit the best athletes nationally, the Big Ten is not the ideal conference. The ACC (assuming no more defections, which until they actually occur I am choosing to do so), SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, and even Mountain West and American Athletic (and for that matter C-USA and the Sunbelt too) are locating in far, far more fertile recruiting grounds for all sports than the B1G.
For football prestige (which is what Notre Dame most cares about), the B1G is well behind the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12, and probably an ACC with strong FSU, Miami, and Clemson programs .
Most importantly, there is a huge problem with Notre Dame and some of the research that members of the CIC involve themselves in. Notre Dame is fundamentally a Catholic University, and would not want to associate itself with stem cell research, (and many other types of related medical research) in any way. I know that the CIC would not force Notre Dame to conduct research that the school found morally reprehensible, but there would still be an undesirable connection for much of the schools administration, alumni, and donors. I think that a similar problem would come with joining the Pac-12, (which is one of a million reasons that BYU will never join that league). The ACC and Big 12 already have religious schools in them, as would the Mountain West when BYU is inevitably forced to rejoin, and the SEC is made up of of much more conservative public schools than the other major conferences, I’m not saying that this would be a complete dealbreaker for Notre Dame, but it would factor into their decision making process.
And I am not suggesting that Notre Dame will ever joining any of these other conferences, but I am saying that there is no possible threat the B1G could ever use to coerce them into giving up their independence. Notre Dame knows that if the B1G ever says, “This is our last spot ever. You have to join now or never.” Notre Dame can simply say, “That’s fine. We’ll keep doing this independence thing for as long as it is possible for us to do so, maybe forever. It looks like the SEC/Big12/ACC/Pac 12/Mountain West/AAC still have some spots open, and will for some time. If the situation changes, we’ll have plenty of other partners. Thanks but no thanks.” And yes, I do believe would risk being relegated to the Mountain West or American Athletic if it meant maintaining their independence.
LikeLike
Michigan would vote no, that’s all I care about.
LikeLike
The truth is, every single conference would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat
No they wouldn’t. The PAC is a million times more hardline on its no religious schools policy than the Big Ten is on its CIC requirement and the SEC would also (probably) pass, since ND would hurt the conference’s Southern identity (which it takes very seriously).
Notre Dame knows that if the B1G goes to 16, 18, or even 20, (whatever is eventually decided) and has no possible room for Notre Dame, than Notre Dame can join the ACC (or whatever remains of it, which I think will be pretty much the entire conference), the Big 12, the SEC, the Pac -12, or even the American Athletic or Mountain West,(if the school held out on independence for too long) all of which would welcome the school, and honestly be a better match for the school than the B1G.
ND will never put their non-FB sports in a mid-major which means the AAC and MWC are also out.
For football prestige (which is what Notre Dame most cares about), the B1G is well behind the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12, and probably an ACC with strong FSU, Miami, and Clemson programs .
The Big Ten is still more prestigious than the ACC even if FSU, Miami and Clemson are all good at the same time.
Most importantly, there is a huge problem with Notre Dame and some of the research that members of the CIC involve themselves in. Notre Dame is fundamentally a Catholic University, and would not want to associate itself with stem cell research, (and many other types of related medical research) in any way. I know that the CIC would not force Notre Dame to conduct research that the school found morally reprehensible, but there would still be an undesirable connection for much of the schools administration, alumni, and donors.
ND wouldn’t have to join the CIC if they joined the Big Ten.
——
I guess what I am really saying is that if ND had to join a conference as a full member their only realistic options are the Big Ten or ACC (yes I’m aware that the Big XII is a power conference that would take them as a full member, but ND isn’t going to join a conference that requires them to play in Lubbock, Waco, Ames and Manhattan, KS.)
LikeLike
If you think that neither the Pac 12 nor the SEC would accept Notre Dame if they came calling, that’s your call. I think you’re absolutely wrong, but I understand.
The SEC already took Mizzouri and very happily, I don’t think that they have a Southern identity thing. And in any case, have you ever been to the southern half of Indiana, it’s pretty Southern. (And yes, I know Notre Dame is not in the southern half of Indiana.
As for the Pac-12, much of the no religious school stance comes from the California schools, especially Stanford. Both USC and Stanford play Notre Dame every year anyway, so I don’t think the objections would be as severe. Plus, as early as the 1940’s there was a movement to get Notre Dame into the Pac 12, or what would have been called the “Airplane Conference.”
LikeLike
The SEC already took Mizzouri and very happily, I don’t think that they have a Southern identity thing. And in any case, have you ever been to the southern half of Indiana, it’s pretty Southern. (And yes, I know Notre Dame is not in the southern half of Indiana.
The thing is, the SEC bent over backwards to try and convince everyone that Missouri was a Southern state when they added Mizzou. It was a slave state and set up dueling government during the Civil War, so the considered it Southern enough I think.
As for the Pac-12, much of the no religious school stance comes from the California schools, especially Stanford. Both USC and Stanford play Notre Dame every year anyway, so I don’t think the objections would be as severe.
Their is a difference between playing schools and adding them to the conference. After all, PAC schools play BYU regularly and they have made clear they won’t be adding the Cougars in our lifetime.
(And of course I haven’t even mentioned the logistical nightmare of attempting to schedule ND’s non-FB sports. Honestly, I’m not even sure it would be feasible to send 20+ back and fourth across the country).
—
That said, we will never really know because ND won’t be joining either any time soon.
LikeLike
Missouri had a star on the confederate flag. That’s good enough for most SEC-ers. I don’t know if the SEC would take Notre Dame or not. I think it’s such a ridiculous concept that it’s not really worth asking, but if for some reason it actually was a decision that had to be made I think it would be debated and could go either way.
LikeLike
Pipe dream alert! I bet if Miami and Florida state joined to make 15 and 16, the chances of landing notre dame becomes a better possibility, but still far-fetched. I mentioned that even though I don’t want notre dame in the B10. Ironically, it seems that both those schools are available (internet talk) but moral standings and CIC membership is blocking such a chance. If you sit back its kind of comical b/c the best possible athletic expansions aren’t being considered b/c of CIC requirements when a major part of the end game is channel content. The game changer has been the network b/c the CIC’s membership and prestige has always been there. I view as if the CIC membership factor is the starting point of why the B10 is uppity and the B10 Network put the B10 over the top…a shiny new toy nobody else has that bring in bookoo bucks to athletic depts. I just wonder how much 3 universities, that happen to be football powers (Nebraska, Florida st, and Miami), could hurt other B10 members in getting research money. The overall advertising of Miami and Florida St in combination with current B10 blue bloods would be invaluable.
LikeLike
It’s AAU membership you’re referring to that’s Big Ten membership, not CIC (which goes hand-in-hand with joining the Big Ten). You earlier described yourself as a “T-shirt” fan, and I suppose such comments are proof.
LikeLike
make that “Big Ten membership criteria.” Oopsie.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“I think something that is really hurting the B1G Ten’s chances of landing Notre Dame is the speed with which the conference is expanding, or at least the speed which it is making it look like it plans to expand.”
I don’t. ND has zero interest in joining the B10 right now. No other factor matters.
“For football prestige (which is what Notre Dame most cares about), the B1G is well behind the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12, and probably an ACC with strong FSU, Miami, and Clemson programs.”
Care to back that up with some facts?
SEC – sure
B12 – for now, OK
P12 – based on what? Sagarin had the conferences basically tied in 2011 and 2012.
ACC – When was the last time those three teams were all strong? How does that top a B10 with strong OSU, MI, NE, WI, etc programs? What about the ACC having 3 whole BCS wins versus 12 for the B10?
LikeLike
@ Juergens,
You are full of garbage. The BIG footprint is certainly the best or near best when it comes to basketball talent, esp now that Jersey, Md and DC fall into the boundaries. As for retention, different story – but such can change. Try researching hs basketball recruiting history – where the kids come from: Chicago Land – really Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Milwaukee, Philly, Ohio and now up and coming Minneapolis-Saint Paul hold their own in hs basketball.
As for football, the BIG certainly holds its own with the Pac12 and Big12 – talent wise due to largely populated states. Tx saves the Big 12, but the state has to serve so many programs not just the Big12, the SEC, now that aTm is a member, creates crowded recruiting battles. Same goes for the Pac12 – Cali can only feed so much of the Pac12. Moreover, hs football in Ca is dropping in popularity & has been for nearly a decade.
The ACC must share there most talent rich football states with the SEC: Fl, Ga, SC. SC actually has better per capita hs football than NC – which is more of a hot spot for hs basketball. Va is the one state with no SEC competition. But the talent in that state often leaves. Clemson is not on par with SC at this point. FSU and Miami have been behind Fl in the BCS era. GTech is not as good as Ga, period. Can this all change for the ACC? Perhaps, but the SEC has a huge jump on everyone in the BCS era – “huge”.
As for all sports, the BIG is comfortably second to only the Pac12 in NCAA team championships.
In the end, much of this expansion talk could sour. I see a bubble coming, moreover, increasingly less interest in college sports could become the norm. If the SEC continues to dominate football, people will turn off. If the NBA doesn’t come up with a better draft rule for hs-college kids – college basketball parity may be good come March-Apr, but it won’t sell tickets during the regular season.
These pending cable tv court cases are interesting. I get that people will always want to watch live sports, but if the BIG can’t deliver in football & basketball, packaging will be a tougher sell if the a la carte options become reality. The digital BIG network was a wise decision, but will it earn enough money? This O’Bannon case gives me the creeps as well.
LikeLike
^ My grammar sucks today.
LikeLike
I was really only talking about football recruiting, but I do concede that in Big 10 does not suffer from a basketball recruiting disadvantage.
LikeLike
Looking at the facts, I admit that my prestige statement may have been overstated.
Just looking at AP and BCS/Coaches’ Poll National titles, since I think that’s the best way to determine overall football prestige. I’m also going to count USC’s vacated title, since they won it and everyone knows it. There are some split national titles, and I counted both, including 1997 when 2 current Big 10 teams split the title. Bowl games are not very useful because of conference tie-ins and other selection factors (see Illinois getting into the 2008 Rose Bowl over Georgia, sorry Frank.) I’ll go as far back as 1980, so the last three full decades. I will count schools based on their current conference, not the confererence they were in when they won games.
SEC Members – 11 National Titles from 6 Schools
B 12 Members – 3 National Titles from 2 Schools
ACC Members – 9 National Titles from 4 Schools
P 12 Members – 4 National Titles from 3 Schools
Big 10 Members – 7 National Titles from 4 Schools
Other Conferences and Independents – 2 National Titles from 2 Schools
If you prefer BCS bowl wins, we can look at it that way. I’m still counting vacated wins.
SEC Members – 17 Wins from 6 Schools
B12 Members – 12 Wins from 6 Schools
ACC Members – 8 Wins from 4 Schools
P 12 Members – 15 Wins from 5 Schools
Big 10 Members – 13 wins from 6 Schools
Other Conferences and Independents – 2 Wins from 1 School
As someone who is very willing to admit when I am wrong, I concede the prestige element. However, the Big 10 clearly does not have more prestige than the other conferences with regard to Football. So my point still works. Notre Dame would not be placing itself with less prestigious partners football wise by joining a league other than the Big 10.
Also note that if the Big 10 were to add Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech, the Big Ten would absolutely crush the ACC in these rankings, and every other conference, including the SEC.
Also interesting to me was that Boise State is the only school not in one of the major five conferences to WIN a BCS bowl game.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“Looking at the facts, I admit that my prestige statement may have been overstated.”
[the facts]
“As someone who is very willing to admit when I am wrong, I concede the prestige element.”
I know tone of voice is lost on the internet, so let me stress that I mean this: I appreciate that. It’s easy on the internet, and in life in general, to not acknowledge when the facts are against you. It’s even easier when you’re the one researching the facts. It’s always nice to see someone willing to post research that shows they were wrong and then adjust their opinion. Kudos.
“However, the Big 10 clearly does not have more prestige than the other conferences with regard to Football.”
That is a very different statement, and one I wouldn’t instantly object to. Maybe the ACC, but it all depends how one measures prestige. You provided 2 sets of facts that back you up. My quibble would be the time period. Haven’t some of those ACC titles lost some luster over the years?
LikeLike
Changing the date does change things. The shorter the time frame the lower the numbers are for the ACC and Big 10. The longer the time frame, the worse the numbers look for the PAC. I didn’t want to go too short or too long.
LikeLike
@JeffreyJurgens
Your stats and your point are still wrong. My Ohio State Buckeyes who are mocked endlessly for their “awful” 6-3 BCS record, have a better resume than the ACC by themselves.
Where in the hell are you pulling 8 BCS wins from the ACC from? They are 3-12 in BCS games. They’re actually even worse if you add the fact that Notre Dame (0-4 in BCS games) is a partial member.
Those 3 wins are FSU over VaTech (Big East at the time) in 2000, VaTech over Cincinnati (Big East) in 2010, and FSU over Northern Illinois (LOL MACtion) in 2013. Seven of those 12 losses are to “at-large” teams (a league’s #2 BCS bid) or Big East champions (aka the worst BCS league). Notre Dame’s 4 losses are to three “at-large” teams (Ohio State, LSU, Oregon State) and the drubbing they took against Alabama.
The ACC isn’t even close to catching the B1G, let alone passing them. Notre Dame did hitch their wagon to a weaker football conference.
ND picked the ACC because ACC teams not named North Carolina will kiss their ring. They picked the ACC because they are small, private, and religious. The B1G is large, public, and secular. The ACC places a higher premium on undergraduate programs. The B1G places a higher premium on research. Outside of their geography and a long-time rivalry with Sparty and Purdue, there isn’t a single thing about ND that says “B1G” to me. They actually are a much better fit in the ACC when you look at their university profile and not where they are located.
ND does not want to join the B1G, and I can safely say that I don’t want them in the conference under any situation that gives them any type of scheduling or media rights concessions not given to other universities.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey
Alright, so after thinking about it. I figured out you had to be counting the BCS wins of Miami (3) and Louisville (2) as Big East members in your totals. And to your credit, you did add that in your post and I skimmed by it.
That being said. One of Miami’s wins was over FSU, and one of Louisville’s was over Wake Forest. You know, I could stop here and point out that Wake Forest won the ACC as recently as 2007 as evidence that the B1G > ACC. But I won’t.
That being said. Of your 8 ACC BCS wins, 3 of them are over current ACC teams. One of them is over a MAC school. One more is over a school that was barely a full recruiting cycle removed from being C-USA in Cincinnati. So you’ve proved you can beat a.) yourselves and b.) non-BCS schools.
You do kind of own Florida though (2-0), so bully for that. And split with the B1G. Miami beat Nebraska in the Rose and lost to the Buckeyes in Tempe!
LikeLike
Rutgers was always a lock to be added to the Big Ten in a move to 14 or 16.
Even if the Big Ten had gotten ND and Texas to 14, it would have made sense to grab Rutgers/Maryland to go to 16.
Why? Because you need a physical presence in NYC (and D.C.). You can’t just go to cable providers in northern New Jersey and say “we have Notre Dame now, put us on every TV set in the northern half of the state”. They would laugh at you.
There’s no way that would work. Rutgers has the strongest claim of any school on northern New Jersey (which accounts for 20-25% of the NYC TV market) as the local public school.
It is the only proven ratings draw on that section of the NYC TV market as its ratings in that market on ESPN/ESPN2 show (it has virtually all of the top ESPN/ESPN2 football game ratings in that market).
Rutgers has always been something of a lock to join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This is the same reason why the SEC needed Texas A&M.
The SEC already drew great ratings across Texas even without A&M when it was a 12 school conference.
But there was no way for the 12-team SEC to go to cable providers in Houston and say “add us, we draw 2.0-3.0 ratings on Saturday in this area”; they would have been laughed out of the state.
Having Texas A&M (itself a terrific draw) is the reason why they have a good shot at getting coverage for the SEC Network.
Obviously, Texas A&M is a legit brand on a somewhat national level with vastly larger drawing power than Rutgers (I’m not arguing that point).
What I’m saying is that the SEC needed a physical presence there. For the same reason, the Big Ten needed Rutgers.
LikeLike
@zeek – it’s been mentioned that Fox might leverage (bundle) the YES network with BTN to help get carriage in NY. Do you think ESPN will do the same thing with the SECN and the LHN?
LikeLike
I’m not really sure there’s anything ESPN can do about LHN. There are direct quotes from cable providers to the notion that “two football games does not constitute a network”…; that’s a tough situation no matter how you look at it.
Bundling is a tricky strategy when you’re talking locally as opposed to nationally; you’re going to want some other highly rated local network for one to piggyback on another. That’s the angle with Fox taking a supermajority stake in YES eventually alongside its majority stake in the BTN.
My guess is that ESPN won’t really need bundling for the SECN; you’re really talking about two regions when you talk about the SECN and possible struggles to get carriage: Texas and South Florida. As far as South Florida goes, there’s enough UF grads in the area along with t-shirt fans to pull it off.
Texas is the real question mark. My guess is that they’ll get carriage in Houston and then just let the rest shake out as it will (sports tier) but we’ll have to see how it plays out…
The whole YES-BTN angle may end up being a unique thing to NYC. There’s really nothing similar to that unless you were talking about Fox teaming up on the SECN and then trying to bundle Fox Sports Southwest with the SECN to try to make a push in the Dallas/San Antonio areas.
ESPN hasn’t really been much of a player in the RSN game like Fox and Comcast, so it’s hard to tell how they go about this given what they’ve done with LHN.
LikeLike
This is also why the Georgia Tech angle is worth consideration.
There’s a definite possibility there that Fox would look into bundling Fox Sports South/SportSouth with the BTN in Atlanta. I’m not sure that’d go over that well in that market though considering that the SEC is king in Atlanta with UGa and the rest of the SEC’s grads and t-shirt presence generally.
That’s probably the most difficult market play that we’d be looking at if there is another round of expansion…
LikeLike
Agree (w/ Zeek) Rutgers was likely to end up in the B10 thanks to its proximity to NYC, with Jersey being a relatively large market itself. People arguing against it are correct that Rutgers revenue sports don’t quite belong in the B10 (though it’s football is trending up) yet they are completely missing why Rutgers was added; tv/cable markets…
If you look at Jim Delaney’s plan, it is go grab up all the major TV markets on the East coast: NYC, Jersey, Philly, Maryland/DC, Atlanta.
LikeLike
I don’t know that a school can “add markets” if it doesn’t have fans or successful sports programs. Long term, maybe. But as of right now not so much.
LikeLike
Damn, I wish the COP/C had called you before making a hasty unthought out decision. It’s so like them…
LikeLike
You do realize Fox/ESPN are running this expansion show as much as the conference commissioners? I think they’d know what programs provide what markets.
LikeLike
yes, because businesses never make mistakes.
LikeLike
“…yet they are completely missing why Rutgers was added; tv/cable markets…”
And academics/research was an afterthought? Delaney proposes, COP/C decide.
LikeLike
Rutgers addition was mostly because of their location next to NYC, never stated academics/research was an afterthought; that’s a straw man’s argument.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree that location was the distinguishing feature between Rutgers and any number of arguably superior athletic teams. The academic/research box was checked off too. Would an OkSU located next to NYC have gotten a look?
LikeLike
Rutgers is not especially good in any way. Their academics are adequate (much like Missouri, but a bit better), their academics will by by far the worst in the league, but at least they’re division 1, so that gives them the nod over, say, Johns Hopkins or Princeton. The ONLY reason they got picked over so many other candidates was location. And maybe that’s enough. Time will tell. I’m skeptical.
LikeLike
*should read their athletics will be by far the worst in the league.
LikeLike
Oh, the academics are clearly a factor in the sense of implying that there was no need to worry about Rutgers acceptability on academic status ground. It was not the primary motivation, but it is a clear enabling factor.
LikeLike
Looking into the crystal ball. … what are the most powerful college athletic conferences in 2023? rank your conference and list of future members.. and imagine
LikeLike
C-USA commissioner publicly discussing expanding to 16 teams
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22030790/conference-usa-weighing-16-team-model
Personally, I still can’t justify having gone above 12. I have no desire to add Arkansas State or Louisiana-Lafayette, or any other team that would actually join this reg-tag mismatch of a conference.
LikeLike
The main factor they cite is saving in travel costs. Rather than worrying about playing the whole conference, the focus is on building as close to a bus division as possible and keeping as mch travel as possible in-division.
LikeLike
Definitely have to go with a Pac-16 style split. Regionalize the scheduling as much as possible.
LikeLike
Pingback: What’s New in Conference Expansion | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
That’s funny.
LikeLike
2013 -The 10 Year Projection-
How would you rank the college athletic conferences by power/wealth in 2013 based on how you see the realignment endgame? Include which unis you think would be in the conferences!!
LikeLike
Latest Dude
http://www.sportsmancave.com/conversations/
The whole thing is written bizarre fake conversation between Jim Delany and Eric Barron with the only real “news” being that Urban Meyer convinced Illinois and Purdue to support FSU’s admission to the Big Ten by promising to help them with recruiting in Florida.
(Note that I originally wasn’t going to post this, but then I remember how much Andy loved the last one so I thought why not :P)
LikeLike
So he’s gone from writing fiction that tries to look sort of real to fiction that looks like… fiction. And he starts it off by attacking Missouri for the first few lines. How novel. I guess he’s still bitter that Missouri got the spot they wanted in the SEC. Looks like the Big 12 isn’t working out so well for them. It’s almost enough to drive a fan mad and to create a fantasy world that is more hospitable than the one they actually inhabit.
LikeLike
“It’s almost enough to drive a fan mad and to create a fantasy world that is more hospitable than the one they actually inhabit.”
Sounds like a certain someone who comments on this blog!
LikeLike
If I’ve posted any fiction it wasn’t written by me. I’m only passing on info from people who I think probably know what they’re talking about. And I’ve always admitted that it might be wrong, but I doubt it is.
LikeLike
So what makes what you do any different than the Dude, except in volume?
LikeLike
I only have two sources, they agree with each other, I don’t embellish, I only have the one story, and it doesn’t change.
LikeLike
I see Andy is still in a hate mode . Enough already, give it a break, come back in a week !
LikeLike
Ridicule mode actually. Triggered by Rutgers’s scandal. Now not only do they suck at sports, but they are disgraceful as well.
LikeLike
Great game.
Louisville owned the second half with their offensive rebounding when McGary picked up his 4th. Just got so many 2nd and 3rd chances down the stretch. Siva was in command.
Not really sure how Michigan could leave McGary on the bench for so long as Louisville started picking up offensive rebounds faster and building their lead. It was too late by the time he came back in…
LikeLike
Allow me to express my shock at a B10 team losing a championship game.
In the past 15 years:
FB – 1-2 (all OSU)
MBB – 1-5 (MSU 1-1, OSU, MI, IN and IL all 0-1)
Way to make us proud.
LikeLike
It’s sad really & the bad luck has been too consistent in terms of match ups. The BIG was the underdog in all but UNC-Ill 2005, past 15 years – that was the best matchup. But UNC was still favored by most analysts due to the paper talent & the fact that Self left for KU.
Michigan showed up. But, unlike UNC 2008, this Michigan team won’t return to win it all. Gut tells me Burke isn’t the only one leaving. Or think about Fla 2007? They returned with the sole goal of repeating. Who did they beat? The Thad 5, who all but Lighty bolted after the loss.
BIG basketball coaches have got to start retaining the best recruits in the region, no more, no less. They don’t do the above with much consistency. The Thad 5 was the best recruiting class for the BIG in years. They stick together in 2008, they beat KU.
I think a big reason why BIG coaches can’t retain the recruits: the half court, slug fest brand, sticks in recruit’s minds. To think otherwise, means steep delusion. Kids want to run first, become better defenders later. They want to dribble drive and create their own shots. There has to be a happy medium.
I’m so sick and tired of seeing top shelf recruits bolt the Midwest, Pa for the likes of Ky, UNC, Duke, Lville, UConn, etc.
I was spoiled during my child hood and teen years: MSU 79, IU 81 and 87, Michigan 89. Winners who played exciting basketball.
I really thought this Michigan team could do it. They got one thing right from those above winners, offense. But they lost the game in the paint, last 5 minutes – they needed to pull a page from this current era of BIG hoops – rebounding and shutting down the lanes. Louisville simply had more intensity and experience, they were due.
In hindsight, Mi needed about two more weeks of playing together & only then could they likely beat Lville in one game, neutral court.
LikeLike
@gfunk – To be sure, the Big East is a bang-em-up type of league, too. Louisville was more of a stereotypical Big Ten team this year than Michigan was. I also think the “slow and big” branding of Big Ten basketball is vastly overstated with so much of it focused upon Wisconsin’s grinding style of play. Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State and now Illinois don’t really play that way. However, I sympathize with your overall point. My personal observation over the years is that to win championships in college basketball, you need elite offense and good defense (not necessarily a shutdown D, but you do need to make stops when necessary), whereas it’s the opposite in the NBA where you need an elite defense and good offense. In college, the most elite athletes are the ones that do best in an uptempo game, which inherently creates more offense. So, it’s not an accident that the best athletes tend to pick more offensive-minded schools. You can’t win a national championship with a *bad* defense, but you can probably get by with a mediocre defense if your offense is great enough. However, there just isn’t any way that you’re winning a national championship in this day and age with a mediocre offense no matter how good your defense might be.
At the NBA level, everyone is an elite athlete, so it takes a top tier defense to be anything more than a regular season wonder. I hate giving the Heat any type of credit as a Bulls fan, but they are an unbelievably great defensive team much more than being great offensive like the Thunder (and you saw what happened when those two worlds collided in the NBA Finals last year). The ’90s Bulls dynasty teams were the same way – they might have had the greatest player of all-time with Michael Jordan, but where they really made their mark was with Scottie Pippen teaming up with MJ on defense.
LikeLike
Frank, I would just add that the rules changes enhancing offenses in the NBA have added to the premium placed on good defenses (schemes and players).
In a sense, any team can slap together a good offense nowadays with the current rules in the NBA and with an eye on sabermetric efficency (look at Houston and Denver as examples of explosive and efficient NBA offenses), but it’s really tough to put together the personnel/coaching/schemes to have a great defense.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“BIG basketball coaches have got to start retaining the best recruits in the region, no more, no less.
…
“I’m so sick and tired of seeing top shelf recruits bolt the Midwest, Pa for the likes of Ky, UNC, Duke, Lville, UConn, etc.”
I disagree vehemently. It doesn’t matter where the players come from, just how good they are and how well they play together. It’s not like UK just gets KY guys. Top recruits in hoops go everywhere. There is very little concern about staying home for many of them, perhaps fueled by their AAU experiences. The top programs go after the top players nationally, not locally.
LikeLike
And its been that way for a very long time. Now maybe schools outside the top 20 or 30 are recruiting nationally as well when they used to recruit regionally, but the top schools have done it as long as I remember.
LikeLike
@ Brian,
I’m not saying they need to get every single one of these recruits, or even 60%. But you need to follow basketball recruiting more closely. Take a deep, historical, look at the last 20 years & tell me BIG coaches scored with consistency on the recruiting trail, esp their local communities.
You underscore my point by mentioning Ky – their recruits. Pick KEY players off of 96 or 2012 – they were plucked right from Illinois and IU’s back yard.
Of course it matters how well these kids play together – no argument here. But I’m with Pitino, you need great recruits to ignite a program. Btw, Lville’s starting 5 = hs ball in Oh, Wa, NYC, Ill, Senegal then WVa.
@ Frank,
I do agree the BIG brand of half court, shot clock exhaustion is overstated, but perception is sadly reality. How much does Bo Ryan factor into this perception? : ).
The number of McDAA’s in the BIG the past decade is low compared to the ACC, SEC, Big East & even the Big 12. Sure there will always be recruits who didn’t make this game & become stellar in their own right – Burke immediately comes to mind.
But, recruits of this caliber very often factor in a team’s NC run. Behanan is the sole McDAA on Lville’s roster, & he was huge last night. He’s the biggest reason why Lville won, imo, in terms of individual players, not the bearded fellow – though he was money. Behanan was the only player with a double-double in last night, a nice one by the way. He exploited the paint, esp when McGary was out. That one bucket of his, the hot potato put back, amazing! To me it was the crushing blow, not Hancock’s final 3. Consolation – Levert stepping out on a that rebound. Mi had a very good chance of bringing the game to the wire at that point, down 78-74 with 52 seconds left.
I absolutely remember BIG basketball in the 80s to early 90s, heck I became a MSU fan because of 79 and the uptempo brand that team ran with incredible style n substance. IU 81 was a phenomenal uptempo team as well. I clearly remember them running Lefty’s Md team out of Assembly Hall – Lefty didn’t think they could run. 89 Michigan could put the ball in the basket as well – Jesus it seemed like every team in the BIG that year was scoring in the 80s to 90s.
Regardless, the BIG dry spell in NCG’s is unprecedented at this point – amongst major conferences. Until next year . . . . .
LikeLike
@gfunk
Pick key players off of Kentucky’s 1983 final 4 team or 1978 champions (Kyle Macy transferred from Purdue, Rick Robey was from Louisiana, Mike Phillips was from Ohio-Jack Givens was from Kentucky) or 1975 or 1966 championship game teams and you will find players from all over the country and many from Ohio or Illinois or Indiana. Key players off the 1966 team (which lost to Texas Western) were Pat Riley (yes that one) from New York and Louie Dampier from Indiana.
Whether the B1G schools are losing more I can’t say, but top teams and top players go national.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I’m not saying they need to get every single one of these recruits, or even 60%. But you need to follow basketball recruiting more closely. Take a deep, historical, look at the last 20 years & tell me BIG coaches scored with consistency on the recruiting trail, esp their local communities. ”
If you mean to say the B10 needs to recruit better, then say that. I’d generally agree. Better talent wins more titles. You’ve given no reason why location matters, though.
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/04/carl_kirschner_to_be_named_rut.html
This is a bad idea.
“The Star-Ledger reported today that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is expected to have a role in the search for a new AD as Rutgers prepares for a move to that conference in 2014.”
LikeLike
Agreed. I’m not sure why the conference should have any say in this kind of personnel issue.
LikeLike
Yes, but the folks in NJ don’t seem to mind. Delany can at least offer a blueprint of how other BIG AD’s go about the workings within the conference. That can’t hurt, but only help.
LikeLike
This isn’t the first time. He (the conference) offers assistance to conference members for coaching searches. It’s not like he picks the AD for the school. It’s more of a screening process. Hey, here are 5 or 6 good candidates etc…
LikeLike
And it’s always a bad idea. It’s not the league’s place to do that.
LikeLike
It might be a bad idea in a normal situation, but since there will be pressure to react to the Rice scandal by making a politically correct AD hire, I would rather they get the B1G to influence the decision than the politicians and “PC police”.
LikeLike
The B10 aren’t pros at this. That’s why it’s a bad idea. Stick to your core competencies and outsource the rest.
LikeLike
I am not sure it is a bad idea. The conference is effectively acting as an executive search firm. The hiring decisions are still left up to the individual institution.
If I am Rutgers I am not sure I am confident in Barchi hiring a legit AD. He’s not experienced with this type of hire. A little assistance may be warranted.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I am not sure it is a bad idea. The conference is effectively acting as an executive search firm.”
And what experience and expertise do they have to indicate that they should be a search firm?
“If I am Rutgers I am not sure I am confident in Barchi hiring a legit AD. He’s not experienced with this type of hire.”
And Jim Delany is? How many ADs has the B10 office ever hired?
LikeLike
He may not have hired any, but I’d bet Delaney (and Slive) have had, through the expansion process, more contacts with and possibly an idea of who might be interested in jumping schools/conferences than anyone else. Why wouldn’t Rutgers look to the man in the best position to let them know what the B1G offices think would be important important characteristics to look for, and who might be available?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“He may not have hired any, but I’d bet Delaney (and Slive) have had, through the expansion process, more contacts with and possibly an idea of who might be interested in jumping schools/conferences than anyone else.”
And I’d take that bet. ADs and coaches network with each other a heck of a lot more than with conference commissioners. Besides, what basis does Delany have to make a good decision on this? He has no track record of hiring good ADs.
“Why wouldn’t Rutgers look to the man in the best position to let them know what the B1G offices think would be important important characteristics to look for, and who might be available?”
Asking him (and anyone else you have an in with) a question or two is one thing, using the B10 like a search firm is another. Delany shouldn’t have a role in any hiring process at any B10 school unless it’s checking with him that the B10 won’t object to a specific risky hire (like if someone wanted Tressel in a few years).
LikeLike
Wouldn’t he be a logical conduit for suggestions to be transmitted indirectly from Columbus, Ann Arbor, Iowa City, etc., places they may not have networked as much at coach/AD level? I seriously doubt anyone actually thinks Delaney is any more than a resource. Granted, I doubt many check with their commissioner. But, how many are moving to a new prestigious new home and have a big embarrassment damage the administration and take out a coach and AD at the same time? Seems prudent to use all avenues to try to smooth an entry already soiled.
LikeLike
The Commissioner will have worked with current and former associate AD’s in the Big Ten, some of whom may have already moved on to the head position at other schools. He can certainly name some who impressed him that Rutgers can add to their list to investigate.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Wouldn’t he be a logical conduit for suggestions to be transmitted indirectly from Columbus, Ann Arbor, Iowa City, etc., places they may not have networked as much at coach/AD level?”
Not really. At most they are two steps removed from having an in with any major school. I’d bet Barry Alvarez knows a lot more about who is out there than Delany does.
“I seriously doubt anyone actually thinks Delaney is any more than a resource.”
Then why say he’ll have a role in the process? If you’re just making a phone call, why would you say that?
LikeLike
Being a resource isn’t a roll in the process? You say it to express your wish to fit into their new conference, to show confidence in the leadership as a sign or gesture.
LikeLike
Am neither a lawyer nor a technologist. However, I have worked on strategy execution at IU and in the private sector for several decades — long enough to know instinctively that the vision of a business model imputed to the BTN on this board that yields always increasing revenues for the next decade: will not happen.
This is an example — not the smoking gun – simply one example. read the Cablevision case and the Aereo lawsuit and tell me that you believe that the model of forcing everyone who gets cable to pay for channels they do no want to watch will be sustained for another ten years. Will universities find a way to charge paid subscribers directly — sure. Will the same net amount of revenues be generated if those who want to watch a game must pay the full cost — not one subsidized by the majority of subscribers? We will see if consumers will agree to pay the full price plus an annual price hike for decade envisioned on this board. Or if desperate providers (universities) with ever-increasing athletic budgets decide to cut prices (decrease revenues) to maintain market share — as occurs routinely in product markets all the time. The Big 10 better add members15-18 in the next year or two — and obviously it cannot be more football teams that will go 7-5 or 6-6 and want to represent us at tier 3 bowls. We already have a half-dozen programs that fit that bill — we don’t need ten of them.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/news-corp-coo-if-we-lose-aereo-copyright-case-well-stop-broadcasting/
LikeLike
I’ve been “forced” to purchase, also known as “included” in the package I’ve chosen, channels I don’t want since day one of cable. And I’ve been subjected to never ending increases in commercials that were supposedly unnecessary since the consumer was paying for the programming, not the advertiser. Wake me up when the ala carte that’s been predicted for three plus decades actually arrives.
LikeLike
@rich2 – This is an interesting discussion that I have already been planning on exploring further in the near future with some separate posts. A couple of things:
(1) The Aereo case ought to be distinguished from the a la carte debate, although it does deal with overall media company profitability. What that case is dealing with is the ability to receive clearer transmissions of over-the-air channels via the Internet as opposed to cable channels. What might be Aereo’s favor here is that it is simply improving access to OTA channels that are otherwise free with regular rabbit ear antennae and ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox bargained for that with their broadcast licenses. Now, the counterargument is that Aereo is gaining revenue from the retransmission of those OTA channels in the same way cable companies used to, which isn’t kosher anymore under the law. Cable companies now need to pay a subscriber fee for those OTA channels just as they have been for pure cable channels, which is what the media companies are now seeking from Aereo (which is using a technical advancement that arguably allows it to be in compliance with the current law). I see this as a “separate but related” question in the cut the chord discussions, which is whether people should be paying subscriber fees for OTA channels that are using part of the federally licensed broadcast spectrum at all (whether it’s through cable, Aereo or any other outlet). Those OTA channels are different than ESPN, TNT, BTN, etc. because the latter group isn’t using public airwaves at all.
(2) At the end of the day, I think it’s all largely form over substance. That is, we might be switching the vehicle in which we receive entertainment (Internet as opposed to cable/satellite), but that doesn’t mean that we’ll be really paying less or truly shifting to a la carte and away from “buffet” pricing. Think of what has worked with Internet streaming so far. A few years ago, every network tried pushing their own separate online sites for streaming shows. However, they found that this was inefficient because as much as viewers want choice on paper, they also want it to be easily accessible in one place. As a result, the networks got together and created Hulu so that there would be a single outlet for shows even though they might come from different networks. This is still a la carte pricing in a different form. I might only watch a handful of shows on Hulu, but I’m still paying for the hundreds of shows that are on there. It’s the same thing with Netflix streaming – you’re not purchasing one movie or TV show at a time, but access to thousands of titles that you may or may not ever watch. Netflix streaming can’t survive on a pay-per-view a la carte model any more than the basic cable channels.
ESPN3 is already one example of how sports could be shifted to the Netflix/Hulu model. You need enough scale of content in order to make it feel like you’re giving each individual subscriber a deal, but having scale means that each such subscriber is going to pay for a bunch of content he or she will never watch. Netflix and Hulu are really buffet pricing just like cable/satellite. So, I don’t think we’re going to spend less, but rather our dollars are eventually going to get shifted around.
Now, that being said, there are still significant reasons why there will be heavy resistance to this shift (not the least of which is that the largest cable providers also happen to be the largest Internet service providers, so they have the direct ability to block the shift and something tells me that these guys aren’t very charitable), but that’s a separate discussion.
LikeLike
A la carte versus buffet pricing is really a continuum rather than a dichotomy. “Complete” buffet pricing would be one tier, one price, all channels included, “complete” a la carte would be pay per view for all programming.
A linear channel “a la carte” is still buffet pricing for the shows on the channel, a Video on Demand channel “a la carte” is buffet pricing for the shows available at any point in time.
The issue is how fine grained the buffet pricing is going to be, with most subscription TV including a core set of very course grained tiers, and then most of them including some additional a la carte offerings.
And the appeal of the course grained tiers can be illustrated with a crude example of three linear channels ~ Sports, News and Movies ~ and three customers, Sports Guy, News Guy, and Movie Guy. Sports Guy is willing to pay $8 for Sports Channel, $1 for News Channel and $1 for Movies Channel. News Guy is willing to pay $6 for Movie Channel, $2 for Sports Channel, and $2 for Movie Channel. Movie Guy is willing to pay $10 for Movie Channel, and nothing for anything else.
Now, a la carte, Sports Channel can get one subscriber at $9, and two subscribers at $2. News Channel can get one subscriber at $6, and two subscribers at $1. Movies Channel can get one subscriber at $10, two subscribers at $2 and three subscriber at $1. So they each price for one subscribers, for a total revenue of $25.
But if they can be forced onto a single tier, and its all or nothing, the tier can be priced at $10 and get three subscribers, for a total revenue of $30. Give the a la carte price to each, and you have $5 bonus to spread around ~ which could be $1 extra to each and pocket $2 as the distributor. And its not Movie Guy that is the driving force in that, its News Guy, the customer that has a broader range of things they kind of like, from whom the tier extracts an extra $4.
Now, its obviously an artificial example, since they were allocated out of a given $10 total willingness to pay, and while each individual can spread their viewing more widely or focus it more narrowly, total time spent viewing and willingness to pay per hour of different types of programming will vary. If the tiers are well built, they act a bit like second degree price discrimination without falling foul of any rules against second degree price discrimination.
The business model that is used by some internet streaming video services that have hit profitability offers premium features for subscribers, and a lower level of service for free ad-streaming. Given low CPM rates of online streaming video, the free streaming essentially amounts to self-funding advertising for the premium service. So Hulu Free has availability expire on most shows earlier than Hulu Plus, and Hulu Plus is available on smartphones, set top boxes and smart TV’s. Crunchyroll gives access to anime simulcasts ad-free to subscribers at up to 1080p, and for most series the ad-stream is one week later and maximum 360p resolution.
If CPM’s for online streaming video rise to the point where the ad-streams are a positive revenue generator for the online distributor, that is a model that will start to catch on more widely ~ a certain level of ad-supported access to all comers, and then premium features valued sufficiently to support an a price in the $5 to $10 range for an “individual buffet”.
But it’ll mean that it becomes much less lucrative to be in the media business, because that tends to make it a more competitive market. The flip side of greater freedom to selectively drop specific types of content and so cut total spending on media will be less revenue generated by media which implies the big piles of money being used to win the bidding to gain rights to content are likely to be smaller piles of money a decade from now.
LikeLike
$24 ~ $6 extra.
LikeLike
Weekly College Baseball Update.
Indiana continues to rise in all the polls, and is as high as #12 in the Baseball America rankings. Notre Dame is ranked in all polls and is ranked as high as #16 and as low as #24. Pitt fell out of the Collegiate Baseball rankings, but Creighton entered the rankings at #30. No other northern schools are ranked this week.
After skull-dragging consensus top ten ranked Kentucky in a weekend sweep by a combined score of 31-6, my LSU Tigers are now ranked #1 in the Collegiate Baseball poll. North Carolina, despite a loss to Clemson last Monday, continues to be ranked #1 in the other three polls. At 30-2, LSU is off to its best start in school history. Vandy, Fullerton, and Virginia round out the top five in all polls.
LSU travels to Fayetteville for a top 10 match-up with the Hogs in the biggest series of the weekend.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Oregon and OrSU are northern, about 45 degrees north. Approximately the same as Minneapolis.
LikeLike
cc – while you are geographically correct, for the purposes of a college baseball discussion, Oregon and Oregon State are considered west coast – not northern – teams.
LikeLike
Oh, I know. I would suggest that while it’s not quite the same as upper midwest, but there is a distinct and dramatic difference between the Northwest and Az/Cali. They fight to get outdoors, and schedule away the majority of pre conference play. And it’s not like the NW schools have frequented Omaha with anything like the regularity of the winter baseball weather friendly schools.
I suggest that there is only two groupings. Those places you go to escape winter weather, and those you escape from. If you see winter city league baseball and softball in the parks during Christmas break, you are in a “southern” baseball friendly weather area (even if its West). That’s not Seattle, Pullman, or the Oregon schools. I only bring them up to highlight that it is possible to develop consistent success in spite of some built in “handicaps”. (More time indoors helps develop small ball skills, which are of increased importance with the newer bats 🙂 )
LikeLike
Alan – I will be at the Saturday Arkansas-LSU game in Fayetteville. The crowd is always loud and large for the LSU series. The weather forecast is looking great – can’t wait!
LikeLike
Arch – I’m jealous. LSU’s Ryan Eades v. Arky’s Ryne Stanek is battle of future 1st rounders.
LikeLike
Hoping for a great game, but no way can it top the last Arkansas-LSU game I attended. Must have been in 2011: all time record crowd for Baum Stadium (>11,000) and Arkansas won 8-7 on a three run homer in the bottom of the ninth.
LikeLike
Arch – are you an Arkansas fan or do you live in the area?
LikeLike
I live nearby, transplant from Big Ten country.
I’m more a fan of college baseball than the Razorbacks specifically. Though I do pull for Arkansas in baseball more than any other team in this region. After Arkansas, LSU is probably the only SEC team that I like to see win. That goes back to regularly attending the CWS while growing up and always meeting a bunch of cool LSU baseball fans. They out-tailgated everybody and some of them showed up even if LSU wasn’t in the series!
LikeLike
Rice has still not lost a weekend series, pulled into a tie for CUSA, and is ranked as high as #16 in one poll.
LikeLike
Kendall Rogers of Perfectgame.org, and the Joe Lunardi of college baseball released his regional projections and listed Indiana as the #8 national seed. Indiana is the B1G team in the field, but Ohio State just missed his cut.
http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=8279
Rogers’ top 8 national seeds are:
#1 North Carlonina
#2 LSU
#3 Vandy
#4 Virginia
#5 Cal State Fullerton
#6 Oregon State
#7 Florida State
#8 Indiana
SEC lead with 9 bids, followed by the ACC with 8 bids. P-12 gets 5 bids. Big West and Sun Belt get 3 bids each.
LikeLike
Athletically and geographically, Louisville would be a great fit in the B1G. Too bad the school’s academics and profile (urban, commuter) aren’t even remotely up to B1G standards…
LikeLike
FSU, ND scheduled.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/04/09/notre-dame-florida-state-2014-schedule/?sct=uk_t2_a3
LikeLike
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fox-threat-cable-only-20130409,0,5098893.story
More on the Aereo suit
LikeLike
For me, the discussion in the business press about Aereo lawsuit — and on this board — underscores the mis-aligned strategic thinking about the addition of RU and UMD — and then especially about GT and Virginia.
It is posted here, that expansion is driven almost exclusively by football. However, at the Big 10, we supposedly also will not “cut” people from the Big 10 if they don’t perform well on the field — (good thing for NU and the “Mild-cat” era and for IU the past 40 years). Supposedly the new members and the Big 10 are making a “50 year” commitment. We are adding universities to the conference that add little to our football prospects other than the presumed positive effect that the new members will have on the total cable revenue that their addition will generate in the future. Yet, the business model upon which the revenue forecast is based will most likely not be sustained for a decade much less fifty years. If we don’t cut schools from the conference, then we should make decisions to expand based on criteria other than our forecast of the positive impact that adding a school will have on BTN revenues in a decade. We should be able to say that we would add this school (for football reasons) even if their inclusion leads to a smaller share of the revenue pie. Using football as the measure — RU, UMD, GT and UVA do not measure up as new 50 year members of the Big 10. Now, if implicit in how you cheer for expansion is a belief that if the underlying financial model changes, than “loser” properties (i.e., universities) will be dropped quickly from the conference — than this changes the calculation. We can also watch “Glengarry Glen Ross” again and picture the new AD from RU in a room with the new Big 10 Commish instead of Jack Lemmon and Alec Baldwin.
LikeLike
You’re confusing B12 thinking with the B1G. Forecasting success of a new, disruptive, antithetical model to the B1G’s history strategy is less risky? I’ll stick with the stable, desired by others,, and profitable model. I’m confident in the mission (not 100% FB driven), and the leadership to achieve it.
LikeLike
@rich2 – I think it’s a bit more complex than simply the immediate financial model. The Big Ten was still the wealthiest conference prior to the BTN just as the Yankees were the still the wealthiest MLB franchise long before the YES Network was created. The underlying fundamentals of what made those cable networks profitable in the first place have been in place for decades and aren’t going to suddenly change if a la carte pricing comes to fruition. Now, I’d agree that we can’t assume that the current cable network model will survive in perpetuity (although I still think the speed in which change would and the substantive effect are vastly overstated). However, from a pure football perspective, there are still important Big Ten needs met by the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The states of New Jersey and Maryland happen to be the top producers of Division I football recruits that aren’t in the Sun Belt or in the current Big Ten footprint. This access to talent is critical to the long-term health of the Big Ten, regardless of how well Rutgers and Maryland as programs might actually perform on-the-field. Also, please note that New Jersey is the #1 exporter of high school graduates to out-of-state colleges in the country, which means this is the single most valuable concentration of people that are willing to pay out-of-state tuition that public universities are increasingly relying upon. You probably already see this at the school that you work at. The value of the Big Ten becoming more East Coast-friendly in terms of perception has an impact beyond athletics and football in this regard. Frankly (and I’ve said this before), adding Rutgers is absolutely a risk even from a pure BTN standpoint (as I’m not certain that they can be leveraged to get basic carriage for that network in the NYC market), but I can understand the long-term value of the conference getting into New Jersey specifically in terms of recruiting both for football and the general student population. I have less of a concern about Maryland, which is really a pretty easily justifiable addition regardless of how profitable the BTN might be in the future with its DC area location and in-place fan base.
LikeLike
I think Maryland and Rutgers made a substantial amount of sense even without directly getting $ from the BTN. The access of the other 12 to those markets for athletics, academics and research is very important. A conference like the Big 12 (or SEC) wouldn’t be able to capitalize on those schools the way the Big 10 can.
As for change, I’m reminded of a quote I saw in the 90s from an AT&T president-Technology will change things slower than you expect, but when it happens it will be more fundamental than you can imagine. I’m old enough to have had 8 tracks, a black and white TV, 2 over the air channels with no cable, radio dominated by AM music channels and schools in the south with no air conditioning. There’s a lot that can change in the entertainment business.
The risk to the Big 10 isn’t that they will fall behind others. Its that there will be a decline in total revenue that is exacerbated by weak football additions. UVA/GT/UNC don’t have the non-athletic upside of DC and NYC.
LikeLike
The other thing is, when you add Maryland/Rutgers relatively soon after adding Nebraska, you’re not looking at a decline in average football strength in going from 11 to 14.
But beyond that, you are if you go past 14 with a group of non-football schools. Most people’s memory of the Big Ten is as a 10 or 11 team conference, not the 12 team conference that it’s been for two seasons. Expansion in terms of football strength won’t really be seen as dilutive in this generation.
As far as demographics go, the Big Ten probably had to make an East Coast push eventually. The SEC already long ago got onto the East Coast (in the South), and obviously, the ACC has been incrementally locking up the East Coast in the North by taking all the Big East schools. The Big Ten probably had to make this move to get a significant piece of the action on the East Coast.
But I agree with you that there are tons of red flags in going to 16 or beyond that. The dilutive nature of expansion will really start to kick in at 16 and 18 in terms of playing schools less, average football power declining, etc.
I’ve come to the idea that we need a 20 year pause to see where things go and how schools develop themselves. Obviously, there will be huge changes to athletics over the next 20 years as things like pay for players start to take hold and changes to media distribution bring big challenges to everyone.
LikeLike
Rich2:
“It is posted here, that expansion is driven almost exclusively by football.”
Maybe someone did post it here, but I daresay that I (and most others who have studied B10 expansion seriously) do not believe that the B10 presidents think that football is the end-all & be-all of expansion. Otherwise, OU would be a B10 member by now.
I hope we can agree that there are roughly 4 possible futures:
1. Status quo
2. Delivery of games will change but football is still the king revenue-generator
3. Football loses king status but other sports generate a lot more revenue.
4. All college sports revenues decrease to the point where athletics don’t matter any more (possibly due to an O’Bannon decision).
In the first scenario, PSU was a grand slam (brand + population), Nebraska was a king added, and RU & UMD bring a ton of TV sets. Adding various other ACC schools would also make sense.
In the second scenario, PSU & UNL were kings added. The gambit for extra TV revenue by adding RU and UMD would have failed, and only FSU of the ACC schools would make sense as an addition going forward.
In the third scenario, PSU, UNL, & RU would be “meh”, but adding UMD and the basketball powers in the ACC would make a ton of sense.
In all scenarios, adding PSU, RU, UMD, and the schools in the populous states of the ACC adds research heft to the CIC & increases the B10 brand to new students and companies in new populous parts of the country.
In all scenarios, expanding from 10 made a bunch of sense for the B10. In all scenarios, worst case, adding RU, UMD, and potentially schools like UNC, Duke, UVa, and GTech adds heft to the CIC & increases the B10 brand to new students and companies in new populous parts of the country.
I’ve called you out on this before (and noted that you didn’t respond; because you couldn’t possibly have a good rejoinder), but you can’t say with a straight face that it was good for ND to join the ACC because it can associate with schools like UMD, Duke, UNC, UVa, & GTech and help ND’s recruiting in the SE on the one hand yet say that it is bad for the B10 to associate with schools like UMD, Duke, UNC, UVa, & GTech (helping out B10 recruiting in the SE) on the other hand.
LikeLike
A few responses:
1. Straw men abound in your reply. Foootball drives expansion in the Big 10, first and foremost. It is not the only factor — but are you asserting that the decision model used by the Big 10 (Presidents, ADs and so on) is compensatory — that a candidate can be added to the Big 10 even if its addition is not projected to add to the BTN per member payout? That “research heft,” impact on CIC or fielding a top-flight non-football program can compensate for adding a football program to the conference that loses revenue for the current members? Really? This might be your implicit belief but it is most assuredly does not reflect the consensus on this board — else the board would be clamoring to add Duke, Kansas and Rice, for example. Clearly, it is a non-compensatory model — you must clear the football hurdle in order to be a candidate for expansion. Maybe OU was denied for other reasons, but other reasons do not lead to membership if the school can’t clear the football hurdle in the Big 10.
2. Your statement
“In all scenarios, adding PSU, RU, UMD, and the schools in the populous states of the ACC adds research heft to the CIC & increases the B10 brand to new students and companies in new populous parts of the country.”
makes little sense for today’s world. The Big 10 does not have to add Georgia Tech for Coca-Cola to recruit undergraduates from the Kelley School of Business at IU. The Big 10 does not need to be on the Yes Network to entice Citibank to travel to Bloomington.
Explain the scenarios in which you believe that a Big 10 university will attract a company or student to its campus if UVA is added to the Big Ten? What is the logical progression that starts at “GT is now a member of the Big 10 to I will now put X on my Top Tier Recruiting List for my Company”? Moreover, do you really think that the BTN “university spots” during a broadcast will lead a potential undergraduate with a 1510 SAT to say — I had never heard of Northwestern until I watched their women play lacrosse, maybe I will do a google search (“mom, was that Northwestern or Northeastern”) or a graduate student contemplating a doctoral program in nanotechnology sees the Illinois woman’s gymnastics team on BTN and wonders — I wonder how good is the program in Nano Research at Urbana-Champaign? I am confident that the right people in the right target markets will be aware of top flight schools and programs at Big 10 universities even if the Big 10 does not have a member school located within driving distance of his or her house. If not, then a truly undiscovered variable in recruiting has been identified on this board and I will urge Jim Delaney to petition the NCAA to make cricket an official sport. Then, the Big 10 should extend offers to IIT-Madras, Kanpur, Bombay and Hyderabad to become members of the newly-launched Big 10 Men’s Cricket league (think of the students? the companies (Tata?) and the cable revenues for the BTN?).
Also, if GT is added as a member of the Big 10, why will the next top running back in Georgia spurn Alabama for a scholarship at Minnesota? How does the inclusion of a nearby university exert a significant positive effect on the decision to join a university in the Big 10 that you were not already inclined to join? Again, what is the chain of decisions that link expansion of the Big 10 into new geographies and recruiting of students, employers and football players to current members of the Big 10? This is a negligible effect — and it is not the rationale for Big 10 expansion — which is greater potential revenue for the BTN and not a reputational effect generated by adding members in new geographies.
LikeLike
rich2,
Clearly I’m not Richard nor do I speak for him. That said …
“1. Straw men abound in your reply. Foootball drives expansion in the Big 10, first and foremost.”
I’d actually say money is the primary factor. It happens that TV for FB is the biggest source of athletic money, but MBB can be a big source (Duke) and research money dwarfs athletic money (JHU). Clearly academics has been a fixed hurdle that any school had to clear before football could matter. The reverse isn’t true (RU and UMD football).
“It is not the only factor — but are you asserting that the decision model used by the Big 10 (Presidents, ADs and so on) is compensatory — that a candidate can be added to the Big 10 even if its addition is not projected to add to the BTN per member payout?”
I think they look at total money and don’t care how exactly you get there.
“That “research heft,” impact on CIC or fielding a top-flight non-football program can compensate for adding a football program to the conference that loses revenue for the current members?”
What is that hypothetical school? Duke and KU would both add a lot via hoops as well as increasing inventory in FB. A sizable number of BTN subscriptions would come from adding them, too.
“Also, if GT is added as a member of the Big 10, why will the next top running back in Georgia spurn Alabama for a scholarship at Minnesota? How does the inclusion of a nearby university exert a significant positive effect on the decision to join a university in the Big 10 that you were not already inclined to join? Again, what is the chain of decisions that link expansion of the Big 10 into new geographies and recruiting of students, employers and football players to current members of the Big 10? This is a negligible effect — and it is not the rationale for Big 10 expansion — which is greater potential revenue for the BTN and not a reputational effect generated by adding members in new geographies.”
To be clear, it’s your contention that the SEC doesn’t recruit better in TX now that TAMU has joined than it did before? Does the B10 not recruit better in PA since adding PSU?
LikeLike
Based on 1 year, the SEC isn’t doing any better in Texas than before excluding Texas A&M. Alabama got 2 top prospects, but winning 3 out of 4 MNCs will do that for you. The rest of the SEC got fewer prospects than normal from Texas. Maybe the people they would have gotten are going to A&M.
You can’t judge an impact from 1 year, but there isn’t any impact yet.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/22045063/mlb-creating-committee-to-study-decline-in-african-american-players
I think at least part of the reason the number of African-Americans in baseball has declined has to do with the lack of baseball scholarships colleges can offer. NCAA Division I schools are allowed only 11.7 baseball scholarships, and many fund fewer. Other sports like football (85 scholarships in the FBS) and basketball (13 in Division I) can offer more, which may be luring young athletes — of all races, not just African-Americans — away from the diamond.
I agree.
LikeLike
While I would like to add more scholarships to baseball (and men’s track & field, swimming, and probably some other sports), African-Americans are barely ‘under represented’ in MLB. I’m surprised noone in the media ever bothers to look at the numbers closely.
The article you linked to says 8.5% of MLB players were African American. However, only 72% of players were US-born*.
(8.5/72) * 100 = 11.8% of all US MLB players were African American. According to the 2010 census, Black/African American are 12.6% of US population. Very close to the MLB numbers.
* http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2013/04/03/over-28-percent-players-were-foreign-born-in-mlb-opening-day/
LikeLike
I’m sure the numbers are out there, but how does the percentage compare to males 18-40?
LikeLike
Using this chart (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0010.pdf) which doesn’t separate for gender, I came up with Blacks as 14.1% of the population 20-39, certainly more significant.
LikeLike
Thanks for doing the research for me. If we assume a male/female ratio of 49/51 we can assume your revised number is probably slightly higher.
LikeLike
Say what you want about the ethnic-cultural differences between Black Americans & Afro Latin ball players, but I think it’s pretty obvious Afro Latin players share plenty of West African history with Black Americans – genetic similarities aside. The tragic Slave Trade struck Latin American and the Caribbean as well, in some cases the Black populations down there are much greater, per capita, than the U.S.
A big reason why Afro Latin ball players continue to enter MLB in great numbers: historical legacy-ties with the Negro Leagues.
Is there a legitimate decline of Black Americans in baseball? Sure. But there are plenty of non-Black Americans who are Black, just not American, playing baseball. Such differences are cultural & ethnic, not genetic. Thus, let’s separate the racial component of this debate – plenty of Black folks still playing baseball, just not of the American type.
LikeLike
I think it has more to do with the increased exposure to the NBA, and the crazy lottery money involved without years of achievement justifying(?) it. Does anyone think we’d see someone today make the choice Tony Gwynn did? First round draft in both NBA and MLB (good trivia: only one so drafted by teams in the same city), and chose baseball. What African American MLB “role models” can compete with LeBraun, Kobe, Durrant, Rose, etc?
LikeLike
@cc – I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, but I think picking basketball over baseball isn’t a slam dunk. For one, MLB signing bonuses for first round draft picks are not exactly small. Secondly, careers in baseball for position players tend to be much longer and thus more lucrative than a career in the NBA.
LikeLike
Well football and basketball are the “cool” sports these days. The best athletes tend to gravitate to them. They are also easier to do in pickup games. There aren’t as many kids these days as a % of the population and lots tend to be smaller, so you can’t just line up a bunch of neighborhood kids and play between houses. The kids are more spread out. So you tend to have to be in organized leagues very early. That can be expensive and tends to require transportation. So it isn’t as much a sport for poor kids. And poor kids of all ethnic groups are disproportionately represented among the top athletes in sports.
Baseball was just a bigger deal is the 60s. The rise of the NFL and NBA and their own self-destructive behavior has bled the game of US athletes.
LikeLike
I argue with my family over this all the time. IMO, the reason for the decline of blacks in baseball is mostly about choice. But a small component can be attributed to high school athletics and focus on specialization.
AAU basketball and Travel league baseball consume the entire summer and are the focus of most scouts these days. Both of these activities seek to maximize their talent pool by targeting specific demographics (AAU – Inner City; Summer Baseball – Suburbs)
Thus, isn’t asking about a lack of blacks in baseball the equivalent of asking were are the whites in Basketball? Regardless, I think you will see a return of black to baseball as more info comes out about football and CTE.
LikeLike
Mike.
I agree, baseball is a much safer physically, offers longer career, lucrative for not just the top few (how many farm teams for each MLB franchise average). But, you are assuming teenagers and younger are going to be thinking that out rather than, well, thinking like a kid.
LikeLike
Of note:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/community/rbi_facts.jsp
LikeLike
But, you are assuming teenagers and younger are going to be thinking that out rather than, well, thinking like a kid.
@cc – that’s why I said you weren’t necessarily wrong. There are some kids who will choose basketball no matter what. However, to some, baseball will be a very attractive option. Just because someone is 18 doesn’t necessarily mean they are immature. There are a lot of kids who had more figured out at 18 than I did at 25.
LikeLike
Best sport to play for glory in high school and college:
(1) Football
(2) Basketball
*BIG GAP*
(3) Baseball
Best sport to play for purely making money in the pros:
(1) Baseball
(2) Basketball
*BIG GAP*
(3) Football
Best sport to play if you want to be a celebrity:
(1) Basketball
(2) Football
*BIG GAP*
(3) Baseball
LikeLike
Mike:
By 18 the decision has long since been made, aside from the rare freak that can change sport/specialty at an age most have already been scouted and evaluated for years. Scillies offers to middle schoolers? Sports decisions are being made then, unless there are mentors that insist on broad experience at least through a couple years of HS.
LikeLike
Best sport to play if you’re only one of the best 500 players in the world but not one of the top 100 players (and don’t play soccer):
1. Baseball
2. Basketball
3. Football/Hockey
I think kids generally play what they have fun at, but if they were rational, they’d realize that
1. It’s pretty easy to tell fairly early on whether you have the potential to make a ton of money playing basketball (and if you’re not one of a handful of kids, the answer is likely “no”). Hint: It helps if you’re tall.
2. There are sports like baseball (& maybe hockey) where some athletic ability & lots of hard work can net you millions as well as your health by age 40.
LikeLike
@cc – weren’t we talking about someone who has the choice to pick sports like Tony Gwynn?
LikeLike
@Frank – I’m curious how you came up with your celebrity rankings.
LikeLike
Mike:
Perhaps I was unclear. I was talking about Gwynn as a role model for youth to look follow. Dave Winfield is another example, drafted in three sports, though I don’t believe he played FB in college. Role models that some might emulate by not limiting themselves to only one sport at a young age. They are/were examples, a proof that specialization isn’t absolutely required to reach the top level.
LikeLike
@Frank
What about Michael? He really wanted to play baseball. So did Bo.
LikeLike
Jordan gave up baseball too early to ever be good at it.
Bo Jackson could have been a 400-HR man, however, if he had given up that other sport and not gotten injured. Not quite HoF material, but a local legend.
LikeLike
Jeff Samardzija chose baseball over football even though he was considered a first round talent in both sports.
LikeLike
Of course what this article fails to mention is that one of the major reasons for the drop in the % African-Americans in MLB is because the explosion in international recruiting has caused the % of all Americans in MLB to drop…
LikeLike
Baseball has had foreigners/Latinos for a long time. The Asian player is new. As bullet said, the availabity of “sandlot” baseball has disappeared in the inner city. MLB has programs working to try to restore it there.
LikeLike
True… but it has only been since the 90’s that the Latino market has true exploded.
That said, you are right that there are other factors also.
LikeLike
You may be right. I may be influenced by personal memory of Juan Marachel, Fernando Valenzuela, Tony Conigliaro, Roberto Clemente, etc (forgive misspellings, radio was not best way to learn the correct). I may have even attributed foreign status to US born Latino players.
LikeLike
Probably true due to more extensive scouting. And the Cuban market has opened again. Tony Perez of the Reds was the last player out of Cuba for decades.
LikeLike
For example, the 90’s was when the big Dominican Republic production line started to really get into gear. There were obviously Dominican players before that, but AFAIU, the system that sees 95 out of 856 opening day roster spots filled by Dominican players was not as systematic before that.
LikeLike
Base revenue from football playoff for group of 5 conferences may be $1 million per school capped at $12 million dollars in order to deter expansion.
More money then split based on conference quality and playoff/bowl participation:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22045224/group-of-five-league-schools-could-see-1m-per-year-revenue-cap
LikeLike
Note this article also says the bowl slot is worth $6 million.
LikeLike
Here’s an article from the Detroit News quoting Michigan AD David Brandon about the future division alignment and the nine-game conference schedule.
There’s not much new here. Divisions based on geography with a nine-game conference schedule by 2016 is covered here.
Brandon notes the following:
“There are pros and cons to every structure you can imagine,” Brandon said. “There’s compromise in every structure you can come up with. What people have to understand is there are 14 teams, all of whom have preferences, all of whom have rivalries, all of whom have perspectives.
“What we work hard to do is come up with consensus. What that means is everybody doesn’t get what they want, but everybody gets a lot of what they want. Everybody isn’t getting the perfect world, but we’re trying to give everybody as much as possible.”
He also talks about how he wants a structure that protects UM’s games with Ohio State and Michigan State. Finally, Brandon says he’s pleased the Big Ten seems to be leaning toward fewer locked-in cross-over rivalry games, which gives teams more access to play other teams.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130410/SPORTS0201/304100415#ixzz2Q5ztBMVK
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-spt-uic-missouri-valley-20130409,0,7692014.story
Back to MVC expansion. 4 schools have emerged lately to become the leading candidates:
Illinois-Chicago
Belmont
Oral Roberts
UMKC
Will the MVC choose just one to replace departing Creighton, or add multiple schools in order to get both markets and some recent basketball success? 2 of the above are private, 2 are public. Is that still a factor? I’m surprised that UW-Milwaukee is not one of the finalists.
If I’m the MVC commissioner, I pretty much let Wichita State name their pick. If WSU were to leave the Valley for some other league at this point it would be a huge blow for the MVC.
LikeLike
UW-Milwaukee would have been a great candidate a few years ago, but they brought in a goofy athletic department head (I think he had been at Ohio State) who changed the program. UW-Milwaukee is mostly a commuter school and the BB team was playing downtown in an arena formerly used by the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA. The new head tried to model them after OSU and focus on making it more like the non-commuter model. He moved the team back into an on campus court which is basically a large glorified high school gym (Klotche Center). Many of the alumni stopped going and the crowds dropped way off until they are dreaming of getting 1500 a game when they used to get a lot better in downtown Milwaukee. A lot of the players left the team. The team plunged to the bottom of the Horizon league. Now I don’t think anyone wants UW-M (at least until they repair their damaged program).
LikeLike
Apparently the PAC CEO’s find the officiating “problems” a bit more disconcerting than it being an embarrassment. Per Wilner: “Reaction I: An independent review is one thing. An independent review ordered up by the CEO Executive Committee? That’s an entirely different matter, folks. I can’t remember the last time the CEOs got involved in athletic business that wasn’t 1) expansion, 2) billion-dollar TV deals or 3) the college football playoff. The fact that the presidents and chancellors are interested in an issue that’s typically considered day-to-day conference business tells you just how how far RefGate rippled through the conference, from the home office in Walnut Creek to every campus and into the halls of power.”
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/04/11/actionreaction-pitino-into-the-hall-of-fame-the-pac-12-takes-a-closer-look-at-refgate-and-more/
LikeLike
FWIW the SEC is also in the market for a new coordinator of officials. No scandal, but they didn’t renew the contract of the last guy after a season of complaints about the quality of officiating.
LikeLike
We’ve talked about the possibility of a new NCAA top division forming if the stipend for athletes is blocked by the current membership. Mrsec.com pointed out this article in the chronicle of Higher Education acknowledging the possibility:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/ncaa-faces-continuing-opposition-on-increasing-aid-to-players/32843
Nothing new there, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it brought up publicly in awhile.
LikeLike
Texas voted against the proposal because they thought it didn’t go far enough. They wanted to be able to provide proportional amounts to athletes on partial scholarships. The original proposal would only have applied to full scholarships. So it would be a benefit for football, M&W basketball, W volleyball and a handful of others, but not apply to most sports.
LikeLike
I’m conflicted. What good does this do for the walkons that are essential in many sports and at many schools that don’t/can’t fund the full allotment now? How will those essential walkons feel as their scollie teammates now get even more? Would a specific amount divided by the full roster limit, and disbursed to that roster, present an insurmountable problem?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’m conflicted. What good does this do for the walkons that are essential in many sports and at many schools that don’t/can’t fund the full allotment now?”
Absolutely nothing.
“How will those essential walkons feel as their scollie teammates now get even more?”
Considering a scholarship can be worth $50k+ per year and they also can’t eat at the training table and other things, I doubt it would matter much.
“Would a specific amount divided by the full roster limit, and disbursed to that roster, present an insurmountable problem?”
Probably, because then you are paying athletes to play. It’s one thing to say a “full” scholarship should really be a full scholarship, it’s another to say people not on scholarship should get $1500. That’s pure pay for play. If it wasn’t worth it to them, the walk-ons wouldn’t do it.
LikeLike
they could (for example) say a football team gets 85 full scholarships but can then give partial scholarships to other players. The team might get up to 3 extra scholarships to be divided, with the only provision that no single player can receive more than 1/3 of a full scholarship.
Partial scholarships are what most players on the baseball, track and field, or swim teams get.
LikeLike
They aren’t going to raise the limit. They could make it 80 full rides and partials that add up to 5 total (to split over the other 25) or 75 and 10 (for the other 30).
LikeLike
m(Ag): But football is a head-count sport ~ even if a school gave 20 full scholarships and 65 half scholarships, it counts under the 85. Basketball is also a head count sport. Its hard to see how you could be partially a Full Time Equivalent counting sport and partially a head-count sport.
LikeLike
ccrider was asking if some money could go to walk-ons instead of just benefiting the guys on full-scholarship. If you wanted to offer some resources specifically for them, you could amend the regulations to allow a certain amount of partial scholarships that couldn’t go to the full scholarship players.
LikeLike
But that seems to be assuming that there is not a *reason* that the revenue sports are headcount scholarship sports, that it just happened to be written that way. I’d expect it happened as a result of some issue with partial scholarships in revenue sports and the prospect it offers to increase the numbers of players on scholarship in revenue sports.
Indeed, encouraging schools to sign players with promises of partial scholarships seems to run counter to the move to increase scholarships up to cover the full cost of attending school.
LikeLike
Looks like there will be a formal announcement on the SEC Network on 8/14.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
The SEC and ESPN plan to formally announce the creation of an SEC channel on Tuesday. The two parties have begun to reach out to key constituents to let them know about the 12:00pm ET announcement at the Atlanta Hyatt. University presidents, ADs, SEC Commissioner Mike Slive, ESPN execs and the conference’s corporate sponsors are among those being invited to the news conference. The SEC and ESPN have been working on plans to form a channel since the fall of ’11, and the new channel is expected to launch in August ’14.
The channel is expected to have its studio headquarters in Charlotte at the ESPN Regional Television offices, while the primary sales outlet will be based in Atlanta.
——————————————————————————–
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2013/04/12/SEC.aspx
LikeLike
Oops…I meant the announcement is set for this Tuesday, and the network is set to launch in August of 2014.
LikeLike
Is that when tier three content becomes (more) available?
LikeLike
Yep, that is when the contract ESPN has with the local stations runs out for the tier 3 content.
LikeLike
Well, technically the Comcast & FSN rights are tier 2 that ESPN re-sold to those networks.
According to the article others posted below, the Comcast deal ends in time for the new network. The FSN deal lasts another year; apparently ESPN will be buying out the last year of that contract.
LikeLike
Here is some more details around the SEC channel that compliments @bamatab’s link posted above: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/2013/04/SEC.aspx
LikeLike
I thought this was interesting when it comes to their strategy for gaining distribution:
“Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. That gives ESPN a lot of flexibility to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations.
Such leverage is important, as negotiations with distributors have been the most difficult part in the launch of college conference networks. The Big Ten Network went through bruising carriage battles, particularly with Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The Pac-12 Networks still has yet to cut a deal with the nation’s biggest satellite distributor, DirecTV.”
LikeLike
Sounds like a winner.
LikeLike
Another interesting comment-that Arkansas and Kentucky along with Florida generated the most revenue on the IMG 3rd tier. Kentucky is clearly basketball driven. As is North Carolina.
LikeLike
Actually it said that Arkansas, Florida and Kentucky were among the schools where third-tier TV rights generated the most revenue, not that they alone generated more than all of the other SEC schools. But yeah, your point still remains. I can understand UF and UK (with their basketball), but Arky being up there is a little surprising. But I guess we have to keep in mind that it also included eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner; not just the one football game. Arky does have an outstanding track & field team, plus their baseball team is pretty good. I’m not sure how much those sports draw for them on a pay-per-view type basis though.
LikeLike
Arkansas had a long period where they were very good in basketball. And they own the state, like UK. LSU is the only other of the SEC-12 schools that doesn’t have serious competition for the casual fan. UGA is well ahead of GT, but GT does have some fans. And Tennessee is way off on one end of the state. The rest share the state.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“Oops…I meant the announcement is set for this Tuesday, and the network is set to launch in August of 2014.”
I was wondering. This has dragged on long enough as it is. Waiting until August would be ridiculous.
LikeLike
The channel is expected to have its studio headquarters in Charlotte at the ESPN Regional Television offices, while the primary sales outlet will be based in Atlanta.
That ISP acquisition is getting more interesting by the day. Usually when you buy the smaller company they have to move where the bigger company is based. Makes me think 1 of 2 things will happen long term.
a) UNC will be in the SEC before the new agreement expires
b) ESPN controlling the SEC without SEC folks owning or working for ESPN means long term the SEC will move to own their content.
I have a hard time thinking the B1G HQ would operate their media out of say Dallas where the B12 is the local conference footprint.
LikeLike
On the other hand, it saves several million in start-up costs to use an existing facility and staff. ESPN may be “encouraged” to open a satellite studio in Atlanta once things are up and running.
LikeLike
True, Atlanta makes the most sense for a new studio but what I was more surprised at was ESPN picking Charlotte over Orlando as Orlando is in the SEC footprint and the whole conference has been to Orlando more than Charlotte. The point still stands that if this is a billion dollar + deal spending a million in Atlanta or less in Orlando makes more sense. When ESPN did the LHN (for a single school and a substantially lower overall value) they built new facilities in Texas. Maybe I am reading too much into this but the announcement of Charlotte coupled with the UNC AD saying they need to grow revenues by 40% seems like the pump is primed to put the Tar Heels into the SEC pocketbook and keeping the office in NC was a trade for UNC to the SEC.
LikeLike
ESPN has an extensive set-up in Charlotte already as it’s where they run their regional stuff from already. Why replicate it (and the relationships amongst the staff) when you already have it? Besides, this gives ESPN more reason to say no the ACC Network since the Charlotte facility will be otherwise occupied.
LikeLike
I don’t know if the location has anything to do with UNC, but I doubt it is a main reason. I guess it could be a background factor. Like it or not, even though ESPN already had a vested interest in the SEC, it now has an even greater interest since it will have some form of ownership in the new SECN. So it is definitely in ESPN’s interest for UNC (if they are going to leave the ACC) to go to the SEC as opposed to the B1G. But I don’t think the main reasoning for Charlotte is UNC.
But I think UNC (and the other ACC schools that can get into the SEC or B1G) will end up having no choice but to jump due to the future revenue gap. I just think the gap will end up getting too big IMO.
LikeLike
More details. The SEC schools have bought back their digital rights from their 3rd tier rights holders and will in turn sell it to ESPN has expected.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/2013/04/SEC.aspx
LikeLike
No mention of ownership breakdown. Almost sounds like instead of coming up with a network name, the conference might consider remaining itself ES(EC)PN conference.
Just kidding. But seriously, what level of control and for how long does the mothership now have? Will this be a straight rights payment contract? Or will it be a shared profit venture?
LikeLike
Out of the three models we have:
1. LHN – ESPN owned, flat rights fee
2. BTN – Split ownership, flat rights fee with profit sharing
3. PTN – Wholly owned
I’m guessing it will look more like the LHN than then BTN. I just don’t see ESPN giving the SEC 49 or 51 percent ownership for the worst 15 football games on the schedule when they will be providing much more valuable content to the SECN.
LikeLike
Mike – I don’t know what model will be used, but the SECN won’t just be getting the “worst 15 football games”. The SECN will be getting the games currently sub-licensed to FSN and Comcast, and additional games due to the addition of Mizzou and A&M. Even with an ESPNU game, on any given weekend, the SECN will be broadcasting the 5th or 6th best game on down to the worst game. That sounds like a lot of inventory to me. The big question will be the exclusivity of the 3:30pm Eastern time slot with CBS. Last season, way too many good games were jammed into the noon slot, including LSU at A&M.
LikeLike
Alan – Sorry for not being clear. I’m saying all the SEC is bringing to the table to get equity in the SECN is those 14 games*. The SECN will have those sub-licensed games and probably some games from ESPNU/ESPN2, but ESPN already owns those games. ESPN is contributing higher value content (i.e. conference games), production, and distribution to the SECN. The value of which is much higher than what the SEC is contributing. That’s why I don’t think the SEC will get 51/49% unless they contribute something else (like extend their ESPN contract).
*15 was a typo. plus the inventory in my quote below https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/back-home-big-ten-division-thoughts-and-sweet-missouri-valley-conference-expansion/#comment-164220
LikeLike
If you read the snippets that I posted above, the SECN will be able to use all of the content except the content that CBS owns. ESPN was already forced to farm out some of the content they already owned to local stations because they had more than they could show on the ESPN family of networks. Now they will have that content back by 2014, plus the 1 game per team that the teams kept (not to mention any content that they normally would show on the ESPN family of networks). That is a lot of content.
LikeLike
The SEC is bringing 12 tier 3 football games,13-14 additional football games a year representing A&M and Missouri home games, a lot of men’s basketball games, and the majority of games in all other sports that will be placed on the network.
LikeLike
How was the additional Missouri/A&M inventory used this past season? Soaked up by the ESPN contract (minus one game per school) and sub-licensed? Or did the conference as a whole end up with additional content?
LikeLike
@m (Ag) – I did forget those Mizzou and A&M games. Thanks for pointing that out. If you compare what the Big Ten brought to the table for its ownership share, the SEC still a little short. According to Matt Sarz (and if I counted right) the BTN showed 42 games last year. I’m sure in their negotiations ESPN was all too happy to point that out.
I’m more than ok with being wrong on this. I actually hope the SEC gets their ownership percentage.
LikeLike
ESPN and CBS came to some sort of temporary agreement on what the SEC would get paid last year (I think the conference basically got paid the same amount per school).
ESPN aired the extra inventory of football on its networks. ESPN or ESPN2 often had a 12 ET SEC game last year to handle the extra games.
LikeLike
It isn’t clear who owned those A&M and Missouri games. It all depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN and CBS have to pay something for them, but may have “ownership” just as they do for the original 12’s games. But with everything being re-worked, that could just be semantics. The ESPN deal is going to look different now.
LikeLike
@M(Ag),
I still don’t believe that. ESPN deliberately paid a premium in 2007 to buy the SEC content and prevent them from forming a network. If their Sun-belt conference contract foresaw expansion, surely their SEC deal did. Those are more than likely ESPN’s games by default.
I have no doubt that CBS and ESPN owed the SEC money and the amount would likely be settled by arbitration if an agreement was reached. That said, this isn’t a Big Ten scenario where the 2nd and 3rd tier rights holder happened to be a conference joint venture and they could just tell ESPN that BTN will take the extra inventory.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that CBS and ESPN owed the SEC money and the amount would likely be settled by arbitration if an agreement was reached.
@Nostradamus – Why do you think CBS owed more money? Didn’t the CBS deal cover X games and that number wasn’t increased by expansion, was it?
LikeLike
The great thing about your prognosticatoins this time, Nostradamus, is that we’ll find out just how right or wrong you are in 3 or 4 days.
LikeLike
I think you’re all overstating what ESPN’s giving up and understating what it will receive with just a 50% ownership stake.
If you take the tier 3 games, the games brought by adding A&M and Missouri, and the games previously re-sold to FSN and Comcast, you have about 3 football games a week already; that’s enough to run a network. Under that scenario, ESPN would have provided only 1/3 of the football content, and will only have lost the revenue it got from re-selling games to FSN and Comcast. Once the start-up costs are recouped, a 50% stake in the SECN will earn far more than they got selling those games to competitors.
ESPN could increase demand for the network by moving the syndicated over-the-air package to the new cable network; by moving 1 game a week from ESPNU or ESPN2 to the new network, or simply changing the selection order so that the SECN will get some better games at the expense of ESPNU.
Any of these would mean ESPN would be contributing somewhat more, maybe even a whole 50% of the football programming! ESPN still would get more than it lost once the network gets going with just a 50% share.
Furthermore, the rights-fees for any games ESPN transfers to the SECN will surely be charged to the SECN, which is half-owned by the conference itself. So the rights fees on the games it gives up will effectively drop 50% even as its potential for profit on those fees increases.
A similar ratio of programming would be true for men’s basketball. With the possible exception of women’s basketball, ESPN probably won’t need to transfer a game of any other sport to the SECN; the SEC itself will provide all the content. And, of course, coaches shows and historical games that might be aired on the SECN will be provided by the conference and not ESPN.
To summarize, ESPN really won’t be giving up much in terms of programming for its networks for a 50% share in a network all the analysts are saying will be profitable.
LikeLike
@Mike,
I’ve been pretty adamant here that CBS shouldn’t be paying much more at all. Even without any additional games they still are getting access to two additional schools though. Missouri was on CBS twice last year, and A&M was on once. At the very least, the contract probably dictates that they pay an equal share for the two additions. I think that is fair and possibly a slight increase is warranted due to the access to potential addentional content. I am not saying CBS needed to open up the piggy bank.
@ Andy,
Mike pretty much summed up my thoughts above on the issue. “I’m more than ok with being wrong on this. I actually hope the SEC gets their ownership percentage.”
I don’t have any ill will towards Mike Slive or the SEC. Given the circumstances though in my opinion, I’ve laid out my thinking over the past several years. I don’t pretend to be all knowing. I fully admit I could be wrong, and If I am… That is great for the SEC. I think any increased value the SEC gets here will benefit “my” conference the Big Ten in their 2017 negotiations as well.
LikeLike
Without more games, CBS is basically getting two schools who would on average be in the middle of the SEC, so they wouldn’t be on the air much. Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and LSU all have higher national profiles (and 5 have MNCs in the BCS era). South Carolina and Arkansas are equivalent in profile. SEC already got pretty good ratings in Texas. So CBS doesn’t gain much if any value.
LikeLike
@bullet,
I agree. I’ve said from the start, from CBS’ perspective A&M and Missouri create value in one of the two following ways: 1) Adding the markets increases the average CBS broadcast 2) Missouri and A&M vs. SEC team X or Y increase the average CBS SEC ratings. On Point 1, that is a difficult path to pave as CBS is already a national network. Any viewership gains are minimal at best. On point 2, I agree with you as well… Two middle of the road SEC teams aren’t going to move the needle much there either. I still think CBS likely ended up or ends up paying an equal share for the additions and maybe slightly more. Nothing major, and nothing major was warranted from CBS’ perspective by the additions.
LikeLike
@m (Ag),
“I think you’re all overstating what ESPN’s giving up and understating what it will receive with just a 50% ownership stake.”
It is certainly possible, but I would turn this around and say try looking at this from ESPN’s perspective. Even if you could the games the “SEC is bringing to the table” as SEC controlled games, what could the conference do with those games on their own? From my perspective nothing… ESPN has a tremendous amount of leverage here.
“If you take the tier 3 games”
What could the SEC do with these 14 games alone? It obviously depends on the wording of the ESPN contract, but I’m not convinced they can do anything with these games on their own without ESPN. That alone would eliminate one of the SEC’s big trump cards.
“the games brought by adding A&M and Missouri,”
And again, I’m not convinced these are the conference’s games.
“ and the games previously re-sold to FSN and Comcast,”
This is flat out inventory ESPN already paid for and controls.
“ you have about 3 football games a week already; that’s enough to run a network. Under that scenario, ESPN would have provided only 1/3 of the football content,”
Again that is fairly debatable. If ESPN paid for the rights to every SEC football game except one game retained by the schools and had the option to purchase any additional inventory created by expansion, then no ESPN isn’t only providing 1/3 of the content. They are providing everything other than the 14 school retained games. And again, it is questionable what the conference could do with those 14 games banded together if anything under the existing contract.
“To summarize, ESPN really won’t be giving up much in terms of programming for its networks for a 50% share in a network all the analysts are saying will be profitable.”
To me, it still comes down to leverage. If you believe as I do, that everything other than the 1 school retained football game has already been paid for by ESPN… They have a significant amount of leverage here. I fully understand that even under a 50/50 split ESPN likely stands to make more on the content under an SEC network scenario than the current sublicense situation. If you believe the content is ESPN’s though, you are where Frank, myself, and others are at that ESPN is going to need something along the lines of an SEC extension on the present secondary rights contract to act here.
LikeLike
I don’t pretend to be all knowing.
I’m just teasing you, but I you did pick the name Nostradamus
LikeLike
I agree. Slive hinted it could be a LHN type deal before the serious negotiations began. I think ESPN is going to be the owner. I realize many here disagree with that, but we’ll know soon enough.
LikeLike
…and just to be clear, there are way’s the SEC could get to the 49 or 51% ownership. I just think they’ll have to kick in something else.
LikeLike
Nostradamus’s article contains a valuation of the SEC’s third tier rights.
Those third-tier TV rights represent one football game, eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner.
[snip]
The value of the third-party rights the conference bought back is significant and comes after nine months of off-and-on negotiations. The rights holders agreed to give up TV rights valued at roughly $15 million a year. In return, those rights holders will lessen the guarantees to their schools by the same amount — a little more than $1 million a year for each school — for the next several years, industry sources said.
LikeLike
I noticed that too. It backs up my contention that the football game and assorted basketball and other sport contests were worth about $1-2 million per school on average. I know some of our SEC fans were convinced it was well higher than that.
LikeLike
That’s what was worth when shown on local/regional third tier tv. But what is it worth when packaged nationally into an SECN?
LikeLike
No doubt more (and no one has ever questioned that). I was merely commenting about how for probably 10 years I’ve heard things like “comparisons between conference television contracts aren’t valid becuse the SEC is earning $5 million more than School X or Y in 3rd tier rights” or that extra football and basketball game is worth “5-7” million per school, etc. I always thought that was high. Researching IMG/Learfield deals for schools backed that up. Knowing what schools were getting paid for PPV’s in the Big XII and the terms the schools had also backed that up.
LikeLike
Its pretty commonly accepted that OU got in that $5-$7.5 million range from Fox. Now that “commonly accepted” doesn’t include an SBJ or ESPN article confirming it. And the rest of the schools don’t have those type of numbers. But it is known WVU got $9 million/year for the whole 3rd tier rights package. NCSU just a few months earlier without the TV rights only got $4.5 million.
LikeLike
Well, I did find a link someone posted on OU. They got an extra $7-$8 million between Leerfield and Fox. Fox was $58 million over 10 years.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/09/17/Media/Oklahoma.aspx
LikeLike
Also note that $15 million was what got bought back. Some agreements may have expired and not required a buyback.
LikeLike
Note that was not all that had to be bought back. There were additional rights IMG/Learfield/CBSSports had that are put in the package. That’s why IMG gets 15% of the payment for the LHN.
LikeLike
From the article:
“The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella. Being able to package TV and digital advertising in corporate sponsorship deals is considered a vital revenue component, and neither the conference nor ESPN wanted multiple partners selling those rights in the marketplace.
Digital rights for the SEC are coming back from XOS Digital, the company that created the SEC Digital Network in 2009, for an undisclosed sum. The SEC’s corporate sponsorship program has been sold and managed by IMG College in the past.
ESPN Regional will oversee the corporate sponsorship program. ESPN Regional also runs the Big 12’s sponsorship program. Ben May, general manager for IMG College’s SEC property, is considered a leading candidate to move with the sponsorship program over to ESPN Regional.”
LikeLike
Lets say the SEC doesn’t get at least 49% ownership in the SECN. How do you think SEC fans and media (i.e. Clay Travis, Mr SEC) will react? Is it ok to just get a flat rights fee?
LikeLike
@Mike – I’ll be interested to see how the ownership is dealt with. You’re right that just handing over 15 or so tier 3 games isn’t going to result in a high level of ownership by the SEC. Now, extending the contract long-term (10 or even 20 years beyond the original contract end date) could do the trick in theory.
LikeLike
That has been my thinking for the past two or so years as well.
LikeLike
Does anyone else feel that we really will only have one “conference” network? These are basically commercial, specialty channels like TMC, Nickelodium, Speed, etc with a different marketing strategy. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think you should own at least 51% to legitimately claim something as your own. Otherwise you are just joining someone else’s venture as an investor/supplier.
LikeLike
I don’t know. The Big Ten owned 51% of the BTN for the networks first 5 years and put in place the infrastructure and standard operating procedures the network has continued to use even with Fox taking the majority stake this year.
LikeLike
Marv Harshman has passed.
Dick Harter take no prisoners, the most important thing, super serious attitude, partially expressed by having the team stand at mid court and stare down the opposition during pregame layup drills. Harshman, and the team came out and went through normal pregame war ups, but wearing Groucho glasses. The ducks didn’t dare react or face Harters wrath. Huskies won the game in Eugene.
http://seattletimes.com/html/photogalleries/huskies2015194257/10.html?sports=/html/photogalleries/sports2020537132
LikeLike
For those in need of a Dude-like fantasy fix, here’s a classic from a Longhorns fan who sees Bevo as B1G bound within five years. The gravy of the post, however, are the comments. Priceless.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The B1G is clamoring for Texas Tech? I guess it is to lock that coveted Lubbock market down.
You’re right, the comments were well worth the read.
LikeLike
Finally, we know what they really meant when they spoke of the ‘Tech problem’; the Big Ten was looking to find a way to get Texas Tech without any of the other universities in the state!
LikeLike
My eyes are bleeding. Not so much from the nonsense of the writer, but the “understanding” of the responses is…Hey, is this a late April fools joke?
LikeLike
Wow, even the Dude might look askance at some of his claims.
“Physics is impossible to resist, and consistent gravity drawing the University of Texas to the Big Ten.”
It is? I haven’t noticed that, but I’m not in TX so I’ll reserve judgment.
“Commissioner Jim Delany will announce the expansion of the conference to 16 teams within the next three years,”
Sounds reasonable so far.
“and Texas will be the 15th member.”
Say what now? Was all this ACC talk just a misdirect? I have a really hard time seeing UT moving that soon with the LHN even if they wanted to move.
“What will happen eventually is that four conferences will amass 16 members each, abandon their NCAA membership, and form their own oversight organization that will allow them to self-govern in ways that suit them.”
This again?
“For the same group to enforce rules to regulate the athletic endeavors of operators as disparate as Alabama and Loyola of Chicago is lunacy. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, human beings demand logic. Logic requires that members of the SEC and Horizon League use separate business models and a much different legislative body to separate right from wrong.”
The NCAA has divisions for a reason. This sounds like an argument for a division split more than leaving the NCAA just to form NCAA v2.
“The race for the Pac 12, SEC, Big Ten, and ACC to reach 16 members each will run through Texas, and the Big Ten is the partner that fits best because it’s the conference that is the most profitable. The SEC is a superior brand, but when Texas A&M joined, Texas was effectively locked out.”
The ACC is going to make it to 16 and the B12 is going to disappear? Why? Also, the P12 makes a lot of money too with their new deal and UT and friends might feel more comfortable with some fellow baseball schools.
As for the gentlemen’s agreement, I’m not sure it applies to TX. If UT wanted in, I think they’d have the votes. Everyone else has too much to gain from adding them to support TAMU in keeping them out (if TAMU wants them out – they may prefer to rekindle the rivalry).
“Texas is currently a member of the Big 12, which continues to degrade under the weight of the deal designed to save the conference that allowed Texas to form the Longhorn Network.”
The degradation isn’t that apparent to me.
“So Missouri, Texas A&M, and Colorado joined Nebraska in vacating the Big 12,”
True.
” and several of the other schools would bail if a superior option existed.”
But they don’t have a superior option AFAIK. The B10, SEC and P12 don’t want most of them. Ignoring UT, OU and KU are the only other schools with tangible value to most leagues. Some will take a few others as part of a package deal, but that’s about it.
“The game for the conferences is in gathering TV markets,”
That’s for conferences with networks, meaning not the ACC.
” and the monster in the realignment is Texas because the brand for the Longhorns is statewide, and that state has the fifth largest market (Dallas), #10 (Houston), #37 (San Antonio), #49 (Austin), and #94 (Waco). That level of tonnage demands attention,”
Sure it does. TAMU brings some/much of that to the SEC already, though, so the math is different for them.
“and the Big Ten would become the unquestioned kings by coming to agreement with Texas.”
In money, probably. Not on the field unless they actually prove it.
“The motivation for Texas to leave the Big 12 is to maximize its negotiating position before the rest of the conference’s important members leaves. Waiting until Oklahoma and Oklahoma State bounce to the Pac 12 would change the dynamic entirely.”
You mean the OU/OkSU deal that the B10 and P12 have both already rejected conceptually?
“Texas would move immediately from buyer to seller, and they would run the risk of being the tallest midget along with Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, and the other bottom feeders among those that might not be invited to play with the big boys when the final deal goes down.”
UT will always have great options because of their value. OU is highly unlikely to leave without UT anyway.
What of the GOR?
What of the LHN?
What of the lack of a cultural bridge to the B10? Would KU be coming, too? Another 1-3 TX schools (Would the B10 accept any of them?)?
LikeLike
I’ll save you the time Brian.
Any discussion of Texas to the Big Ten is a waste of time right now.
It’s not possible for another 10 years at least (if the road hasn’t been foreclosed by Missouri going to the SEC – was one of the possible bridges to Texas in theory in the old plans).
1) Dodds and Powers have their own philosophy about what Texas needs; they’ve decided it’s better for Texas to have its own localized conference where travel needs are the top priority along with possession of their own solo network. In the future, Texas may have leaders who see things differently, but it’s clearly not the case right now.
2) All of these crazy scenarios that keep getting cooked up where Texas leaves the Big 12 seem to completely ignore the Grant of Rights. I’ll say it again; the Big Ten has no incentive to try to rock the boat on the Grant of Rights issue since the Big Ten itself has one (same story for Pac-12).
LikeLike
I agree, except you should have ended the justification at “…they’ve decided it’s better for Texas to have its own localized conference…”.
The LHN is merely the label of another ESPN channel. It’s theirs, not UT’s.
Travel issues are BS. Prior to air travel and interstate highways there were cross continent competitions, but keeping conferences regional was much more important.
Control is what the B12 affords UT, and what UT craves.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I’ll save you the time Brian.
Any discussion of Texas to the Big Ten is a waste of time right now.”
I know. I just give everyone a chance to show if they have some new line of thought that might justify a new scenario. As expected, he didn’t.
It’s more interesting to me than talking about the MVC.
LikeLike
This is an Indiana guy, not a Longhorn. Didn’t think any Longhorn would be so ignorant about Texas. Look at the links on the side and the Chicago Cubs stuff in the archive.
LikeLike
Must have been the size of that Texas logo. Still seeing burnt orange when I close my eyes.
LikeLike
So, golf joins the rest of the sports. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. And if you don’t get caught in the act…it’s cool.
Tiger could give his reputation, and golfs, a huge boost if he were to withdraw.
LikeLike
Definitely a real problem that it would have been a disqualification if it had been anyone but Tiger.
Clearly a situation where the ratings needs overruled the actual rules themselves…
LikeLike
So much for the “above any outside influence” of the Masters. It’s now just one of the four majors, at least for me. (And the honor of the self policing sport is gone)
LikeLike
A golf tournament, like any other…
(Tweet, tweet, chirp, chirp…)
LikeLike
Exactly. Why would they risk everything (they believe) they represent and what (supposedly) sets them apart on an aging anti-hero whose marketing campaign is ‘Winning takes care of Everything”. If Tiger pulls this off, that tag line will become synonymous with the Masters.
“I present to you your money green jacket, sir.”
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So much for the “above any outside influence” of the Masters. It’s now just one of the four majors, at least for me. (And the honor of the self policing sport is gone)”
Yeah, it was so much better when it was a bastion of honor that barred minorities and women from being members. I can totally understand why you’d venerate the good ole days at Augusta.
WTF?
LikeLike
It’s Sunday and this deserves an Amen!!!
LikeLike
I wasn’t defending their positions, just pointing out that holding to their principals (good or bad) no mater what seems no longer to apply. Perhaps standing against Martha Burke cost so much in covering lost ad revenue that they had to cave to media demands? Pockets not as deep as had been thought?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I wasn’t defending their positions,”
No, you were just saying how much better things were back then as if the blatant racism and sexism were less important than your interpretation of the rules of golf. I think it’s really tough to apply the word honor to a tournament at a club that only allowed minorities to play in the tournament because they had to and still wouldn’t let them be members.
Your version of honor sucks.
LikeLike
The single thing about Augusta that I have begrudgingly admired, even though I think they are racist male chauvinist pigs who answer only to themselves, is that they had been consistent is their despicable prejudice. I’m not sure admitting Condi Rice absolves them of much. Fact is I would have admired Tiger more had he chosen to never play there. That has no relation to how I feel about following the rules, and the spirit of games that are self policing.
Where is the ambiguity? “A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.”
LikeLike
TPTB say you’re reading the rule wrong. Since it’s their rule, that makes you wrong.
LikeLike
Brian:
Well, it means I lose the argument. It doesn’t mean I am wrong 🙂 .
LikeLike
zeek,
“Definitely a real problem that it would have been a disqualification if it had been anyone but Tiger.”
Based on what? The new rule clearly applies to this situation.
LikeLike
It doesn’t prohibit withdrawing. He intentionally took a bad drop to improve his reshot. He signed the card. This isn’t a case of slo mo replay detecting a double contact that night. The rule specifically is not to protect from “ignorance” of the rules. “A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.”
LikeLike
The whole field could withdraw. What’s your point? He has no reason to withdraw since the rules don’t call for it. It isn’t 1895 anymore.
They know the rules better than you do. They say the rule applies. You saying otherwise is meaningless. Get back to me when the USGA and/or R&A say the were wrong.
LikeLike
Quoting the rule not persuasive? Hum…
LikeLike
Not when the same people who wrote the rules disagree with you about their interpretation. I often disagree with the Supreme Court about what is constitutional, yet for some silly reason everyone takes their opinion over mine even if I quote the Constitution.
LikeLike
We can certainly agree there. My point about WDing is that players often have defended the game above what a rule committee might decide. I’m disappointed. I think Tiger just missed an opportunity to almost completely rehabilitate his image, and Nike a marketing opportunity to offset the winning fixes anything campaign.
LikeLike
I really don’t see how being a quitter would rehabilitate his reputation as a serial philanderer. People with moral objections to his sex life won’t forgive him because he quit the Master’s. Instead, he’d probably get pilloried for quitting rather than trying to overcome the penalty and actually earn a come from behind win.
LikeLike
Must be a flat lander. Don’t get the “taking the high road” thing?
LikeLike
1. I don’t believe it is a high road.
2. I don’t believe his critics would see it as one, either. Quitting would be a self-aggrandizing move to show up the tournament officials, or pouting, or being afraid of his deficit.
3. I don’t believe it cross-applies like that, anyway. People mad about infidelity aren’t going to forgive him because he quit a tournament.
LikeLike
1: we disagree, obviously.
2: all those who feel he is benefiting, or think he MAY be benefiting from a misapplied waiving of a rule wouldn’t. It would be seen as holding the spirit of the game above himself.
3: very probable.
But a #4: he might be seen by non-cynics as actually not looking to his self interest at all times. It would be a behavioral change.
LikeLike
I think it’s a case of the media being far more invested in Tiger winning than the general public. To the point of losing all objectivity, and now credibility. Now that they’ve decided to allow him to remain for ratings sake, you can bet those same people are praying he doesn’t win.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. That would be the best thing for everyone involved. Both Tiger and the Masters would benefit from doing the right thing. Sadly, that will probably be contingent on whether he has a good or bad day today.
LikeLike
Oops. This was supposed to be in response to
ccriders comment:
So, golf joins the rest of the sports. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. And if you don’t get caught in the act…it’s cool.
Tiger could give his reputation, and golfs, a huge boost if he were to withdraw.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Masters has a choice. The rules were changed back in 2011. You can’t disqualify someone for that anymore.
LikeLike
According to this article, he still should have been disqualified.
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-may-be-disqualfied-at-masters-after-penalty-drop/
“Rule 33 states that disqualification can be waived at the committee’s discretion. However, a decision that accompanies this rule says that the committee would not be justified to waive the DQ if it was a result of the player’s ignorance of the rules or if he could have reasonably discovered his mistake before signing his scorecard.
“There is some leeway with the signing the incorrect card. Not with intentionally not dropping as near as possible,” David Duval said on Twitter.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-may-be-disqualified-at-masters-after-penalty-drop/#ixzz2QMyZVzwa
LikeLike
The point is you disqualify yourself. Withdraw. Had he discovered the error during the round and signed a card with the additional 2 stroke penalty, I might grouse but accept it. He signed an inaccurate scorecard that wouldn’t have been changed without external input. We now have a sport that you benefit by not self policing and hope things go undetected. The honor system is gone.
LikeLike
bullet, a 2011 ruling said that players can no longer be disqualified for this sort of thing. The Masters had no choice.
http://onpar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/with-rule-revision-golf-gives-back-what-cameras-take-away/
cc, you’re basically saying that Tiger needed to go above and beyond the rules and quit the tournament because that is the honorable thing to do. You are of course welcome to have that opinion, but it’s a little extreme I’d say. Also, he’s in 17th place right now so it’s not like it’s going to affect the outcome of the tournament.
LikeLike
I guess I’m just not a fan of a sport where players are expected to disqualify themselves. Seems like it should be done by the officials. If he broke the rules, penalize him according to the rules. What a dumb system where he’s expected by many to go above and beyond the standard punishment of the rules and hand himself additional (severe) punishment. I mean, what the hell is that?
LikeLike
I actually have to agree with Andy here. Expecting Tiger to withdraw on his own would be like a basketball or football player kicking himself out of game for a foul/penalty when the officials didn’t hand out that punishment.
Also, there’s an inequity problem here. The only reason Masters officials reviewed Tiger’s drop initially (this was before his round was even finished) was that a TV viewer apparently informed them. (Oh, what I would give to be able to officially challenge Big Ten, NFL and NBA referee decisions from my couch!) It’s incredible that Augusta actually acknowledged that in its official statement. Well, Augusta, due to its Bill Wirtz-like TV restrictions, doesn’t allow any Masters TV coverage prior to 3 pm ET. So, another golfer could have had the exact same drop as Tiger earlier in the day, yet it would not have been noticed because it wasn’t televised. Why should a golfer whose shots are televised be more heavily scrutinized than one who isn’t in the exact same tournament? I don’t find that equitable. Everyone should have the same review standard applied to them.
Also, should Tiger’s intent matter here? Once again, Masters officials reviewed the shot prior to his round ending (when he could have been informed of a penalty assessment at that time and then adjusted his scorecard to be in compliance). However, they deemed the drop to be within the rules at that time. It was only after Tiger was interviewed on TV and explained his rationale for where he dropped the ball that Masters officials went back and reviewed it again. If Masters officials thought the drop was OK when looking at the video initially, why should Tiger’s subsequent comments have mattered? Once again, Tiger gets interviewed with a frequency of many magnitudes higher than any other golfer, so why should his public comments get used when officials independently determined that the drop was acceptable strictly looking at the video evidence (which would have been the review for every single other golfer that didn’t get interviewed)?
I have no problem at all with Tiger playing today based on how this went down. It would have been a disappointment for him or any other golfer to be disqualified under those circumstances.
LikeLike
Not a fan of honor? Of winning a competition, which to me can only be done within the rules? If you are cheating you are not trying to win, only steal the accolades of a champion. This is honor:
http://m.espn.go.com/extra/ncaa/story?storyId=3372631&src=desktop
The infraction was not discovered by replay. Tiger discribed it himself as going further back two yards from the original shot. The rule change shouldn’t apply.
“At issue is the occasion when a player is not aware he has breached a rule and could not reasonably be expected to have known. ”
Exactly which rules shouldn’t a professional in that sport not reasonably be expected to know? And if there is a question, the course marshals are there to assist. Only if he was given incorrect instruction from a marshal could I accept this.
LikeLike
FtT:
So you think the golfer a couple years ago that DQ’d himself when his wife informed he used the wrong balls was not right to do so? No body else knew. He just withdrew and announced the reason. He did not expect relief.
What would Ben, Arnold, or Jack have done?
LikeLike
Frank:
If the inaccurate drop was inadvertent that’s one thing. Tiger said it was to improve his second attempt. The intent creates the violation.
How does a professional as experienced as he is not know the drop rules? Haven’t heard a chorus of “wow, I didn’t know that” from other golfers.
LikeLike
Yeah but if he knew he was cheating why would he admit it to tv reporters? He’s not that dumb.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I actually have to agree with Andy here. Expecting Tiger to withdraw on his own would be like a basketball or football player kicking himself out of game for a foul/penalty when the officials didn’t hand out that punishment.”
Especially since all these pious talking heads never DQed themselves from a tournament with a multi-million dollar prize at stake.
I’m with you on the inequity issue, too.
LikeLike
I have DQ’d myself, and made decisions for teams and competitors I’ve coached that gave victory to the opponent, when it was the right thing to do. Was there piles of money on the line? No. Something money can’t buy was, though. Something golf may have just lost.
LikeLike
Tiger and the tournament are following the rules. Last I checked, that fits under doing the right thing. But maybe they should stand by their principals and kick him out for not being white and polluting their course with his very presence. That would be honorable. They could teach that lesson to lots of kids, too.
LikeLike
@Andy
Read the link I attached. If you deliberately drop it in a better position being ignorant of the rules is not an excuse. You are disqualified. And Tiger is paid enough and has played enough, he should know the rules. The new rule is if a TV viewer discovers the error on an inadvertent rule violation.
While I think the rules are pretty strict (a 2 stroke penalty s/b enough), its like the NBA giving advantages to Michael and Magic. Its just distasteful and unnecessary.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So, golf joins the rest of the sports. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. And if you don’t get caught in the act…it’s cool.”
Not true. He got penalized after the fact.
“Tiger could give his reputation, and golfs, a huge boost if he were to withdraw.”
That’s crap. The new rule specifically was designed for cases like this where the player’s score is changed after his card was signed. He’s following the rules of golf by playing.
The bigger question is why it wasn’t caught during the round. Apparently their officials don’t know the rules either.
LikeLike
Two huge assumptions. First, that Tiger and the marshals didn’t know the rules (riiight). And second, that there wasn’t notice taken and intentionally “overlooked” during the round. It certainly was being talked about prior to the rounds end. And neither of those are my concern. A self policed sport of honor has to depend on the integrity of the players. Name another player who signed a card with an admitted infraction that didn’t get DQed or withdraw in the last 150 years.
“David Duval, who once supplanted Woods as the world’s top-ranked player but is no longer a regular on the PGA Tour, went in Twitter to say his former rival should pull out of the year’s first major to make things right.
“Was there intent to break the rule is the question?” Duval wrote. “I think he should WD (withdraw). He took a drop to gain an advantage.”
Kyle Thompson, who plays on a lower-tier tour, felt Woods was getting preferential treatment – a perception that Augusta National strongly denied.
“I guess Tiger is BIGGER than golf,” Thompson tweeted. “Any other person in the world gets DQ’d. Gotta keep those TV ratings going right?””
As with other sports before it has become about the entertainment, to the point of fundamentally altering the rules governing the competition. How is this not a 180 degree shift in how you play, try to win in a gentlemen’s sport?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“First, that Tiger and the marshals didn’t know the rules (riiight).”
If they knew, this scenario wouldn’t exist. Tiger certainly wouldn’t have made that statement in his interview if he thought he was cheating. The marshals would have called him on it right away, too. But no, they even reviewed the video afterwards and determined it was OK.
“And second, that there wasn’t notice taken and intentionally “overlooked” during the round.”
Show that it was.
“It certainly was being talked about prior to the rounds end.”
And it was reviewed. And they decided it was OK.
“A self policed sport of honor has to depend on the integrity of the players. Name another player who signed a card with an admitted infraction that didn’t get DQed or withdraw in the last 150 years.”
The rules were different until 2011 IIRC. The previous 148 years are meaningless to the discussion. How many players since the new rule was passed have been DQed for an action that was deemed acceptable prior to signing their card but later deemed a violation?
LikeLike
Brian:
“And it was reviewed. And they decided it was OK.”
And then when light was shined on it, it suddenly wasn’t?
“The rules were different until 2011 IIRC. The previous 148 years are meaningless to the discussion. How many players since the new rule was passed have been DQed for an action that was deemed acceptable prior to signing their card but later deemed a violation?”
See bullet’s posts and my previous quotes. This is a misapplication of that 2011 rule covering late discovery of inadvertent and unintentional violations. Here are two rule book examples:
“For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.
A player’s ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)”
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And then when light was shined on it, it suddenly wasn’t?”
Yes. But as the new rule allows, they didn’t hold them changing their minds against him.
“The rules were different until 2011 IIRC. The previous 148 years are meaningless to the discussion. How many players since the new rule was passed have been DQed for an action that was deemed acceptable prior to signing their card but later deemed a violation?”
See bullet’s posts and my previous quotes.
I read them and discarded them. Why should I take either of you or your sources as a greater authority than the people actually in charge of golf? Has the USGA protested the decision? Is the R&A up in arms? I can quote laws and the common man will misinterpret them. That doesn’t make the common man correct.
Now answer the question. You’re alleging they treated Tiger specially in violation of their rules, so please list all the counterexamples of players that were DQed under the same or similar circumstances. If there are no counterexamples, then it’s your opinion against those who write and apply the rules. The experts get the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
The rule book, including included examples as to how/when the new rule shouldn’t apply, isn’t an acceptable source?
LikeLike
Show me any exception ever, including the last two years, of a player clearly breaking a rule, not self assessing the penalty, signing the card, which is specifically EXCLUDED from being subject to waiving or modifying the requirement to DQ introduced in 2011.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Show me any exception ever, including the last two years, of a player clearly breaking a rule, not self assessing the penalty, signing the card, which is specifically EXCLUDED from being subject to waiving or modifying the requirement to DQ introduced in 2011.”
1. You’re the one making the claim that TPTB erred (intentionally or not), so you’re the one that needs proof.
2. He didn’t “clearly” break a rule. If he had, it would’ve been caught before he left. Instead, it was specifically review and deemed OK. That’s the opposite of clearly breaking a rule.
3. It’s hard to untangle the end of that sentence, but I’ll say that it clearly isn’t EXCLUDED from from being waived since they waived it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“The rule book, including included examples as to how/when the new rule shouldn’t apply, isn’t an acceptable source?”
Not when the people that wrote the rules say you aren’t interpreting them correctly, no. Lots of people quote the Constitution or Bible and yet are horribly wrong.
LikeLike
And before you bother replying, I’m done with this topic. Neither of us is saying anything new at this point. Until the USGA or R&A have something to say on the topic, there’s nothing to discuss.
LikeLike
I’ll just leave this.
http://m.golf.com/392823/wrong-move-tiger/
LikeLike
Golf is definitely a different mentality than other sports. You have all the flops in basketball, the kickers faking a fall in football and the endless spitters/leaning into pitches/steroids/etc. in baseball.
Rule 33 seems pretty clear from a lay interpretation and your article with the “ignorance is not a defense” comment supports that. Yet no one addresses rule 33 or how he deliberately (even if ignorantly) violated the rules.
Personally, I think DQ is excessive (unless its flagrant cheating), but they should apply it consistently. I’d like to see some technical fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties for the floppers in basketball and football.
LikeLike
Some people paid money to see Tiger win. Other people paid money to see Tiger lose. That is a lot of people caring about whether he participates. This is not basketball, where there is the risk of fouling out. Tiger transcends golf in a way that few people in any sport have ever done.
Moreover, where is the outrage among other participants? I would think most of them would rather BEAT Tiger than have a placement that is only such because Tiger did not finish. Not to mention the asterisk that would come with the win: “* Tiger Woods was DQ’d.” Why do that to this year’s winner?
This is not Anna Kournikova. Tiger Woods got to the pinnacle of golf by playing it so much better than everyone else. He, frankly, deserves special treatment.
But that assumes it even happened, which Brian has adeptly pointed out is unclear.
Yet even if he did receive special treatment, he deserves it. A lot of golfers make a lot more money than they would otherwise because of what Tiger Woods did for golf. This “special treatment” is not giving Tiger Woods special treatment in terms of score or ability to win.
The only real issue here is dislike of Tiger Woods. Mostly by people who are jealous.
LikeLike
The issue is special treatment. Brian’s argument is, “They know the rules better than us so we shouldn’t question their interpretation.” Kind of a strange argument coming from Brian who is not prone to follow orthodoxy or authorities as knowing what they are doing. Just reading the rules as a layman, it looks pretty clear that he should have been DQ’d.
LikeLike
One final thought (after my previous final thought 🙂 ). Feherty had a plausible scenario explaining why he wasn’t DQ’d. Having reviewed and having decided it may have been grey enough to waive the DQ, prior to the admission of intent and violation, they couldn’t revisit it. Sort of a double jeopardy deal. Had there not been a ruling until after the statement, Feherty thinks DQ probably would have happened.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Kind of a strange argument coming from Brian who is not prone to follow orthodoxy or authorities as knowing what they are doing.”
I’m also a bigger traditionalist than most, and I still think you’re wrong. People refuse to get out of the pre-2011 mindset when evaluating this.
“Just reading the rules as a layman, it looks pretty clear that he should have been DQ’d.”
Just reading the [blank] as a layman, it looks pretty clear that [result] should have occurred is a common sentence in many areas. As it turns out, though, laymen are often wrong.
LikeLike
@Brian
Fair enough, but they haven’t addressed the contradiction that several people have pointed out.
LikeLike
I think they feel they did address it in their announcement of the penalty and how it happened. Rewatch the video or read a transcript and see.
LikeLike
OK, the MVC choosing Loyola over UIC (likely for political reasons) is short-sighted and stupid.
Just wanted to get that out there.
LikeLike
@Richard – I hear it’s going to be Loyola *and* UIC plus a likely 12th school (maybe Valpo).
LikeLike
Poor Horizon League. I lived in Indianapolis, where HL headquarters are located, during Butler’s back-to-back runs to the national championship game. It’s a shame to see it fall apart like this. I guess they’ll fill in with Summit League squads (Oakland, IUPUI, maybe Western Illinois) and someone like Murray State. Then again, Murray State may be better off in the OVC than in the severely depleted Horizon League.
But at least the Horizon isn’t at the very bottom of the barrell. The Summit League, once it gets its inevitable raid from the Horizon League, has no other D1 league to draw members from besides the WAC. It’s geographic tilt is towards the Great Plains, a slow-growing and sparsely populated region where few recruits aspire to play and few schools aspire to join. The WAC, in turn, has no other D 1 league to draw members from besides the Summit. Its geographic tilt is toward anywhere in the United States desperate enough to join Division 1 bad enough to travel literally all over the country for every single road game. End game is really looking like one of these conferences will disband. We’ll be back to 31 Division 1 conferences within a few years.The new Big East will come on board, and the Summit or WAC will hop off. Only thing that will prevent this is more schools leaving Division 2.
LikeLike
Horizon and Summit have the two worst names. Hopefully at least one of those names go away.
LikeLike
The Summit would not be a bad name for a conference in mountain country, or for a conference which regularly has schools challenging to win it all.
For a conference dominated by Great Plains schools, and which has AMBITIONS of being in the middle of the pack, its a bit … off.
LikeLike
Early on it sounded like the MVC was interested in the U of Denver, but Denver was not interested. It looks like the Summit may lose several teams to the horizon leaving a not so great conference for Denver… So maybe Denver could be number 12 in the MVC.
LikeLike
You might end up with a consolidation of basketball conferences in the Northeast as well, depending on how the next wave of expansion goes. The A-10 may still lose St. Louis and Dayton to the Big East. They are currently at 11 members after inviting George Mason. There are rumors that their next move will include either Siena and/or Davidson (Davidson is a long shot. They tried to get them when they invited VCU and Butler). The Colonial is losing Old Dominion, Georgia State and George Mason so they are down to 8 teams with James Madison possibly leaving to join an all sports conference with D1 football.
It’s going to come down to how many members the A-10 and the Colonial want to have. The two conferences that are the most vulnerable are the Northeast Conference (which is already losing Monmouth and Quinnipiac to the MAAC) and the American East Conference (losing Boston U to the Patriot League). I would not be surprised to see them merge if the magic number is 12.
LikeLike
I never heard about the A-10 pursuing Davidson from the SoCon. I know the Colonial pursued both College of Charleston and Davidson, but only CofC decided to go.
LikeLike
@Quiet Storm,
Well look at this! Davidson to the A-10 in 2014-15.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22072822/a-10-close-to-adding-davidson
Did you know about this before this article came out? Again, all I had ever heard about was the CAA for Davidson. The CBS article came out a mere 3 hours ago.
LikeLike
Its getting hard to keep track who is where in the Midwest and east of the Appalachian Leagues.
LikeLike
OK, adding Loyola along with UIC makes sense, though I don’t get Valpo if you can add a good basketball school in a big city (OR or Belmont) unless the IN schools are calling in chits.
LikeLike
Travel costs are a concern in lower revenue generating conferences like the MVC. Belmont may be thought of as too far from the core of the league. They’d be the southeastern outlier, though Nashville isn’t as far from the downstate Illinois and Indiana schools as one might think.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh: I did know about the talks between the A-10 and Davidson before that article came out. The A-10 really wanted them when they invited VCU and Butler but Davidson said no at that time. As a result George Mason didn’t get invited last year. I was told it was a long shot because Davidson said no last year and they really liked the Southern Conference. The A-10 to its credit kept conversations going with Davidson and it paid off in the end.
This is just my two cents but I think Appalachian State and Georgia Southern jumping to D1, along with the success the A-10 had last season made Davidson re-think their decision.
I think it’s a great move for both Davidson and the A-10.
LikeLike
@Quiet Storm,
I think it was a good move for Davidson as well. A future in the SoCon without College of Charleston, App State, or Ga. Southern, with replacements from the Big South, Atlantic Sun, and/or recent move-ups from Division 2, was no longer something for Davidson to look forward to. A move to the Patriot League, given Davidson’s status as an elite liberal arts college, would not have surprised me, either. The A-10, though, provides better competition, still good company academically, and similarly long-distant travel but with a better paycheck from the conference to supplement that travel.
I have to say that while I’m glad my App State Mountaineers are finally moving up to the FBS level, albeit to the worst FBS conference, I do feel sad about the SoCon. Growing up in Greenville, SC, the SoCon was treated with a lot of respect. I’d even go as far as saying that the schools had pride to be in the league–they despised being mistaken as “Division 2 football” or getting mixed up with the Big South, a relatively new league comprised mostly of former D-2 schools and/or schools that didn’t start football until the 90’s. Personally, I have family members who went to Elon, UNCG, and CofC, and I have good friends who went to all the schools except Samford and Chattanooga.
The SoCon has also been very much a bus league, too, which has lent itself to natural rivalries where co-workers from different SoCon schools worked together. Furman University in Greenville is 35 minutes from Wofford (Spartanburg), about 2 hours from Davidson and Western Carolina, 2.5 hours from App State, 3 hours from UNC-Greensboro, CofC, and The Citadel, 3.5 hours from Georgia Southern and Elon, and about 4-5 hours from Samford (Birmingham) and Chattanooga.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
Stumbled across this Post yesterday:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/pod-scheduling-alignment-big-ten
From this Post is a most attractive idea:
“Finally, the conference could align in pods, as follows:
A) Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio
B) Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers
C) Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern
D) Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
One of the three-team pods would be divisionally aligned with one of the four-team pods, and they’d swap every two years. In any given year, you’d play your entire division, and either two or three of the teams in the opposite division (depending on whether there’s 8 or 9 conference games).
These divisions wouldn’t be static (they’d change every two years), but over a four-year period everyone would play everyone in the conference at least twice. My guess is the league won’t do something this radical, but as an out-of-the-box idea it’s worth considering.”
For a 9-game conference schedule, this idea works perfectly:
(1) Pod A and Pod B are locked cross-overs; and
(2) Pairs of Pod C and Pod D as sequenced are locked cross-overs, and rotate through the schools of the other pairs two times every four years.
This Post was orginally posted on November 21, 2012, so hoping here that the Big Ten has had time to consider this most attractive idea.
By the way: UNC finally got around to choosing a new chancellor. Most of the new chancellor’s credentials suggest a “change agent” regarding athletics.
Equally interesting is this news:
http://www.unc.edu/campus-updates/role-of-athletics-at-unc-subject-of-april-19-rawlings-panel/
(OK, Jim Delany is an UNC graduate, but so is John Swofford.)
PEACE, DUDES
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/04/13/major-disparity-in-big-ten-football-ticket-revenue/
All the usual accounting caveats apply, but this article has a chart of FB ticket revenue for the B10 schools (+ UMD, +RU, -NW since they’re private and refuse to provide info) for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
1. MI – $46.4M
2. OSU – $41.0M
3. PSU – $33.4M
…
11. RU – $7.87M
12. UMD – $6.62M
13. IN – $4.35M
LikeLike
Interesting stuff, there. The UMD and Rutgers numbers are pretty terrible, at 6.615 and 7.868 million each. I am sure they look at having Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division as a massive boon to their athletic departments.
I haven’t followed discussions over the divisions too much, but I have to think that divisional alignment is one they probably highlighted to UMD when they were initially in talks to join the Big Ten.
I wonder how much we’ll see those numbers jump in their first two seasons. Obviously, the numbers should drop back down a bit after that as the novelty of being in the Big Ten wears off, but I have to think they’ll both manage at least Purdue/Minnesota levels, probably higher given the Big Ten alumni in the region.
LikeLike
I also didn’t realize Rutgers had a better football revenue than Maryland. The ticket revenue doesn’t really explain the revenue difference either.
LikeLike
Ross,
“The UMD and Rutgers numbers are pretty terrible, at 6.615 and 7.868 million each.”
Yep, but they’re still way above IN.
“I am sure they look at having Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division as a massive boon to their athletic departments.”
Probably. But almost any realistic division for them would be a boon.
ACC Atlantic:
UMD
FSU – 650 miles further away than PSU and with many fewer alumni near DC
Clemson – 150 miles further than OSU and a lesser brand with fewer alumni near DC
NCSU – no comparison to MI
BC – MSU is a better brand but farther away
Syracuse – fair trade with RU
WF – a fair trade with IN
Even with balanced B10 divisions, the ACC didn’t offer them a comparable division.
“I haven’t followed discussions over the divisions too much, but I have to think that divisional alignment is one they probably highlighted to UMD when they were initially in talks to join the Big Ten.”
Actually, I doubt it. They really had no idea of what the divisions would be back then. I think they just pointed out that UMD would be in a division with at least 2 kings (most likely PSU), plus at least 1 prince.
“I wonder how much we’ll see those numbers jump in their first two seasons.”
The jump should be big. You know the B10 will load them with desirable games at first, and UMD didn’t really have any FB rivals in the ACC anyway so the fans won’t be mad.
UMD averaged 42,355 over 7 games in 2011. Their capacity is 54,000, so that leaves a lot of room for growth. They need to start winning, though, or nobody may care.
LikeLike
They had a UNC guy investigating UNC. I wonder if this former and future Auburn employee investigated Auburn? There’s sure been a lot of smoke around Auburn with these 30/30 stories and yet no findings.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_id/9168739/ncaa-director-enforcement-david-didion-takes-job-auburn
LikeLike
The NCAA… what a fine example of checks and balances.
LikeLike
On a peripheral note, Dish is looking at buying Sprint.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/15/dish-sprint-nextel-bid/2083523/
LikeLike
In addition to Tax Day, its also Jackie Robinson Day. Here’s a great article about the first black pitcher in organized baseball.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/5701696-123/on-jackie-robinson-day-remembering
LikeLike
That’s why the 1950 movie was on last night.
LikeLike
I noticed over the weekend that Yale defeated Quinnipiac for the college hockey championship. What happened to the B1G teams this season?
LikeLike
Odd season for college hockey. None of the traditional powers (UND, B1G teams, etc) made the Frozen four.
LikeLike
I actually was going to comment on this; the NCAA hockey tournament was rife with big names getting knocked out in the first round.
BC, ND, Denver, Minnesota, Wisconsin. That’s 5 of the 8 first round matchups involving big name schools ousted. Only Wisconsin was probably an underdog among those.
LikeLike
It should put it into perspective that the Frozen Four schools doubled their combined Frozen Four appearances as a result of this tournament from 4 to 8 (Yale had 2, Quinnipiac had 1, St. Cloud State had 1, UMass Lowell had 0 before this tournament).
Only North Dakota among the traditional hockey schools even made it to the 2nd round.
LikeLike
Just a very weird year for a sport in which you expect most of the schools that reach the final rounds of the tournament to come from one of a dozen or so traditional schools (the ones that have appeared in the Frozen Four between 10 and 25 times).
LikeLike
College Baseball Update.
Indiana took a tumble in the polls after getting swept by Sparty this weekend, falling to #20 in USAToday Coaches, #19 in Baseball America, and unranked in Collegiate Baseball. The NCBWA poll isn’t out yet.
Notre took its lumps as well, losing to Michigan in a mid-week game and getting swept by Pitt this weekend. Notre Dame dropped out of all the polls so far.
After sweeping the Irish, Pitt climbed back into the Collegiate Baseball rankings at #25. Rhode Island’s Byant University jumped into the Collegiate Baseball rankings at #30.
North Carolina is #1 in all the polls. LSU is #2 in two polls and #3 in another. Vandy is #2 in one poll and #3 in two others. Cal State Fullerton, Oregon State, and Florida State are all unanimous at #4, #5, and #6, respectively.
LSU took 2 of 3 in Fayetteville this weekend in front of over 30,000 fans. Vandy swept Mizzou, and the Tar Heels swept VA Tech.
LikeLike
NCBWA poll is out with no real surprises. Indiana at #19.
The attendance report did have some surprises, though, although none at the top.
1. LSU ave. 10,754
2. Arkansas 8,061
3. Ole Miss 7,853
4. South Carolina 7,251
5. Miss State 6,946
Jumping into the average attendance rankings are two B1G schools: #22 Nebraska (ave. 2,524) and #38 Indiana (1,625) to go along with two other northern schools – #26 Wichita State and #30 Creighton.
LikeLike
Not jumping the gun, mind you, but an article about the UNC AD wanting to increase revenues for the athletic programs by 40%.
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/04/unc-ad-i-want-to-increase-athletic.html
LikeLike
Well, there’s one pretty quick way for North Carolina to put itself on that path–join the Big Ten or the SEC. The latest reports on ACC revenue distributions had the figure around $17M per school.
The Big Ten is in the $24M – $25M range for the last two fiscal years with expectations going up to around $43M per school with the new conference deal a few years down the road with the inclusion of Maryland and Rutgers. If those figures hold with a larger conference (16 to 18 members), then UNC could be looking at a budget in the mid-$90M range with no other revenue growth in place in a little over four years’ time. I suspect the SEC could make a similar case to UNC.
Of course, that would mean UNC turning back on its ACC roots, but they wouldn’t be the first school to move away from its traditional moorings to head elsewhere. Besides, if the B1G and the SEC continue to expand as expected, then North Carolina could find itself in familiar company with such a move.
There’s also the academic/research angle to consider as well. 71% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s research funding came from the federal government (which means sequestration is going to take a bite, UNC is #9 in federal research funding with most of it from the National Institutes of Health)–see http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/unc-system-lobbyists-fight-to-preserve-federal-research-money
If UNC feels that being part of the B1G/CIC will help their research funding, then that’s another reason to make the move. UNC has actually seen a drop in its grants, etc. from a high of $803M in 2010 (with a large amount coming from the stimulus bill) to $767M in 2012. See http://research.unc.edu/about/facts-rankings/research-funding/
LikeLike
Add to this cocktail the fact that: (1) Delany is on the Rawlings panel to consider the future of UNC athletics, and (2) the new UNC chancellor is a woman (can schmooze with Mary Sue Coleman at AAU meetings), 61 years old (perfect age as a “change agent”) and current interim president of Dartmouth College (zero UNC background).
LikeLike
And guess where Mary Sue Coleman got her doctorate degree from? These people really run tight in their circle.
LikeLike
It still funny to me that research money is still a barely mentioned issue when it comes to conference affiliation. Federal funding for research is declining. Individual schools will have a harder time lobbying for grants. That is why the AAU and CIC is so important. One school in one state going against 14 schools in 11 states is no competition. The SEC research consortium is just getting off the ground. The BIG’s is already fully operational. The BIG’s voting block in the AAU is at 14 now out of 62 (60 u.s.). They are already the dominant entity in the organization. Add a few more votes and AAU policy would have to go thru the BIG.
UNC fans often clammor about if UNC went to the BIG and NC State went to the SEC, that State would overtake them athletically. But what would be more devastating to the school is if that situation was reversed and NC State got voted into the AAU, for which they are on the path for, and had the full weight of the CIC lobbying to take a chunk out of UNC research funds.
LikeLike
Yeah, the way he rattled off five B1G schools (along with Virginia) as his examples was striking.
No doubt a few ears perked up when they read that.
LikeLike
so, UNC insists that Duke comes along; add UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & FSU in the B1GE; add Kansas to mollify the B1GW.
B1GE is 10 teams: 6 former ACC, Rutgers, OSU, PSU & Indiana
B1GW is: Old Big Ten minus OSU & Indiana, plus Neb. and Kansas.
Two locked x-div. games (The Game and Oaken Bucket)
That is a hell of a conference, world-dominating research consortium and the divisions are balanced. Add in Johns Hopkins for the hell of it.
UNC (and the other ACC schools) can “sell” their fans, alumni and boosters by virtue of so many ACC teams moving.
LikeLike
Eff that. If they go to 20, pods of 5 or 2-3 protected games only are the only way to go in my opinion. I wouldn’t even want go to 16 without doing pods.
I wouldn’t mind having the “ACC pod” on the schedule 1 year out of every 3 or 2 years out of every 6, but your division basically has Ohio State joining the ACC with what amounts to a yearly OOC game against Michigan.
I know I’ve said my piece about the B1G being down and wanting OSU’s SoS to increase, but this would be even worse.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“so, UNC insists that Duke comes along; add UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & FSU in the B1GE; add Kansas to mollify the B1GW.
B1GE is 10 teams: 6 former ACC, Rutgers, OSU, PSU & Indiana
B1GW is: Old Big Ten minus OSU & Indiana, plus Neb. and Kansas.
Two locked x-div. games (The Game and Oaken Bucket)
That is a hell of a conference, world-dominating research consortium and the divisions are balanced. Add in Johns Hopkins for the hell of it.
UNC (and the other ACC schools) can “sell” their fans, alumni and boosters by virtue of so many ACC teams moving.”
Umm, I think most OSU fans would agree with me in saying NO! to that alignment. You have to spread the pain around, not condemn OSU and IN to joining the ACC.
If they had to do divisions, then the new schools need to be split. You can’t stick with geography.
20 Teams – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, MI, MSU, IL, NW
Stinks – NE, KU, GT, FSU, OSU, PU, IN, WI, IA, MN
LikeLike
A couple of comments regarding your scenario.
The first is that if the Big Ten were to get to 20 teams, it might well be done in concert with a reorganization of major college athletics outside the NCAA. Heck, that could happen at 16 or even 18 teams in the B1G, but with the way things are trending in terms of revenue, possible payments to athletes, how the NCAA enforces its rules and the vast array of schools that are in that organization points to some sort of organizational change.
The second point I have if if the B1G were to get to 18, they won’t be trying to get Kansas into the conference as one of the last two members. That spot will be set aside for Notre Dame. While we don’t know what the other conferences will look like if the B1G were at that number, it’s a pretty fair bet that the ACC will be markedly different because it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario where the SEC and Big XII sit tight. That means every major program in the ACC is in play for more conference movement.
The idea of Johns Hopkins being an associate member that has its lacrosse team in the Division 1-A level is great. I frankly don’t know what would happen to JHU if the NCAA were to shrink in size or be replaced by some other entity though. But put them and the ACC lacrosse schools into the B1G (Virginia, UNC, Duke, etc.) and that’d be a pretty awesome league.
Also at 20 schools, the possibility of two fixed divisions with ten programs apiece in football is probably very low. Even with ten conference games, that’s a 9-1 split and it means very little play between those two divisions. Four 5-team pods with teams playing nine conference games per year and with the pods rotating every two years is a more likely scenario. We’ve all put together possible pod lineups given a 20-team conference. Here’s my two cents:
Pod A – Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
Pod B – Maryland, Penn State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Rutgers
Pod C – Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana
Pod D – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State
With this many teams, any pod setup is a compromise and it means that some annual games (such as Michigan-Michigan State and Purdue-Indiana) in this setup will only be played two years out of six (unless you opt to play ten conference games and come up with some creative way to have some locked in annual games between teams in two different pods). With nine conference games, each team plays the other in its division. The two division winners play one another in the conference championship game.
Years 1 & 2
Division 1 – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Division 2 – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Years 3 & 4
Division 1 – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Northwestern, Ohio State, Virginia
Division 2 – Iowa, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Years 5 & 6
Division 1 – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin
Division 2 – Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
LikeLike
I’ll say this about UNC: it’s nice to have choices. Schools like RU, UMd, SU, UConn and Pitt can’t say NO the first time. Even a school like Duke don’t have that many options outside of the ACC, as crazy as that sounds.
A school like ND can say NO to just about everyone and get away with it up to now, even despite the best efforts of a certain conference to change that reality.
LikeLike
Well, UNC does have choices, but you also have to rate them as well since some can be considered better than others both on the academic and athletic side.
For example, North Carolina could opt to stay in the ACC, but it’ll be hard pressed to support 28 sports to the same degree that other schools outside the ACC can do it. Right now, the athletic department is barely breaking even, which means they get more revenue somewhere outside the conference (fees to students, greater alumni contributions) or look for another conference, i.e. B1G or SEC.
As far as Notre Dame is concerned, their choices are narrowing as well. The Big East it was long an associate member imploded and now they’re headed to the ACC. But the one major difference here is that ND is committed by their agreement to play five ACC teams on an annual basis.
That makes them a semi-independent in football, but also they’re also acting as a de facto conference team in terms of scheduling because of their long term commitments with USC, Navy and Stanford. At that point, the Irish are essentially locked into eight football games per year and have the flexibility to perhaps schedule four each season. At least one or maybe two will go to Big Ten teams (ND also has a long-term commitment with Purdue), so that just leaves two or three schedule slots for Big XII or SEC teams, not to mention the minor conferences.
Of course, if the status quo remains in place, then Notre Dame can stay in the ACC for as long as they desire. But if the ACC starts losing members to the Big Ten, SEC or Big XII, then it’s the Big East all over again. Also, of course, if major college athletic programs break away from the NCAA and start their own organization, I rather imagine there wouldn’t be much room for Notre Dame as an independent.
Perhaps the one scenario that could happen is that, for example, 64 programs break off from the NCAA and form four 16-team conference with ND being #65. Maybe ND could swing a deal to play 2-4 games each year with teams from those four conferences and have one of them be the home for their non-football teams. But does that work for the majority and how does that effect the post-season?
LikeLike
If the B1G was going to do a partial deal to facilitate ND remaining “independent” it would have happened long ago.
LikeLike
I have to agree with @Cutter on one very important point: The only way the B1G goes to 18 teams is with Notre Dame. Otherwise, I see the conference going to no more than 16.
Moreover, the rumored division split is perfect for two more eastern based teams to join, in that Michigan State moves over to the Western Division (some reports noted that MSU would actually prefer to be in the west).
Assuming the above is actually true, with a cap on 16 teams, which would be the best schools for the B1G? I assume UVa is #15, and I would have to believe that UNC would win out over GT (in a close call) based on the the MBB content for the BTN, (relative) closer geographical proximity to other schools, and overall success in athletics of the school’s non-revenue programs (soccer, lacrosse, etc…).
I would imagine that GT would be the #18 to pair with ND at #17. But I believe that the only school who would be #17 would be ND (which isn’t happening anytime soon, if ever.)
LikeLike
Mr. SEC’s predictions on the ESPN/SEC announcement tomorrow.
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/04/so-what-will-the-secs-new-network-mean-for-you/#more-268626
LikeLike
Some key points:
“Who will own it?
ESPN and the SEC together are expected to own it. Just as the Big Ten Network belongs 51% to the Big Ten and 49% to FOX, the SEC Network will likely be split down the middle, too. Most believe the league will control 51% and ESPN the remaining 49%.
When factoring in the amount of money the network will be worth to SEC schools, many are forgetting that ESPN will be taking home an enormous chunk of the profits, too. The folks in Bristol, Connecticut aren’t doing this as charity work.”
I think that is one of the major questions of interest here.
—
“You can expect changes, however, when it comes to some of the league’s less-attractive football matchups. In past years, ESPN has brokered out a small number of games to FOXSportsSouth and CSS (Comcast Sports Southeast). Those games will probably find their way to the SEC Network moving forward.
As for the weekly noon ET game that’s carried on what’s now called the “SEC Network,” it remains to be seen what happens with that syndicated package. With contracts cut, it probably won’t be changing content-wise, but it could be in store for a name change. It would be confusing for viewers if the league had an actual channel called the SEC Network as well as a syndicated package of games running under the same moniker. We expect something like “SEC Plus” or the “SEC Network Plus” to be adopted. But we’ll see.”
—
“What about pay-per-view games?
As part of the SEC’s third-tier rights buy-back, the television rights owned by each of the league’s 14 schools to one football game per season will now be turned over to the conference. Usually the true dregs on the schedule, those games will most likely be turned over to the SEC Network rather than airing as pay-per-view contests that benefit each school separately.
There is a caveat, however — what happens on Saturdays like last November 16th will be interesting to watch. On that day, there were five pay-per-view games (Jacksonville State at Florida, Wofford at South Carolina, Alabama A&M at Auburn, Georgia Southern at Georgia, Sam Houston State at Texas A&M) and one game on CSS (Samford at Kentucky). It would be quite a stretch to fit six football games into one channel’s broadcast schedule for a single day.
It’s possible, then, that the SEC and ESPN could trot out a pay-per-view plan on occasion in a state-by-state basis. It’s also possible that the SEC Network could create its own Thursday night football package as the NFL has done on its channel. A number of SEC squads have frequented ESPN’s Thursday night lineup in recent years. But how valuable would a Thursday night package featuring games with Wofford and Samford truly be?
It seems more likely that the league will simply try to get more involved with the scheduling plans of its institutions in order to make sure everyone isn’t scheduling their patsies for the same weekend.”
Ah yes, the joys of September conference games – MACtion weekend moves to mid-November.
—
“Will the SEC Network force the league to go from eight conference games to nine?
No. Well, not yet anyway. We’ve been down this road before so we won’t bore you with our long list of reasons why the Southeastern Conference should add one more league game per season. Instead, we’ll just look at it from a content standpoint.
If the SEC and ESPN want to make maximum coin off this venture — and they do — a move to a nine-game slate makes sense. Which do you think would be easier to sell: Sam Houston State at Texas A&M or Tennessee at Texas A&M? Jacksonville State at Florida or Auburn at Florida?
Money talks. Sooner or later the SEC will take the money and move to a nine-game conference schedule.”
Good. If everyone else is headed that way, the SEC should, too.
—
“Will I have to subscribe specifically to this channel?
No, but this is where things will get tricky. The SEC and ESPN and all the various cable and satellite providers across the country will have to reach agreements on what those providers pay SEC/ESPN for the SEC Network. Those carriage negotiations usually don’t go too smoothly, a cross between going across the aisle in Congress and trying to reason with Kim Jung Un.
You will be caught in the middle of all these negotiations. You will be the rope that gets tugged back and forth. This is also another reason the league is giving itself a pre-launch countdown of more than a year.
…
Down South we tend to view the SEC as the biggest dog in the pack, but if the NFL has had trouble with its network and if the University of Texas has had trouble with its network — inside the state of Texas, for gosh sake — the SEC is in for some bumps and bruises as well.”
A reasonable answer.
—
“Who will have to pay for this channel?
Every cable and satellite subscriber in the SEC’s 11 state region (depending on which providers pick the network up).
Whether you watch the SEC Network or not, inside the SEC’s geographic footprint most outlets will eventually be forced to carry the network, regardless of what the SEC and ESPN charge them. Then those fees will be passed along to you as part of an increased cable or satellite bill.
…
More than likely, the SEC and ESPN will try to charge around a dollar per month for the channel, which falls in line with the Big Ten’s 97-cent fee from a year ago.”
Is there a source for that $0.97 number?
—
“If I live outside the SEC footprint will I get the network?
Yes, eventually. It again depends on which cable and satellite providers cut deals with SEC/ESPN and how quickly they do it. Outside the SEC’s 11-state region, the impact on a viewer’s monthly television bill will be smaller.”
He probably should have pointed out that it’ll be on a higher tier out of the footprint.
LikeLike
It looks like we’ll have to wait a little while longer. Cecil Hurt from the Tuscaloosa News is tweeting that the SEC & ESPN will postpone the announcement due to the Boston tragedy. Can’t say that I blame them.
@CecilHurt SEC postpones Tuesday’s SEC Network/ESPN announcement in Atlanta in wake of Boston explosions.
LikeLike
Bamatab,
No, that makes good sense. You want to be the main story (thus why they waited for hoops to end), and clearly the bombings would be center stage. I’m guessing they may wait a week and do it next Tuesday.
What sort of ownership split and money do you expect in the announcement? Alan? Other SEC fans?
LikeLike
I personally have no idea how the ownership will be done. I know all of the SEC writers, blogs and forums seem to think it’ll be a BTN type split. But I guess I’ve been reading this board too much, because I also wonder what leverage the SEC has to get a 51% share. Maybe the SEC starts out with a 49% share, with a chance to get a 51% later. Or maybe ESPN has full ownership, with the SEC gaining a percentage later down the road.
All I know is that the rumors coming from the SEC “sources” seem to think it’ll be a 51/49 split with the SEC having the majority. It’ll be interesting to see how it is setup. I know that ESPN is going all in on it. So I think they will definitely have a large portion of the ownership to start with at the least. If I had to guess, I would say ESPN starts out with at least 51%, with the SEC being able to take majority ownership later down the road. Just a guess on my part though.
LikeLike
Brian – I’m not sure about the ownership split either. Based on the last contract, the SEC’s #1 priority was exposure and #2 was money. After its LHN experience, ESPN may want to give up some ownership in order to keep the guaranteed payments down. Having the station based based in Charlotte (home of ESPNU and ESPN Regional) is an effort to keep costs down.
Regarding money, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the SEC schools receive checks north of $30mm in June, 2015.
LikeLike
$30 million is not really more than break-even from before expansion. SEC distributed $20 million last year to each of the 12 schools. Playoffs and Sugar Bowl add about $8 million and the schools are giving up their TV Tier 3 to the conference along with some sponsorship rights.
LikeLike
bullet – I forgot to factor the Sugar/Playoff money in when I made my guess.
LikeLike
New Mr. SEC take on the new SEC/ESPN network. One word summary of the article – BUNDLING.
One thing that is being lost in the upcoming deal is that the SEC is throwing in their digital rights. Those rights were retained by the SEC in the current CBS/ESPN deal. Digital rights may be small right now, but they continue to grow. Its not inconceivable that 20 years from now, the digital rights may be more valuable than the broadcast rights.
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/04/the-new-sec-espn-partnership-is-about-much-more-than-a-tv-network/#more-268651
LikeLike
Here is an article on CBSsports that quotes a sports television source not directly affiliated with the SEC or the deal, who estimates an eventual worth of around $400 million per year in SEC television revenue from ESPN and CBS (which pays $55 million per year). That’d be $28.5 million per team before factoring in bowl game earnings or NCAA credits:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22083904/secs-network-with-espn-a-fans-primer
LikeLike
The for how long will it go is fairly interesting.
“For how long will you get it: The SEC’s deal with ESPN is expected to go for 15 to 20 years.”
If ESPN gets the SEC network for 15 to 20 years, and presumably an equal extension for their current second tier SEC contract, I can see just about anything. But that is what many here have been saying all along. ESPN will play ball if they get something in return.
LikeLike
That’s the interesting question. Will CBS and ESPN contracts be extended beyond 2024? But there’s no necessity for the network to have the same contract length as the basic contracts. The network needs a longer term to get to profitability.
LikeLike
It’ll be profitable out of the gate. P12N supposedly is, in spite of footing the startup costs and building the infrastructure.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC discusses the LHN model
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/04/new-sec-network-to-be-co-owned-not-so-fast/
LikeLike
Basically, he now thinks they will go with the LHN model but might do the B10 model.
LikeLike
Nike strikes again. UNC’s new colors are powder blue and black apparently, with white going away. Yuck. I say let’s not add them just because of this.
LikeLike
Oh yay, more black for black’s sake on new uniforms. Starting to get real annoying as a CU fan. Apparently we need to change our colors.
LikeLike
You could always return to the Columbine blue. So ’80s…
LikeLike
University of Cal system looking for a new President
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-president-20130415,0,4486313.story
Educators inside and outside UC are compiling lists of people from other states who they believe could do the job. Among those mentioned are: Mary Sue Coleman, a fundraising dynamo as president of the University of Michigan; Francisco Cigarroa, a transplant surgeon who succeeded Yudof as chancellor of the University of Texas system; James Milliken, a former Wall Street attorney who is president of the University of Nebraska; Kevin Reilly, president of the University of Wisconsin system and an expert in online education; and legal scholar William Powers, who is president of the University of Texas at Austin and is a UC Berkeley alumnus.
LikeLike
One of Powers predecessors, Robert Berdahl (president when Big 12 was formed) went to Cal-Berkeley.
LikeLike
from the article:
Matthew Haney, executive director of the UC Student Assn., said he expected the next UC president to come from outside the state, as did Yudof, who previously led state university systems in Texas and Minnesota. (Yudof is retiring in late August after five years in the UC job.)
LikeLike
I imagine William Powers would jump at the chance. Governor Perry has been trying to mess with him and UT for the last couple of years. Cigarrao might, too.
LikeLike
I guess that depends on how much time Perry has left? I don’t know too much about Texas politics.
LikeLike
He’s allowed to run for a fourth term, but he hasn’t announced whether he will seek reelection.
His approval ratings are pretty poor, but Texas still leans right and if Perry still has political aspirations beyond Texas another term as governor is probably necessary to rebuild his national image after his disastrous presidential campaign.
LikeLike
http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2013/04/oregon_ncaa_agreed_ducks_commi.html
Oregon agrees that it committed at least one major violation in its use of a recruiting service and “the university has proposed to self-impose a two-year probation for the football program and a reduction of one scholarship for each of the next three seasons.”
LikeLike
Wonder if this would have been avoided had Nike, err… U of O not pushed Bill Moos out and installed Kilkenny as athletic director. I think his tenure had much to do with their problems. Kilkenny had no experience with college athletics, other than as a supporter (that didn’t graduate), no understanding of the actual job.
LikeLike
Nebraska baseball just no-hit No 16 Arkansas in game one of a double header to win 3-0.
LikeLike
More interesting news out of ACC-land. The president of Clemson announced that he is retiring. He will remain at the helm until a replacement is named.
http://www.clemson.edu/media-relations/4848/barker-to-retire-as-clemson-president-return-to-architecture-faculty/
He is considered one of the more pro-ACC presidents.
LikeLike
Bowlsby raises red herring that 16 schools could mean UT and OU wouldn’t play every year. He says they will address geographic challenges with “strategic” scheduling. Apparently they haven’t totally adjusted to the addition of WVU. The travel challenges of such an outlier is a much more reasonable argument against expansion. I wonder if they regret adding WVU now.
Current and former commissioners talk Big 12 rumors, changes at Tuesday panel discussion – Rachel Thompson, The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2013/04/16/current-and-former-commissioners-talk-big-12-rumors-changes-at-tuesday-panel-discussion
…
Bowlsby said the conference will tend to geographic challenges in the upcoming season by strategically scheduling games to accommodate teams that may have to travel further.
“Geography still matters and one of the things that’s gone by the wayside during the course of this expansion is a lot of the traditional rivalries,” Bowlsby said. “You can imagine how people would feel if we went to 16 teams if it meant Texas and OU wouldn’t play each other one year.”
…
Weiser, who took on his current role after seven years as athletics director at Kansas State University, said missed classes for student athletes and tough travel times are issues that continue to be smoothed out.
“With TCU, integration has been fairly predictable and fairly smooth,” Weiser said. “With West Virginia, I’m not sure we’ve gotten to a place that we’ve successfully answered those challenges.”
LikeLike
Nice to see Weiser toeing the longhorn line.
LikeLike
joe4psu says
Apparently they haven’t totally adjusted to the addition of WVU. The travel challenges of such an outlier is a much more reasonable argument against expansion. I wonder if they regret adding WVU now.
Considering Louisville beat Florida (SEC) in Sugar Bowl, won the Men’s NCAA, played in the championship game for the Women’s NCAA, and they have a Top 25 baseball team the better question is is they regret adding WVU when UL wanted in and the guy at Oklahoma was very much in favor of the Cardinals to join the B12.
LikeLike
They’re basically talking about making it so that WVU’s various non-football teams can play more than one game in a single road trip. Last year’s schedule wasn’t optimized in that way at all because I believe it was simply Missouri’s old schedule.
The geographic issues, such as they are, are more of a concern for WVU than for the other nine members.
LikeLike
Does anybody know where I can find a list of the schools that have never had a major NCAA violation in football? I’m curious to see who’s on the list.
LikeLike
Never mind, found it:
http://www.footballgeography.com/?p=1159
BCS Schools are:
Boston College
BYU
UConn
Duke
Iowa
Louisville
Missouri
Purdue
Stanford
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest
Washington State
LikeLike
You missed Northwestern in your list
LikeLike
Ah, and I also missed Temple (if they count as BCS).
LikeLike
So 14, and 2 of those schedule to stop being BCS after 2013.
LikeLike
I’m kind of amazed that there are so few. Also, 6 of the 12 are private.
LikeLike
Private doesn’t have as many layers of oversight and levels of accountability, ie state politicians and taxpayers.
LikeLike
Kudos to Stanford for staying extremely competitive and relevant without any major violations.
Also, BYU’s violation-free 1984 national championship is one of the key factors that led to the creation of the BCS – or at least the predecessor bow affiliation system.
LikeLike
What has Stanford done to show they’re extremely competitive? Maybe in the short term they have been, but they aren’t any more competitive to the rest of the teams on that list over longer periods of time. 10 year winning ptg 54th in the country, 20 year 63rd, 30 year 66th. As recently as 2006 they were a one win team.
LikeLike
I was referring mostly to the short term. That they have been able to go from 1-11 in 2006 to three straight years of 11+ wins and top 10 finishes without any violations. Not that common – see USC’s and Oregon’s rise to success, riddled with violations.
Not a Stanford fan.
LikeLike
Well, responding to a “never had a violations” list about fives years of success is somewhat of a non sequitur. Schools like MSU have risen in the last five years without violations.
LikeLike
Rivals basketblal recruiting rankings
Top 25 broken down by conference:
ACC Teams (including teams joining)
5. Duke
7. Louisville
11. Syracuse
13. North Carolina
15. NC State
19. Notre Dame
SEC teams
1. Kentucky
8. Florida
10. LSU
16. Missouri
18. Arkansas
Big Ten
6. Indiana
12. Michigan
17. Illinois
23. Purdue
AAC (Old Big East)
3. Memphis
14. SMU
21. Cincinnati
Big 12
2. Kansas
20. Baylor
24. Okie State
Pac 12
4. Arizona
25. Washington
Big East
9. Marquette
WCC
22. BYU
LikeLike
http://huskermath.blogspot.com/2013/02/heres-look-at-where-21500-fbs-players.html
Recruits by state for 2005-2012. You can filter it how you want. The schools are listed under their 2005 alignment.
Top states for the current B10:
Footprint:
1. OH – 282
2. IL – 226
3. MI – 168
4. IN – 135
6. WI – 131
7. PA – 123
8. NE – 115
10. MN – 87
11. IA – 73
New additions:
14. MD – 30
15. NJ – 28
20. DC – 10
Possible additions:
13. GA – 37
16. VA – 19
19. NC – 11
National:
5. FL – 134
9. TX – 107
12. CA – 58
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/4/17/4070844/college-football-schedule-2013-best-saturday-games
A Saturday by Saturday look at the 2013 schedule with the 6 best games and 1 to miss each weekend.
LikeLike
Brian – I just looked at the first four weekends. Here’s the breakdown by conference of teams involved in big games.
19 – SEC
11 – Pac-12
8 – Big XII
7 – ACC
6 – B1G
4 – Ind.
2 – CUSA
1 – MWC
LikeLike
Here’s the October breakdown:
10 – Big XII, Pac-12 & SEC
6 – B1G
2 – ACC & Ind.
LikeLike
Here’s the Nov 2 – Nov 23 breakdown. The article stated that all 11/30 games were big games.
10 – SEC & Big XII
8 – B1G
4 – Pac-12
2 – ACC, Big East, Ind & MWC
LikeLike
Alan,
I’d say the B10 and B12 have it about right. They are equally spread through all 3 months, with a few more in November when championships are won.
I’d also say the numbers might indicate a bias in the selection process.
LikeLike
Starting conference play sooner is something the SEC has done right. Just look at Alan’s September breakdown. They pretty much own September by default. They play conference early and sprinkle their cupcakes throughout the mid-to-late season. This has a net effect of there always being some SEC showdown each week throughout the season. The SEC is on display on any given week even. Even when 3-4 of their teams are playing cupcakes, the rest of the league is playing conference games or BCS OOC.
The B1G meanwhile, basically everyone plays their 2-3 cupcakes and 1-2 BCS OOC games in September, and then plays 8 straight conference games. If they mixed up their schedule, September wouldn’t be a lost month. For example, when Michigan is playing Akron on a given Saturday, maybe Ohio State could be playing Wisconsin instead of a Toledo. That way, the B1G can get some eyes on the conference in the first 4 weeks.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“Starting conference play sooner is something the SEC has done right.”
No, it isn’t.
“Just look at Alan’s September breakdown. They pretty much own September by default.”
The list was made by a guy from Atlanta, and biased towards the SEC. Look at the totals:
SEC – 39
B12 – 28
P12 – 25
B10 – 20
ACC – 11
He counted UF/Vandy as a top 5 game.
The B10 could try to match the SEC in September, but then they’d only have 1 big game left for the last 2 months by his count.
“They play conference early and sprinkle their cupcakes throughout the mid-to-late season.”
Not true. They tend to have one weekend in November with almost all cupcakes. There was talk about having to fix that in the future with the SECN.
LikeLike
Brian,
Not to be totally out of order but that Northwestern game last year against Vandy was pretty close and exciting all the way up to the end. If Vandy is good again I could see the Florida game as being a game to watch. Granted I do think Florida gets TV bias but it is because of the size of the state more than just SEC bias.
I was on the Northwestern bandwagon early last season and they were very respectable by normal Northwestern averages.
LikeLike
You’ve got some conference cupcakes in November as well. Georgia plays South Carolina early, often the 1st game of the season. Florida is last weekend in October. Georgia is the first week in October. Florida/Tennessee is in September. The SEC East schedule is set up very poorly except for allowing teams to pad their records late in the season to come back from losses in key games early.
LikeLike
He also counted UF at Missouri as the worst game of the week even though last year Missouri was in it until the last play fo the game, and that was down in Gainesville. I’m not saying it’s a great game or anything, but it likely won’t be a stinker either. I’m guessing he’s a Florida fan.
LikeLike
If he was a FL fan I do not think the FL-MO game would be rated worst. My guess is GA. Might have some connection to TCU since that school got in 5 of the best games listings.
LikeLike
@Brian
“No, it isn’t.”
Always a pleasure.
“He counted UF/Vandy as a top 5 game. ”
Vandy has been an entertaining watch under Franklin.
Find a better one being played on Nov. 9th. VaTech/Miami? Maybe. Iowa/Purdue? They’ve had some entertaining games. USC/Cal? Maybe. I think Vandy/UF is definitely a top 10 game. It’s definitely not as absurd as you’re implying.
“Not true. They tend to have one weekend in November with almost all cupcakes. There was talk about having to fix that in the future with the SECN.”
That statement is full of shit. At worst, 3 or 4 teams play cupcakes in a given week while 8 to 10 are playing in conference. That is my whole point. The B1G could do that as well, and the 8 or 10 could carry the B1G banner while 3 or 4 are slumming it. Instead, you only have 1 or 2 watchable games per week in the B1G during the month of September because the rest of the slate is hot garbage.
The B1G schedule design is old and stale. Enjoy your noon kickoffs too! Those are a hit with recruits.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“Vandy has been an entertaining watch under Franklin.
Find a better one being played on Nov. 9th. VaTech/Miami? Maybe. Iowa/Purdue? They’ve had some entertaining games. USC/Cal? Maybe. I think Vandy/UF is definitely a top 10 game. It’s definitely not as absurd as you’re implying.”
It’s maybe the 3rd best SEC game on paper. His others: LSU/AL, OU/Baylor, NE/MI and UT/WV.
Better choices than Vandy/UF:
VT @ Miami, OR @ Stanford, UCLA @ AZ, BYU @ WI (remember Andersen came from USU)
That’s 4 after a quick search. Being that far off is absurd if you’re doing research for your column.
“At worst, 3 or 4 teams play cupcakes in a given week while 8 to 10 are playing in conference.”
2012 was probably the most egregious example:
Saturday, Nov. 17, 2012
1. Arkansas at Mississippi State
2. Ole Miss at LSU
3. Tennessee at Vanderbilt
4. Syracuse at Missouri
5. Samford at Kentucky
6. Wofford at South Carolina
7. Sam Houston State at Texas A&M
8. Jacksonville State at Florida
9. Georgia Southern at Georgia
10. Western Carolina at Alabama
11. Alabama A&M at Auburn
In 2011, they split it up a little:
Saturday, November 19
1. Mississippi State at Arkansas
2. LSU at Ole Miss
3. Kentucky at Georgia
4. Vanderbilt at Tennessee
5. The Citadel at South Carolina
6. Georgia Southern at Alabama
7. Furman at Florida
8. Samford at Auburn
Also in 2010:
Saturday, November 6
1. Alabama at LSU
2. Arkansas at South Carolina
3. Florida at Vanderbilt
4. Tennessee at Memphis
5. Louisiana-Lafayette at Ole Miss
6. Charleston Southern at Kentucky
7. Chattanooga at Auburn
8. Idaho State at Georgia
2009:
Saturday, Nov. 7
LSU at Alabama
South Carolina at Arkansas
Furman at Auburn
Vanderbilt at Florida
Tennessee Tech at Georgia
Eastern Kentucky at Kentucky
Memphis at Tennessee
Northern Arizona at Ole Miss
“The B1G could do that as well, and the 8 or 10 could carry the B1G banner while 3 or 4 are slumming it. Instead, you only have 1 or 2 watchable games per week in the B1G during the month of September because the rest of the slate is hot garbage.”
4 or 5 conference games usually results in only 1 or 2 decent ones. That’s not an improvement. All you’d do is shift things around and probably lose some of the better OOC games because those teams aren’t available in October or November.
It’s especially bad in double bye years. Look at this year’s schedule. There are only 4 games on 3 different weekends. The SEC is helped by having 14 teams, and thus more games to schedule. We would be helped, but nobody really wants to watch RU or UMD so it just dilutes things even more.
“Enjoy your noon kickoffs too!”
I do.
1. I live in the eastern time zone.
2. I’m not a lazy drunk that can’t get up before noon.
3. I’m not a CFB “fan” that must be drunk to enjoy a football game.
“Those are a hit with recruits.”
They care more about the opponent than the time, or are you saying the coaches are wrong to bring so many recruits to The Game despite the noon start? I’ve seen plenty of quotes from recruits eager to get hosted that weekend.
LikeLike
@Brian
Still disagree on whose scheduling setup is better, but that’s fine.
Holy projection issues on the kickoff time!! I never even mentioned alcohol and I don’t get drunk at games. So anyone that prefers 3:30 or later kickoffs for whatever reason is a lazy, drunk and isn’t a real fan? Be honest. I bet you ask people to sit down at games too, don’t you? You know you do. Haha.
Of course they want to be hosted Michigan weekend over another opponent’s night game! It’s apples and oranges. Michigan at any start time trumps any other game. Michigan at night, or even 3:30, would trump Michigan at noon though. Just read the quotes from the players and coaches before and after the games. They’re all excited about being under the lights. Not one of them will say, “Boy, the only thing that would’ve made that night game any better was a noon kickoff.” As a player, under the lights is electric.
Your point about the opponent mattering is correct in a vacuum, but not when you add the night game variable. By almost any measurable statistic (crowd size, crowd noise, TV ratings, revenue to local businesses, etc.) Opponent X at night > Opponent X at noon. Your head might explode when they announce permanent lights at The Shoe. Urban wants more night games, and he’ll get more night games.
Anyhow, this is my last comment. I’m unsubscribing from the comments as the last few months have filled my e-mail inbox with thousands of messages about stuff that doesn’t remotely pertain to the topic at hand. I’ve been guilty of participation as well and for that I apologize. It’s not my blog, so I’m not going to ask for discussion to stay on topic.
Frank, keep up the good work on the blog posts.
LikeLike
Blapples,
“Still disagree on whose scheduling setup is better, but that’s fine.”
It is fine. There isn’t a right or wrong answer. My bigger point is that even if one prefers September conference games, the SEC isn’t doing it quite right. Having 10+ I-AA games in November isn’t good either. I also believe most early conference games get dwarfed by any major OOC games that same weekend. They’re better than cupcake games, but not better than a good intersectional game.
“Holy projection issues on the kickoff time!!”
Those are the 3 most common objections to early starts that get raised – it’s before noon (big deal), students are out drinking Friday night and can’t make it by noon, and that games are more fun when the crowd is drunk from hours of tailgating.
“I bet you ask people to sit down at games too, don’t you?”
Never have, never will. I’ve been asked to sit down and told that person “No,” though.
“Of course they want to be hosted Michigan weekend over another opponent’s night game!”
Which proves that the issue is the game, not the time.
“Michigan at night, or even 3:30, would trump Michigan at noon though.”
Right until Columbus gets a storm and it’s below freezing with sleet/freezing rain/snow all game long. I’m sure that would thrill the recruits from FL.
“They’re all excited about being under the lights.”
They’re also excited after day games. It’s like being pampered at a big game is exciting to most 17 year-olds.
“By almost any measurable statistic (crowd size, crowd noise, TV ratings, revenue to local businesses, etc.)”
Talk about a vacuum. Of course TV ratings are higher – there are fewer games on and more people are at home. As for noise, that’s equally a function of the opponent. Big opponents tend to get night games, so you can’t separate the variables. MI gets plenty loud for a noon game and usually has the largest crowd. As for local revenue, feel free to prove that MI doesn’t raise as much as another game.
“Opponent X at night > Opponent X at noon”
For TV, sure. Not for fans that want to drive home after the game, though.
“Your head might explode when they announce permanent lights at The Shoe.”
No, they should have had them years ago. Once they started playing at 3:30, they should have had them.
“Urban wants more night games, and he’ll get more night games.”
Probably. But his only concern is recruiting. I’m the rare person thinking about actual fans that attend games.
LikeLike
NBC announces it has renewed their Notre Dame deal through 2025.
http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/sports/nbcsports/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/04/18/notredamenbcspo1366299482518.xml
LikeLike
Will be interested to learn the financial terms once they are leaked.
LikeLike
NBC has also announced it has the rights to the English Premier League. Will broadcast 20 games on NBC proper, and the rest on a collection of other channels.
LikeLike
Didn’t I hear they’re going to show the games live, meaning pretty early over here?
LikeLike
Mary Sue Coleman announced that she will retire next year.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130418/NEWS06/304180143/Mary-Sue-Coleman-to-retire-from-Unviversity-of-Michigan
LikeLike
so, any tea-leave readers want to suggest how this impacts realignment?
LikeLike
Hard to tell. If FSU rumors are true, this could impact how she votes I guess. More likely she’d be conservative than anything.
LikeLike
Looks like the B1G will be voting to approve a 9 game conference football schedule beginning in 2016: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22105771/big-ten-set-to-approve-nine-game-schedule-for-2016
LikeLike
Not really news, but I’m glad their finally making a decision on something officially. They should decide on divisions in the next few weeks too, and get that over with. Then they can start cranking out B10 schedules for 2014-2017 so the schools can get their OOC games booked.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75161/key-decisions-coming-next-week-for-b1g
More on the non-news. They are expected to also vote on divisions next week.
“Also, the Big Ten is expected to work out a revenue plan that can satisfy schools that have required seven total home games per year to satisfy their budgets.”
I wonder if they’ll just scrap gate revenue sharing which would fix the problem in a fair manner?
“The Pac-12 and Big 12 already play nine league games per season, and the ACC is making the move this season.”
Add in the B10 in 2016 and the SEC will be on an island. Between having a network and SOS comparisons for the playoff, the SEC may gradually be pressured into going to 9. I know many of their fans already want it.
I do hope the B10 is smart enough to give an entire division 5 home games or 5 road games in a season to keep things balanced. I won’t bet on it until I see it, though.
LikeLike
I would much rather see everyone play 9 conference games unless teams start playing much tougher non-conference schedules. I suspect the SEC will make the change eventually. Maybe with the next expansion (if any).
LikeLike
The ACC is dropping back to 8 games though once the ND agreement starts though.
Also, dropping the gate revenue sharing would really hurt the West schools if the conference goes E/W with the divisions.
LikeLike
I thought they were still doing 9.
LikeLike
FSU made them drop the 9th game
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8456886/acc-keep-8-game-league-football-schedule
The ACC has decided to stay with eight league football games for the foreseeable future instead of transitioning to nine conference games in 2013 as originally planned, the conference announced on Wednesday.
The decision was made at the ACC’s recent fall meetings in Boston as a result of the new agreement with Notre Dame, in which the Irish will play five games against the ACC annually.
LikeLike
The reason FSU doesn’t want 9 games is the same reason UF, UGA, & USCe don’t want 9 games for the SEC’s conference schedule. Since they play their in state rivals every year, they don’t want to have to give up another “cupcake” team if they want to play a new BCS conference level team every year.
For instance let’s say that the SEC goes to 9 games. UGA would have to play the 9 SEC teams, GT, and then they only have 2 games left for cupcakes. If they ever wanted to play Clemson (like they are this year), then they would only get one cupcake team.
I think most SEC fans would love to go to a 9 game conference schedule (I know I definitely would). I know Saban has been pretty vocal about his thoughts that the SEC should go to it. But right now UGA, UF, USCe, and maybe UK (although I’m not sure what their stance is for sure) are blocking it. And if the aTm/UT and Mizzou/KU games every start back up, then they will probably be against it as well. I was hoping that the upcoming SECN would force the SEC’s hand, but that is looking less likely from what I’ve been reading lately.
LikeLike
@bamatab
It is worth noting that FSU was alright with a 9 game schedule before the ND deal. However, 9 game conference schedule, annual UF game and ND 1/3 of the time would have made it impossible for them to play 7 home games.
LikeLike
Big XII and ACC are working on a scheduling agreement, this could be the reason for dropping to 8 games.
LikeLike
frug,
“The ACC is dropping back to 8 games though once the ND agreement starts though.”
So call it 8.3 with the ND games. They also have several good OOC rivalries to end the year, which will help their SOS. It’s too bad, but I understand their reasoning.
“Also, dropping the gate revenue sharing would really hurt the West schools if the conference goes E/W with the divisions.”
And who has shown any concern for the western schools in this process? NE, WI and IA don’t profit from the sharing. It’s just NW, MN, IL, PU and IN that would lose out, and IN might make up for it by hosting OSU, MI and PSU more often.
LikeLike
Still hearing the ACC is playing hardball against Maryland in its lawsuit, has no attention of settling and wants to drag this out as long as possible so Maryland can’t officially exit till after the annual deadline to do so.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised, but they don’t really control the timeline completely. Sooner or later it will head to court and I’m not sure they want to risk airing their laundry, dirty or otherwise.
LikeLike
ND’s 5 ACC games a year from 2014 to 2016:
http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/041913aaa.html
LikeLike
2014
Notre Dame at Florida State
Louisville at Notre Dame
North Carolina at Notre Dame
Notre Dame at Syracuse
Wake Forest at Notre Dame
2015
Boston College at Notre Dame
Notre Dame at Clemson
Georgia Tech at Notre Dame
Notre Dame at Pittsburgh
Notre Dame at Virginia
2016
Duke at Notre Dame
Miami at Notre Dame
Notre Dame at NC State
Notre Dame at Syracuse
Virginia Tech at Notre Dame
As expected, 1 game against everyone and two against one team (Syracuse) but those were both already scheduled. They spread out the teams pretty well, too. The real question is whether the equal access continues long term or they all get a game and then ND can be more picky.
Oddities:
1. 3 of 4 NC schools play at ND
2. They paired NC schools so in 2015 there is no NC team vs ND
3. SU gets 2 home games, but both are actually in NJ (MetLife Stadium) so ND will be the home team.
4. Why do 3 years, not 4 or 6? That doesn’t bode well for return trips to Duke and WF, for example. Are they trying to appease ACC fans by showing them all getting 1 game before things get unequal?
LikeLike
The ACC schools wanted to be able to say that they play ND at least once every 3 years. 2017-2019 may be too far out. The B10 has released schedules out to only 2016, for instance.
LikeLike
Based on Notre Dame schedules the ACC did the following to previously scheduled OOC games:
Wake Forest@Notre Dame was just moved up a year from 2015 to 2014.
Two Pitt@ND games eliminated in ’14 and ’16 (at least the ACC left Pitt the home game)
Syracuse@ND game for 2015 eliminated; ’14 and ’16 Giants stadium games retained.
BC’s 2015 home game changed to road game and road game in 2016 eliminated.
Miami@ND retained for 2016
>> Net Pitt loses 2 road games against ND; BC loses a home game; Syracuse loses a road game.
>> Total ND games against ACC increased from 10 to 15; ACC home games at 5 vs. 2; away at 8 vs. 6; netural site stays at 2 (? not sure if TV rights changed for Syracuse games).
LikeLike
It’s interesting to note that the schools thought to be of high interest to the Big Ten IRT further expansion are being played in 2014 (North Carolina) and 2015 (Georgia Tech, Virginia). I would put Duke on that list as well, but that game is 2016 and the Blue Devils have the lowest football “footprint” of the bunch.. There’s also speculation surrounding Florida State, which playing Notre Dame in 2014.
Not going beyond three years’ scheduling might be a tacit acknowledgement by the ACC that their future isn’t on the firmest ground. There may be some future scenario in 2017 and beyond whereby games between ND and UVa or UNC or GaTech will have to be replaced with other teams (UConn, Cincinnati) or there may be a different rotation of teams because the ACC no longer has 14 members.
LikeLike
I think its probably simply that the 3 year rotation is the amount of time to announce all the teams games (and 2 for Syracuse). Waiting a bit longer to say the rest gives them flexibility as dates further in the future become more cemented.
LikeLike
Eric,
The problem with that is that the ACC didn’t set dates for any of them yet. All they did is set the years. It’s fairly unusual to do that for an odd number of years. It makes me think they haven’t yet agreed on how the rotation will work or else they have and don’t think fans will be pleased.
LikeLike
I suppose the other possibility is that the ACC feels it may again look at a nine-game conference schedule post 2016 and that the conference didn’t want to go beyond that year in setting up the rotations with Notre Dame.
The Big Ten looks like it will be going to nine games starting 2016, and for now, the 10-team Big XII and the Pac 12 also have nine conference game schedules. It’s been debated by the SEC and now that the conference is looking at having its own network, they could revisit the issue and the objections that were addressed earlier about how it effects some schools’ non-conference schedules (i.e., Florida, Georgia and South Carolina with their fixed in-state rivalry games with FSU, Ga Tech and Clemson).
We’ll see what shakes out in due course. I don’t think anyone can ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the Big Ten is due to renegotiate it primary rights agreements to football and men’s basketball in a handful of years.
LikeLike
Brian: “The problem with that is that the ACC didn’t set dates for any of them yet.”
How can the ACC not setting the dates “yet” be a problem? After all, the ACC doesn’t set the dates, Notre Dame does.
LikeLike
It’s a problem only insofar as Eric’s theory was based on having date flexibility for the future.
LikeLike
I’d presume that they announced three years because people are more interested in the coming game with Notre Dame than the game after that.
LikeLike
Leaders and Legends no more.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9191768/big-ten-conference-realign-teams-replace-division-names-east-west-sources-say
LikeLike
yay!!! as predicted awhile back, this news had been so thoroughly leaked and vetted in the media, the new divisions and new names are no longer “news.”
LikeLike
My only question: Why bury the news on a Friday? Announce it on Monday or Tuesday so it can be talked about before the NFL draft starts.
LikeLike
They missed the most obvious line in Oz. When Mila Kunis asked Oz where he thought he was, he should have said, “Well I’m not in Kansas anymore.
”
Relevance, Ding, Dong the witch is dead–or Ding, Dong the leaders and legends are dead-According to Brett McMurphy it will be east west with the logical split-RU/MD/PSU/OSU/UM/MSU/IU in the east.
LikeLike
Love it. UW deserves to be in the West.
LikeLike
SIAP, but I didn’t see this above anywhere.
UNC has a new Chancellor, Carol Folt.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/12/2821330/chancellor-folt.html
LikeLike
to avoid the dreaded “post awaiting moderation,” here is another link. chancellorsearch.unc.edu
In summary, she’s not remotely an ACC person and her administrative background is all about the $$.
From this link: “An Ohio native, Folt attended the University of California at Santa Barbara, earning a bachelor’s degree in aquatic biology (1976) and a master’s degree in biology (1978). She later received her doctorate in ecology (1982) from the University of California at Davis and conducted postdoctoral studies at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station of Michigan State University.”
[…]
“As provost, she led Dartmouth’s first campus-wide strategic planning process, engaging hundreds of faculty, staff and students. Following the national economic downturn, she co-led Dartmouth’s efforts to resolve a $100-million budget gap.
As interim president, she has continued to help Dartmouth identify opportunities for greater collaboration across schools to enhance academic quality and competitiveness, overseen significant growth in global partnerships, and augmented support for faculty, student and community entrepreneurship and technological innovation. She has also spearheaded a year-long, campus-wide celebration and focus on the arts, co-education and the future of higher education. ….”
Hellooooo Big Ten !!
LikeLike
Well, if she will have any affect on the where UNC would go, it would have to be after July 1. That’s when she officially starts working there. If they were to move during the remainder of Holden Thorp’s term (current Chancellor), it would be to the SEC. There’s a better chance that they’ll pull the ACC together but ND’s new NBC deal make that somewhat harder to do.
LikeLike
In summary, she’s not remotely an ACC person and her administrative background is all about the $$.
She was at Dartmouth as was Mike Slive and he was all about the money as well.
LikeLike
Some information on the UVa. President, Teresa Sullivan.
Sullivan was born in IL, grew up in Miss., went to MSU, then UofC, was on the faculty @ Texas, etc., then UofM Provost, #2 under Mary Sue Coleman. Went to UVa in 2010.
In theory, she is the one who is going to decide if UVa. joins the B1G. But her Board must approve.
So, some very interesting information about her relationship with her Board of Regents. She was temporarily ousted by the Executive Board, but then reinstated by the fill Board. Her main antagonist, Dragas, was reappointed and confirmed for a new term in January.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teresa-sullivan-the-ousted-u-va-leader-who-may-regain-the-post/2012/06/25/gJQAcSVx2V_story_1.html
Dragas supposedly had Sullivan ousted because Sullivan wasn’t moving fast enough to move UVa forward on issues such as internet classes, funding, etc.
Wonder what Dragas thinks of the B1G and the CIC?
LikeLike
more on the Sullivan-Dragas controversy. http://www.readthehook.com/108997/selfless-servant-dragas-got-raw-deal
The comments are awesome. Dragas as Eva Peron; copious Hitler references; etc.
If money really is Dragas’ issue, in theory she should be in favor of having UVa join the B1G.
My take is that a Maryland-type decision (e.g., behind-closed-doors decision with a surprise announcement) that UVa is joining the B1G will not work. Note the members of the Board of Regents (actually called the Board of Visitors) is appointed by the Virgina governor and confirmed by the Virginia legislature.
LikeLike
Well, Barry Alverez basically blabbed about how Maryland and Rutgers were for in order to make sure that Penn State don’t get too itchy about leaving. I think adding UVa (along with either UNC, Duke, GT or FSU) would further protect the eastern flank. Then they’d next turn their attention to the western area, I think.
LikeLike
“Then they’d next turn their attention to the western area, I think.”
Yeah, but to who? Kansas? Do you really think they’re worth adding? I really doubt it.
And Missouri’s not going to leave the SEC any time soon.
So after that there aren’t really any western choices that have AAU status other than Iowa State and Texas.
LikeLike
These decisions are made at a far higher level than University presidents. State governments are typically very involved as well.
LikeLike
Loyola to MVC official for next year.
http://www.mvc-sports.com/softball/news/2012-13/6640/missouri-valley-conference-adds-loyola-university-chicago/
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/article/Few-Athletes-Benefit-From-Move/138643/?key=QD12IlVpZnVCZnBkaTtJZWpcOyZjZB90MHMabHkobllSGQ%3D%3D
A story on multi-year scholarships and how few of them have been given out.
LikeLike
Team competition in the Women’s Gymnastics “Super Six” National Championships concluded today. Florida won the championship.
1. Florida
2. Oklahoma
3. Alabama
4. UCLA
5. LSU
6. Georgia
Individual competition concludes tomorrow.
LikeLike
Michigan wins the Men’s. Sam Mikulak also repeated as the Individual All-Around champion.
1. Michigan
2. Oklahoma
3. Stanford
4. Penn State
5. Iowa
6. Illinois
LikeLike
I can’t really say that I follow collegiate gymnastics all that closely, but I was wondering, is there usually this little overlap between men and women’s success? Oklahoma is the only team in both genders’ super six.
I was also wondering, is women’s the more closely followed of the two in college? I’ve seen the women’s results mentioned multiple times in different places, but I have seen little to no mention of the men’s. In fact, if I was not a Michigan alumni (and they had not won), I likely would not have noticed or mentioned the results (though the same goes for the women’s for me).
LikeLike
Don’t know about men’s, but UGA, LSU and Utah (and certainly others) have very big followings.
LikeLike
Not many schools have gymnastics, especially for men. How many of the final four hoops teams (Men’s and Women’s) came from the same school? UL.
I’d say women’s is followed a lot more, especially in the south. They actually care about it down here, and they certainly don’t have many men’s teams.
LikeLike
There are aprox 16 men’s and around 60 women’s teams.
LikeLike
Bama has a huge women’s gymnastics following. They routinely pulls between 10,000 & 15,000 fans at their meets. As a matter of a fact, Bama usually leads the nation in attendance.
http://www.cbs42.com/2013/04/05/alabama-gymnastics-leads-nation-in-attendance/
LikeLike
With the recent news and discussion of the Big Ten’s divisions, I was wondering, where would we be today if the Big Ten had successfully added Notre Dame instead of Nebraska as the 12th member of the conference?
With Michigan, OSU, PSU, and ND as the 4 kings, how do you properly split them? Do you put Michigan and OSU in a “Western” division? Or, do you try to keep PSU/OSU together and instead place Michigan and ND in a division together? I can see benefits to either setup, honestly.
I also wonder how this would have affected the 14-team B1G, with Rutgers and Maryland. You would obviously want ND in a division with those schools, but, again, how do you handle the other three kings? Do you stick one of UM/OSU on an island in the West, or is ND/PSU/Rutgers/Maryland enough on its own to allow the pair to be in together in the West?
Obviously none of this matters now, but I think ND brings a very different set of problems to the divisional alignment question.
LikeLike
I’m going to guess that if Notre Dame was somehow convinced (not that I think they could have been; alumni opinion is too strong), then you’d have been looking at divisions which would have allowed Notre Dame to keep their annual Big Ten games. Something like:
Notre Dame——-Penn State
Michigan———–Ohio State
Michigan State—-Iowa
Purdue————-Illinois
Indiana————-Indiana
Wisconsin———Minnesota
That still balances the big 4 and big 6 (the way the Big Ten was using before with Iowa counting, but not Michigan State for some reason).
If the Big Ten still felt the need to go to 14 (very debatable with Notre Dame with them instead of the ACC), I can’t even guess very well here. Notre Dame would not want 9 conference games (not with all their out of conference rivalries) and that likely would have been a prerequisite of them joining the conference. That means locked crossover are a big no-no, but you can’t avoid them. Further, you want Notre Dame and Penn State with eastern schools (most effective in the east), but that probably means putting Ohio State and Michigan in the other division which would separate Notre Dame from both Michigan and Michigan State. If 8 conference games were a must, I’d guess with a lot of debate and disagreements, they’d end up with something like this:
Division A
Notre Dame
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin (locked game with Minnesota)
Division B
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Iowa
Minnesota (locked game with Wisconsin)
Illinois
LikeLike
Eric,
“That still balances the big 4 and big 6 (the way the Big Ten was using before with Iowa counting, but not Michigan State for some reason).”
Their reasoning was very clear. Look at 1993-2009.
B10 W%
OSU – 0.783
NE – 0.710
MI – 0.691
PSU – 0.632
WI – 0.592
IA – 0.526
PU – 0.474
MSU – 0.467
NW – 0.434
IL – 0.335
MN – 0.324
IN – 0.243
Maybe you think that’s too long.
From 2000-2009:
3. IA – 0.613
9. MSU – 0.400
Major (BCS) Bowls
OSU – 10
NE – 7
MI – 5
PSU – 4
WI – 3
IA – 2
IL – 2
NW – 1
PU – 1
How would you put MSU above IA based on that?
MSU’s 9+ W seasons since 1970:
1987 9-2-1
1999 10-2
2008 9-4
2010 11-2 (after the B10 decided on divisions)
2011 11-3 (after the B10 decided on divisions)
LikeLike
Ross,
“With the recent news and discussion of the Big Ten’s divisions, I was wondering, where would we be today if the Big Ten had successfully added Notre Dame instead of Nebraska as the 12th member of the conference?”
Staying at 12 and not adding RU and UMD, hopefully.
“With Michigan, OSU, PSU, and ND as the 4 kings, how do you properly split them? Do you put Michigan and OSU in a “Western” division? Or, do you try to keep PSU/OSU together and instead place Michigan and ND in a division together? I can see benefits to either setup, honestly.”
It really depends who you ask. PSU will want OSU and ND will want MI, I think. MI and OSU may still want each other to avoid the possible rematch (clearly not a position I agree with).
My preference (in order of locked rival):
A – OSU, PSU, WI, IL, IA, MN
B – MI, ND, MSU, NW, PU, IN
Season enders: OSU/MI, PSU/IA, WI/MN, IL/NW, ND/MSU, PU/IN
I’d would have used PSU/ND and IA/MSU instead but everyone complains about crossovers that might be a rematch in the CCG. Either way ND would have to move their USC/Stanford game up a week. If they won’t do that, then someone else needs to develop an OOC rivalry to end the year.
“I also wonder how this would have affected the 14-team B1G, with Rutgers and Maryland. You would obviously want ND in a division with those schools, but, again, how do you handle the other three kings?”
E – PSU, ND, MSU, RU, UMD, PU, IN
W – OSU, MI, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
Lock MI/MSU.
LikeLike
I think I agree on the setup you proposed for the 12-team Big Ten. I don’t think it’s possible to satisfy everyone when it comes to where you place Michigan and Ohio State. Some will always want to avoid a rematch, whereas others (specifically, other Big Ten teams) will likely want to retain as many games against those teams as possible.
As for the 14-team Big Ten, that’s a really tough one. Are Notre Dame and PSU together enough to crack NYC, with Rutgers’ help? I think it’s at least as likely as the current Big Ten’s setup, but I am not sure if they would want Michigan there as well. Then of course you don’t keep Michigan-Notre Dame every year, which I think is one of the boons to having Notre Dame in the first place.
Despite the fact that Notre Dame is the more valuable expansion target, at least from the Big Ten’s point of view, I think the are clearly the more difficult team to accommodate in terms of alignment and scheduling. While that’s not really a surprise given their personal preference regarding scheduling, the sheer value of the various match-ups they offer would likely provoke some long discussions within the Big Ten about which of those games are the most valuable.
It also makes me wonder, does the Big Ten actually stop at 12 with Notre Dame (as you mentioned)? If Notre Dame can bring in the east coast, then I think the answer is probably yes, but I can’t pretend to know exactly how the conference values various realignment goals such as population, geography, and recruiting. They may still ultimately want geographic footholds in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame can bring in the east coast, then I think the answer is probably yes, but I can’t pretend to know exactly how the conference values various realignment goals such as population, geography, and recruiting. They may still ultimately want geographic footholds in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions.
That would require overcoming a bias for not going well outside the traditional footprint, which they’ve just begun doing, anyway.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I think I agree on the setup you proposed for the 12-team Big Ten. I don’t think it’s possible to satisfy everyone when it comes to where you place Michigan and Ohio State. Some will always want to avoid a rematch, whereas others (specifically, other Big Ten teams) will likely want to retain as many games against those teams as possible.”
Yes, there is no perfect solution there.
“As for the 14-team Big Ten, that’s a really tough one. Are Notre Dame and PSU together enough to crack NYC, with Rutgers’ help? I think it’s at least as likely as the current Big Ten’s setup, but I am not sure if they would want Michigan there as well. Then of course you don’t keep Michigan-Notre Dame every year, which I think is one of the boons to having Notre Dame in the first place.”
I don’t think anything is sufficient to crack NYC. As for ND/MI going to once every 3 years or so, it’s a price I chose to pay for balance. They take breaks already, and ND gets to keep MSU and PU annually (those two need that game more than MI does anyway).
I’m sure the B10 would go with skewed divisions again. They’d likely be the same as the new ones with ND taking OSU’s place and OSU taking NE’s place if I had to guess.
W – OSU, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU
E – MI, PSU, ND, MSU, IN, UMD, RU
Lock IN/PU and OSU/MI.
Or maybe they go full stupid:
E – OSU, MI, PSU, ND, MSU, RU, UMD
W – WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN
Lock PU/ND.
“It also makes me wonder, does the Big Ten actually stop at 12 with Notre Dame (as you mentioned)? If Notre Dame can bring in the east coast, then I think the answer is probably yes, but I can’t pretend to know exactly how the conference values various realignment goals such as population, geography, and recruiting. They may still ultimately want geographic footholds in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions.”
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
Unfortunately, I doubt it. ND would make NYC too tempting. Adding ND would get the B10 to roughly 45% of all CFB fans in NYC. With ND adding 9.2% by to RU’s 20.9%, I just can’t see Delany resisting. Besides, they would still make their demographics argument.
LikeLike
I agree with Eric on the divisions (assuming he meant Northwestern in the Ohio St./Penn St. division) in a 12 team lineup (though I wonder if ND wouldn’t have pushed hard for an annual game with Northwestern to play in Chicago more often).
As for 14, I seriously doubt the Big Ten would have kept expanding. According to multiple reports the proposal the Big Ten gave ND in 2010 including a pledge to stay at 12 members if Notre Dame agreed to join (effectively giving ND veto power over future expansion)
LikeLike
frug,
“I agree with Eric on the divisions (assuming he meant Northwestern in the Ohio St./Penn St. division) in a 12 team lineup (though I wonder if ND wouldn’t have pushed hard for an annual game with Northwestern to play in Chicago more often).”
I don’t know. His split seems odd to me now that geography is the latest obsession.
Notre Dame——-Penn State
Michigan———–Ohio State
Michigan State—-Iowa
Purdue————-Illinois
Indiana————-Indiana [NW ?]
Wisconsin———Minnesota
In order of locked rivals:
A – ND, MI, MSU, PU, IN, NW
B – PSU, OSU, WI, IA, MN, IL
That keeps the triangle of hate together and maintains balance while giving ND all of their rivalries, too.
“As for 14, I seriously doubt the Big Ten would have kept expanding. According to multiple reports the proposal the Big Ten gave ND in 2010 including a pledge to stay at 12 members if Notre Dame agreed to join (effectively giving ND veto power over future expansion).”
I doubt they’d give a permanent pledge like that to ND. Too many outside circumstances could make that unreasonable. A temporary pledge, sure, but not a permanent one. Similarly I could see a short term pledge to stay at 8 games. I don’t see the other 11 being willing to let ND completely control the future of the B10.
LikeLike
In 2010 geography wasn’t considered important and they believed for competitive balance reasons they had to split Iowa and Wiscy.
LikeLike
I disagree. Geography was the second most important factor last time. I’m applying 2013 sensibilities to the issue here, though.
LikeLike
The conference said in 2010 that their top 3 priorities (in order) were
1. Competitive balance
2. Preservation of rivalries
3. Geography
LikeLike
Rivalries and geography go together.
LikeLike
Frequently, but not always which is why the Big Ten separated them.
LikeLike
Outside LBJ and Illibuck, which significant rivalries don’t involve neighbors in the B10?
LikeLike
Interesting comments from exiting UNC Chancellor, Holden Thorp:
Outgoing North Carolina chancellor Holden Thorp said Friday that presidents are often ill-equipped to run big-time sports programs and should give more control to their athletic directors.
Speaking during a campus forum about balancing athletics and academics, Thorp said the “presidential-control idea has sort of gotten away from us” and that the model hasn’t prevented corruption or the money-driven culture of college sports.
“Either we put the ADs back in charge and hold them accountable if things don’t work,” Thorp said, “… or let’s be honest and tell everyone when we select them to run institutions that run big-time sports that athletics is the most important part of their job.”
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9192213/unc-tar-heels-holden-thorp-says-university-residents-running-sports-not-working
I think the article is more about what he thinks about college athletics than about what eventually happens with UNC athletics. Still, he does bring up something that has been an issue for some time: how much autonomy should institutions give to athletic directors to run the sports programs? Can college presidents or administrators still have a role in shaping athletics, being that decisions are being made that would actually matter to the same institutions?
I would love FtT to open a discussion topic on this.
LikeLike
I think there is clearly a big picture role for presidents. They can direct the AD to focus more broadly or more narrowly, how to weigh winning versus academic standards and the like. What they shouldn’t do is get involved in the day to day stuff (hiring coaches, etc) except where requested (helping with fundraising) or required (oversight of the AD). It should be very much of a CEO/COO relationship between the president and the AD.
LikeLike
They usually don’t get involved with hiring. Where they do get involved is conference realignment and TV contracts.
LikeLike
They vary on what they get nosy about. I was just naming something that should be off limits.
I’d say realignment is under their purview because you are who your friends are to a certain extent. I can also see them giving guidance like suggesting the B10 move east for student demographic reasons or setting a minimum academic threshold for acceptance. After all, the AD is part of the school, not a separate entity.
TV deals should be done by professionals with guidance on important principles (The Game must stay on the final day, no November night games, whatever).
LikeLike
The role of a president of a university with major investments in athletics is pretty interesting.
The football and men’s basketball teams are usually the most visiible aspects of the school to the general public, yet in terms of resources, budget and personnel, athletic departments overall are not major players to the larger organization.
So while the CEO/COO relationship idea makes sense, there’s a real question for the presidents about how much autonomy they should give to the athletic directors. The most recent example revolves around Rutgers and its basketball program and how RU’s president largely delegated the response to the charges surrounding the head coach to the now fired athletic director. For doing that, he caught a lot of fire for mishandling events, including not watching the actual videotapes.
What happened in Happy Valley with former PSU president Graham Spanier is a classic case where the football program’s problems and lack of appropriate followup were the reason why he lost his job. This is a perfect example that shows not only that presidents can’t keep athletic departments at arm’s reach, but that they have to be proactive once those problems get to their level. Like gambling is baseball’s mortal sin, having a major situation like this being badly mismanaged at the President’s level is college sport’s mortal sin.
But as a university president, you have to acknowledge the importance of athletics as a means to promoting the school and providing a stage for fund raising. Those football Saturday afternoons are essentially free infommercials–and having a winning program helps a lot too. Part of me thinks that the university presidents see the rules violations that occur as costs of doing business. Is there some embarassment? Yes. Are the punishments crippling over the long term? Usually, no. Do you accept that given the level of oversight, there are still potential problems lurking in the dark corners? Yes–because they’ve seen the same sets of problems in college athletics for the better part of a century now.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/04/21/college-football-ncaa-split/2097115/
An interesting article on the future of CFB.
A little excerpt:
“Although the notion that big football schools might eventually break away from the NCAA is not new, the overwhelming sense within the industry is that some sort of major change is on the horizon. Whether that change includes the NCAA completely, in part or not at all is now talked about openly and frequently among administrators, according to conversations with more than two dozen high-ranking college athletics officials across a spectrum of Division I conferences.
The topic has reached such a boil in recent years, it was even broached directly to NCAA president Mark Emmert at an athletics directors convention in September 2011, when realignment had gripped the entire industry following the ACC’s raid of the Big East for Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
According to a person in the room, whose version of events was confirmed by two others, one athletics director asked Emmert directly whether it was time for the top football conferences to split from the lower-tier conferences of the Football Bowl Subdivision, and perhaps even away from the NCAA altogether.”
LikeLike
Emmert has discussed it directly in the public press. He’s said there’s some discussion and there need to be changes of some sort.
LikeLike
As if there haven’t been enough opinions on realignment already, Mark Richt gives his.
http://dogbytesonline.com/richt-addresses-nine-game-sec-schedule-talk-70798/
LikeLike
ACC Grant of Rights. Being reported by multiple sources.
LikeLike
Here’s another article on ACC Grant of Rights.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22116192/acc-approving-grant-of-rights-deal
LikeLike
I thought this was interesting.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy also reporting Grant of Rights has been approved through 2026-27 season.
“ACC presidents approve Grant of Rights thru 2026-27 sources tell @espn. B1G will have to look elsewhere. 1st reported by @DavidGlennShow”
LikeLike
I belive the GOR is the same length as the ACC contract with ESPN and Notre Dame agreement with NBC. What caused Florida State to change their mind and support ACC membership long term? Concessions to FSU? Or, maybe an ACC Network is projected to be more profitable than any of us expected.
LikeLike
Warchant.com @Warchant 29s
We have not confirmed whether Barron/FSU has agreed to a GOR, only that this has been a topic of discussion in FSU leadership of late. #FSU
LikeLike
I am guessing FSU couldn’t get a BIG invite. Staying in the ACC for 13 years will kill any chance they will have of monetarily competing the University of Florida.
LikeLike
If FSU has signed off on this, then that definitelt tells me that they believe that they won’t be getting a B1G or SEC offer anytime soon.
But with that said, I can’t believe that they have now decided to sign off on it now, after fighting it previously.
LikeLike
Yeah timing and length seem off. Why commit now and for so long. Seems a bit foolish to me on FSU’s part.
LikeLike
FSU would be saying SEC wasn’t interested and B1G either wasn’t interested or didn’t make sense being isolated in B1G. And FSU/Miami to Big 12 didn’t make enough extra $ to make sense for them.
LikeLike
McMurphy reporting that Notre Dame is included in the GOR.
LikeLike
Yup, it appears everyone in the conference approved it. Copy of Twitter feed below.
Jim Young @ACCSports 6m
@chris6string @Matt_HayesSN @davidglennshow “15 agreed on it.”
2:05 PM – 22 Apr 13 · Details
LikeLike
It has apparently been agreed upon, but I don’t think it is official yet (at least all of the articles so far are saying that).
LikeLike
The ACC has officially announced its grant of rights:
http://www.theacc.com/genrel/042213aaa.html
Here’s the ESPN story from Brett McMurphy (with a specific quote that FSU was on board with it):
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9200081/acc-media-rights-deal-lock-schools-okd-sources-say
I’ll be working on a post on this, which will hopefully be up later tonight.
LikeLike
Well, I stand corrected. I’m still surpised FSU has all of a sudden had a change of heart. I guess the B1G has made it clear to them that they can’t take them.
LikeLike
The B1G would have preferred that FSU be added with one or three other schools in the region. Promises were made that must have convinced the rest of the ACC to sign up and FSU/Clemson/Miami concluded that they have to follow suit.
LikeLike
The B1G would have preferred that FSU be added with one or three other schools in the region. Promises were made that must have convinced the rest of the ACC to sign up and FSU/Clemson/Miami concluded that they have to follow suit.
I think the more likely scenario is the Big Ten simply wasn’t willing add FSU for academic reasons and so long as FSU was staying the ACC, no one worth adding from the ACC (most notably UNC) was willing to jump.
LikeLike
Great to hear about an ACC GOR. Hopefully the B1G is done at 14, though 12 was better.
LikeLike
Bring back Chicago and add JHU. One east, one west and call it “16”.
LikeLike
greg,
“Great to hear about an ACC GOR. Hopefully the B1G is done at 14, though 12 was better.”
I agree. There really aren’t any viable options left anyway.
So, does this change the view of any of you that said these divisions don’t matter since they’ll be replaced by 2016 (or soon after) when the B10 expands again? Now that it appears the B10 is stuck at 14 for the foreseeable future, do the issues with these divisions become more relevant?
LikeLike
I’ve always thought sticking OSU/UM/PSU/MSU together was a terrible idea. I think you partially solve the problem by sending MSU west, but I still think three kings together is an issue. If this is where we’re going to be for the next decade, then I think the divisions are seriously inadequate.
LikeLike
That’s my position, too. As much as I don’t like these divisions, it’s because I’ve been viewing them as a long term thing. If it was just a couple of years, it would be no different than just getting a tough rotation in your crossover games. But over the long haul, I think the weaknesses of these divisions will fester.
LikeLike
Go ACC!
That is all for now.
LikeLike
Big day for the ACC. I’m shocked that this wasn’t reported by the West Virginia bloggers first. How can that be?
LikeLike
Actually, MHver3 posted a bunch of stuff back on April 18th and 19th on Twitter that seemed to indicate something was about to happen that would make the ACC unraidable (though he never used the term GOR and alluded to a potential scheduling alliance)
LikeLike
To clarify, I don’t know think he was expecting a GOR, but he did seem to feel something was about to happen that would prohibit the Big XII was raiding to the ACC.
LikeLike
It was kind of bizarre. He was saying Big 12 turned down a Pitt/Miami combo. But his timing was interesting.
LikeLike
I think if anything this proves all of those twitter attention whores were lying the whole time. They kept saying all of this was imminent. If it was imminent then why would FSU, Miami, GA Tech, and others sign away a GOR?
They. Were. Lying.
LikeLike
And now the Big 12 death clock starts. The end is near in 2025!
LikeLike
ACC, Big12, ND and the Playoff Setup all have media rights that expire at the same time.
Coincidence or is 2026 Conference Realignment Armageddon?
LikeLike
Sorry Frank, but it’s time to shut down your blog. Conference realignment is done.
LikeLike
@Andy – Well, I will of course continue to write about the business of sports and its impact on the media. Despite this blog’s large focus on realignment, I’ve been one of the larger skeptics of further power conference raids and thought that the ACC chips that both the Big Ten and SEC really wanted (UNC for sure and, to a lesser extent, UVA) would be much harder to pry away than many other bloggers/observers thought. I actually tried to shift away from realignment-related issues last year, but then the Big Ten reared its head again with it taking Maryland and Rutgers. Granted, there is still a lot to shake out in the non-power conferences and I’ve thought that conference realignment was dead a couple of times over the past few years. There *shouldn’t* be more realignment at the power conference level with the grant of rights if current logic holds, but we have throw in the caveat that such logic has shifted on several occasions already.
LikeLike
I was just teasing you Frank. I know you can blog about more than realignment. And credit to you for being right all along about the ACC. They held together. I tended to think you were probably right but I had my doubts. I’ll keep reading your blog going forward. It’ll just need to find other topics to discuss.
LikeLike
It’s long past time for you to shut down.
LikeLike
You love me.
LikeLike
Looks like the biggest winners are Syracuse, Louisville and Notre Dame. They get an ACC that’s actually stable and a conference to call home. Not to mention Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest…
LikeLike
And to all you who were convinced that the B1G would expand to 20, I say ha ha I told you so.
LikeLike
ACC gets more than $20M starting July 1st 2013.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22116192/acc-eyeing-grant-of-rights-deal
LikeLike
ACC has spread a lot of manure about $. I don’t buy that ESPN will give money away to theoretically hold a school in a conference where it has less value. If its $20 million, the ACC has given ESPN something additional-selling more sponsorship rights, more weeknight games, more years or they are simply dropping early years in their calculation. If SBJ comes out with it instead of merely a quote from an ACC official, then its more credible.
LikeLike
Man, WVU fans must be freaking out right now. What a debacle for them. I wonder if there’s any chance BYU goes to the Big 12 now?
LikeLike
As much as I would have welcomed the partition of the ACC, I would hardly call this outcome a debacle for WVU. If you’d like an example of a debacle, look at the fates of Cincy and UConn.
LikeLike
Any Maryland fans dreaming of restoring rivalries with UVa, UNC and Duke have watched that fly out the window…though College Park is in better shape than Morgantown, Cincinnati or Storrs.
LikeLike
True.
LikeLike
I’m glad its all done at least in the major conferences.
LikeLike
Does this mean the ACC will give up its lawsuit against Maryland?
LikeLike
I don’t think so.
LikeLike
I am not convinced everything is all finished yet. Keep in mind the O’Bannon trial, and the possibility of the bigger football schools breaking away from the NCAA, I wonder how much longer the Wake Forest’s & Washington State’s of the World will remain in a Power Conference, particularly if the schools must pay millions to ex athletes like O’Bannon.
LikeLike
The way schools have scrambled trying to move up, with dramatic increase in media revenue (equal to USC, UW, UO, etc), only one school ever having been booted from a D1 conference (the most dysfunctional one), I doubt WSU, or any school currently in the big three are at any risk. The GOR in the ACC was all that was missing from them having regained reasonable claim to being as stable, if not quite as affluent, as the big three so Wake seems safe too.
LikeLike
It very well might not be over. Gee mentioned the possibility of a couple of Midwestern schools being interested in joining as well as the east coast options. There are no Midwestern schools in the ACC.
LikeLike
The only reasonable one without a GOR is MO, and they aren’t coming.
LikeLike
Say what you want, but I think ESPN clearly demonstrated its power and political skill here. They want the best basketball brand (ACC) and football prestige (SEC) & they certainly compete against the BTN & FOX.
As bad as the Rutger’s and Penn State issues are, ESPN did no favors to the either of these schools and the BIG. They strategically created negative perception against these schools and the BIG because their stake in the SEC and ACC is vital.
But, I’m with Frank’s subtle and sometimes clear thoughts over the past 6 months – the ACC has too much history and cultural compatibility to fragment like the Big12.
LikeLike
Many people pointed out a long time ago that ESPN was the key to holding the ACC together.
LikeLike
Paranoid much?
ESPN did extensive reporting on Rutgers and Penn St. because they were stories that attracted a lot of viewers and hits.
I’m also not sure why you would consider the ACC the best BB brand. The Big East has been better competitively over the last 10 years, the Big Ten gets better TV ratings and makes more money and the Big Ten and SEC both have better attendance.
LikeLike
Frug, not paranoid at all. It was trashy journalism and way over the top, as is most mainstream journalism. I didn’t need to be inundated with Rutger’s or PSU issues for days on end, much of it devoid of technical procedures and findings. Most people with a brain realize the wrongdoing by either university after a couple rounds of reporting. If ESPN had consistency with such issues we would hear more about UNC’s academic scandal, which seems to blow away what Minnesota did under Clem Haskins, Miami’s crooked scandal as well. What about the constant bs SEC schools get away with? The creepy sexual issues at UT Austin? The ever corrupt BCS and bowl system? The unfairness of college baseball’s system towards northern school? What about MLB’s pending revenue crisis? Concussions in the NFL? I could go on here.
The ACC more than held it’s own against the Big East in Basketball since 2000: 5 NCs (01, 02, 05, 09, 10) – that’s more than the Big East, same time frame, & they did it with less schools – 4 less to be precise. And now they have Cuse and Lville, who are responsible for two the Big East’s past 5 NCs.
EPSN knows how to survive and they have the best brands, conference wise, football and basketball, from this point forward. The BIG has the potential to be the best hoops conference, the recruits are in the footprint, but it will be hard to catch the SEC in football – other conferences as well. There’s really only room for one powerful football conference in the Southeast & damn did the SEC score with aTm (the southwest) – they got into Tx. Va & NC are solid HS football states, the only SE states the SEC has no teams in, but I’ll take a medley of La, Miss, Tenn, Bama & Tx recruits over Va-NC any day of the week. The ACC has no teams in those states. The SEC has Missouri and Arkansas to themselves as well. As for the shared states: the Gators, Bulldogs, Gamecocks simply trump Clemson, FSU-Miami & GaTech.
LikeLike
You could 100% tell at least with the Rutgers incident that ESPN was pushing hard and negative. It was very DrudgeReport-eqse.
LikeLike
Concur 1000 %.
LikeLike
I agree. It was newsworthy and deserved coverage, but ESPN pressed it harder than they have some other stories of similar magnitude. Maybe it’s because it was so close to home/NYC. I’m not saying why they did it, but the coverage did seem a little skewed,
LikeLike
D.C. Reeves @Warchant_DC
Eric Barron said the focus of all Grant of Rights discussion with ACC and FSU were on new TV network and extra $ generated, nothing else. #FSU
Re-tweeted by Matt Hayes
LikeLike
Eric Barron said the focus of all Grant of Rights discussion with ACC and FSU were on new TV network and extra $ generated, nothing else. #FSU
Which roughly translates to “we accepted that the Big Ten and SEC were not willing to add us anytime soon…”
LikeLike
Eric Barron’s comments.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/chopping-block/os-cb-acc-florida-state-fsu-eric-barron-grant-expansion-20130422,0,2957931.post
LikeLike
More comments from FSU’s Eric Barron:
SBN College Football @SBNationCFB
FSU prez RT @Corey_Clark: Barron on new TV deal: “Because of the schools that have been added we’re going to get a significant plus-up.”
Jim Young @ACCSports 9m
RT @Corey_Clark: Barron’s interpretation is that this move is great for ESPN/ACC because ESPN is tired of renegotiating contracts.
Corey Clark/TDO.com @Corey_Clark 16m
Barron: “And we’re going to start diligently working on an ACC network. It was very clear ESPN wasn’t interested in making either one of those investments, which are significant, if the conferences aren’t stable.”
Jim Young @ACCSports 8m
RT @Corey_Clark: Barron: “Stability, added resources and the potential of the network — those things in my view change the game.”
LikeLike
Just a general question: What media rights are included in a GOR (besides the obvious tv/radio/webcast rights for home games)?
I ask in order to ponder the following hypothetical: If UNC leaves the ACC for the B1G with a grant of rights in place, what revenue would the school forfeit (beyond the obvious tv/radio/webcast monies). Would they lose attendance, luxury boxes, or concessions revenue?
Additionally, if UNC joined the B1G, enabling BTN to get on a basic tier in North Carolina, would UNC’s cut of BTN right’s fees and revenue be excluded in the grant of rights, allowing UNC to keep that money, or would that money go to the ACC?
LikeLike
They would lose all media rights money and nothing else. They’d also lose the rights to their home games. So every time they played a home game, the ACC would get it not the B10. The ACC would get the replay rights, too. Thus, the BTN couldn’t show UNC home games, just road games.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I’m not an expert, but I don’t think they would lose attendance, box, or concession revenue.
Someone explained on Twitter earlier today (I don’t remember who) that all the GOR essentially does is to allow the ACC a strong position to demand hundreds of millions in damages in a settlement with a departing school rather than 50 million. The GOR is breakable, its just much more expensive than the ACC’s original exit fee.
LikeLike
“The GOR is breakable, its just much more expensive than the ACC’s original exit fee.”
-THAT’S A BINGO!
However a Judge is never going to approve payments to the ACC for more than $100m.
LikeLike
A GOR is rock solid because the conference getting the team is at risk of losing conference games to the conference losing a team. No conference would risk that. If UNC went to B1G with a GOR, Michigan at UNC would be on the ACC TV contract. That might even violate the B1G’s contract. Noone is leaving a conference with a GOR while it is in effect.
LikeLike
bullet,
“A GOR is rock solid because the conference getting the team is at risk of losing conference games to the conference losing a team. No conference would risk that. If UNC went to B1G with a GOR, Michigan at UNC would be on the ACC TV contract. That might even violate the B1G’s contract. Noone is leaving a conference with a GOR while it is in effect.”
Just hypothetically, what if you scheduled no home games for the new school and just reimbursed them for lost gate revenue through revenue sharing? Could you technically play at their place but make them the road team (Other school sells the tickets and gets the gate revenue)? What about nearby neutral sites where they are the “road” team? The media rights in question are only for home games, right?
For example:
UNC is always the road team but plays half their hoops games in Greensboro and their football games in Charlotte. Or, add Duke and have them play at each other’s place while always the road team.
LikeLike
It’s whatever rights they decide to put into it. If I had to guess, I would say just those media rights (beyond the obvious tv/radio/webcast) are all that are included.
If the ACC owns UNC’s media rights, then I don’t think that UNC’s home games would be allowed on the BTN. If they do show a home game, then I would think that all of the money would go to the ACC. At least that is the premise…I think.
LikeLike
In other news………
Big 10 is doing pretty well on the NCs so far this year, with a total of 6: men’s gym. and m. swimming-Michigan; wrestling-PSU; M. soccer-IU; W. ice hockey-MN; W. Bowling-NEB;
SEC has football-Bama; m. in. T&F-Ark.; W. Gym-Florida; W. Swimming-GA (strangely, Andy, nothing for Missouri)
Big East has UL-basketball and U Conn-W. basketball
PAC 12 has M. water polo–USC; W, CC-Oregon; skiing-Colo.; W. in. T&F–Oregon
Big 12 has W. volleyball; Rifle-W. Vir.; M. CC-OK St.
Ivy has M. Hockey and W. FH-both Princeton
ACC has w. soccer-NC
Still to be decided: baseball; m. golf; m. lacrosse; m. tennis; out. T&F; m. volleyball; w. Golf; W. lacrosse; rowing; softball; W. tennis; W, out, T&F; w. WP. BIG looks to be done with the possible exception of NW in W. lacrosse and, a real long shot, Mich. in softball
LikeLike
Mizzou came reasonably close in wrestling and is ranked fairly high in softball right now, but yeah probably no national titles for Mizzou this year. I’ll be surprised if Mizzou doesn’t get one in wrestling or softball over the next few years though. We’ve really been having a lot of success in those two sports. Finish top 5 or 10 pretty much every year for a while now.
LikeLike
Also, kind of funny that 5 out the 6 national titles the B1G won are in sports that the SEC doesn’t sponsor.
LikeLike
Also kind of funny that Missouri hasn’t won a NC since 1965, and has a total of 2, the other being in 1954.
LikeLike
Also, not the BIG’s fault the SEC only cares about football and spring football. Can’t rednecks swim?
LikeLike
shroom – Auburn has won 7 of the last 15 men’s swimming & diving NCs, and Florida, Auburn & Georgia have combined to win 10 of the last 15 women’s swimming & diving NCs. So the answer to your question is yes, rednecks can swim.
LikeLike
Shroom, Alan just toasted you. Try spending some time on NCAA.com scanning history per sport. It’s a fairly easy website to navigate in terms of researching NCs per sport. The SEC is not just a football conference – not even close. But they do spend far too much money on football and maintaining an incestuous football culture. I mean how often do SEC football coaches go from conference school to another & I do believe these coaches ensure top shelf recruits somehow stay in the conference, even if their school loses out on such prospects? Too often.
But to shroom’s defense, it’s pathetic the SEC does not sponsor an array of sports such as men’s soccer, men’s gymnastics, men’s wrestling, women’s rowing. I get why lacrosse or hockey aren’t down there yet, but the others mentioned shouldn’t be a problem. Pretty simple answer – get as much money into football as possible.
LikeLike
Well, they also have 4 non-standard national titles (the kind that Kansas and Alabama hang banners for), 2 in basketball, 2 in football, but most of those are pretty old too.
It’s true that Mizzou doesn’t win a lot of national titles. They do finish in the top 10 fairly regularly though. Finished top 4 in the final BCS standings in football just 6 years ago, and top 2 in the regular season in basketball just last year. The softball team has made 5 or 6 straight women’s college world serieses. The wrestling team just finished very close to getting a national title. Lots of close calls but not a lot of getting the big prize. Part of that is the AD budget is ranked #34 in the country. The new money that will come from the SEC will by itself bring Missouri into the top 25. Also, they’ve got a $200M facilities upgrade going right now, and a lot of it is being spent on luxury suites at the football stadium, so I expect revenue to hit top 20 within 5 years. That should help our chances quite a bit.
LikeLike
And whose fault is that? We have to only hear about the hype surrounding sports the SEC invests their resources towards? Bear in mind these sports will always be a challenge for BIG programs as far as competition is concerned because of the constant cold weather challenges – which are easy to recruit against if say once coaches in the SEC, Pac12 or much of the ACC and parts of the Big12 – various sports. It’s 38 degrees in Mpls right now, the sky is pissing sleet right & such weather is not uncommon to the rest of the BIG.
Btw, Vanderbilt was the team Nebraska beat for the bowling NC, which as a sport is not sponsored by the BIG as well, & you better bet the SEC cares about Men’s Swimming – Auburn is one of the most storied programs ever. But Michigan, though not as dominate as Auburn the past 20 years, still has more NCs, all time, including this year’s title.
LikeLike
^ Above is in response to Andy’s slight against NC’s earned by BIG universities this school year.
LikeLike
That may well be, but it still makes it a lot easier for the B1G. Try winning some national championships in sports that the SEC sponsors. You know, the 16 main sports pretty much everybody sponsors? Enjoy your bowling trophies.
LikeLike
You should count Auburn’s Equestrian championship…it’s still a ‘probationary’ sport (or whatever it’s called, but it’s got pretty much the same numbers as men’s gymnastics and men’s Water Polo.
LikeLike
So who would the Big 12 take at this point to get back to 12 schools? This seems to be a comprehensive list of their possible candidates:
BYU
Boise State
San Diego State
Air Force
UNLV
New Mexico
Nevada
UConn
Cincinatti
USF
UCF
Memphis
Houston
SMU
Temple
LikeLike
Ugly list for the 12, after BYU.
They may hold.
The 12 care too much about football to really want U Conn and Cincy and their small stadiums and mediocre support. WV would undoubtedly welcome Cincy, but can’t see TX or OK being too excited about that prospect.
LikeLike
What would they care as long as they are exiled to the B12 North 2.0?
LikeLike
It would probably actually be the north teams who’d be most opposed. They’d lose games against Texas and Oklahoma in that situation.
LikeLike
They don’t matter.
And in a move back to 12 somebody loses games in Texas and Oklahoma. Those that have the power to decide, will decide who that is.
LikeLike
I could see Kansas, KSU, and ISU welcoming Cinci, if only for basketball, and WVU would probably as well. So there’s 4 votes.
BYU would likely have the support of schools like Baylor, TTU and TCU.
But do either one have the 8 or so votes necessary?
They should have added Louisville and Pitt while they had the chance.
LikeLike
You think Kansas, KSU, and ISU want to piss off UT?
BYU needs to want to join first under B12 conditions. Haven’t so far…
LikeLike
strike SMU and Houston from that list. Too much Texas already in the conference. It is clear they should expand the footprint.
LikeLike
Really, there only options are BYU, UConn and Cincy. I just can’t see any other additions being even revenue neutral (let alone profitable).
Of course BYU already turned the Big XII down twice so that may not even be a realistic.
LikeLike
Since Pac 12, B1G and ACC have GORs, the only possibilities are SEC schools. Noone else adds any value.
LikeLike
ha ha very funny.
LikeLike
USF and UCF. I’m not kidding! One of the top 3 recruiting states, even if most of the talent wind up at the SEC, ACC and ND. The Big 12 needs a recruiting area to overcome the stress being put on Texas recruiting groups by the hungry, low-population B12 programs.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9199680/big-12-eyes-bowl-games-driving-distance
Hidden by the ACC story, the B12 wants to get more drivable bowl games and more FL bowls. They don’t seem to care about the contradiction between those two desires.
The Big 12’s current agreements, which end after this season, do not include a Florida game. Bowlsby said league officials want to change that, while keeping a strong hold on Texas and having a destination “out West.”
Also, Iowa State’s successful trip to the AutoZone Liberty Bowl in Memphis, Tenn., last season — at least in terms of ticket sales — has the conference considering deals with bowls closer to campuses.
LikeLike
Translation: the Big Ten and Pac-12 are both interested in the Holiday Bowl and in the Buffalo Wild Wings (formerly Insight) Bowl. The Pinstripe Bowl has no interest in the AmeriConference and would greatly prefer theACC vs. Big Ten matchup tthat’s been rumored over one involving the Big 12. The Russell Athletic isn’t going to want the Big East/AmeriConference anymore, while the SEC and Big Ten aren’t trying to add a FOURTH Florida bowl game, so the Big 12 is trying to capitalize on the opening.
A #4ish Big 12 team vs. The Americonference champion could in the Liberty Bowl could give the Big 12 that “driving distance” game that’s not in Texas.
LikeLike
I see the Gator getting the Big 12. Big Ten will add Pinstripe and something vs. PAC-12 and the Gator will likely be the cost of that (to diminish “Florida fatigue”)
LikeLike
Big 12 has no guaranteed Florida bowl. They only had a share in the Gator. They want 1 guaranteed Florida bowl. Right now they have 2 Arizona and 1 California. Fiesta will be gone replaced by Sugar. Cotton will go into the BCS pool, so that needs to be replaced.
LikeLike
Reaction from WVU bloggers upon learning that the ACC has signed a Grant of Rights through the 2026-27 academic year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0rP6IM4wjU
LikeLike
Open question I guess; do you think the ACC made any concessions to FSU (or any other school for that matter) in order to get support for the GOR? FSU fans are speculating the conference may have agreed to an uneven distribution of bowl revenue, but I kind of doubt that.
Maybe divisional realignment?
LikeLike
I doubt it. It seems like they would have announced something it they did make a concession. Perhaps they agreed to look into some scheduling issues (several of the FB schools have complained), but mostly I think it was the ACC saying we can get paid X if we’re stable plus ESPN will take our network seriously. The only way to prove stability was a GOR. It probably also helped that the B10 wouldn’t offer FSU a spot.
You have to think the ACC schools let the B10 know they were on the clock and the B10 chose not to make an offer, or else the no ACC schools were ever really interested.
LikeLike
I think we would have heard something. Divisional alignment is stupid. FSU’s biggest alumni base is in Georgia and they rarely play Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/edsbs/status/326443560029286400
LikeLike
I didn’t know Gary could play the accordion. Good for him.
LikeLike
So the Big 12 is back to being the cheapest power conference to raid, correct?
LikeLike
Well technically it’s still the SEC which doesn’t have a GOR, waiting period or exit fee (though I wouldn’t be surprised if a GOR becomes necessary when the SEC network launches.
As for ACC vs. Big XII? Tough call. The ACC’s GOR last a year longer (I think), but the Big XII distributes more revenue.
LikeLike
Are you sure about the revenue? ACC supposedly getting a bump, and if they get some sort of conference network that’s distributed revenue that the B12 doesn’t, and won’t have.
LikeLike
Big XII said it will distribute $26 million in revenue this year, which is $6 million more than the ACC will next year.
As for the network, maybe that could change things, but we don’t even know if that will ever happen.
LikeLike
Well, technically…. yeah, ok.
LikeLike
@DavidTeelatDP: UVa AD Craig Littlepage said incessant rumors about Cavs to B1G were unfounded and distracting.
LikeLike
Agree. I just don’t think history will ever reveal the BIG going after UNC or Va like too many thought. I just don’t see Delany attempting to break up the ACC, minus Md.
LikeLike
Well, this grant of rights effectively takes the issue out of the hands of Delany and puts it in the hands of the next group of leaders.
LikeLike
Yep. Frank better fire up his crystal ball for a 2024ish realignment preview.
LikeLike
Everything will be up for grabs when all the contracts expire in the mid-20s. We are likely to see a lot different environment with all the changes in media and the students.
LikeLike
I wonder if the B10 will go for a 10 years TV deal next time to join the fray or go for 15 to match the BTN? BTN goes through 2031-2, but the rest is through 2016-7.
LikeLike
Write-up from Deinhart: http://btn.com/2013/04/22/dienhart-accs-grant-of-rights-deal-could-halt-realignment/
LikeLike
For some reason I’m thinking about this classic monologue today. Only in my head I’m substituting Frank the Tank for William Shatner and realignment junkies like myself for the Trekkies…..
William Shatner: You know, before I answer any more questions there’s something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I’ve spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled… y’know… hundreds of miles to be here, I’d just like to say… GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it’s just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you’re dressed! You’ve turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!
[ a crowd of shocked and dismayed Trekkies…. ]
I mean, how old are you people? What have you done with yourselves?
[ to “Ears” ] You, you must be almost 30… have you ever kissed a girl?
[ “Ears” hangs his head ]
I didn’t think so! There’s a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn’t watch television! I LIVED! So… move out of your parent’s basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it’s just a TV show dammit, IT’S JUST A TV SHOW!
Charlie: Are- are you saying then that we should pay more attention to the movies?
William Shatner: NO!!! THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING AT ALL!!! HEY, YOU GUYS ARE… THE LAMEST BUNCH… I’VE NEVER SEEN… [ walks away from podium ] I can’t believe these people… I mean, I really can’t understand what’s….
LikeLike
@Realignment Junkie – Ha! That was a hilarious sketch.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9199101/meetings-week-address-new-four-team-playoff-details-college-football
Don’t forget the BCS meetings are going on this week. We’ll finally get some clarity on a few pressing issues. Man, it will have been a news-filled week+ by the time Friday rolls around.
By Tuesday, college football fans will know the name of the sport’s new four-team playoff, which will determine its national championship starting at the end of the 2014 regular season.
By Wednesday, they’ll know the site of the first national championship game on Jan. 12, 2015, as well as the cities that will host the two national semifinal games in each of the first three years of the playoff rotation.
And by Thursday, they’ll have a better idea of who will make up the selection committee that will be charged with the unenviable task of choosing the four teams that will participate in the playoff each season.
Also,
The football committee will receive a “jury charge” from the commissioners and will be asked to rank teams on the basis of strength of schedule, where the teams’ games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players.
And as a reminder,
Under the 12-year deal, the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl will be played on every non-Sunday Jan. 1, no matter whether they are hosting the national semifinals.
During the 12-year contract, the Rose and Sugar bowls will host the semifinals four times. In the years they aren’t hosting, the national semifinals would be moved from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, sources said.
LikeLike
http://www.downthedrive.com/2013/4/22/4253468/acc-moving-to-a-grant-of-rights-model
UC fans don’t seem thrilled about the ACC news.
“It seems fitting really, that Cincinnati would bet for stability at a time of chaos, and chaos at the exact moment when all the major pieces on the board grind to a halt. Welcome to the future, which looks exactly like the past.”
And then a typical Ohio sports fan comment:
“Ugh, this is so typical. The Browns’ owner is raided by the FBI for fraud, the Cavs fire their latest head coach, the Indians rotation is in shambles again, and the Bearcats are stuck in a mid-major conference…”
It’s really true, OSU has basically the only successful major sports teams in all of OH. Every other team is a train wreck (Browns, Bengals, Indians, Blue Jackets, usually the Reds, etc).
LikeLike
Reds have been OK.
LikeLike
Big Ten schools will be getting $25.7 million from the conference this year. $19 million of that is television revenue with the breakdown there being $500,000 from CBS, $10.9 million from ABC/CBS, and $7.6 million from BTN. The BTN distribution is slightly lower, but that may be due to Nebraska’s growing conference distribution.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-payouts-to-hit-million/article_4eef1c1a-5a79-5b79-899b-3dbf2a99c871.html
LikeLike