Power Conference Breakaway: Can It Benefit Student-Athletes?

Posted: June 18, 2013 in Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , , ,

(Note: as conference realignment has slowed down, I’m going to shift back toward looking at some of the broader issues in the business of college sports, such as the impact of television rights, tensions between the power conferences and the NCAA, and the new playoff system. I’ll also likely get into some related pro sports angles with how the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball are dealing with domestic franchises along with looking internationally for new markets and fans. Obviously, if conference realignment heats up again, I’ll cover it thoroughly here. For those that still need a conference realignment fix, I had a Big Ten-focused realignment Q&A last week with Off Tackle Empire and will have a different Big 12/Texas-focused one with Burnt Orange Nation in the near future.)

The notion of the power conferences splitting away from the non-power leagues to form either a new association separate from the NCAA or a different division (hereinafter called the “Super FBS”) has been percolating over the past few years. For various reasons, the talk has been intensifying lately with the settling of the conference realignment landscape and increased calls for greater compensation for student athletes beyond their respective scholarships (with the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit against the NCAA as a backdrop)*. There is already a de facto split between the 5 power FBS conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and ACC) and the rest of Division I schools in terms of TV and postseason football revenue, so it seems natural to many observers that a split along those lines would make sense.

(* In the interest of full disclosure, I’m personally a strong supporter of paying college athletes. While the cost of a college scholarship is substantial, the power conference athletic departments are still receiving outsized revenue gains off of the backs of football and men’s basketball players and they ought to be compensated accordingly. Now, I understand why colleges want to fight those types of payments to the death and there are major Title IX implications, as it’s likely that payments would have to be made across the board to all non-revenue sport athletes on top of the revenue generators. It’s easy to point to the quarterback whose jersey is getting sold nationwide and say that it isn’t fair that he hasn’t been compensated fully, yet should a water polo player at the same school be receiving the same type of payment? There’s no easy answer to this. From my vantage point, the inequity of the quarterback not getting fully compensated for the revenue that he’s bringing in for a school is much greater than the thought that non-revenue athletes would have to get paid, too, but I know others may disagree.)

Warren K. Zola had an excellent commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education that outlined several potential proposals that a Super FBS division could implement that would serve both the commercial reality of college sports and improving student-athlete welfare:

  • Have athletics scholarships cover the full cost of attendance and not be capped at tuition and fees, room and board, and required books. A stipend, in the neighborhood of $3,000 per student, according to a recent study, would help reduce the growing underground compensation system for elite athletes.

  • Embrace the Olympic amateur model by lifting the restriction on college athletes’ commercial opportunities. This shift would offer any student the opportunity to secure endorsement deals or receive payment for the use of his or her name and image.

  • Create an education fund that provides continuing financial assistance to college athletes, allowing them to complete their degrees even after their athletics eligibility, and corresponding scholarship, has expired.

  • Provide full health insurance for all athletes and cover all deductibles for injuries related to participation in an intercollegiate sport. Offer full disability insurance to elite athletes, protecting them against catastrophic injuries that could derail their professional careers.

  • Allow athletes to hire agents to protect their rights, including providing assistance in evaluating scholarship offers from institutions, negotiating commercial opportunities, and navigating the transition from college to professional sports.

I believe that all of these suggestions are on the mark. The reference to the “underground compensation system” is astute and one of the largest issues that I have with the current NCAA model of anachronistic recruiting regulations on the books with haphazard and inconsistent enforcement of those terrible rules on top of them. NCAA recruiting rules are sort of like campaign finance regulations in Washington – everyone publicly votes for them on one day and then privately tries to find loopholes around them the next day. I’m much more of a full disclosure-type of person as opposed to attempting to put the brakes on market-based transactions, where I believe colleges and universities would have better control over the “underground” market if they acknowledge that it exists and provide a viable alternative that allows for athletes to take advantage of their talent to get stipends directly from schools and commercial endorsements.

The last bullet about allowing athletes to hire agents is an interesting one. There have been many prominent power brokers over the years, such as Worldwide Wes for basketball*, that have effectively taken that role, so I believe that there’s some benefit to formalizing that type of relationship. The NCAA’s agent contact rules are just as backwards with spotty enforcement as the organizations recruiting rules, so having a reactionary stance of zero tolerance simply isn’t realistic in today’s world. It’s better to get those relationships out in the open and snuff out as much under-the-table action as possible.

(* If you haven’t read it already, this GQ piece on Worldwide Wes from a few years ago is one of the most fascinating profiles that you’ll ever see of a behind-the-scenes sports figure.)

So, I see a lot of potential benefits to separating the power conferences away from the non-power conferences simply from the student-athlete perspective. Of course, the increased control and, in turn, revenue that the power conferences would see from a breakaway would be the real reason why they’d want to do it. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it also makes it difficult to draw up clear criteria as to why a school or conference would be in “regular” FBS while another one is in Super FBS. For instance, would it really benefit the 5 power conferences very much if, say, the AAC and Mountain West Conference are willing to pay student stipends, thereby qualifying for Super FBS? It would seem that the power conferences would only want to split off into a new division if they could ensure that they’re the only ones in it or else it would defeat the purpose of that split*.

(* Speaking of power conference revenue, one byproduct of the Ed O’Bannon case is that the specific terms and payment schedule of the Pac-12’s new contract with ESPN and Fox have been disclosed. Nothing is too surprising, although it’s interesting to see some of the items that we have speculated on confirmed, such as the rights fees escalating approximately 5% per year. The term sheet is here.)

Now, there’s the more nuclear option of the 5 power conferences simply breaking away completely from the NCAA that would serve as a clean revenue-based split, although I find that to be an option that guys such as Jim Delany and Mike Slive would prefer to keep in their back pockets than one that would ever be implemented. While I generally believe that many non-power conference fans overstate their influence with politicians (i.e. mistakenly thinking that they’ll step in to help them with the playoff system or taxing power school revenue), a full-scale break-off would be one of those events that could definitely spur an untenable political backlash. It might be a move that the power conferences would secretly like in the back of their respective heads, but there are too many political landmines (particularly at the state-by-state level) to realistically engage in that scenario.

The upshot is that nothing is really easy or clear here. Power conferences definitely want more autonomy, but the process of making sure that they’re truly their own group without perceived “interlopers” might be more difficult to achieve than any changes about compensating student-athletes. All of Zola’s suggestions could still be implemented in theory without creating a Super FBS Division – it’s just that the power schools and maybe a couple of the non-power conferences are probably the only ones that could afford to put them into place.

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

(Image from Real Clear Sports)

About these ads
Comments
  1. wmwolverine says:

    Go Blue!!

    Like

  2. greg says:

    Go Hawks.

    I’ve always thought that following the Olympic model of allowing endorsements is the easiest and best solution. Players can receive some of the money sloshing around. It goes to the players which the schools are truly making money off of, the popular football and basketball players. It totally complies with Title IX.

    Like

    • Chuck H says:

      Couldn’t agree more. Additionally, it doesn’t hit the athletic department budget, it complies with Title IX (as you said), it gives those players legitimate business exposure beyond the seedy $500 handshake and their theoretical classroom curriculum, and gives them a viable, legal outlet for using their fame and accomplishments to help enrich their lives (instead of just the head coach and his top assistants).

      Of course, the NCAA is still way behind the curb that the IOC banished around 1986, thus allowing Olympians to be paid: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-02-13/sports/sp-23346_1_rule-change.

      Like

    • wmwolverine says:

      The issue is of course, some schools would attract far more ‘endorsements’ than others. Some of those endorsements might be say of questionable circumstances; e.g. contingent on going to University X.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Big whoop.

        It’s not a level playing field anyway. Let’s stop pretending that it is.

        Like

        • wmwolverine says:

          Then you’ve just made a small problem into a massive one. All the top recruits will start playing for the programs with the most and wealthiest boosters.

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            hmm…. interesting question. Let’s take Cam Newton as an example. What is a game-changing QB like CN worth on the open market? In the underground market, he was supposedly worth about $200,000. But that was under constrained bidding. If all teams had been allowed to bid for Cam Newton, in theory, the price would have gone up (that is, more demand, same supply = higher price).

            But on the other hand, in a free market for all QBs, every school already “bought” their QB, so maybe there is no increased demand .. ? Don’t know.

            Try this: What is the “endorsement deal” for a 4* OLman? How about a 4* left tackle? Will there be “endorsement deals” for three-stars?

            There are about 300 or so “elite” recruits every year (elite being a 4 or 5-star rated player).

            All the top 40-ish programs have enough money and have enough rich boosters to pay the “endorsement deals.”

            Interesting tax implications: an endorsement deal would be a business expense for Joe’s Car Dealership.

            A tangle of other questions: what do we do about this? 5* gets endorsement deal but then transfers to another school for a better endorsement deal. (Does that happen with Olympic athletes? Jump from Team USA to Team Canada?)

            What happens if the player is a bust and loses his endorsement deal?

            How about that 3* that proves to be underrated? Now he wants an endorsement deal and starts looking around.

            Seems to me we end up with a lot more transferring?

            How does it impact coaching? Already the elite players come in somewhat “entitled.” Now we add a bunch of legit money on top?

            Do we put an upper limit on endorsement deals? Say $300,000? a million?

            Does this seriously impact the on-field product (like in Bball) as the elite players leave even earlier. Johnny Manziel would have millions in endorsements right now. Would he bother playing his soph and junior years?

            Then this: what about group endorsements. The Ohio State OLine brought to you by Value City? Now they all have Value City logos on their jerseys during the game?

            Interesting to contemplate what the Olympic model would actually entail.

            Like

          • @BuckeyeBeau – Tangential to this, here’s a great clip of Charles Barkley from last year about recruiting a young Dirk Nowitzki to go to Auburn (including some commentary on how $200,000 for Cam Newton was a “good deal” for Auburn and how things get done in the SEC):

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Noone really knows how good HS players will be. Texas offered RGIII and Johnny Manziel as defensive secondary players because they thought Garrett Gilbert (now at SMU) would be great. The Texas 2009 recruiting class was ranked #1 in the nation. Only 2 of those players were contributors.

            So if you have a good contributor getting nothing while non-contributors get big deals, what does that do to team unity?

            IMO the Olympic model would be more of a mess than now.

            As for agents, they have a history of stealing from clients. Sicking agents on 17 year olds is really not in their best interest.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            No one really knows how good HS players will be. . . . So if you have a good contributor getting nothing while non-contributors get big deals, what does that do to team unity?

            I’m not sure the relevance of that. Assuming that players are able to do endorsements, presumably they’d be earned based on actual performance, not merely what they did in high school.

            As for agents, they have a history of stealing from clients.

            There are also quack doctors, but no one has outlawed medicine.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            As some have noted, there is the recruiting aspect. Endorsement deals would come with their signing. Now they could well be year-to-year, but schools with well healed boosters would be doing deals with HS recruits. A very top recruit might be able to get a 4 year deal.

            As for doctors, the % of quacks is pretty small and doctors usually are dealing with adults, not 17 year olds.

            Like

  3. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

    Even in defeat.

    Like

  4. My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off. I’m sure other conference schools would demand home and home series., meaning that the best a school could hope for would be six home games a year. The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year, and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away. (I know that their athletics departments would be strapped for cash if they didn’t.)

    I disagree with Frank on the political clout of the non-power conference schools. While on an individual basis most of them would not have significant political clout, I believe that all of them combined could stir up a considerable amount of support. On a basic level, trying to exclude Army, Navy, and Air Force would be political suicide for the power 5 schools. Politicians from both parties and across the country would not let that happen. Not to mention the senators and Congressmen who represent states and districts that only have non-power conference schools such as Nevada, Hawaii, Fresno, the 1-4 Corridor in Florida, Houston, Philadelphia, Connecticut, just to name a few.
    Unless I’m doing the math wrong, there are at least 10 senators who represent states with exclusively non-power conference schools, (2 each from Connecticut, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Hawaii) which is 1/5 of the senate. (I thought about counting New York as well, because the only public school in New York which plays FBS football is in a non-power five conference, but I extremely doubt that Buffalo holds anywhere near the political clout in New York that say UConn does in Connecticut.) I personally doubt the power conferences will ever risk losing their tax-exempt status in a political backlash.

    Like

    • I agree with Greg. I think the Olympic model is the ideal solution for everyone.

      Like

    • That was supposed to be 1/10 not 1/5th.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off. . . .The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year, and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away.

      That’s easy: the power and non-power schools would continue to play each other. It’s obvious that this would happen, because both need each other. The power schools need a couple of cupcake games a year, to get 7 home dates and secure bowl eligibility. The non-power schools need those games for the paycheck, which helps fund their athletic departments.

      On a basic level, trying to exclude Army, Navy, and Air Force would be political suicide for the power 5 schools.

      Which is why they’d never do it. There is simply no reason to exclude the service academies, which receive 100% government funding and aren’t subject to the usual scholarship rules anyway.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off. . . .The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year, and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away.

        That’s easy: the power and non-power schools would continue to play each other. It’s obvious that this would happen, because both need each other. The power schools need a couple of cupcake games a year, to get 7 home dates and secure bowl eligibility. The non-power schools need those games for the paycheck, which helps fund their athletic departments.

        Then any “break-off” from the NCAA would require the lower-tier FBS conferences (MWC, the American, C-USA, Sun Belt, MAC) to join with the top five leagues, plus the service academics, Notre Dame and Brigham Young). I still think those conferences would mandate any schools in this new federation must field football teams, thus taking the A-10, Big East, etc. out of the equation and requiring members of those leagues who want to remain playing FBS football to join one of the lower-tier FBS leagues.

        With 120 or so members, the new federation would have enough schools to stage championships in virtually every sport — something that can’t be said were it restricted to the five power leagues, ND and BYU.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I think you misunderstood what’s meant by “breaking away.” Your 120 is essentially all of FBS. That’s what they have now. You don’t break away to duplicate exactly the same thing you already have.

          The big leagues have no desire to create a cocoon in non-revenue sports, from which the non-power leagues would be excluded. Outside of football, the power schools are a completely different bunch. In hockey, for instance, Minnesota–Duluth and Union are major programs. They’re not going to get left out, since there aren’t enough hockey schools to go around. The same is true in other sports (Hopkins, Loyola, Hofstra, and the Ivies in lacrosse).

          If it happens (not that I believe it will), the breakaway would probably be only in football, where the greatest disparities exist.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t think its clear what “breaking away” will entail. Basketball is where the power schools biggest gripes are. Football is where its easiest to partly break away, but its also where they have already achieved their financial goals of getting the lion’s share of the $.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Yeah, the top schools are forced to share far more of their BB revenue than their FB revenue.

            The NCAA takes a massive cut of the MBB tournie (it accounts for 90% of the organizations budget). Meanwhile the only money the NCAA makes from FB is the relative pittance it gets from selling bowl licenses.

            Like

          • morganwick says:

            Problem is, a big reason for the popularity of the NCAA tournament is Cinderella. If the top schools break away, most of the potential Cinderellas are gone too. And if you require all broken-away schools to play football, you’re excluding Gonzaga and the A-10 and Big East, meaning you don’t even have a true national championship anymore.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Problem is, a big reason for the popularity of the NCAA tournament is Cinderella.

            The Cinderellas would still be there…only they would hail from the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC and be named Florida Atlantic, Old Dominion and Ball State instead of Florida Gulf Coast, George Mason and Butler.

            Like

          • morganwick says:

            Fun fact: The last time a Big East Catholic or other non-football school won the national title was Villanova 1985.

            Like

    • frug says:

      My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off.

      Depends what kind of a breakaway you are talking about. If they completely left the NCAA then they couldn’t play any NCAA schools for anti-trust reasons. If it was just another division split then they might have options.

      I’m sure other conference schools would demand home and home series., meaning that the best a school could hope for would be six home games a year.

      I don’t know, Colorado and Wazzoo are selling home games so they could continue to do so in the future.

      The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year,

      Depends how much the power schools would be willing to pay WF, Duke and ISU to agree to guarantee games.

      and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away

      If the money is right they will play games. FCS schools still play FBS schools.

      On a basic level, trying to exclude Army, Navy, and Air Force would be political suicide for the power 5 schools

      Ehh. I doubt it would be a huge issue. I mean exactly are they going to be missing out on? A chance to compete for a playoff spot they know they know they will never qualify for anyways? A chance to play 2 games against a Big Boy school (which they might still be allowed to do)?

      Plus there is no guarantee they would even want to come along. Army bailed on CUSA after they realized the competition would be too tough and a division composed entirely of power schools and the other service academies would be much worse by several orders of magnitude.

      Remember, after the ’78 division split the Ivies (who are probably even better connected than the service academies) got a waiver to stay at the top level temporarily and tried to force an amendment through that would have permanently let them stay at the 1A level even though they no longer met the qualifications, only to drop down voluntarily after a couple years because they realized they simply couldn’t handle the increased competition.

      Unless I’m doing the math wrong, there are at least 10 senators who represent states with exclusively non-power conference schools, (2 each from Connecticut, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Hawaii) which is 1/5 of the senate.

      A bunch of schools got left behind after the ’78 split…

      Like

      • frug says:

        Also, it is possible that schools would stop requiring 7 home games if they broke away. Without body bag games TV networks would pay a higher rate and the big schools would no longer have to share any revenue with the smaller conferences (or give up valuable bids to the postseason system).

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        If they completely left the NCAA then they couldn’t play any NCAA schools for anti-trust reasons.

        Complete nonsense. There’s no anti-trust rule that says teams from two different voluntary sports associations cannot play each other. For instance,NCAA Division III schools compete against NAIA schools with some frequency, and there are various other exceptions.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Yeah, I should rephrase.

          If the schools broke away and reorganized their AD’s as for profit entities (which I suspect they would have to do if they completely left, especially on less than favorable terms) then they would risk anti-trust violations by competing against NCAA schools.

          Like

          • frug says:

            Which I guess brings up another point no one has mentioned; the possibility that schools could completely leave the NCAA and reorganize their athletic departments as profit entities. While it would require them to pay taxes, it would free them of Title IX obligations and give them political freedom to run themselves however they want.

            Personally I doubt they would do this (not only would they have to start paying taxes they probably have to make players employees which would mean unionization and a bunch of other stuff) but I wouldn’t completely rule it out as a possibility some time in the next 2 decades.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The major school presidents don’t want their athletic departments to be (legally) for-profit entities, a shift that would invite a host of problems without commensurate benefits. What they want is to be able to rewrite the participation rules, without being outvoted by the smaller schools, e.g., to be able to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frankly, if schools turn completely into “pro” profit making organizations I’d say screw them. If i want to follow professionals I’ll follow the actual top pros (NFL, NBA, etc). Colleges currently provide the pool of future pros, but they aren’t fundamentally a minor league system. I spent a couple years at a small NAIA school. They would find an increase in support from me and others who value college athletics for the sport, not the money that can be squeezed from it. I’d also say all the presidents and chancellors will have failed/betrayed their educational mission.

            Like

    • M says:

      “Unless I’m doing the math wrong, there are at least 10 senators who represent states with exclusively non-power conference schools, (2 each from Connecticut, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Hawaii) which is 1/5 of the senate. ”

      There’s 100 senators, so that’s only 10% of the Senate. Of the rest, 18 (ND, SD, MT, AK, NH, VT, ME, RI, DE) represent states with no FBS schools, so they presumably would not care either way. 72 senators come from states with power conference schools. The percentages in Congress are much worse. 407 of 435 (~94%) of Congressmen come from states with a major conference school. 12 more come from the neutral states, leaving just 16 (<4%) from those 5 states.

      Obviously some of these legislators might not vote along these lines, but that's an extremely uphill fight.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Many of those Senators might not come from power conference schools. It doesn’t take a lot to cause problems. Tulane and the MWC have successfully changed things in the past (not getting everything they want, but getting some of it). BYU is not someone you would want to leave out. Politically, stopping with 65 would be difficult.

        Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      The direct path to 7 home games is to have 12 regular season games, preceded by a week in which one “regular FBS” season opening game is played at the Super FBS home.

      Like

  5. frug says:

    Personally, I think the easiest thing to do would be to let boosters pay athletes. It would probably be the easiest way (relatively speaking) to get around Title IX since the university wouldn’t actually be providing the benefits.

    On the other hand, it would absolutely destroy what little competitive balance college FB and BB have, so it might not be worth it.

    Like

  6. greg says:

    I also don’t understand why an actual split would be the best course for the power schools. An actual split would result in 6 home/6 road games. The schools likely want a de jure split where they have a huge monetary advantage over the bottom 6, but still have the ability to play the lessor teams in order to fill out their schedules and have 7 home games. The bottom 6 would still want to receive the relative windfall that they receive from playing money games at the power 5.

    Staying within the same division but having a huge monetary advantage also provides political cover. All of this would happen if endorsements were allowed.

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      @greg: “An actual split would result in 6 home/6 road games.”

      This is really the only positive in a split I could endorse. I will continue to rail against unbalanced scheduling. It’s absurd to claim that ‘my school needs more home games for the money’ and ‘we have to pay our little brothers so they can survive’. It’s a pure competitive issue. Until there is a level playing field college sports will continue to be a traveshamockery.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Until there is a level playing field college sports will continue to be a traveshamockery.

        You really think that requiring everyone to play the same number home games is going to make a level playing field? I mean if you want to argue that it is philosophically wrong to allow some teams to play more home games that is one thing, but to suggest that altering that will have any discernible effect on competitive balance is either naive or disingenuous. The fact is parity in college sports is virtually non-existent and mandating equal numbers of home and away games isn’t going to do anything to change that. It will just mean that everyone makes less money.

        Like

      • vp19 says:

        A separate federation could set up its own rules…so how about a 13-game football schedule? The top five leagues could thus be guaranteed seven home games, while those in the five lower conferences would settle for six.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          A separate federation could set up its own rules…so how about a 13-game football schedule?

          They could play 13 games without leaving the NCAA. The number of games has been increased over and over again. That’s not a difficult thing to achieve within the current construct, assuming they want that—which they don’t.

          Like

      • greg says:

        I would think a 6/6 requirement would be terrible. College football benefits greatly from the imbalance. It displaces games from schools with 15k seat stadiums that are half full at $15 a ticket to the largest stadiums that are (nearly) full for $60 a seat. More people are able to attend games at the stadiums people want to visit. More money flows into college football, including more money to the teams at the bottom who are losing the home games. More players get to play in the better venues, a real highlight for the players on the smaller teams. More games are televised, since the flow of games goes from bottom end schools that are not always televised to the power schools that have virtually every game on TV.

        The downside? Some percentage of the games are not competitive. Not a huge increase, but its there. I’ll take that tradeoff.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          A 6/6 split isn’t inevitable. The new upper division or new organization could still play their 2 annual paycheck games against the old. Those games would continue because both sides need them. The upper-division teams need the near-automatic wins and the home games. The lower-division teams need the paycheck.

          Like

    • boscatar says:

      Depends on what the priority is. If the priority is parity, then a 6/6 schedule is actually a VERY good thing. A home-tilted schedule is a tremendous advantage from a competitive standpoint.

      However, if the priority is something else, like creating more fan interest or generating more revenue, then a 6/6 schedule is a disaster. The power schools have way more fans, interest, and value than the non-power schools. As has been mentioned, forcing a power team to play on the road 6 times reduces gate revenue and disturbs the power team’s fan base – which may be 10 times larger than the team hosting the 6th road game on the schedule.

      I would love to see more balanced schedules in major college football. I would also love to see fewer SEC v. FCS and Big ten v. MAC games and more Big Ten v. SEC or ACC and Big 12 v. PAC 12 type games. But I fully understand that those in control of college football don’t view balanced schedules and parity as important as other priorities.

      Like

  7. Marc Shepherd says:

    Embracing the Olympic model is the best option. I remember when Olympic participants were nominally amateurs, and some leaders in the Olympic movement thought it would ruin the games if the athletes were allowed to be paid. Well, that was decades ago, and it doesn’t seem to have ruined the Games. Of course, Olympic amateurism was a sham anyway, which was one of the reasons why they abolished it.

    A stipend, in the neighborhood of $3,000 per student, according to a recent study, would help reduce the growing underground compensation system for elite athletes.

    This, I don’t believe. It’s human nature that, for most people, no amount of money is too much. If the “system” pays them $3,000, and a booster offers them $10,000 more under the table, they’re probably going to take it.

    Like

    • Blappples says:

      I agree that the Olympic model seems like the best option. It bypasses a multitude of issues, including Title IX and non-revenue generating men’s sports. If you’re not generating revenue, sorry, but you’re getting an incredible deal already through athletic scholarship alone.

      If McDonald’s wants to sign Braxton Miller to an endorsement deal, I think they should be able to.

      However, it doesn’t really solve the booster problem. You’re just bringing them out of the shadows and legalizing it. Let’s give an example of Bob. Bob is a booster. Bob owns a local landscaping company. He wants to have Braxton Miller endorse his landscaping company. He doesn’t care if it generates him a dime of profits. He’s just supporting the school.

      How small of a company can you get? Can Little Johnny’s Lemonade Stands sponsor Braxton Miller (funded by Johnny’s booster dad)?

      Should you limit endorsements to publicly traded companies? I don’t know. At least they have shareholders to answer to.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Should you limit endorsements to publicly traded companies? I don’t know. At least they have shareholders to answer to.

        As we’ve seen with Nike and Oregon, a publicly traded company can funnel an awful lot of money into one program, if the CEO is sufficiently motivated to do so.

        Like

  8. keith says:

    Having played college football on a scholarship, I firmly believe that some type of stipend is both necessary and important. Playing football at the college level is literally a full-time job. The demands aren’t just physical, mental and emotional–football alone eats clock hours like crazy. Practice, s&c, team meetings, film meetings, group meetings, game planning, memorizing and studying playbooks, travel AND somehow you’re supposed to go to class and do schoolwork. Football took all my time.

    (BTW, when people getting snarky about how stupid some conference’s–okay, SEC’s–players are, I just shake my head. Realistically, they have to be pretty damn smart just to stay in the program and perform correctly.)

    Ultimately, it’s virtually impossible to pursue certain majors that are time-intensive and you simply can’t get a job like other students.

    FWIW, I left football because it was simply incompatible with the demands of a theater major.

    One other thing that bothers me–I think athletes should get a travel stipend based on the distance between their home and school. The Midwest/west school I attended recruited heavily in the south and many athletes were stuck on campus over breaks because they (or their family) did not have the money to get back-and-forth.

    It’s absolutely insane to have a program pulling in tens of millions on the backs of some athletes that can’t get back-and-forth for major breaks and holidays, and don’t have the pocket money to buy food on the weekends. Reminds me of something Jaime Dimon would think up.

    Don’t get me wrong–it’s great to get a full scholarship, but anyone that refers to it as a “free ride” has no idea what they’re talking about.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      keith,

      “Having played college football on a scholarship, I firmly believe that some type of stipend is both necessary and important.”

      It literally can’t be necessary since players have done without it for years. I also question it’s importance. Athletes are eligible for Pell grants up to $5000/year plus they get tons of free stuff nobody else gets (tutoring, food, etc). It’s a contract they enter willingly. Nobody forces them to do it.

      “Playing football at the college level is literally a full-time job. The demands aren’t just physical, mental and emotional–football alone eats clock hours like crazy. Practice, s&c, team meetings, film meetings, group meetings, game planning, memorizing and studying playbooks, travel AND somehow you’re supposed to go to class and do schoolwork. Football took all my time.”

      And that’s why they get a full scholarship, room and board, free tutoring, free books, etc. That adds up to tens of thousands of dollars per year (obviously varies wildly from school to school) which is a pretty good salary for someone without a college degree or much work experience. On top of that, they are getting elite coaching (worth thousands of dollars for all the hours they get) in what could be their chosen profession.

      “(BTW, when people getting snarky about how stupid some conference’s–okay, SEC’s–players are, I just shake my head. Realistically, they have to be pretty damn smart just to stay in the program and perform correctly.)”

      Umm, no. Some elite athletes have graduated from certain schools and still been illiterate because tutors do so much of the work for them. You don’t have to be smart if the system takes care of your grades.

      “Ultimately, it’s virtually impossible to pursue certain majors that are time-intensive and you simply can’t get a job like other students.

      FWIW, I left football because it was simply incompatible with the demands of a theater major.”

      Which exactly what the choice should be. Every student has to choose between their major, extracurriculars and jobs in terms of time demands. if you don’t like the balance, then drop something.

      “One other thing that bothers me–I think athletes should get a travel stipend based on the distance between their home and school. The Midwest/west school I attended recruited heavily in the south and many athletes were stuck on campus over breaks because they (or their family) did not have the money to get back-and-forth.”

      Lots of students can’t afford to go home. Boo hoo. If going home is so important, go to school near home. How do you think international students feel? Many out of state students have to stay in town, too.

      “It’s absolutely insane to have a program pulling in tens of millions on the backs of some athletes that can’t get back-and-forth for major breaks and holidays, and don’t have the pocket money to buy food on the weekends. Reminds me of something Jaime Dimon would think up.”

      If it’s an emergency, the NCAA has a fund to cover travel. If it isn’t, schools provide free internet so you can always call home for free. Besides, bus tickets or even discount airlines don’t cost that much.

      “Don’t get me wrong–it’s great to get a full scholarship, but anyone that refers to it as a “free ride” has no idea what they’re talking about.”

      Save the complaining for the people working their way through school, having to earn their tuition while also taking a full course load. They don’t get all the free tutors or first access to scheduling to make things convenient. They also don’t get free food or potential job training worth tens of thousands.

      Like

  9. ccrider55 says:

    “…like campaign finance regulations in Washington – everyone publicly votes for them on one day and then privately tries to find loopholes around them the next day.”

    No…they don’t vote for it until they get the loopholes inserted in the legislation.

    Like

  10. Pat says:

    Go Blue!

    Like

  11. David Brown says:

    I can see a whole bunch of trouble coming. Lets take Illinois for example: Since Illinois is a strong Union State, why can’t Illini football and basketball players petition to become Unionized State Employees? Then watch all the “Student Athletes” including “Woman’s Olympic Sports” that few care about, demand the right to get paid and get represented by Unions? In fact, even non-right to work States, athletes can start to petition the National Labor Relations Board and the Courts to become Unionized Workers. While the large Universities can afford this, if I am a smaller School like a Rice, maybe I shut down my entire sports program (even Baseball)? Speaking of baseball, if I am a B10 School (say Penn State), maybe I get rid of that program instead of offering everyone full rides and paying them as well? Something to think about?

    Like

    • frug says:

      Players can’t unionize; they aren’t employees.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        If youre demanding and receiving increased compensation for services, what are you?

        Like

        • frug says:

          Student athlete?

          Anyways, I don’t think that players are actually “demanding” anything.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            If they aren’t asking, and they are the supposed benificaries, who is driving the movement? Are agents and comercial interest so entrenched already we cave to their demands “in the interest” of their future potential associates?

            I have no problem with adjusting the amount scholarships are worth in any number of ways. I do have a huge problem with creating a professional class of athletes at an academic institution. A soccer player, a golfer, LAX, etc. should be treated the same as a FB QB (and the reverse), and be governed by the same rules.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            If they aren’t asking, and they are the supposed benificaries, who is driving the movement?

            Current players are seldom the dirvers of reform, because their tenure is too short for their views to make a difference, bearing in mind that most changes take years. Playing a Division I sport is basically a near-full-time job. By the time players know enough to realize what they’d like to change, their time is up.

            Now, the merits of the idea are worthy of debate; I am not wholly decided. But it would certainly be wrong to suggest that because the current players aren’t agitating for it, therefore they don’t need it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Couldn’t that argument be made upon birth? There has to be a starting point.

            If the time demands are getting too great (although 50-80% or more manage school, social life, and athletics, and graduate) then simply reduce the allowed amount of time the sport is allowed.

            Lets make sure monetary changes address legitimate concerns regarding true needs and aren’t simply a recruiting tool, a bribe above board, or a new profit stream for external entities.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Couldn’t that argument be made upon birth? There has to be a starting point.

            Children are minors. College athletes are adults.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Can’t buy booze. Some states won’t grant a full drivers license until 21 if violations occur during the 16-18 year old period. They are kids or adults only because we choose to label them such. But they are (or should be) students. That is the definition and the governing structure.

            If the schools are not providing what some may think is the optimum opportunity they are free to search for a better structure. It isn’t the schools responsibility to provide what they don’t think appropriate, but others may. Appearently the current structure provides what most deem most desirable as very few who qualify choose not to avail themselves of it.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            You seem to be fond of these circular arguments. The rules have changed thousands of times. They’ll change again.

            The claim that “the current structure provides what most deem most desirable” could have been trotted out every time a change was proposed. All you can really say, is that at some point in the past, a majority believed the rules they’d agreed to were the best ones. Maybe they still are; maybe they’re not. Majorities aren’t permanent. Otherwise, nothing would ever change.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I think we completely agree. I’m just suggesting that a lot (not all) of the arguments for professionalizing D1 FB are not comming from the only group that should have a say in any change, the schools and their administrators. I’m sure they will examine even those ideas they strongly dislike while doing due diligence. That’s not necessarily support.

            It isn’t a circular argument because, as you said, change does occur. Then we get to critique it’s wisdom. ;) It isn’t changing the current structure I’m most concerned with. It’s the potential abandonment of it in a couple currently popular sports, in favor of a different and professional model.

            Like

  12. M says:

    The quickest fix to the ethical problems of not paying college athletes would be for the NFL and NBA to end their age-limit embargo. No adult should be forced into college sports if they feel they are better off playing professionally, simply because the professional leagues like college as a de facto farm system. I think the “0 or 3″ system from baseball should be adopted across the board.

    That said, I strongly agree with the stipend, medical insurance, and education fund ideas proposed, as well as guaranteed 4 year scholarships mentioned in the article. I am a little mixed on the agent part, but schools should work harder to prepare athletes for the rest of their life, whether professional sports or otherwise.

    The suggestion to allow endorsement deals would be no different from an open professional market. Boosters would quickly hire athletes to “endorse” their business for whatever amount they want.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      The four year guarantee would have to go if you are going to allow dramatically increased compensation. We already have U Oregon pushing the limits of corporate ownership. You really think having businesses wanting to leverage their choice of marketing agents making coaching and athletic department decisions through subtle or overt coercion? Coaches would become as impotent as NBA coaches in the face of corporate backed players.

      Like

    • morganwick says:

      I like the notion of Olympic-style allowing of endorsements; if its good enough for the Olympics, any problems that would crop up in college are symptoms of other problems. I also agree that, if we really want to salvage some semblance of the original ideals of college sports, we need to get the “de facto NFL and NBA farm system” elements to stop contaminating it; that means baseball-style farm systems for both leagues. I have more thoughts on this here: http://sports.morganwick.com/2011/09/college-footballs-moment-of-truth/

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        I would really hope that the Olympic option is never adopted since it will allow universities (and often states) to increase their hypocrisy. We don’t need more hypocrisy in college athletics. The Cost of Attendance model simply attempts to re-distribute a small slice of revenue to players — it does not affect any ills in college sports and slightly reduces (e.g., by $3000 per player) the hypocrisy.

        As has already been mentioned by others, the “Olympic” option does not address any ills in college football—- it simply encourages the formation of a legal “athletic-corporate-government” complex that would soon remind us of the “military – industrial ” complex. Cost of attendance payments do increase “revenue-sharing” for players in sports that do not typically generate illegal payments for athletes or for players in revenue-generating sports at universities that attempt to tamp down illegal payments. Cost of attendance partially addresses an issue while the Olympic option does not address any problem — it just shifts the funding mechanism and changes who pays athletes. Neither proposal “evens the playing field.”

        For example would 501c3 Foundations be allowed to pay players to represent the social justice and education mission of the Foundation? If a state makes its highest priority fielding a top-notch football team, then the Olympic option provides an excellent conduit. Nice commercials of Billy and Sue playing with “the Children” and pocketing another $25,000 of taxpayers’ money from the Save the Children Foundation. Miraculously, the more a foundation pays football players and the more players who are paid to represent it, the greater will be the grants they receive from the state and corporations — without one word being spoken – just a wink and nod. Praise the Lord. Political gridlock? Impossible to pass legislation — see what happens when a state needs to tidy up some laws that stand in its way to provide a conduit for funds to organizations that indirectly support football players at state U. You will have whiplash watching legislation fly by — and of course, not every state legislature will play — only where there is a consensus that football performance at state U. is really, really important and the voters will reward you if you help football.

        This is just one of thousands of games that will be played — limited only by the creativity of people who want to use the tax code to get what they want — and that scenario generates a tremendous amount of creativity.

        Cost of attendance payments represents a bonus for players at programs where cheating already occurs and a pay increase for players at programs that don’t condone extra-legal payments, but paying schemes do not alter any practice or shift any field.

        Ultimately, you either increase regulation, monitoring and auditing of players and schools — and to achieve this you would need the NSA, not the NCAA to assume responsibility for compliance, you could have a negotiated outcome — a labor contract between a players’ union and a Power 5 association (good luck) or simply let the market decide how much a school is willing to pay for a player — and schools (and states) will never want to publicly admit how much they would be willing to pay for a d-line recruit vs a National Merit finalist — bad PR (maybe).

        Like

        • BuckeyeBeau says:

          all excellent issues. i had not considered the not-for-profit angle.

          add this question: what about athletes receiving controversial endorsement deals? Some athlete has strong views on abortion and gets a non-profit endorsement (either pro or con). Now the school and team are dealing with the PR consequences.

          So, now we need rules to limit the type of endorsement deals. No religion, no politics.

          What about “free” endorsements? Some player loves dogs and agrees to endorse the local humane society for free or some nominal $10 payment. Seems okay, but kinda defeats the purpose of allowing endorsements.

          The NCAA will need another telephone book of rules for the endorsement deals.

          Btw, I am not necessarily against the idea of endorsements. Just pointing out the massively long list of possible unanticipated consequences.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            I can envision endorsements localized and tailored to specific colleges, states and regions. For example, a hosiery manufacturer might sign one leggy, photogenic basketball or volleyball player each from a conference to endorse pantyhose.

            Like

  13. morganwick says:

    I wonder if the power conferences could end up getting the same result as a full-fledged split just by adding cost-of-attendance and other reforms to the existing FBS. That way, schools that couldn’t afford the increased financial commitment would, ideally, drop down. There would be more “interlopers”, but really, it’s only because of the power conferences that we have bowls; the non-power conferences are in FBS for the money, not the bowls, and there’s no reason to have two lower-tier football subdivisions of Division I.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I wonder if the power conferences could end up getting the same result as a full-fledged split just by adding cost-of-attendance and other reforms to the existing FBS.

      For Title IX reasons, they can’t do it only for football. They’d need to do it in all sports, which means the legislation would need to pass for all of Division I, not just FBS.

      In any event, the bigger schools would surely want to do it for basketball too, which means all of Division I has to agree.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I don’t understand the exception for T9 people seem to think exists. As long as any program or programs are a beneficiary of support of the school (facilities, staff, scholarships, bond offerings, media negotiations, etc. are all school controlled program support), and the school receives any public money, there is no escape from T9 requirements. If there were one it would have been exploited long ago.

        Like

      • morganwick says:

        So basically, this would be bumping Division II down to Division III and DIII down to DIV?

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          They can either bump everything else down, or merge mini-FBS with FCS.

          Like

          • morganwick says:

            Except that was the point I was trying to make. If you’re making a full split, your merged low-FBS/FCS is effectively the new Division II.

            Like

  14. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  15. bullet says:

    Its an interesting question of where they draw the line. In 1984 when CFA was formed, 64 schools were included while the Big 10/Pac 10 did a separate deal. That’s 84 of 105 or 106 schools. The 10 MAC schools and 8 Big West schools (Fresno, UNLV, Utah St., San Jose St. now in WAC, New Mexico St. and 3 schools that have dropped football-Long Beach, Pacific, Fullerton St.) were excluded as were 3 or 4 of the 23 independents.

    Included were SWC-9, SEC-10, Big 8-8, WAC-10, ACC-8, Independents 19. Independents included ACC schools-Miami, FSU, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Louisville; Big 10 schools Penn St., Rutgers; AAC schools Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, ECU; CUSA S. Mississippi; Sun Belt-Louisiana-Lafayette; Big 12 WV; SEC-S. Carolina; Independents Army, Notre Dame. Wichita St. may have also been still a major at that time (dropped fb in 1986). Not sure which were the indies left out, but it would have been out of the group including Rutgers, Temple, Tulsa, S. Miss, ECU, ULL and Wichita St.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Now the Big 10/Pac 12/Big 12/SEC/ACC get in. I think the MWC and AAC get in as well but there’s a lot bigger financial line between the Big 5 and MWC/AAC than from the MWC/AAC to the rest. MAC and the BW replacement-Sun Belt likely get left out again. CUSA is on the bubble, but as it is mostly schools moving up it probably gets left out.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Schools moving up since 1984:
      Akron 1987
      La Tech 1989
      Arkansas St. 1992
      Nevada 1992
      La Monroe 1994
      North Texas 1995
      UAB 1996
      Boise 1996
      UCF 1996
      Idaho 1997
      Marshall 1998
      Buffalo 1999
      Mid. TN 1999
      USF 2001
      UConn 2002
      Troy 2002
      FIU 2006
      FAU 2006
      WKU 2009
      UMass 2012
      UTSA 2012
      TX St. 2012
      S. Alabama 2012
      Georgia St. 2013
      Old Dominion, UNCC, Georgia Southern and Appalachian St. are scheduled to move up in the next couple of years.

      Like

      • boscatar says:

        Wow. That’s 28 schools. Not coincidentally, all but three of the 2014 C-USA is on the list (excluding Southern Miss, Rice, and UTEP) and only one of the 2014 Sun Belt is not on the list (Louisiana-Lafayette).

        Most of the MWC and AAC are NOT on the list (only Boise and Nevada in the MWC and UCF, USF, and UConn in the American).

        Surprisingly, most of the future MAC is NOT on the list (only Buffalo, Akron, and UMass).

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Why is it surprising that most of the “future” (and current) MAC, the most stable of the Go5 conferences, is not on the list? After all, Tressel, Ara Parseghian, Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler all coached in the MAC, and that was just the one school.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Agreed. The Michigan “directionals,” Bowling Green, Toledo, Miami U., and Ohio U. are as much “core” schools to the MAC as the Research Triangle schools and Wake Forest are to the ACC.

            Like

          • boscatar says:

            Most MAC schools get fewer than 15,000 fans in home attendance. The national perception is that the MAC is on par with the Sun Belt. Most of the Sun Belt is on the list.

            Like

        • bullet says:

          On another board, someone researched the Carnegie classification and USNWR ranking for all the FBS schools. 80% of the 65 power schools were Very High Research and all but TCU were High or Very High Research (they were classified as “Doctoral Research University”). And all were considered “national” universities by USNWR and included in their top 200 rankings.

          The MAC was one the closest of the G5 to match that profile with 11 of 13 Very High or High (2 VH, 9 H) and 1 “Doctoral Research University” and 12 of 13 “National” (all but EMU) with 8 of those 12 ranked in the top 200.

          AAC had 9/12 VH or H (6VH, 3 H), 2 “DRU” and 1 other (Navy). 11/12 were “national” (Navy was liberal arts category) and all but Memphis were ranked of the “national” group.

          The MWC, CUSA and SB had more that didn’t fit the national research university profile and many of those are more recent move-ups. So the fact that many don’t fit the “club” could increase the desire for the P5 to split.

          MWC 3 VH, 5 H, 4 other. 8 national (7 ranked-UNLV not ranked), 4 other (San Jose, Fresno, Boise-regional-Air Force liberal arts).

          CUSA 2 VH, 8 H, 2 DRU, 2 other. 12 national (4 ranked), 2 other (WKU, Marshall-regional).

          SB 1 VH, 4 H, 1 DRU, 5 other. 6 national (2 ranked), 5 other (Troy, Texas St., UL-Monroe, Appalachian St., Arkansas St. regional).

          Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Its an interesting question of where they draw the line. In 1984 when CFA was formed, 64 schools were included while the Big 10/Pac 10 did a separate deal. . . . Included were SWC-9, SEC-10, Big 8-8, WAC-10, ACC-8, Independents 19.

      This was apparently not a “power school vs. mid-major” type of split, since the WAC was in, but the Big Ten and Pac-10 were out.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Yes it was. The Big 10 and Pac 10 opted to do their own deal although the CFA wanted them. It was simply 2 “power” groups-the Big 10/Pac 10 and CFA.

        Like

  16. greg says:

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/19/big-10-provosts-question-partnerships-ed-tech-companies

    MOOC-Skeptical Provosts
    June 19, 2013

    The provosts of Big 10 universities and the University of Chicago are in high-level talks to create an online education network across their campuses, which collectively enroll more than 500,000 students a year.

    And these provosts from some of America’s top research universities have concluded that they – not corporate entrepreneurs and investors — must drive online education efforts.

    Like

    • Peder Rice says:

      This could be really cool. Imagine being able to take a course at Rutgers and apply it immediately and seamlessly to your Nebraska degree program. Imagine the niche courses that could emerge with that critical mass of students.

      I love the vision they’re setting out.

      Like

  17. boscatar says:

    The stipend is a no-brainer.

    But, it shouldn’t be pushed through because it will deter black market booster transactions or because it will allow the power schools to separate themselves.

    It should be approved because the current scholarship benefits don’t cover the full costs of attendance for most institutions – and student-athletes do not have room in their schedules to be gainfully employed elsewhere. If the schools can afford it, then they should do it. That is the winning argument for stipends.

    The idea to allow athletes to have agent representation and to have commercial/sponsorship opportunities is an interesting discussion. On one hand, the power schools would seemingly have a huge advantage, because they likely have the largest and wealthiest booster networks that can help provide commercial and sponsorship opportunities. However, what if a smaller, weaker school happens to be in a large media market that is full of businesses that could provide ample commercial and sponsorship opportunities? This could be a HUGE competitive advantage for some of the non-power programs. For instance, I could see some companies in Philadelphia stepping it up and providing huge opportunities for Temple players, simply because they are local. Boom! Temple starts to attract top recruits because of the commercial opportunities.

    Is that good or bad? Over a few years, Temple could become a dominant team that actually has an easy path to the playoff with a weak American Conference schedule. That becomes very complicated and cut-throat competitive very quickly.

    UNLV and San Diego State (the only decent markets in the MWC) could end up dominating the MWC. Is that fair? Desirable?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The idea to allow athletes to have agent representation . . . is an interesting discussion. On one hand, the power schools would seemingly have a huge advantage

      Actually, the schools lose a lot if the athletes have representation. Right now, the schools have the advantage because they’re in control. One of their biggest fears is that professional agents would tilt more of the balance of power toward the athlete.

      Like

  18. bullet says:

    Interesting perspective from 1981 when I-A was at 137 members and there was pressure to reorganize the NCAA.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124798/1/index.htm

    Like

    • frug says:

      I actually reread that article when I was looking up the timing of the “Ivy Amendment” yesterday. Really interesting stuff.

      Like

      • frug says:

        I think may favorite part is that in 1981 Penn St.’s AD had a budget of $9 million, or a little more over $23 million in today’s dollars meaning that over the past 32 years PSU’s athletic budget has grown at 469% the rate of inflation.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          And Chuck Neinas was heavily involved, although almost all the other players have changed.

          Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “…has grown at 469% the rate of inflation.”
          I’m sure something similar has happened at most D1 schools.

          All that new money, and yet few schools have increased the number of athletic offerings since that time. Many have actually contracted. What exactly has all the new money gotten us except more expensive versions of what we already had?

          Like

          • frug says:

            What would you have them do? After all, the cost of tuition (and therefore scholarships) has probably increased at a similar rate (a result of plunging state support as a % of operating revenue and higher demand for college educations) and in 1981 Title IX was still in the early stages of full implementation meaning those costs had yet to be fully realized.

            The simple fact is it is just more expensive to run an athletic department now.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Just checked and tuition + fees at PSU for an in state student in 1981 was roughly $1900 or about $4869 in today’s dollars. For comparison, in state tuition + fess at PSU last year was $15,124 or an inflation adjusted increase of 311%. Combine that with full Title IX implementation and you probably eat up pretty much all the increased revenue.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I understand, but has it been 450%+ the inflation rate? Perhaps 15-20M coaches contracts, not to mention those being bought out? Coordinators pushing past 1M/yr at some schools. When there is more money available schools have been making the assumption that more of it will make current programs better.

            Just an observation: Some schools are very successful in a larger number of sports, while others seem to be in the same relative place as 35 years ago in spite of concentrating the money in fewer offerings. Doesn’t seem like there is as direct a correlation between money and winning as people would like to believe.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            In 1981 Texas in-state tuition and fees were $400. Now they are $10,000.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Women’s sports scholarships have dramatically increased. In 1981 Texas, for example, didn’t have women’s rowing, soccer or softball.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            So the cost of T9 is implementation (there are no new w basket ball teams in D1 that weren’t there pre T9) a third of the budget above inflation… 150% of the AD budget increases, above inflation? I don’t buy it. There were decent, if not yet fully equal women’s athletics at that time. They existed within that 9M budget. Women’s athletics weren’t being created out of whole cloth. They didn’t magically appear when the NCAA decided to sanction championships at various times in different sports.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Wilber’s comment sums up my feelings:

            “My, my, my. All that money.

            And just think, the vast majority will have already been spent.”

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Nothing against rowing, but is there a huge number of Texas HS girls rowing teams? Are they offering opportunities for girls competing in the state?

            Like

          • frug says:

            @ccrider

            Just because women’s teams existed pre-Title IX doesn’t mean Title IX didn’t increase the cost to run it. Schools had invest more in the facilities and coaching staffs for its women’s sports teams as well as granting more scholarships (remember just because a school had a team pre-Title IX doesn’t mean they were granting it equivalent scholarships.

            Did full Title IX implementation raise costs a full 150%? Probably not, but honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if it came close to doubling them at many schools.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @cc
            No, there aren’t. Rowing is popular because you can offer a lot of scholarships (I believe it is 20) and there are a lot of participants, thereby helping on Title IX compliance. I remember a WSJ article a few years back about it. There was a California HS student who was about 6 ft. tall and an athlete is some other sport (soccer/swimming?) and had never rowed. She was heavily pursued by Division I rowing programs. Its pretty ridiculous.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Other schools do Equestrian for the same reason.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            Thanks. Seems an odd choice with the cost of equipment required.

            Frug:

            I’m sure you are mostly right. Please forgive my cynicism. I’ve been involved trying to prevent the cutting of a few teams over several decades. T9 has often been trotted out as a justification. Occasionally true at small schools. Cost cutting cited even in cases where the sport had been existing for a number of years solely on self raised funds. On the occasion we got admins into court they admitted that neither T9 or tight money required the move. They did it because they wanted to. If we’d gotten to court a bit sooner the judge would have stopped the cut, but he said it was moot as the program had already ceased to exist, there was no action he could stop to save what was already gone. Even though the process the U required was not followed.
            Sorry, ending bitter rant. But you get the idea. Big sports needed coaches a jacuzzi, massage, and bar facility with gold and diamond encrusted sinks an toilets…

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Thanks for posting that. Coincidentally, I was looking the other day for a good explanation of why the Ivys dropped out of I-A, and that explained it.

      For those who are doubtful, the article shows a pretty good template for how the major schools can strongarm the NCAA. The Association needs the big schools. If they act in unity or near-unity, they can pretty much do whatever they please.

      Like

      • frug says:

        The most under appreciated advantage that the Big Boys have had over the past 40 years in FB is that they have simply been the numerical majority, and it is one of the reasons why the power conferences were so keen on making the post season contracts so much longer this time around; within the next five years the have nots will out number the haves without further expansion. (That’s also the same reason that the B1G, PAC, SEC and XII kept talking about how they would work with the ACC to ensure that its champ got a decent bowl tie in since without the power conferences would have been the minority)

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I don’t really see them all that worried about having a majority. It’s not like there are really a lot of straight I-A votes with winner take all. There are some major issues with the NCAA, but that’s often a whole division 1 issue (I believe the stipends are for instance) where they have been vastly outnumbered for a long time.

          Most things directly with how football is run (the bowls, the TV contracts, etc) are outside of the NCAA’s control. While the Group of 5 might be part of the system there, there is nothing that required the power 5 to put them there. If the Power 5 could have created their own CFP working with the bowls and left out the Group of 5 entirely (just as the Group of 5 could have done as well for that matter). Politically/PR speaking that would have been difficult so the Group of 5 did have some power there, but it wasn’t oversized much beyond their natural power and they essentially used to it to stay part of the system and get one CFP bowl each year guaranteed. The non-CFP bowls were much simpler. The bowls are under no obligation to sign with anyone they don’t want. It doesn’t matter if the Group of 5 grows to the Group of 20; most bowls would still sign with two power conferences if given the chance.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I think you have a point. It was pretty clear that the G6 (WAC was still a part) was irrelevant in the playoff discussion. Everything was decided by negotiations between the 5 major conference commissioners and ND’s AD.

            Like

          • frug says:

            It was pretty clear that the G6 (WAC was still a part) was irrelevant in the playoff discussion. Everything was decided by negotiations between the 5 major conference commissioners and ND’s AD.

            That is in large part because the G5 had the voting majority.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            That is in large part because the G5 had the voting majority.

            That wasn’t why they were able to do what they did. It’s not as if they had a vote, and the mid-majors lost. The voting majority actually had nothing to do with it at all. Bear in mind, even the prior system (the BCS) didn’t treat everyone equally, and there wasn’t any vote then either.

            What the Big Five (plus Notre Dame) cleverly did, when they designed the BCS, was to give the mid-majors more than they ever had before (an auto-bid, if they met certain criteria). In the pre-BCS world, where bowls just made offers to whomever they jolly well pleased, the mid-majors weren’t guaranteed anything, so this was a step up.

            In the playoff, the Big Five have done it yet again, guaranteeing that the best mid-major will always have a bid. This is an improvement, because the BCS autobid criteria were stringent, and in some years no mid-major would qualify. Now, there will always be at least one mid-major who gets to have dinner at the adults’ table.

            These are pragmatic deals for the Big Five to make, but it’s more for political reasons, not because they can outvote anybody.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Marc:

            Nobody votes, or needs to when you can count noses ahead of time. The mid’s while unequally treated would have got zip if they didn’t have enough votes to gain what they got in leu of the powers actually leaving.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            …enough votes to…

            Votes here meaning support, potential votes, if a vote were taken.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @ccrider55: That’s an interesting fiction, but show me one authoritative source for it. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over which schools get to attend which bowls. Therefore, the idea that the mid-majors could alter the bowl lineup by voting (even if they had the numbers) cannot possibly be true.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The BCS set up and bowl access, and future possible playoff qualification?

            Otherwise…the power conferences just granted BCS access and other concessions out of a feeling of good will? If leverage wasn’t involved, you tell me what was.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Marc

            The NCAA could end the entire bowl system if it wanted to.

            If the have nots had a voting majority they could institute a FCS-type playoff and insist on equal revenue sharing.

            Like

          • frug says:

            http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/04/21/bcs-antitrust-suit/index.html

            If you want a demonstration as what we are talking about Marc read this article which directly deals with what have happened if the ACC and Big East and been relegated before the 2011.

            Essentially, that would add 20 schools to the have-nots list. The 2011 season will begin with 66 haves and 54 have-nots in the FBS. Under the system outlined above, have-nots would outnumber haves 74-46 and would win any vote that didn’t involve the top revenue-generating schools breaking free from the NCAA. (Which is its own solution, but that’s another argument for another day.) John Infante, the author of the excellent Bylaw Blog, explained to me on Twitter that even with the voting rules required to do something as complex as changing the FBS football postseason, the have-nots in this scenario would have the necessary votes to pass anything they wanted if they stood united.

            John Infante then goes on to breakdown the voting procedure and shows as long as the have-nots stayed united they could have instituted whatever college football postseason they wanted.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The NCAA could end the entire bowl system if it wanted to.

            The NCAA is a voluntary membership organization. It could end the bowls, only if the members affected continue to volunteer to participate on the new terms, which the leagues participating in the bowls clearly would not do. Can you find a source, showing that the NCAA or any significant cohort of its members ever threatened to do this?

            If you want a demonstration as what we are talking about Marc read this article which directly deals with what have happened if the ACC and Big East and been relegated before the 2011.

            The article you cited supports my point, rather than refuting it. It’s about anti-trust, which is exactly the reason — not vote-counting within the NCAA — why the power leagues continue to throw the mid-majors a lifeline.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Marc:

            He was making a worst case example of what the NCAA could do, not what they have tried. The (veiled) threat of the power conferences leaving would not be being discussed here and elsewhere if their wasn’t concerns they felt the have-nots weren’t addressing, and their acquiescence was necessary within the current structure.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @ccrider55: The relevant examples are limited to the scope that the NCAA has historically regulated, like cost-of-attendance scholarships. No one in authority has ever suggested that the NCAA would ever try to blow up football in petulant retaliation for the power schools’ refusal to share more revenue.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Correct, but they are playing a game of chicken. The power conferences seem to be suggesting “change” will be necessary if their concerns aren’t addressed. It’s just a matter of assigning blame. One side says failure to address an issue(s) is causing the issue, and the other that creating the issue is.

            Like

  19. Transic says:

    I think what may happen is that the private universities will conclude that they’re better off getting out of the “football and basketball business” and simply go the D-III route. What I would like to see is a more realistic assessment about the role of college and universities in the development of athletes. The cost of attending universities is only going higher. Can the universities truly continue trying to hold up an ideal about student-athletes when the revenue sports continue to take so much time and resources from where it should go?

    I know this is a radical statement, as it goes against the ideal of college athletics, but perhaps in the long run both schools and athletes benefit by the schools getting out of the revenue sports in general. The problem here is the professional leagues don’t want to spend $$$ on development. They love the current set-up where the development of young athletes is placed on education and various youth sports organizations. However, for example, Major League Soccer is slowly realizing that they would have to bear more of the cost of developing future players as colleges aren’t doing a good enough job of developing players needed to make that league more competitive. So the various teams are putting monies into academies that would allow young athletes to bypass college in order to develop their game faster. This has been already done in Europe for decades. I could see a future where the NBA and NFL would be forced to take on the burden of development by the schools getting out of major athletics in a big way. By then, we could see the beginning of a true pro/rel structure being in place, as private organizations fill in the void left by the schools.That is something that I would support.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I think what may happen is that the private universities will conclude that they’re better off getting out of the “football and basketball business” and simply go the D-III route.

      Duke is private. I don’t see them getting out of basketball.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      The impact on Basketball is far, far less than the impact on Football, simply because schools are limited to a total of 28 scholarship players … 13 men, 15 women, so it becomes critical whether this is a breakaway athletic association, a new NCAA division, or a new NCAA Division 1 subdivision. In the latter case, there may be a handful of schools who might find dropping down to mini-FBS and focusing on bball has substantial appeal … but a handful of schools could be readily replaced by a handful of ambitious schools in the mini-FBS.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      I think this was more likely before the massive increase in rights fees. Are Wake, Duke, BC, SU and Miami going to give up $18 million a year? Northwestern, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, USC and Stanford would give up more than that (and USC a whole lot more in ticket sales). SMU and Tulane have invested in new stadiums, along with TCU and Baylor. Will BYU serve their mission better being less visible? Its part of Notre Dame’s identity. That leaves Tulsa and Rice. Rice studied it a few years ago and figured out their only choice was the Division 3 UAA when their travel would be massively increased.

      Barring some scandal (along the lines of Miami/UNC combined) driving the ACC schools out of it with the non-contract schools following in a new academic league, I don’t see the private schools moving out. The ones who were going to pull out already have-the Ivies, Xavier, Dayton, Tampa, Pacific along with a number of others over the years.

      Like

  20. Pat says:

    BTN is growing rapidly. Interesting article from Crain’s Business.

    http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130618/BLOGS04/130619800/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      BTN’s overall TV ratings are up 12 percent year over year, and the network’s profits “are the highest they’ve ever been, and next year they’ll be higher,” said an optimistic Mr. Silverman, who has shepherded the network since its inception in 2007.

      12% growth is impressive.

      The network will carry more live football games this fall than ever, topping last year’s 42. And while the many of the top-tier games are shown on ESPN (per the conference’s 10-year media rights deal that goes through the 2015-16 season), Mr. Silverman says BTN’s growth has earned it the right to get an even larger share of premier conference matchups when the conference selects a new rights partner.

      That’s a shame. I’d rather see the big games stay on the major networks. It will also undermine the value of the Tier 1 TV deal, with the BTN paying more instead. The money probably works out better for the B10 this way, but I’m not a fan of it.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Let me get this straight. You don’t like Delany, you don’t like expansion and you don’t like the BTN’s expanding its slate of games. I’ll bet you saw Woody throat-throttle that Clemson kid live didn’t you?

        “It will also undermine the value of the Tier 1 TV deal”
        Bull.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          “Let me get this straight.”

          OK.

          “You don’t like Delany,”

          No, I dislike some of his decisions. I look forward to having a new commissioner. I’ve never met Jim Delany, so I have no opinion of him personally.

          “you don’t like expansion”

          No, I don’t.

          “and you don’t like the BTN’s expanding its slate of games.”

          Yes, I just said that.

          “I’ll bet you saw Woody throat-throttle that Clemson kid live didn’t you?”

          Nope. And I’d guess most older fans like Delany.

          It will also undermine the value of the Tier 1 TV deal

          “Bull.”

          No, it definitely will reduce it’s value. The money follows the good games. If the BTN takes more of those good games, then some of the money will be diverted to the BTN contract instead. The source of the money is irrelevant to the schools, so they’ll take whichever deals best meet their needs (money vs exposure vs control).

          The question you should have asked is why that matters, since I said the total money will probably increase this way.

          Like

          • metatron says:

            Tiers are priority. Tier 1 by definition has first choice.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The P12N model distorts/redefines “tiers”. They participate in tier one and two like a jr. tier one partner.

            Like

          • morganwick says:

            If the BTN has more good games, by definition that means Tier 1 either has fewer or worse, which either way means networks won’t want to pay as much for it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            But advertisers will pay more for BTN spots if that’s where viewers are. Demand for broader carriage likely will go up. A game doesn’t drop it’s intrinsic value simply by changing distribution platform. BTN becomes less a leftover depository and more of a tier one jr partner.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “But advertisers will pay more for BTN spots if that’s where viewers are.”

            But generally not as much as they’d pay for a truly national network.

            “Demand for broader carriage likely will go up. A game doesn’t drop it’s intrinsic value simply by changing distribution platform.”

            Value is conserved, but it changes form. Some of the monetary value of the games would turn into other forms (leverage, etc).

            “BTN becomes less a leftover depository and more of a tier one jr partner.”

            Yes, that’s true.

            Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        “The money probably works out better for the B10 this way.”
        Yes. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. I’d expect something similar to the Pac-12 where the network gets a first or second selection 7 weeks.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Nostradamus,

          “Yes. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it.”

          I think your premise is too simple. They might well take lower revenue to gain more exposure or more control or something else they want. Last time they chose to eliminate time slot exclusivity rather than get paid more by ESPN, for example.

          Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            I’d characterize that as an apples to oranges situation. I agree my premise is simple, but I think things get fairly straight forward when a new contract is being negotiated.

            “They might well take lower revenue to gain more exposure or more control or something else they want.”

            More exposure means more revenue. I still don’t think they’re going to do any thing to shoot themselves in the foot here money wise. More control, I’m not really sure applies here. The Big Ten is in pretty much complete control of what they take to the market for the networks to bid on. Here are the terms what are you going to pay for it? What else could they want?

            ” Last time they chose to eliminate time slot exclusivity rather than get paid more by ESPN, for example.”

            Apples to oranges. Being in a contract and out of a contract are significantly different for starters. Secondly, that move was part necessity for BTN to get access to that window with an extra conference game most weeks. It also could be argued that was a move to maximize revenue. Getting a 3rd slot many Saturday’s for your highest rated programs when you own 50% of a network is probably more valuable than a Nebraska full-share from ESPN.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            More exposure doesn’t necessarily mean more revenue. 3 extra games on BTN with 2 less on ESPN is more exposure but almost certainly less money.

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            True but by exposure here we are talking about top tier games. Presumably the Big Ten moving more “top tier” games to BTN would be for revenue optimization. They aren’t going to move games for “exposure” to the network for the sake of “exposure.”

            Clearly the conference/BTN thinks they can make more money by giving BTN some better selections.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “More exposure doesn’t necessarily mean more revenue. 3 extra games on BTN with 2 less on ESPN is more exposure but almost certainly less money.”

            Perhaps, in a static situation. The B1G will soon be larger and encompassing new, valuable markets. Better leverage improves likely penetration of those markets.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Nostradamus,

            “True but by exposure here we are talking about top tier games. Presumably the Big Ten moving more “top tier” games to BTN would be for revenue optimization. They aren’t going to move games for “exposure” to the network for the sake of “exposure.”

            Clearly the conference/BTN thinks they can make more money by giving BTN some better selections.”

            Or they think they need better games on BTN to have a chance to get access to the new major media markets. ESPN might offer the B10 more to not let the BTN grow. The presidents balance multiple desires (revenue, exposure to potential students. exposure to alumni, etc). Maximizing short term revenue isn’t always the smart choice.

            The B10 could have made more by playing weeknight games during the season, but they refuse. The B10 could have made more by playing more night games, but the B10 chose to be cautious. The B10 might have made more by sticking with 8 B10 games (more inventory), but they chose to focus on fans’ desires and SOS instead.

            They may make more money this way or they may not. That hasn’t always been the primary concern of the presidents.

            Like

    • Steve says:

      A couple of key comments;
      “This past football season marked the first time all games shown on BTN television were in sync with those on BTN2Go, the network’s smart device app, and on BTN.com, allowing commercials to run consistently across all three if a media buyer wanted.”

      “The percentage of fans watching games on TV still represents about 90 percent of the audience, but that online viewership is growing, he said.”

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I’ve watched most of the CWS on my tablet or phone.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        I wish they’d let you pay to watch things online without getting BTN. I don’t want to pay to support the other channels I’d have to get in order to also get BTN (sports package or a higher tier of service), but I’d pay a premium to watch some games online.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          But Fox wants you to support some of those other channels.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Too bad. I choose to support none of them, including BTN, instead.

            Like

          • morganwick says:

            Since Brian would effectively like to order BTN a la carte, I have some idle thoughts on what a la carte might mean for the BTN.

            I think most regional sports networks will wither away because even YES won’t really be able to cough up the money to keep operating from just the New York market, and even if they can, teams won’t want to target their games to just the hardcore fan, so you might see professional teams flock back to broadcast. (I include the Longhorn Network in this category.) On the other hand, the Big Ten and SEC, but not any other conferences, have enough depth of fandom that their respective networks *can* survive in an a la carte landscape.

            The question is whether that’s a good move for the conferences. Realistically, they can’t put any remotely marquee games or a disproportionately large number of them on the conference network if they want exposure for the conference and relevance outside their own regions; I guess they can try to pick ahead of ESPN or do without them entirely, but even in a greatly reduced state ESPN is probably making more money than BTN or SECN because it appeals to a broader cross-section of the American landscape and adding Big Ten or SEC games probably isn’t going to drive up its price more than whatever a conference network is charging.

            Then you wonder what the other three major conferences are doing. Without RSNs or conference networks, the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 are scrambling to find outlets for their games. The big networks would love to fill up their schedule with them, and they can probably get at least two games apiece from them this way; ESPN still has room on its schedule for another 1-2 games; but I suspect they’d need multiple syndication timeslots to fill out the rest. Syndication only distributes games within each conference’s territory, but if the ACC and Big 12 start distributing games within SEC and Big Ten territory, that could put them at a massive recruiting and exposure advantage. The SEC could lose any claim to Texas, the Big Ten any claim to the Northeast. It could undermine the ground for continuing to run conference networks to begin with.

            I may be way off base with these idle wonderings, but the point I want to make is that bundling is a key underpinning of the boom in sports rights fees, and I can’t say that unbundling would kill the BTN itself, but it could cause a chain reaction that would make its existence look kinda stupid.

            Like

          • @morganwick – Yeah, I think true a la carte would likely kill a lot of channels, which would then have the effect of having only the most general interest channels surviving – essentially, the cable channel lineup that existed circa 1990.

            The thing is that I don’t think people really want a la carte. In fact, there’s actually much less tolerance for PPV-type arrangements now than 20 years ago. They want the “all-you-eat buffet”, but are moving toward paying for it by categories of content (movies, TV shows, music) as opposed to packages of channels. For example, Netflix streaming and Hulu aren’t really a la carte beyond the fact that you’re paying for those packages individually. Instead, those services provide really mirror what you get on cable – they’re huge libraries of movies and TV shows that you have access to at an all-you-can-eat buffet price (not just content from a specific channel).

            I could see one or more sports platforms like ESPN3 doing the same for sports. Maybe Fox would aggregate all of their content from their national and regional channels (FS1, BTN, YES) to create something similar to ESPN3.

            Now, the thing with sports is that it’s not an on-demand product like movies and scripted TV shows. The advantage of being able to stream sports online is usually more about convenience and access to games while you’re traveling or what’s not on your TV package than a preferred method of watching. Sports events are watched by a lot of people at the exact same time, which is what TV still does better (and probably will always do better) than the Internet. This is a key distinction in the desirability of watching TV shows and movies online (which people love having on-demand) compared to sports (which are appointment TV that people want to watch live at a specific time) that a lot of people miss.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “I may be way off base with these idle wonderings, but the point I want to make is that bundling is a key underpinning of the boom in sports rights fees…”

            I think you are off base. As Frank says live sports have leverage no other entertainment has. It wouldn’t surprise me if the sports offerings bring more value to a bundle than they are credited with. Everyone points to their increasing cost, but do we know some part of that is not floating kids, nature, pseudo news, cartoon, etc channels?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Well, I actually want online access without getting the BTN. I’d accept getting BTN a la carte except I know a la carte is terrible for consumers. I just refuse to fund all the other sports networks that would come with adding the BTN.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I know a la carte won’t fly, but I wonder if some form of choice will get added. Maybe they create tiers of channels and you can pick 3 of them for $X, 5 of them for $Y or all of them for $Z. that would let people tailor their packages a little.

            Like

  21. Brian says:

    OSU cancelled their CMU game in 2016 to make room for a 9th B10 game. Still on the schedule are BGSU, Tulsa and @OU. 2016 was the only year OSU needed to drop a game. I hope others follow suit and drop a weak game.

    Like

  22. Brian says:

    http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/403521/

    A good look at the issues with playing I-AA teams from MN’s AD. TV really pushed for the B10 to stop playing those teams, apparently. I’m curious when they say the same thing to the ACC, B12 and SEC.

    Like

  23. Brian says:

    http://college-football.si.com/2013/06/19/college-football-playoff-selection-committee/?sct=uk_t2_a5

    There will be no dry run for the CFP committee this season, and in fact they may not even decide on the committee’s details this year.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Probably a bad move as this would have been a good way to transition to the new system. Just like modern america in that they sell you the beta version and fix the bugs after the fact.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I understand their concerns about it leaking out and potentially undermining the BCS. I’d rather they go back and use a past season as a dry run (2007 maybe). But regardless, they probably won’t have a committee assembled until next summer.

        Like

  24. BuckeyeBeau says:

    good morning !!

    Like

  25. Marc Shepherd says:

    My take on what’ll eventually happen (not what should, but what will):

    1. The major programs won’t fully break away. Whether they like the NCAA or not, they don’t have the appetite for creating a whole new structure for sports like rowing and tennis that don’t make money.

    2. As Frank noted, there is already a de facto “Division I-A+”, consisting of the football schools in the Big Five leagues, plus Notre Dame. At some point, this cohort’s status will probably get written into the NCAA bylaws as a separate subdivision of Division I, which would then allow them to make their own rules without getting outvoted by the mid-majors.

    3. Contrary to persistent belief, the major schools have no appetite to force the mid-majors out of the Big Time. The power schools still want (and need) to play the mid-majors in football, and many schools that are weak in football are kings in other sports. What they’ll do is announce the principles they intend to live by, and any school wiling to participate can join. They’re not going to say to the Sun Belt Conference, “Sorry, you’re out.” They’ll say something like, “From now on, we’re granting our athletes a $5k stipend,” and it’ll be up to the Sun Belt to decide if they want to participate on those terms.

    4. The schools have no appetite at all for reforms that would allow athletes to get paid or accept endorsements. They’ll do anything they can to prevent this. They do have an appetite for reforms like full cost-of-attendance scholarships, which would raise the boat for all athletes simultaneously. This will probably happen eventually, in some form. I could see them supporting similar reforms like an education fund or health insurance, that don’t involve third parties paying the athlete directly.

    5. The schools also have no appetite for permitting players to hire agents. Right now, schools hold the upper hand, because no player in a 4-year career has time to mobilize against the existing system. By the time a player realizes what’s right and wrong about the system, his eligibility is expired. An agent who represents dozens of elite athletes at any given time, and hundreds or thousands over a period of many years, is going to be in a far better position to fight the NCAA.

    6. If Ed O’Bannon wins, it will be less consequential than many people think. Obviously, it means the schools will have to share some of the money they’re earning, but the “parade of horribles” in the NCAA’s legal filings is grossly exaggerated. Obviously, it’s in the NCAA’s interests to try to claim that if O’Bannon wins, the world will end. They said the same thing when the schools sued to get control of their football TV rights. It’s more-or-less the NCAA’s canned response whenever anyone challenges them, and can’t be taken seriously.

    Like

    • SH says:

      Marc,

      I think you are right on most points. While I would love to see the power schools leave the NCAA, such a move would would have a lot of implications and there would be many things to over come on the political front (tax-exemption, antitrust) and on the PR front. The former being the biggest concern. However, I think they could strip some power away from the NCAA.

      I don’t think a stipend solves anything. It may suspend the conversation for a few years, but eventually there will be a call for an increased stipend, or a non-uniform stipend.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      I think O’Bannon wins on the class action ruling. That will mean tens of millions of legal fees and a probable expensive settlement down the road.

      It will mean a lot because millions will be sucked out of revenue sports. That will push the power schools to break away from the NCAA. And that will doom sports programs and scholarships at a lot of schools. It may lead to the end of national championships in Divisions II and III.

      And the power schools will figure out a way around the settlement for players going forward-minor royalties after they graduate for replays, selling jerseys w/o numbers or numbers no one uses.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Marc: agree pretty much with your sense of what WILL happen.

      A note on the O’Bannon case: His lawsuit seeks a lot of remedies and pursues a lot of legal theories of recovery. Some of the theories are stronger than others. The piece of the lawsuit concerning use of his likeness is, in my view, pretty strong, particularly since the NCAA itself never asked for or received any waivers from the athletes. That may also be the basis for a class action. But that count is mostly directed at the NCAA which directly licenses the video games, etc. If O’Bannon wins that count, that would be huge for him and any co-plaintiffs but would not directly impact the schools themselves.

      For this reason, I actually agree that the consequences of an O’Bannon victory will be less than everyone is predicting.

      Like

  26. duffman says:

    Frank,

    You know I love the blog but you could not wait another few days to see if IU wins the Capitol One Cup? It would be the first B1G school to do so.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Fantastic pitching duel last night. Neither pitcher deserved a loss.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        First CWS shutout since ’85, and first complete game by both pitchers since ’06.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Should read first 1-0 shutout since ’85.
          Apologies to the Owls.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            IU will truly need some obvious luck. Hoosiers can only earn 15 pts more, max, final round of scoring. If either UNC or UCLA wins, IU finishes second. Time to root for OreSt or MssSt – I can’t say MSU, that distinction belongs to the Spartans of East Lansing : ). No matter what, IU was a very tough out. A great statement for BIG baseball, which has been awful for too long.

            Like

  27. acaffrey says:

    What I do not understand is why hockey and baseball players can make themselves eligible for the professional draft–without losing eligibility if rejecting–but the NCAA cannot allow the same thing for football and basketball players.

    Like

    • greg says:

      The football and basketball rules are specific to the NFL and NBA, not to the NCAA. The NFL says you must be 3 years out of high school to be draft-eligible, and the NBA says you have to be one year out. It is not an NCAA rule.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        No, that’s not what he asked. What he asked was why baseball and hockey players who are drafted can still come back and play in college (assuming they haven’t used up all four years of eligibility), but football and basketball players cannot.

        In football and basketball, sometimes a player comes out early, and then is drafted way lower than he expected. You would think that as long as he hasn’t signed a pro contract, he ought to be considered still an amateur, and eligible to return to his college team. But the rules don’t allow that, and he was asking why.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I think part of it is whether he has sign an agent or not. Are NFL and NBA team precluded from drafting someone who has said he’s remaining in school and taking their chances? Isn’t there a second NFL or NBA deadline kids can back out after declaring, as long as they haven’t hired an agent? (John Elway?) It is before the draft, but that may be a NFL/NBA rule as their limited number of picks are valuable enough to need assurances, while MLB drafts anything that is semi coordinated and left handed among their yearly 50 round first year draft.

          Like

      • acaffrey says:

        That is not what I am talking about. If a guy is a 21-year old junior, he has to decide whether or not to enter the draft or come back to college. His simple “declaration” to enter the draft causes him to lose eligibility, whereas actually being drafted by a MLB team does not disturb the process. The NCAA rules are all that I care about. Whether the NFL or NBA allow some to enter is up to them. The NCAA controls when kids can come back. In my opinion, anyone who has not signed a contract for $$$ should not lose eligibility.

        Like

    • frug says:

      I don’t know about hockey, but (if memory serves me right) baseball players don’t declare draft eligibility in the same BB or FB players. Baseball teams simply draft whoever they want (with some restrictions) and the player decides whether or not to sign a contract.

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        Fair enough. But the NCAA could say–being drafted by the NFL or NBA is irrelevant. If you want to stay in college, so be it. If you want to put yourself in position to be drafted, so be it. Until you get $$$, you are an amateur.

        I just cannot help but think that there is a racial component mixed into these rules at some level. whether it is .000001% or 20%, I don’t know. All I know is that Brian Holzinger played for the Buffalo Sabres moments after winning the Hobey Baker award. Being drafted by the Sabres did not stop him from being able to play for a college and the NHL during one season. That could happen in football or basketball if the NCAA allowed drafted players to remain eligible as long as they do not sign.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Part of it is timing. The FB declaration day is just a few weeks before national signing day. The coaches need to know which players are coming back so they know how many new players to sign. If a player can change his mind, some poor freshman would be SOL.

          The NFL has moved the draft to May now. You’d have to push back NSD until mid to late May, right when the school year is ending. Is it fair to the incoming freshmen to leave them wondering that late if they have a scholarship coming or need to make other plans?

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Somehow baseball and hockey have figured out how to manage it all.

            In fact, it could work the opposite. A kid is drafted in 2014. Does not sign. Plays the 2014 season for his college team. He has two choices when season ends–signs with NFL team immediately after college season ends and reports to NFL team on February 1 based on prior drafting. Or wait until the next draft. Either way, what harm to the NCAA in allowing a kid to be drafted without giving up a spot?

            It is tougher for the NFL to make it all work, but there are fewer problems there anyway. By the NFL not drafting kids until 3 years removed from H.S., this eliminates most of the problems.

            The real problem is basketball. There has to be a better system.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            It would be interesting to know if timing is the reason for the rule, or if the rule was written for some other reason. Even if the football rule is due to the timing, it woudn’t explain basketball.

            Like

        • Mack says:

          Baseball players do not declare for the draft. Any player that graduated from high school is eligible until they enter a 4 year college. When in a 4 year program they are eligible after their Junior year. Going to Junior College does not effect draft eligibility (can be picked after each year). It is not unusual for a senior graduating from college to have been drafted 3 times (high school, junior, senior). There is also an apples and oranges comparison. Baseball has 40 draft rounds compared to 2 for Basketball and 7 for Football. If the NCAA passed a rule that said no player that had been drafted could play there would be no Division I baseball. Just too many picks for teams not to take a chance.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            The bottom line is that a person can be drafted and not lose NCAA eligibility. Pretty straightforward. This is because there is nothing inherent in being drafted that should cause the amateur status to be revoked. Drafting means nothing.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The football and basketball drafts used to be larger. But there was really no need for it.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Isn’t it after your scheduled HS graduation, three years after your HS class would graduate, and again the following year? There is a college player this year (in the CWS) that just finished his 3rd college year, but was not drafted. And I believe he was not draft elligible. He graduated HS a year early and became a college starter immediately. I’m no scout but I think a young switch hitting regular infielder in a successful college program would at least draw a low draft pick.

            Like

  28. Marc Shepherd says:

    Can someone refresh my memory as to the following:

    I recall vaguely that there was a case where a student-athlete hired a lawyer to defend his athletic interests. The NCAA considered the lawyer an “agent” and disqualified the athlete. The athlete sued and got a preliminary injunction, on the basis that it was a violation of state law for the NCAA to prevent athletes from hiring their own lawyer.

    Knowing how explosive this would be if it were upheld on appeal (which it might very well have been), the NCAA reached a settlement with the athlete. As part of the settlement, the athlete got his eligibility back, and the judge’s preliminary ruling never became final. The athlete got what he wanted, and the NCAA was able to make an extremely undesirable ruling go away.

    Like

  29. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9407768/val-ackerman-emerges-front-runner-big-east-commissioner

    The BE is looking to hire former WNBA commissioner Val Ackerman to run the league.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2013-06-17/ackerman-s-white-paper-outlines-recommendations-spark-growt

      That’s important for many reasons, but one is that she just finished a report for the NCAA on how to improve women’s basketball. She gave several ideas for ways to improve the tournament (scheduling changes, location changes, etc).

      As for the regular season:

      1. Cut down regular-season games.
      2. Reduce scholarships on teams from 15 to 13 in order to disperse talent.
      3. A 24-second shot clock.
      4. 10-minute quarters instead of halves.
      5. Shrink or eliminate conference tournaments.

      The article has a link to her whole white paper if anyone’s interested.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Sounds like a good hire for the BE. Someone who writes a report with suggestions, none of which will be used. They aren’t going to reduce the regular sesason, they aren’t going to the NBA 24 second clock, they aren’t going to quarters and they aren’t going to eliminate the conference tournaments. And as for scholarships, that is simply because of Title IX. They need more scholarships in women’s sports to offset football.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Not only football … for instance, at a 60/40 F/M University, 13 Men’s BBall players need to be offset by more than 13 Women’s scholarships.

          Like

  30. Brian says:

    Frank,

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on paying players.

    “While the cost of a college scholarship is substantial, the power conference athletic departments are still receiving outsized revenue gains off of the backs of football and men’s basketball players and they ought to be compensated accordingly.”

    Out of state tuition and fees plus room and board is about $36k for 2 semesters at OSU, so call it roughly $50k per year. That’s $250,000 the player is paid.

    Now, how much 40 hours a week of elite personal training and professional training worth? $2000 per week? That’s another $500,000 for the player.

    Players get free tutoring, too. 5 hours a week would be worth $25,000.

    That’s 775,000 over 5 years, or $155,000 per year.

    That’s a pretty good salary for someone without a college education and limited work experience. That’s without mentioning the value of a college degree itself, which many of these players wouldn’t get without the scholarship offer. It’s commonly said to be worth over $1M in your lifetime.

    $155,000 per year times 85 scholarship players is $13,175,000 per year. Do schools make more than that per year? Yes, if they are major programs. But they also have a lot of other expenses (coaches, facilities, university overhead, etc). OSU made $58M in 2011-2 from football. OSU had expenses of $34M, leaving $24M. The players received more than half of that in value. How is that not fair compensation?

    “Now, I understand why colleges want to fight those types of payments to the death and there are major Title IX implications, as it’s likely that payments would have to be made across the board to all non-revenue sport athletes on top of the revenue generators. It’s easy to point to the quarterback whose jersey is getting sold nationwide and say that it isn’t fair that he hasn’t been compensated fully, yet should a water polo player at the same school be receiving the same type of payment?”

    That jersey doesn’t sell if it doesn’t have the school’s name on it. Jerseys without player names would still sell well. People are forced to choose one with a current player’s number generally. We have no idea how much of the value is attributable to the player.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      @Brian: I agree with you that the athletes already are handsomely paid.

      But your post doesn’t entirely respond to the issues. Two of FTT’s five proposals (allowing players to accept outside endorsements; allowing players to hire agents) would not require the schools to spend any more money.

      Another of his proposals (full cost-of-attendance scholarships) is actually favored by the larger schools, including OSU. So apparently they do not think they are paying the players enough.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “But your post doesn’t entirely respond to the issues. Two of FTT’s five proposals (allowing players to accept outside endorsements; allowing players to hire agents) would not require the schools to spend any more money.

        Another of his proposals (full cost-of-attendance scholarships) is actually favored by the larger schools, including OSU. So apparently they do not think they are paying the players enough.”

        That’s probably because that comment was solely in response to Frank’s footnote about paying players, which I quoted in it’s entirety.

        I’ll address the rest of Frank’s post separately.

        Like

    • acaffrey says:

      Dropping a kid on a college campus without any spending money is problematic. A non-athlete can work. A scholarship athlete for a revenue sport cannot. What, exactly, is that kid supposed to do to get spending money? To go on a date, see a movie, do laundry.

      The scholarship has life value, but on a day-to-day basis it is not so helpful. We see too many college athletes stealing.

      When I was a college student, so many of my peers had seemingly limitless spending ability via their parents. I did not. I worked to earn spending money (and pay for part of school). If I could not work–what else could I have done? These kids devote enough time and serve as ambassadors of the University just walking around campus. We cannot find up to $250/week for these kids?

      Heck, even $100/week from school year start to end, conditioned on them staying out of trouble (i.e. failing to serve as good ambassadors of the University) and having good grades is fine with me. $100 times 40 weeks = $4,000 times 100 athletes per school = $400,000. <5% of the budget for schools in the 5 major conferences (1% of the Big 10 budgets by 2018, right?). Which is fair given that these kids in the revenue-generating sports FUND so many other sports.

      Not getting rich, just having a decent standard of living outside of sports.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I don’t think the stipend would stop “underground” payments at all. However, I do think they should do it. These athletes don’t have time to work and colleges should be able to pay them the full cost of attendance. Many of these athletes are poor and don’t have spending money.

        I think the education fund is a ridiculous idea. They have a full scholarship while they are in school. They should finish then. Do they have “education funds” for regular students who don’t finish in 5 years?

        They certainly should cover injuries. I believe they do that now. However, disability should be the responsibility of the player. How do you define “elite” players that get disability? If they are concerned about disability, go pro or get their own insurance. Many do both of those. If they can’t afford it, I would think they could get a legitimate loan from someone other than an agent if they really had potential.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        acaffrey,

        “Dropping a kid on a college campus without any spending money is problematic. A non-athlete can work. A scholarship athlete for a revenue sport cannot. What, exactly, is that kid supposed to do to get spending money? To go on a date, see a movie, do laundry.”

        If he’s that poor, he can get a $5000+ Pell grant every year. That should cover plenty of movies. If not, he can get money from his family. Or maybe he could spend less on things he doesn’t need and magically he’d find he actually does have money.

        Or he could not play football and work a job to pay for school. Football isn’t mandatory.

        “We see too many college athletes stealing.”

        They aren’t all poor.

        “I worked to earn spending money (and pay for part of school). If I could not work–what else could I have done?”

        Gotten student loans. Gotten scholarships. Sold stuff. Not wasted money on things you didn’t need. Gone to a cheaper school. College isn’t mandatory and neither is playing football. You make choices and they come with sacrifices.

        Like

  31. cutter says:

    Michigan presented its FY 2014 Athletic Department Budget to the Regents yesterday for approval. The actual document hasn’t been posted on the university website yet, but per the press release in the link below, revenue is projected to be $146.4M with expenses of $137.5M for a net profit of $8.9M.

    The FY 2013 budget ended up having a $10.2M surplus. The original projection from last year at this time was a surplus of $4.4M with approx. $130M.3 in revenue.

    See http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/062013aaa.html and http://www.annarbor.com/news/u-m-athletic-department-budget-fy-2014/ for more information.

    The second article gives some information on the $146M.4 revenue figure. $49.3M from ticket sales and $33.2M in donations makes up $82.5M of that figure. The remainder ($63.9M) should come from licensing royalties, corporate sponsorships, facilities revenue, other sources and conference distributions. We’ll get some more details on these revenue items (with a projection for conference distributions) in due course.

    In FY 2013, those items were projected to contribute $53.2M in revenue, so it looks like there was a nearly $10.7M revenue increase in projections for those items in FY 2014. If most of that comes from conference distributions due to increased post-season payouts, then that would seem to confirm the approx. $32M in FY 2014 conference distributions that was mentioned last year when Maryland and Rutgers joined the conference.

    Like

    • cutter says:

      Here’s Michigan’s FY 2014 Athletic Department budget document–see http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-13/2013-06-X-13.pdf

      The fiscal year runs from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, so the increase in conference distributions from the playoff I wrote about before will be shown in next year’s submission for the FY 2015 budget.

      Conference Distributions from this document and previous budgets show the following revenue amounts (television share in brackens)

      FY 2008 – $18.79M ($13.93M)
      FY 2009 – $19.17M ($14.43M)
      FY 2010 – $19.97M ($14.89M)
      FY 2011 – $22.85M ($16.67M)
      FY 2012 – $24.65M ($17.74M)
      FY 2013 – $25.73M ($18.98M)
      FY 2014 (projected) – $26.50M ($19.93M)

      Over this time period, conference distributions have gone up an average of around $1.29M per year. That would put FY 2015 at $27.79M and FY 2016 at $29.08M, but as I mentioned above, the college football postseason revenue starts kicking in during the 2014 season (FY 2015).

      According to USA Today, the Big Ten could be getting approx. $90M in revenue from its deals with the Rose Bowl and the CFB playoff. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-bcs-playoff-revenue-money-distribution-payouts/1762709/

      That could add perhaps $5-$6M per B1G program, which would put the conference distribution for FY 2015 at around $32M and FY 2016 at approx. $34M.

      Like

  32. Wainscott says:

    Any accountants on this board care to weigh in on the tax issues relating to athletic scholarships if athletes receive a salary-type stipend?

    As I understand it now, the full cost of a scholarship (athletic or otherwise) is not considered to be imputed income on the recipient (this includes room and board), but that stipends for food, travel, and such are (in theory, anyways) considered income that must be reported. However, if athletes start receiving salaries, does that potentially mean that the scholarship, along with room and board, somehow become considered part of the overall compensation package for an athlete?

    The difference, as I understand it, is between reporting $3,600 ($300/m stipend x12 months) vs. $60,000 or so at a private school.

    I am not an accountant, and I am going off my memory of Fed Tax in law school, so if I am hilariously wrong or wildly off base, please correct me.

    Assuming I am correct, one unintended consequence of this would be to hurt the private schools (USC, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, etc..) while greatly helping in state public universities (especially ones in talent-rich states).

    Like

  33. bullet says:

    As for agents, the NCAA isn’t afraid of their power. They are afraid of the cesspool that is AAU basketball spilling over into the rest of college athletics. And who pays the agents? They don’t work for free. That leads you into all kinds of problems. Its basically what Oregon is getting into trouble for. They are basically paying that guy in Texas to deliver athletes for them.

    I think that is absolutely the worst idea of the 5. It may sound good on its face, but would be awful in practice.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The idea of letting the players hire agents is part & parcel of the idea of letting the players monetize their value, any way they see fit. If a student in the music or theater department hires an agent to manage their professional career, it is no business of the school (or of an external governing body) whether the agent is good or bad.

      I do realize that because of the extraordinary sums of money these athletes have the potential to earn, the field attracts some unscrupulous agents. That’s a problem the music and theater students generally do not have. But you seem to believe that there’s practically no such thing as an honest agent. I don’t think that’s true either. If you make it legal and above-board, it becomes a lot harder for the dishonest ones to thrive.

      Although the concerns you raised are legitimate, I am absolutely convinced that the NCAA does not want the players to receive even competent representation, because competent and honest agents will do a far better job of working on the players’ behalf than the players themselves have any chance of doing.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Music has lots of unscrupulous agents. Probably more than sports based on all the lawsuits.

        Music and theater don’t have “amateur” status. They have music and theater outside the university.

        Like

  34. ccrider55 says:

    Regarding the value an athlete brings to a school is there a parallel between schools ownership of research, discoveries, etc. staying primarily with the school and not the property of the individual student, grad student, professor, researcher, except in cases of joint school/commercial ventures? Isn’t this a long established relationship that has been court tested? Without the school what would the individual have achieved, been able to attempt, or ultimately was worth independent of the school?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      And the reality is that 99+% of the athletes will have a career in something other than sports. That means that 99+% of them are getting value in excess of what they are giving. That % are fungible. They could be replaced by FCS players. There probably isn’t a scholarship FCS team that couldn’t beat the best teams in the 60s and 70s if they were transported back in time, so the slightly lesser quality wouldn’t have any difference as long as a team is competitive with its peers.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Fundamentally agree (except disagree with the common adoration of the current. Give ’60s/’70s players current drugs, or make current players play by the former rules, etc. remember, Eric Dickerson, Michael Carter, etc? They were ’70s HSers). I’d say the FBS/FCS equivalence wouldn’t be above 50%. The bottom of FBS still has superior depth of 1-3 star talent. That doesn’t alter your premise that less than 1% actually achieve significant marketable value.

        I suggest that the school contributes greatly, basically creates much if not most of a FB player’s marketable value. Would Jerry Rice have benifited anything like a USC, UT, or Alabama star player?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I said “transport back in time.” I’m not “adoring” the present. Given current training methods, etc., 60s/70s players would be bigger, stronger and faster than they were. That unbeaten Texas 1969 team that was in one of the longest win streaks in modern times (30 games-4th longest in the last 50 years, 6th longest since first World War) had 1 lineman over 200 lbs. They would get killed today.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            So I’m agreeing with you on the time differences. Great athletes would rise to the top in any era. But without current training, etc., few teams would be able to compete.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Agree they’d get killed today, but they were only a few years removed from predominantly both way players, 3 subs/play limit, etc. now coaches (Bielema, Sabin) bitch that they need to slow the game, need 15 secs/play to sub. That would change even further who, what type/size, and how conditioned a player will be desirable under that iteration of football. Lets go back to 11 man, one sub per half (in case of serious injury, unable to return that half) and see what type of player is desirable. :)

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I saw that. Ridiculous that players “need” to be subbed in 8-10 plays. At 10 seconds a play, that’s 1:20-1:40 of action with 10-15 second intervals between plays. That’s not even 1 round in wrestling. Be good for them if they were smaller and had better stamina.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Even when Jim Walden was coach at WSU, long before kids got anywhere near as big as today, he recognized a problem that was being created. I saw an article written up where he stated his job was not done when eligibility expired. He said FB was responsible for creating body’s that were never intended by nature, and were tremendous health risks going forward. He felt it was his responsibility to get the non NFL bound students back to similar size to when they arrived. Today he’d need to aim young with the proliferation of excessive size HSers the last couple decades.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Regarding the value an athlete brings to a school is there a parallel between schools ownership of research, discoveries, etc. staying primarily with the school and not the property of the individual student, grad student, professor, researcher, except in cases of joint school/commercial ventures? Isn’t this a long established relationship that has been court tested?

      The big difference is that each school can offer its professors and students whatever deal they find mutually beneficial. That creates an open market, in which schools can and do outbid each other for talent. As you’ve noted, there are joint ventures between schools and third parties, and many professors dramatically increase their income with outside consulting.

      The premise of the O’Bannon suit is that the NCAA and the schools have conspired to restrain trade, by agreeing among themselves NOT to outbid each other for student-athletes, and furthermore, to limit the athlete’s ability to make whatever side deals s/he may be able to get.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        This market (the universe of FB playing NCAA schools) has set that limit. It doesn’t prevent exploration/creation of alternatives outside their control, and doesn’t prevent that market from responding to changing realities. Do we have salary caps, rookie salary limits, contract structure based on luck of draft position and need of the team in that slot? Is there any limitation you would accept, and if there is how is it not just a matter of degree?

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        This market (the universe of FB playing NCAA schools) has set that limit. It doesn’t prevent exploration/creation of alternatives outside their control, and doesn’t prevent that market from responding to changing realities.

        If that argument were valid, no one would ever win an anti-trust case. If a group has cornered a very substantial segment of the relevant market — which I think there is very little doubt the NCAA has done — it is no defense to say, “We’re not stopping anyone else from forming their own athletics association.”

        If you read the NCAA’s submissions in the O’Bannon case, that is not an argument they are trying to make, because they know it wouldn’t work.

        Do we have salary caps, rookie salary limits, contract structure based on luck of draft position and need of the team in that slot?

        Those are limits that the owners and players’ unions have jointly agreed to. It’s no different than GM and the UAW agreeing that an entry-level assembly-line worker will make $X per hour and receive $Y in benefits.

        Is there any limitation you would accept, and if there is how is it not just a matter of degree?

        Honestly, I am undecided.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Good points. Referring back to researchers, schools are also able to bargain for long term employment, and even grant tenure-basically lifetime employment. None of that applies to athletes. If it did then I agree with your points, but would return to bullet’s assertion that professionalism belongs in the pros, not universities.

          Like

  35. bullet says:

    And once basketball players have value, they leave for the NBA. They make the decision whether to stay or not. Football is a little different. But a lot of that is that 19 year olds aren’t physically ready to play in the NFL.

    Like

  36. bullet says:

    People who think the Olympic model will work are either naiive or don’t mind professionalism of the players. The reality is that every school would get their hands dirty buying players in recruiting by having boosters offer endorsement contracts. It would be more open. But it would be every bit as sleazy and everyone would have to do it. And if you allow it to players but not recruits, it would all be set up during recruiting, just not formalized.

    IMO if you get into full professionalism, there’s no point in it going through the university and they should just get out of the business.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      This!

      Like

    • Kevin says:

      Agreed. The only thing I would accept is a stipend.

      Like

    • Transic says:

      IMO if you get into full professionalism, there’s no point in it going through the university and they should just get out of the business.

      I made a similar point about the universities getting out of the sports business in a post above.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      If its full professionalism, then the football and bball should be operated as for-profit franchises, paying a hefty licensing fee for the use of the school name and athletic team IP, with employed athletes permitted (but not required) to attend the University, and the break-even and subsidy sports run by the University, no a scholarship basis or not in line with the University’s decision of what is appropriate.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      College football already are a bussiness for the schools though. They bring in tremendous amounts of attention (how much advertising would it take to get a similar effect?). It brings in enough money to single handily fund a very large number of sports. It increases merchandise sales tremendously and gives you a good speaker for fundraisers (football coach often most well known university official).

      Rules of constantly been alter to make more money for the schools. Given all that, the schools have already made the choice that it’s effectively a bussiness operate to fund other activities. The workers who bring in much of this value (how much is a Rose Bowl worth vs. a 8-3 season even?) don’t have a chance to compete in a free market system for their services though or even a pretty closed one.

      Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like where this would lead the sport, but it’s not fair for the rules of ameutarism to apply only to one side.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        College football already are is business for the schools though.

        Of course it is! And therein lies the great irony. Most schools have extra-curricular music, theater, and art programs. Nobody cares if the participants in those programs hire agents or earn extra money on the side—because, of course, very few do.

        I did extra-curricular theater at Michigan. The orchestra, consisting mainly of music students, was paid. Nobody cared, because theater at Michigan wasn’t a business. It really WAS what it claimed to be: an extra-curricular activity.

        Sports started out that way. If they had remained that way, no one would have paid attention to how many kids were on scholarship or how they were recruited, whether they had outside benefactors, hired agents, worked on the side, or any of that.

        Only as it started to become a business, did those things begin to matter.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          Very good point. Hadn’t thought about it that way, but you’re right. If it was just an extra circular activity, no one would care about a lot of the stuff we care about football players taking.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            They would if that extra curricular activity occurred within a structure that has been voluntarily joined by the schools offering it, and included prohibitions that some would like to ignore yet remain as a member of that structure.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            But all of this monitoring and closely watching for any rule breaking of any item/money received would not occur (not to mention school attention to making sure athletes are passing with a lot of tutors and so forth). I suppose it’s more apt to say, the level of scrutiny players are under is only because college football programs at the top level are run as a business rather than an amateur event.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            They would if that extra curricular activity occurred within a structure that has been voluntarily joined by the schools offering it, and included prohibitions that some would like to ignore yet remain as a member of that structure.

            But they only created that structure because it’s a business. Had it remained a truly extra-curricular activity (as it originally was), the idea of creating the structure and all of those rules would never have occurred to them.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            They created it because Teddy Rosevelt required it rather than having congress shut down the popular but ungoverned and dangerous competition colleges were holding. Had it remained unstructured college FB would not exist.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            What would have occurred, had the NCAA not been formed when it was, could be debated endlessly, but it would be pointless. The original concern was the physical safety of the game of football. Most of the rules we are debating here aren’t specific to football, and came along later, for entirely different reasons.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Certainly. Name any organization that doesn’t/hasn’t formulated new, and reformulated old rules in changing circumstances. You said the NCAA was created as a business model. I disagreed.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            You said the NCAA was created as a business model. I disagreed.

            At the risk of seeming Clintonian, it depends on what the meaning of created is.

            I didn’t mean that the NCAA was founded for that purpose, as I was certainly aware of its original mission, which is long since settled. I meant the regulatory regime currently under discussion.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Long before the advent of serious money in college athletics, but equally as long after the creation of the NCAA the PCC had broken up over the paying for athletes at Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW. A stricter set of rules came into being in the reformed conference, and soon those who objected most returned to become the P8. Business interests have imposed themselves on college athletics over time, but the base of the amateur rules were rooted in keeping student athletes amateur. This was during a time that the US Olympic Committee (Avery Brundage) considered you professional in a sport if you graduated in education and coaching was part of your teaching duties. As a result of being paid as an assistant coach in that sport (even at the middle school level) you were “professional” and intelligible for the Olympic team.

            Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        However, its a business that is structured to generate cost inflation, because as a not for profit activity, the only way that the athletic department can capture its revenues is be generating cost centers for the revenues. Restructuring of the business as a franchised operation removes the incentives to gold plate the bricks.

        Like

  37. BuckeyeBeau says:

    SIAP (I didn’t see them listed above).

    SI published three really good articles on the O’Bannon case a couple of days back. Each highly recommended. Each has internal links to the other two.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130619/ncaa-ed-obannon-hearing-primer/

    Like

  38. Brian says:

    Frank,

    In regards to Zola’s 5 points:

    Have athletics scholarships cover the full cost of attendance and not be capped at tuition and fees, room and board, and required books. A stipend, in the neighborhood of $3,000 per student, according to a recent study, would help reduce the growing underground compensation system for elite athletes.

    I have no problem with making a full ride truly a full ride. Academic full rides already pay this much.

    Embrace the Olympic amateur model by lifting the restriction on college athletes’ commercial opportunities. This shift would offer any student the opportunity to secure endorsement deals or receive payment for the use of his or her name and image.

    This sounds good, but it would become a mess. The top teams would become totally professional with a pretext of endorsements to justify paying the players lots of money. That isn’t college sports to me. If the Santa Monica Football Club wants to form and pay players, more power to them. No school should be affiliated with this, though.

    I’d be sympathetic to the monopoly argument if the NFL actually tried to set up a minor league system and it failed. MLB and the NHL have shown it can work, though. There are lots of semipro leagues out there, too.

    On the other hand, I’m fine with restricting the use of player images in video games and names on jerseys. They can sell OSU #0 jerseys with Buckeyes as the name instead of #5 Miller jerseys.

    Create an education fund that provides continuing financial assistance to college athletes, allowing them to complete their degrees even after their athletics eligibility, and corresponding scholarship, has expired.

    If you can’t earn a degree in 5 years with unlimited free tutoring, you don’t deserve a free degree. I’m fine with mandating 4 years assuming they don’t break rules and 5 if they redshirt. Being lazy shouldn’t be rewarded, though.

    Provide full health insurance for all athletes and cover all deductibles for injuries related to participation in an intercollegiate sport. Offer full disability insurance to elite athletes, protecting them against catastrophic injuries that could derail their professional careers.

    Health insurance and deductibles for sport-related injuries, yes. Disability insurance, no. They’re getting college degrees and most aren’t going to the NFL anyway. The degree is their insurance against a “career-ending” injury.

    Allow athletes to hire agents to protect their rights, including providing assistance in evaluating scholarship offers from institutions, negotiating commercial opportunities, and navigating the transition from college to professional sports.

    The LOI isn’t mandatory and a parent has to sign it anyway. They can pay for legal advice on that specific contract. There are advisory panels athletes can use in terms of preparing for the NFL. I’d rather see schools paying a fund that pays approved agents to advise players for free than letting players hire agents. Agents are just another way to pay players.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      As for the issue of splitting, I don’t see the power schools leaving the NCAA. It wouldn’t accomplish much as they’d basically have to form a new version of the NCAA. Much more likely is a new split of I-A. I’d set a new minimum average attendance standard of 40,000 for each conference (or individual school for independents) and not allow any school to move up without an invitation or meeting the requirement. The entire conference must be at the same level, too.

      The Super I-A would be allowed to pay the COL stipend to all athletes (or the equivalent partial amount for a partial scholarship) and cover health insurance and such, but it wouldn’t be mandatory. That would let smaller schools afford to be in the top level. The attendance standard would be mandatory, though, to reduce the number of freeloaders. In addition, the Super I-A would not be allowed to play I-AA or lower teams, just I-A and Super I-A. I-A teams would still be bowl eligible and could play against Super I-A teams in bowls. I’d change the CFP so that a regular I-A team could also take the G5 spot.

      I’d also have the same sort of split for non-FB schools, with a minimum average attendance requirement for the conference. If they can’t draw the fans, then they can’t pay the stipend.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        I’d set a new minimum average attendance standard of 40,000 for each conference (or individual school for independents) and not allow any school to move up without an invitation or meeting the requirement. The entire conference must be at the same level, too.

        Does that mean every member of the conference must meet the average attendance standard? If that’s the case, goodbye Wake and Duke…and the ACC as well.

        Like

        • Pablo says:

          At 40,000 average per school, a number of ACC schools would not have made the cut last year: Wake and Duke obviously, BC and Maryland due to their downward trajectory, and even incoming Syracuse. Fortunately, as a conference the average is well above 40,000.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          If you look at the 4 year average, there are only 8 who don’t make it and only WSU isn’t private. Baylor and Syracuse just miss. BC is mid 30s, but is down from their norm. Vandy, Northwestern and Wake are low 30s. WSU and Duke are in the 20s.

          Only BYU, ECU and USF of the rest exceed 40k. And there are only a dozen others who exceed Dukes 27k average.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            To be fair to WSU, the entire surrounding county will about fit in their stadium. Spokane and Boise are the only population bases of even modest size within several hundred miles. There is a reason George Raveling said about Pullman “it isn’t the end of the world, but you can see it from here.” You could argue they pull one of the highest percentages of the reasonably available “customers” in the nation.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Iowa State is invariably used as a whipping dog in such discussions (as it does when there’s talk of who to kick out from FBS), but it draws reasonably well for a lower-tier Big 12 member, averaging comfortably above 40,000

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Attendance minimums are usually a proxy for other issues. No one cares whether Duke draws 40,000 to a football game. What they care about, is whether those schools are standing in the way of progress—as the larger schools define it.

          For a variety of reasons, the Pac-12 still wants Washington State to remain eligible, the ACC still wants Duke, the Big Ten still wants Northwestern, etc. The big leagues wouldn’t allow the rules to be written in such a way that those schools get kicked out.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Their argument would be that it hurts the other schools in a conference if one gets punished. Part of the reason they are shying away from TV bans as part of probation.

            Like

          • David Brown says:

            There are six things that matter: 1: Attendance. 2: TV Market. 3: Competitive Ability in Football and Men’s Basketball. 4: Competitive ability in “Olympic Sports.” (perhaps the least important (see U-Conn)). 5: Growth Potential. 6: Academics (perhaps the most important factor for obvious reasons (such as Research $$$ and image)). Schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor and Duke will never have to worry about being kicked out of a Conference, because of how superior their Academics are. Schools like Washington State, Wake Forest, Boston College & Syracuse, are not in their category, and have much weaker cases to remain with the “Big Boys.” SU is a perfect example of this: As a football program, there is a declining interest in it, they play in a declining market, and yes, Academically speaking it is on the decline as well (“Voluntarily” leaving the AAU comes to mind). I know they are great in Lacrosse, and Boeheim is around for Hoops, but it is interesting the B10 chose Rutgers over them (before they left the AAU), because SU generally had the superior program to RU (particularly in Men’s Basketball), and they would have jumped at the chance to go to the B10. I suspect reasons: 2 & 5 are the primary reasons why RU instead of SU was chosen for the B10.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @David

            I think you are severely overestimating Baylor’s academics. It is a fine school, it ranks well behind BC, Syracuse and WF in virtually every academic rankings (for all the Fredo jokes BC is an excellent undergraduate school). Also, while they will never be kicked out anytime soon (mostly because in modern history the only school to actually be kicked out a conference was Temple by the Big East when it was only a partial member) Baylor is virtually certain to be left behind if the Big XII ever collapses. BC and ‘Cuse on the other hand are simply likely to be left behind if the ACC goes under (Wake on the other hand would be left out in the cold).

            I also don’t understand how you can say that the Big Ten chose Rutgers over Syracuse. What happened is that the Big Ten chose Nebraska over both of them, and then ‘Cuse was almost immediately booted from the AAU eliminating them as a future candidate.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Schools like Washington State, Wake Forest, Boston College & Syracuse, are not in their category, and have much weaker cases to remain with the “Big Boys.”

            It just doesn’t work that way. No one is agitating to kick these schools out. As long as they cooperate with the desired rule changes, their seat at the table is assured.

            Besides, if the Pac-12 kicked out WSU, they’d lose the right to stage a conference championship game. The other three that you mentioned are very good schools. They’re non-AAU at present, but not weak by any means. Wake is regularly mentioned as a likely AAU member at some point in the future. BC’s large endowment is better than a number of AAU schools. Syracuse is one of the ACC’s newer members [technically, not yet a member]: I think it’s safe to say they fit the league’s current strategy.

            More importantly, the ACC isn’t going to kick anybody out: they need the numbers, and as a basketball-first league, they don’t really care if a few of their schools are not great at football.

            I know they are great in Lacrosse, and Boeheim is around for Hoops, but it is interesting the B10 chose Rutgers over them (before they left the AAU), because SU generally had the superior program to RU…

            Well, the Big Ten didn’t pick Pittsburgh either. There are a lot of schools the Big Ten didn’t choose. The fact that Syracuse isn’t useful to the Big Ten, doesn’t mean they’re useless to the ACC.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Marc

            I agree no is getting kicked out of any conference anytime soon, but losing the chance to stage a CCG or not having enough warm bodies isn’t why. The PAC would make more by replacing WSU with any of New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada or Boise St. UConn and Cincy would both make more money for the ACC than WF.

            Like

          • frug says:

            *The PAC would make more money

            Like

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            “I also don’t understand how you can say that the Big Ten chose Rutgers over Syracuse. What happened is that the Big Ten chose Nebraska over both of them, and then ‘Cuse was almost immediately booted from the AAU eliminating them as a future candidate.”

            The B10 chose RU over SU in (large) part because of AAU membership, but it was definitely a choice. You make it sound like some outside force prevented the B10 from choosing SU.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          vp19,

          “Does that mean every member of the conference must meet the average attendance standard? If that’s the case, goodbye Wake and Duke…and the ACC as well.”

          No, just the conference. I did that intentionally so conferences could have hoops-oriented schools and private schools and not suffer too much. They just need a balance of schools. The ACC averaged 48,000+ last year, for example. This rule also allows a conference to add a new school that isn’t up to the average as long as the conference can make up for it.

          Like

          • David Brown says:

            There is no one who expects any school to get kicked out of a Major Conference, but theoretically speaking, if one would the first in line would be Washington State, followed by Wake. The only way I see it happening is O’Bannon goes in such a one sided way in his favor, that finances demand Schools decide to drop football (which was hinted at Fresno State). I could see a number of smaller schools like a San Jose State, New Mexico State or Idaho doing exactly that, then a bigger School like Wazzu could go down

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I’m amazed Eastern Michigan is still trying to do it. They drew less than 4k on average last year and have been under 8k 5 of the last 8 years. And the trend appears to be going down. Their 4 year average is 7,273, which is nearly 5,000 behind Ball St. who is next to last.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I agree with most of Brian’s observations, though I have some doubts about the following:

      The LOI isn’t mandatory and a parent has to sign it anyway. They can pay for legal advice on that specific contract. There are advisory panels athletes can use in terms of preparing for the NFL.

      Although the parent signs the LOI, it doesn’t change the reality that the institution does ~25 of these per year (in football), but the parents are seeing it for probably the only time in their lives. The school has quite a bit more information than the parents do.

      I am pretty sure that NCAA rules don’t allow a kid to hire a lawyer to advise on that specific contract, even if the parents pay the lawyer. You can’t get around the no-agents rule by calling him your lawyer: many agents, in fact, have law degrees.

      I think that if a kid hires a lawyer/agent to advise on his athletic career, he is deemed ineligible, regardless of who paid whom.

      I’d rather see schools paying a fund that pays approved agents to advise players for free than letting players hire agents.

      That idea would be worth exploring.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        There are multiple websites and groups that provide free legal advice on the LOI (translating it into English from legalese, etc). I doubt paying for the same information is a problem. Regardless, the info is readily available to them.

        Getting athletic career advice is different from getting a document explained to you. And even then, the ban only exists to prevent players from getting the cash advances from agents that would inevitably come with signing.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I believe that when the article referred to “Allow[ing] athletes to hire agents to protect their rights, including providing assistance in evaluating scholarship offers from institutions,” it did not mean merely explaining the LOI document.

          And even then, the ban only exists to prevent players from getting the cash advances from agents that would inevitably come with signing.

          Doesn’t the ban exclude all agents, not just the kind that provide cash advances to the players?

          Like

      • @Marc Shepherd – I’ll need to take a look at if there are rules against receiving legal advice. To me, that would be easily grounds for any court to invalidate the terms of anything that an athlete signs (especially if it contains wide-reaching terms such as using a person’s likeness in perpetuity). You won’t find a judge anywhere that’s going to be sympathetic to a system where you are actually prevented from seeking legal advice. While many agents are also lawyers, there’s a delineation between acting as a lawyer (reviewing and providing legal advice on contract terms) and acting as an agent (setting up meeting with teams and endorsers, fronting fees for training prior to the draft). Some of the roles are blurred (i.e. negotiating salaries), but I have a hard time seeing how legal advice purely on contract/LOI terms could be prevented.

        Like

    • boscatar says:

      The current 15,000 minimum requirement is not enforced. If the NCAA simply enforced that requirement, most of the MAC and some Sun Belt teams would have been demoted already.

      If you bump the minimum requirement to 30,000 average attendance per home game, it would work well, IF enforced on the CONFERENCE level (or enforced against single schools if they participate as an independent). The average attendance for the five power conferences would easily exceed the 30,000 minimum, so they would ALL move up. BYU (60K+) and Notre Dame (80K+) would easily pass this test and move up as independents.

      The American would be right on the bubble, with it’s future 2015 affiliations (including 33K average Navy) averaging 31K for 2011 and 2012.

      The MWC would be under the 30,000 requirement, with its 2013 members averaging just under 25K for the last 2 years.

      C-USA and Sun Belt average around 20K for the last 2 years. The MAC, AS AN ENTIRE CONFERENCE, barely meets the current 15,000 minimum requirement. Interestingly, most of the new schools moving up to FBS average about 20-25K per home game.

      So, potentially San Diego St. (35K average) and Boise St. (35K average) would reconsider American Conference affiliation [and may be add Air Force (33K average) too]…and the AAC would survive the cut – or shed off some of the lower performers such as Tulane and Memphis – especially if they do not feel that they can afford athlete stipends.

      The MWC leftovers, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt could remain in the FBS lower division (along with some FCS newcomers), without athlete stipends, and would actually be well-aligned in many respects.

      The new FBS Super division would have roughly 80 members over 6 divisions. They would be well-aligned on many levels, including athlete stipends, budgets, and fan bases (with obvious power tiers within the FBS Super). You could keep the bowl system in place and allow the FBS Super to count one victory of FBS lower toward bowl eligibility – to enable the power schools to continue to have 7 home games. You could even continue to allow the FBS lower division champ to play in a CFB access bowl game. A 4-team playoff of the FBS lower champs would be an exceptional way to determine access.

      Best of all, this would set the stage for an 8-team CFP with automatic bids to each of the six FBS Super conference champions and two at large bids. This would not only ensure the significance of the regular season, but enhance it. A conference championship would be the golden ticket to the CFP. Allowing the non-champ at large bids will still give the runners up and independents something to play for and enhance the late-season games that don’t necessarily have conference championship implications. Limiting it to only two at large participants would prevent numerous participants from the same conference – which can water down the regular season.

      Before the doubts fly, consider that the American champ would likely often reach the playoff as the #8 seed, playing on the road at the #1 team in the nation. It’s actually a nice fit because all conference champs are included (improving , but the best team in the country is rewarded by getting a home game against a team that likely is overrated. Also, with the bowl system in place, teams that are out of the conference race would still have a bowl bid to play for.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        The MWC leftovers, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt could remain in the FBS lower division (along with some FCS newcomers), without athlete stipends, and would actually be well-aligned in many respects.

        I don’t really understand the emphasis on attendance as the dividing line. As long as they agree to the stipend, who cares? What’s more, your proposal would really screw a handful of western schools, who’d need to adopt grueling travel schedules just to avoid relegation.

        Best of all, this would set the stage for an 8-team CFP with automatic bids to each of the six FBS Super conference champions and two at large bids. This would not only ensure the significance of the regular season, but enhance it.

        Yuck. On so many levels, just yuck. First of all, I’m not sure you’ll ever see an 8-team playoff, but if you ever do, it’s many years away. I think the agreement for the 4-team playoff, which starts after the 2014 season, is a 12-year deal.

        Moreover, why do you think that autobids enhance the regular season? It’s complete nonsense. With or without autobids, anyone who qualifies for an 8-team playoff must have had a very good season.

        But autobids often reward unworthy candidates. Last year, for instance, Wisconsin got the Big Ten’s Rose Bowl bid, because: A) It finished 3rd in its division, and #1-2 were ineligible; and B) Nebraska pooped in the B1G championship game. Had there been a playoff, the Big Ten’s representative would have been an 8-5 team only barely in the top 25.

        This phenomenon isn’t isolated to the Big Ten: the last two years, the Big East’s representative has not been in the top 20; three years ago, their champion (Cincinnati) was unranked. In 2011, an unranked 6-6 UCLA team could have won the Pac-12, if it had pulled off an upset in the CCG.

        As far as I’m concerned, if a particular league has three teams in the top 8, then those three teams should make the playoff. Far from watering down the regular season, you enhance it, by demonstrating a commitment to rewarding excellence.

        Like

        • Part of the problem with a very large number of at-large bids is you incentivize rankings gamesmanship. For a good example of this, see the Mountain West and the basketball RPI ( http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?showtopic=46932 is one example of the discussion).

          So there is a material advantage to having fixed auto-bids for league that regularly churn out respectable contenders, though obviously the disadvantage is that sometimes unworthy teams flow through instead. And of course, the second disadvantage is that the mid-majors would keep whining about being left out (which is one of the reasons that people assume a 1-A split is likely in the near future, since that solves the mid-major problem by simply getting rid of them).

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Part of the problem with a very large number of at-large bids is you incentivize rankings gamesmanship. . . . So there is a material advantage to having fixed auto-bids for league that regularly churn out respectable contenders, though obviously the disadvantage is that sometimes unworthy teams flow through instead.

          I’m not persuaded that it would work that way in football. The basketball tournament accepts 68 teams — far more than have any plausible chance of winning the tournament. An 8th seed is the lowest that has ever won and that only happened once. So the bottom 36 teams are basically all cannon-fodder. The gamesmanship is mainly around teams that fill out that bottom half. No one has ever suggested that, as a result of manipulation, a team that should have won it all was excluded altogether.

          Football will never have the option of grossly over-selecting, as basketball can. It therefore becomes a lot more important to make sure that the teams selected actually belong there. The whole reason they’ve decided to select the football playoff teams by committee is because they realize that mathematical rankings could easily produce a perverse outcome. The option of granting autobids was expressly considered and soundly rejected.

          Of course, no committee will produce an outcome that everyone agrees is perfect — this being sports, after all, where passionate disagreement over even the most basic things is expected. But I do think they can do better than polluting the field with a lot of autobids. In the basketball tourney, usually the weakest teams in the field are autobids, and that would happen in football too.

          And of course, the second disadvantage is that the mid-majors would keep whining about being left out (which is one of the reasons that people assume a 1-A split is likely in the near future, since that solves the mid-major problem by simply getting rid of them).

          Actually, the new system (after the 2014 regular season) gives the mid-majors more access than they’ve ever had, and I think they know it. They realize full well that the only direction it can go, if they complain too much, is to get worse.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “In the basketball tourney, usually the weakest teams in the field are autobids…”

            Possibly true, but usually when the auto bid is designated to the conf tourney champ and not the reg season champ. Easy to have a couple upsets there disrupt things. Hardly a reason to dismiss auto bids out of hand. It is a reason to not allow for those kind of occurrences. Auto bids to conf reg season champs only. Conference tourneys can bolster at large hopefulls resume’s.

            “The option of granting autobids was expressly considered and soundly rejected.”

            I recall considerable discussion. Not being adopted does not equal “soundly rejected”, in fact something with that probable income wouldn’t likely be broached, except perhaps as a PR obligation.

            “Football will never have the option of grossly over-selecting…”

            I suggest it has already happened with a non conference champ and non division champ getting an inter conference “do over” in a selection of only two.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The regular season champs ARE often the worst of the teams in the tournament. There are about 10 conferences that really have no business in Division I.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Not when those conferences reg reason champs get upset in conf tourney.

            Sheesh. We have 68 teams included, and you’re begrudging a spot or two that, at worst, might displace another team with no probability of doing much either because of “lineage”? What could be less fair and pre judgmental? I’d much prefer a limitation requiring at least being in top 1/4 of your conference (9 Big East schools? Really?). That wouldn’t exclude anyone deserving, yet be inclusive of a possibly under appreciated winner.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I don’t have an issue with the basketball tourney selection rules. Everyone with even the remotest chance of winning it, gets a bid. More than half of the field are practically certain to lose at some point. Replacing an autobid with another sure loser doesn’t really matter to me.

            Auto bids to conf reg season champs only. Conference tourneys can bolster at large hopefuls’ resumes.

            I don’t care what method a league uses to choose its autobid team. The ACC has a long history of designating the league tournament winner as its champion, and I’m not about to suggest that they may no longer do so.

            I’d much prefer a limitation requiring at least being in top 1/4 of your conference (9 Big East schools? Really?). That wouldn’t exclude anyone deserving, yet be inclusive of a possibly under appreciated winner.

            I think every D1 league has an autobid, so your rule would simply exclude one class of non-champs and replace them with worse teams. No thanks.

            “Football will never have the option of grossly over-selecting…”

            I suggest it has already happened with a non conference champ and non division champ getting an inter conference “do over” in a selection of only two.

            By over-selecting, I meant selecting a large field, most of which has no chance of winning, as is the case in basketball, but not in football, where only two (starting next year, four) are selected. Obviously, the non-division champ you’re referring to “had a chance of winning,” given that they in fact won.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The 16 seeds get destroyed. Its a waste of time. Those conferences have no business being in there.

            I don’t think a 9th place team in a conference that couldn’t win in the regular season and couldn’t win in the conference tourney has any business in the tourney either. Just makes it a longer, more difficult road for the best teams.

            The tournament is too big. When USC was probably the 2nd best team in the nation behind UCLA and couldn’t get in, the tourney was too restrictive. But at 68, there are way too many teams. I’d rather see a smaller NCAA tourney and a more meaningful NIT. And there’s still the CIT and CBA. About 150 schools get into postseason. They don’t need a huge NCAA tourney.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “The ACC has a long history of designating the league tournament winner as its champion, and I’m not about to suggest that they may no longer do so.”

            I will. The point is that for the ACC it would have no impact unless a truly undeserving team rose up in the conf tourney. 99% of the time the same ACC teams will be included regardless of tourney results. In the lesser conferences it certainly does make a difference. Remember a few years ago the 28-1 team excluded because they lost in the conf tourney?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “I think every D1 league has an autobid, so your rule would simply exclude one class of non-champs and replace them with worse teams. No thanks.”

            I don’t understand. Are you saying a one weekend tourney is definitive and a full season of results is deceptive? Why do we keep score if its all practice for the season ending weekend? Cancel my season tickets, they are worthless…

            “Obviously, the non-division champ you’re referring to “had a chance of winning,” given that they in fact won.”

            Key point: they were given a SECOND chance. They lost in their first chance at LSU. How many chances was OkST afforded? Or any of the other top five or six who hadn’t lost to LSU? Even Oregon’s loss was a non conference season opener and to me is far less defining than an in conference, in division, much later in the season loss. That selection was the definition of over selection from a single conference.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The 16 seeds get destroyed. Its a waste of time. Those conferences have no business being in there.

            I agree that the tourney is too large; I didn’t support the expansion to 68, nor to 64. Obviously, they did it because the games have proved popular. In fact, 68 was a compromise: they had considered going even higher than that. If it’s going to be 68, I really don’t care which guaranteed losers are selected. It’s dumb any way you slice it.

            I don’t understand. Are you saying a one weekend tourney is definitive and a full season of results is deceptive? Why do we keep score if its all practice for the season ending weekend? Cancel my season tickets, they are worthless.

            I agree that your proposed rule is better. However, it’s also something that I don’t care to fix with legislation. If a league chooses a dumb rule, and thereby wastes its autobid on a less deserving team, then they deserve what they get. Maybe they’ll learn their lesson next time.

            “Obviously, the non-division champ you’re referring to “had a chance of winning,” given that they in fact won.”

            Key point: they were given a SECOND chance. They lost in their first chance at LSU. How many chances was OkST afforded?

            Had a committee been deciding, instead of a formula, I think they would’ve picked OkSt for the valid reasons you cite. You probably recall that in the early years of the BCS, they changed the formula every few years, because it kept “selecting” the wrong teams. If the BCS weren’t headed to the glue factory, I suspect they’d change it again. And later on, it would surely fail again.

            That selection was the definition of over selection from a single conference.

            Remember, the original poster had suggested an 8-team playoff with a bunch of autobids. I was responding to that suggestion. In the current system where there’s only two, there’s bound to be under-selection in most years. If there can only be two, I would have selected Oklahoma State, rather than the Alabama-LSU rematch.

            But if there were 8 team playoff, I wouldn’t have loaded up the field with autobids, where an unranked AAC champ could get a bid while an 11-1 Alabama did not.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Marc:

            I guess we are almost in full agreement.. I just don’t envision a scenario in which five conference champion auto bids, plus three at larges, would ever cost a top five team a spot. Again, to truely be deserving – win your conference (and I really don’t want a conference do over NCG ever again).

            Like

          • frug says:

            Had a committee been deciding, instead of a formula, I think they would’ve picked OkSt for the valid reasons you cite.

            Actually, the computers favored Oklahoma St. It wast he humans that put Alabama in the NCG.

            Like

        • boscatar says:

          The Big Ten is stupid for letting Wisconsin play in the Conference Championship game to begin with. If #1 and #2 are ineligible, Nebraska should have been given the Big Ten title…the contenders were ineligible. That was stupid, from a competition stand point. Perhaps Nebraska pooped in the CC because it had already beaten Wisconsin and knew it was a farce. The Big Ten felt it had to stage a conference championship and still has egg on its face for having its top two contenders facing sanctions and postseason ineligibility.

          But even ignoring the eligibility issues, with auto bids, there are at least 2 teams from every conference that will have a legitimate chance to make the 8-team CFP at the end of the regular season. Thus, the games become more important for more teams. This enhances the regular season. The 2 at large spots still allow for the top two contenders a hope for the CFP, again making games important for more teams. The conference championship become HUGE. The winner gets a spot in the CFP. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

          Also, if a particular league has three teams in the top 8, then it devalues the regular season tremendously, much like the NFL, and even the conference championship. If Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are all in the top 5, the Florida-Georgia game and the SEC championship game lose tons of significance.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The Big Ten is stupid for letting Wisconsin play in the Conference Championship game to begin with. If #1 and #2 are ineligible, Nebraska should have been given the Big Ten title…the contenders were ineligible.

            Sorry, but that’s just impossible. The Big Ten had signed contracts with multiple parties to play the game (the stadium, the network). People had bought tickets. You can’t wait till a few weeks before the game, and then say, “Ooops! It looks like one of the teams is going to suck; therefore, we’re canceling.”

            But even ignoring the eligibility issues, with auto bids, there are at least 2 teams from every conference that will have a legitimate chance to make the 8-team CFP at the end of the regular season. Thus, the games become more important for more teams. This enhances the regular season.

            I don’t believe it. Remember when the geniuses who run college football said they opposed a playoff because it would devalue the regular season? Now we have a playoff—without autobids, I might add. It seems that wasn’t such a fundamental objection, after all.

            No matter what your system, you can always dream up situations where particular games are technically meaningless, e.g., the final game of the regular season, where a team has a 2-game lead in its division. But the teams seldom actually treat it that way: Michigan and Ohio State, for example, always give everything in their game, even if one of the teams (or both) has nothing left to play for.

            Since you can have meaningless games and teams with nothing to play for in any system, the best system is to choose the 8 best teams. How is that so difficult to understand? Out of ~120 FBS teams, you have to be one of the best 8, and the regular season is your audition. If that doesn’t make the regular season relevant, I don’t know what does.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Important notes:
      1. It’s only some of the state schools in I-A.
      2. It uses Forbes’ academic rankings.
      3. Remember, it’s athletic expenditures, not athletic success.

      Worst quadrant:
      MS St, MS
      NCSU, Clemson
      ASU
      TT
      WY

      Best quadrant:
      MI, OSU, WI, PSU, IL, UMD
      UF, UGA, TAMU
      FSU, UNC, UVA
      OR, UW, UCLA
      UT
      UL

      For their top 10 list, though, they equally weighted athletic and academic rankings. The problem is that their academic list includes many schools not on the athletics list. Thus, elite academics carry more weight than athletics. That’s why a school not in the best quadrant made their top 10 list.

      1. MI
      2. UF
      3. UT
      4. UNC
      5. UVA
      6. UCLA
      7. Cal – not in top quadrant
      8. IL
      9. UGA
      10. WI

      Based on their plot, the list should be more like this:
      1. MI
      2. UT
      3. UF
      4. OSU
      5. UVA
      6. PSU
      7. WI
      8. UNC
      9. UCLA
      10. UGA*

      Cal would be ahead of them except they are below the origin on the chart in athletic expenditures.

      Like

    • Blapples says:

      It’s good to see Iowa putting forth the effort to fund their program at an elite level. Hopefully their on field results trend upwards to reflect that.

      I also thought Minnesota was ranked too low academically. And WTF is Louisville doing so far to the right on the academic scale?

      Like

  39. bullet says:

    Totally off topic, but since I mentioned my addiction to the BBC show “Orphan Black” a few weeks ago here, I’m sharing this article pushing the lead character for an Emmy:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/tatiana-maslany-ophan-black-emmys-patton-oswalt

    Like

  40. Brian says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/sports/after-a-decline-in-offense-some-want-a-livelier-college-ball.html?ref=sports&_r=1&

    Some are looking to switch to a livelier ball in college baseball since offense is down so much since the most recent changes in 2010.

    Since the height of the so-called Gorilla Ball era in 1998, when Louisiana State crushed eight home runs in its C.W.S. opener and Southern California and Arizona State combined for eight in the final (won by the Trojans, 21-14), the N.C.A.A. placed multiple restrictions on aluminum bats.

    It reduced barrel size, banned composite bats and adopted a new standard to address concerns about pitcher safety, out-of-control scoring and lengthy game times. The standard is known as B.B.C.O.R, for Batted Ball Coefficient of Resolution, a formula measuring the speed of a ball off the bat.

    College teams averaged 6.98 runs and .94 home runs a game in 2010 before the new standard was adopted, according to the N.C.A.A. Figures as of March 31 this season (the most recent available), showed a drop to 5.25 runs and .37 homers. Teams are averaging twice as many sacrifices (.74) as home runs. And team batting fell to .270, which, if it stands, will be the lowest since 1973, the last year collegians swung wooden bats.

    That has turned this year’s C.W.S. into a bunting contest. Twelve games through Friday night featured 21 sacrifices and 3 home runs. Teams hit 10 homers last year and 9 in 2011, compared with 32 in 2010, pre-B.B.C.O.R. Not since 1974 — when only eight home runs were hit in the first year of aluminum — have there been so few. And in three years at TD Ameritrade, no one has homered to center field.

    On the other hand, there are proponents of the status quo.

    Indiana Coach Tracy Smith said the change gave fundamentally sound teams from cold-weather states a better chance against traditional Sun Belt powers. Last season, the Northern teams Kent State and Stony Brook reached the C.W.S. for the first time. This year, the Hoosiers became the first Big Ten team to qualify since 1984. Smith said he saw plenty of well-hit balls — his team slugged 53 home runs this season, though none in Omaha — and loved the renewed emphasis on pitching, defense and situational hitting.

    “When I heard the coaches talk about changing the ball and doing all these things, I was like, what are they trying to do now?” he said. “Are certain groups not succeeding because they’re not having success playing real baseball? I don’t get it. The game has been more like baseball than it has been for a long, long time. Those 20-18 games, they’re not healthy.”

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      HR’s were low in Omaha, the primary face of college baseball in mainstream media. If appeasing ESPN and their announcers junkie like need to announce home runs, rather than learn how to appreciate, understand, and explain all the other exciting aspects of the game, bring the fences in a bit at TD Ameritrade. Don’t screw up the game in every other ball park. I still miss the crack of wood, but at least these bbcore bats don’t sound as tin like as before.

      Like

  41. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130623/big-ten-pac-12-bowls.ap/?sct=uk_t2_a3

    As expected, The B10 and P12 have agreed to play in the Holiday and SF bowls.

    A person familiar with the decision told The Associated Press that the Fight Hunger Bowl is moving up in the Pac-12’s selection order. It will have the fourth selection from the conference after the College Football Playoff, of which the Rose Bowl is a part, the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas, and the Holiday Bowl. The Fight Hunger Bowl currently has the sixth selection from the Pac-12.

    I really hope the SF bowl flops miserably so the B10 doesn’t renew it. I know the B10 doesn’t have complete control over which bowls they get, but they seemed to want this setup.

    My main issues:

    1. It’s too many P12 games.

    I prefer diversity (2 each for ACC, B12, P12 and SEC would be ideal, plus 1 MAC for 9 bowls). Also, the P12 isn’t the best choice for drawing fans nationally (Roes Bowl yes, but interest drops off fast after their top 2 or 3 usually).

    2. It’s too many CA games, especially compared to the number of B10 alumni there.

    For all their complaints about too many FL and TX games before, they’ve just set up the same issue in CA.

    We have yet to learn when all these games will be played, but it sounds like several will be in December. That beats playing 4 at once, obviously, but it also means a loss of prestige. There’s not much you can do about that with the CFP dominating 12/31 and 1/1. I’m hoping there are fewer post-1/1 games (preferably none except the NCG).

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      I’m interested to see the details of how this tiered system is going to work.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Let’s see:

        The easy part:
        1. CFP
        2. Rose
        3. Orange/Cap 1 (ACC gets Cap 1 when B10 gets Orange)

        The mess:
        4. Outback/Holiday/KFH/Gator/Music CIty/Armed Forces/Heart of Dallas/Pinstripe/Detroit/Other

        And every bowl in the mess has agreed to the 5 teams in 6 years rule.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/78767/b1g-to-adopt-tiered-bowl-selection-process

        Here’s the official word so far.

        Delany said the Holiday Bowl in San Diego will be in the top tier of Big Ten bowls. Although the league hasn’t officially announced it will continue agreements with the Capital One and Outback bowls, those games also will be in the top tier.

        The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl in the San Francisco area and the Pinstripe Bowl in New York will be in the middle tier, Delany said.

        No other Big Ten bowl agreements have been officially announced, but here’s what the tiers likely will look like, based on conversations with league sources.

        Top tier: Capital One, Outback, Holiday

        Middle tier: Gator/Music City (sharing a tie-in during six-year agreement), Kraft Fight Hunger, Pinstripe

        Lower tier: Heart of Dallas/Armed Forces (sharing a tie-in during six-year agreement), new Detroit bowl (managed by Detroit Lions)

        The Big Ten could add another lower-tier bowl on the East Coast, and the Military Bowl in the Washington D.C. area is a possibility. Dropping out of the Big Ten’s lineup are the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Meineke Care Care Bowl of Texas and the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl.

        Like

        • @Brian – Those reported tiers make sense. The Holiday Bowl historically has been an upper tier bowl – it was only in the last bowl cycle where it got trumped in its payout (and I think that they’ve responded by increasing it to be more competitive).

          By the way, I’m not bothered by the new slate of California bowls at all. No one is going to get Rose Bowl fatigue (and if they do, then that’s the ultimate first world college football problem), the Big Ten loses the automatic Rose tie-in every 3 years to the playoff system, and the non-power programs of the conference that haven’t realistically competed for the Rose Bowl slot now get a chance to go to California. Plus, the Florida fatigue is based on the fact that even though the Capital One, Outback and Gator Bowls were in different cities, a lot (most?) travelers would make Orlando/Disney World/Universal Studios into a primary part of those trips, so it felt like going to the same place over and over again. Northern California and Southern California are completely different experiences culturally and geographically along with being far enough apart physically that they could be two different states. Las Vegas and Phoenix are closer to LA and San Diego than San Francisco is. Side trips to Orlando are common to those going to Tampa and Jacksonville, but San Francisco isn’t a side trip from San Diego or LA.

          Maybe it’s my older age thinking, but for anything other than a CFP bowl, distance isn’t anywhere near as important in attractiveness for a bowl destination as whether the location is a place that I’d want to visit whether there’s a bowl there or not. That’s what I like about the California-based bowls – Texas-based bowls sound good in theory, but Midwesterners have never thought of Texas as a natural winter vacation destination in the way that they look at Florida or California (notwithstanding the fun setting of the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio). I’m very certain that this was part of the thinking of the Big Ten in shifting a lot more from Texas to California in its new bowl lineup (but still retaining the Florida tie-ins). It’s smart of the Big Ten to still have at least one game per year in Texas for recruiting purposes, but it’s just not the same draw for winter tourists.

          The only bowl loss that is an overall negative is the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl since Phoenix is such a strong home for Big Ten alums. Looking at the projected bowl lineup, though, it would have been hard to fit that game in with the new Holiday, Kraft Fight Hunger and Pinstripe tie-ins.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I think they wanted the Holiday and had to give up the Texas Bowls since they didn’t offer good enough teams. But you are right about the vacation destination. Midwesterners overwhelmingly think of I-75 and Florida and don’t think of Texas. I remember a lot of comments about how pleasantly surprised the Big 10 fans/team were in San Antonio and Houston. A few bowl trips don’t change that perception.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank,

            In all my years in the midwest, I basically never knew anyone who went to CA in winter without having family there to visit. Everyone went south, not west. Maybe Chicagoans are different, or maybe that was just the luck of the draw in terms of where I lived and who I knew. I knew a few people that went to TX, but most chose FL. Having been to both, I personally would take FL over CA for a winter vacation every time. I’d choose CA in spring to fall, though.

            My issue is that the B10 is over-addressing the supposed problem. The 5 teams in 6 years rule plus using tiers already eliminates the bowl fatigue issue. They didn’t need to also change bowls for that. They also made a big deal about having too many bowls in one state, then did it again in a state with many fewer fans and alumni.

            Like

        • gfunk says:

          I live in Minnesota, and plenty of people go to California throughout the winter here, plenty – family or not. Minnesotans go west and south, but west more often than other Midwesterners. But there is some truth that the snow bird and tourist numbers to Cali have dipped in part because Arizona replaced the Inland Empire for many Minnesota snow birds. Once upon a time, Midwesterners went West, esp Calif, in huge waves, but mainly to resettle. Ca hit its intra-migration plateau long ago & it won’t be long before Florida encounters the same. If I’m not mistaken, Cali immigration is predominantly international at this point. Florida and Tx, of course deal with international immigration as well, but man, I know a lot of Minnesotans who’ve gone to Austin – but not necessarily for good – swing both places.

          AZ became the cheaper alternative for Minnesota snow birds, and now Colorado (half backing) and south Texas. Florida has been there throughout much of this period, esp St. Pete & Tampa, but the peak has passed. If tickets were cheaper to California, things might change. I personally find Florida, most of it, duller than normal, each time I visit. Flordia certainly doesn’t have California’s spectacular geography & history.

          Like

        • wmwolverine says:

          Pretty sure the Outback & Capital One are set, just not official.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        Nostradamus,

        “I’m interested to see the details of how this tiered system is going to work.”

        The biggest issue to me is how they work the 5 teams in 6 years rule with the tiers. Obviously the Rose and Orange aren’t getting tiered teams. How low of a team can be bumped out how high to meet the diversity requirement? Will B10 #7 play in the Cap1 because #1 and 2 are in the CFP and #3-6 already played in the Cap1 or FL in general?

        Like

    • Wainscott says:

      @Brian- I see your arguments, but I think you miss the B1G’s larger strategic thinking.

      There is a general Florida fatigue within the B1G for some of the bowl games. Fans, especially ones who travel, take a “been there, done that” attitude to games in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. By adding destinations on the west coast, fans now have new travel destinations, San Diego and the Bay Area (which is pretty year round, even if not all that warm) added to the bowl rotation.

      Moreover, while January 1 is unquestionably a more prestigious date for bowl games, its far less convenient for travelling fans because everybody has to be back at work on January 2 (assuming its not a weekend). Games in late December, in between Christmas and New Years, are far more vacation friendly.

      Combining vacation-friendly scheduling and new destinations, I think the B1G did well this time around. It still has multiple games in FL and TX (important for alumni and recruiting) and it presents travelling alumni with new destinations and coaches with new recruiting opportunities.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Wainscott,

        “@Brian- I see your arguments, but I think you miss the B1G’s larger strategic thinking.”

        I think I disagree with it more than I miss it.

        “There is a general Florida fatigue within the B1G for some of the bowl games.”

        Then drop the craptastic Gator Bowl. But no, they kept it.

        “Fans, especially ones who travel, take a “been there, done that” attitude to games in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. By adding destinations on the west coast, fans now have new travel destinations, San Diego and the Bay Area (which is pretty year round, even if not all that warm) added to the bowl rotation.”

        The B10 is also implementing the 5 teams in 6 years rule. They could have done that with the current lineup and alleviated the fatigue issue.

        “Moreover, while January 1 is unquestionably a more prestigious date for bowl games, its far less convenient for travelling fans because everybody has to be back at work on January 2 (assuming its not a weekend). Games in late December, in between Christmas and New Years, are far more vacation friendly.”

        That really depends on the person. After 1/1 is inconvenient, certainly. Traveling near Christmas is a huge problem for many people.

        “It still has multiple games in FL”

        Too many, since it kept the Gator and added the Orange.

        “and TX”

        2 part-time tie-ins (according to rumors) from 2 full time tie-ins, plus they lost AZ.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Other bowl news:

      http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-football/story/_/id/9416791/acc-pinstripe-bowl-6-years-sources-say

      The ACC will face the B10 in the Pinstripe, but they only get a 6 year deal while the B10 got 8 years.

      Like

  42. vp19 says:

    Mr. SEC wonders which conference school will follow the path of Oregon and Central Florida and set up an unorthodox basketball court design. (Attention Andy: He predicts it will be either Mizzou or Miss State.) See some of the designs — including one proposed for Louisiana State — at http://mrsec.com/2013/06/which-sec-school-will-be-the-first-to-go-nuts-with-its-hoops-court-design/.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Vincent – I seriously doubt we’ll ever see that design on the floor of the Pete Maravich Assembly Center.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      I don’t think Mizzou would do this. We already have one of the nicest basketball arenas in the country, a pretty good basketball program that routinely brings in 4 and 5 star recruits, and fairly high attendance. I don’t think there’s any need to do something like this.

      Like

    • acaffrey says:

      Just not used to Oregon making themselves look foolish with creative designs.

      Maryland has to be the next to uglify their basketball court, right?

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Maryland’s court design traditionally has been relatively sedate — the most recent change was the addition of the “MARYLAND” logo (with the horizontal state flag motif serving as an underline of sorts). I would hope Mark Turgeon and Brenda Frese would keep any changes minimal (perhaps make the foul lanes black outlined in gold to make all four school colors more visible and complement the red and white elsewhere on the floor). But heavens no, we don’t want an outline of the state flag covering the entire court at Comcast.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          I think that they should take the Maryland state flag… and “tile” it like a Computer background all the way across the court. Very colorful. Might cause seizures though.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Like when Syracuse University wore alternate all-orange football uniforms — helmets, jerseys, pants. Optometrists in central New York did record business in ensuing weeks.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Those were top 5 worst uniforms in the history of people donning uniforms. But at least G-Rob made the team look good on the field. :-(

            Like

  43. Transic says:

    The Pinstripe Bowl and the ACC have agreed to a six-year deal in which the ACC will annually play the Big Ten starting in 2014, sources said Monday.

    Last month, the bowl announced an eight-year partnership with the Big Ten for the game played at Yankee Stadium.

    http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-football/story/_/id/9416791/acc-pinstripe-bowl-6-years-sources-say

    I’m thinking the shorter term for the ACC is because they want a higher payout than the Yankees would agree to.

    Like

  44. Ross says:

    What the hell just happened, Bruins?

    Like

    • BLACKHAWKS!!!!!

      Championship beer time!

      Like

      • gfunk says:

        Amazing finish.

        Like

        • @gfunk – It really was amazing. I was mentally preparing myself for Game 7 when the tying goal was scored and then the 2nd one went in before I could catch my breath. Boston pretty clearly outplayed the Hawks tonight up until the last 80 seconds, so that was an epic Buckner/David Tyree helmet catch-type collapse by the Bruins there.

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            Bhawks will always be my second favorite NHL team. I can’t tell you how many Bh & Northstar games I attended as a kid in the 80s: Secord vs Plett, Secord vs Jack Carlson (though I never saw them fight, Carlson was just too tough for anyone), Savard’s stickhandling magic, bench brawls, etc. I love seeing Toews succeed at this level, he gave my Gophers hell in college & Kane, an American, winning the MVP = awesome.

            At least future alignment reunites us (Chicago & Minny) with St. Louis & Winnipeg. Nothing like some old-school-Norris Division hate, post Canadiens. Sure, I’ll miss the days of Detroit and Toronto, but maybe we’ll see them in the Cup finals. I think Winnipeg was only in the Norris for a couple of years. But the 1982-1992 Norris = unforgettable rivalries: Hawks, Leafs, Red Wings, Stars and Blues seemed inseparable. Unfortunately, none of us ever won a Cup during that alignment.

            Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Someone call Mr. White (Breaking Bad) to figure the odds of the Blackhawks winning in this fashion, coupled with the 3 straight against Detroit, etc. etc.

          Like

  45. vp19 says:

    Does the Cup first visit the Cell or go to the North Side?

    Like

    • @vp19 – White Sox are in town this week, so it might be visiting the Cell. The pictures of crowds in the streets in what NBCSN is calling “Downtown Chicago” right now is actually Wrigleyville, though.

      Like

  46. Wainscott says:

    ESPN and Kansas sign ESPN3 deal: http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/06/kansas-athletics-and-espn-announce-multiyear-rights-agreement/

    Surprised, but I’ve always believed Frank’s theory that Kansas has more value than most people realize.

    Like

    • @Wainscott – Kansas is definitely valuable. They’re one of the few blue bloods where basketball legitimately matters in terms of TV value (the others being Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, Duke and UCLA) and the fan base is large and deep.

      Like

      • Wainscott says:

        @Frank: Completely agree, and I think Delany & Co. have far more interest in Kansas than most would believe. Kansas is a definite possibility if/when the B1G gears up for expansion again in 12 years or so.

        However, what’s surprising is that the focus of this agreement is on Kansas athletics as a whole, not just basketball: “ESPN3 will also deliver the Kansas Relays and multiple volleyball, baseball, softball and women’s soccer games.”

        Maybe the Google Fiber buildout in KC has led to a drastic rise in internet-based TV programs there? Is ESPN positioning the Tres to be a 24 hour programming destination?

        Like

      • bullet says:

        One thing that hasn’t come up is how much they got in the two deals. That’s not clear at all.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          KU had an $86 million 12 year deal with IMG signed in April 2010. They had a $65 million 10 year deal with ESPN signed in April 2007. Not clear if they get any extra or just more exposure for other sports.

          2007 ESPN deal:

          http://www.kuathletics.com/genrel/041607aaa.html

          Like

        • bullet says:

          The Big 12 tier 3 is nearly complete:
          Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor and Kansas St. signed media rights deals with Fox. Their games will be on Fox Sports Southwest.
          Texas has the ESPN LHN deal.
          Iowa St. has an Iowa St. network.
          KU has the ESPN deal along with the Time Warner deal.
          WVU signed an all-inclusive deal with IMG (each school has their separate contracts with IMG or Learfield for advertising, etc.), but it had to be re-bid due to a lawsuit by the previous holder of rights. IMG was going to distribute their games.

          Interesting that Fox got OU, ESPN got Texas and ESPN and Time Warner split Kansas.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Fox has the BTN. ESPN has the SECN and will have an ACC Network if it happens. Time Warner and Comcast don’t own the Pac 12 network-the Pac 12 does, but they worked very closely with them.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Time Warner and Comcast don’t own the Pac 12 network-the Pac 12 does, but they worked very closely with them.”

            In what way, other than having carriage agreements, as they do with all channels they choose to carry?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6809599/pac-12-launch-national-regional-networks

            Note the terminology, “The Pac-12 partnered with cable companies Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and Bright House to distribute the networks but wholly owns them.” Larry Scott used similar language when talking about it. I can’t give you specifics from the contract, but the terminology and quick acceptance indicates there are arrangements different from the typical adversarial carriage agreement.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            That’s reaching. It’s common to refer an agreement necessary to the distribution as a partnership. They both see an opportunity to achieve their goals through a mutually benificial agreement that both are active parties to.

            It would be odd to refer to your broadcast partner (I’m not sure how to otherwise label them) as your hired advisarial broadcast purveyor. That probably is often a more accurate discription, but one the principles don’t express in public.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            Staples take on the KU deal; SI article. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130625/kansas-espn-media-deal/

            Quote: “When those college rights deals expire, some interesting new bidders will likely have entered the marketplace opposite ESPN, Fox and CBS. Google sniffed around the Pac-12 in 2010, but the league wound up selling premium football and basketball to ESPN and Fox and placed the rest of its inventory on its own network. Maybe next time, Google will buy the rights of the Pac-12 or the SEC and stream games on a subscription-based YouTube channel. Or maybe Google Fiber will have expanded beyond Kansas City, Provo, Utah, and Austin, Texas. Maybe Google buys the Big 12’s rights and makes games available only to Google Fiber customers. Or maybe Netflix, which has begun to mix in original programming such as House of Cards and the new Arrested Development season, will try to multiply its subscriber base by streaming sports.”

            Like

  47. Michael Burt says:

    One overlooked reason that the Big Ten is no longer playing in Arizona or multiple games in Texas is that other conferences (ACC and SEC) have lost bowltie-ins to the College Football Playoff. The ACC no longer has its #2 tie-in, the Chick-fil-a, and it now has Notre Dame eligible as an option in its lineup. The SEC, meanwhile, lost the Cotton AND the Chick-fil-a. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 lost no tie-ins to the CFP.

    As a result, some of the Big Ten’s previous tie-ins were bound to be transferred.

    But I would say the Big Ten came out well. The Cap One tie-in is now essentially Cap One/Orange, which qualifies as an upgrade. The Gator tie-in is now Gator/Music City, also an upgrade, IMO, because it adds variety and Nashville is a very fun city to visit (went to a fantastic Bachelor’s weekend there four years ago). The bowl in Houston will almost certainly go to the SEC, which needs a spot in Texas now that the Cotton is out if their rotation.

    Like

    • Michael Burt says:

      In other words, maybe it’s not as simple as the Big Ten not wanting to play as many games in Texas and more in California/New York. Maybe that’s what the Big Ten wants, but it was unlikely to continue playing games in Texas, anyway, because the SEC was going to squeeze them out of the Houston bowl, and the other Texas bowl games (Armed Forces @ TCU’s stadium, Alamo, Sun) were either unavailable or much lower-paying than the Holiday, KFH, or Pinstripe.

      Like

      • Mack says:

        Other than the Alamo (B12-P12), the B1G could have had its pick of P12 matchups. It appears that the FHB in SF will be paying more than BWW in AZ or Sun in El Paso. Given the geography, both of those bowls have the P12 as their prime tie-in. I think most agree that 3 B1G-P12 bowls is enough.

        The Armed Forces rotation is good for a lower tier bowl. New stadium and same airport as Dallas bowl.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Michael Burt,

      “One overlooked reason that the Big Ten is no longer playing in Arizona or multiple games in Texas is that other conferences (ACC and SEC) have lost bowltie-ins to the College Football Playoff.”

      I don’t think it’s overlooked as much as just taken as a given and not mentioned. Still, those bowls in AZ and TX didn’t have to change their tie-ins. It comes down to two things:

      1. Who the bowls want
      2. Which bowls the conferences want

      A lot of factors go into those two things (payouts, locations, opponents, teams available, etc).

      “The ACC no longer has its #2 tie-in, the Chick-fil-a, and it now has Notre Dame eligible as an option in its lineup.”

      But it also added Cap1 access, replacing the B10 at least 3 times in 12 years. In addition, adding ND probably helped their desirability to various bowls a little bit.

      “The SEC, meanwhile, lost the Cotton AND the Chick-fil-a.”

      They probably view it as gaining yet more home-field advantage in the playoffs. The SEC has the Orange, Peach and Sugar Bowls all in their footprint with the Cotton Bowl right next door. It’s a big advantage for them.

      “The Big Ten and the Pac-12 lost no tie-ins to the CFP.”

      Because we had less desirable bowls and locations for the CFP in the first place. History meant the Rose, Sugar and Orange were in with the Fiesta and Cotton right behind. The only choice was for the sixth bowl, and the Peach had little realistic competition.

      “As a result, some of the Big Ten’s previous tie-ins were bound to be transferred.”

      But which ones and how hard did the B10 fight for them? It sounds like the B10 wanted the 3 CA games, which means they were happy to lose Phoenix (no use for 4 games out west). How hard has the B10 fought to have 2 TX bowls (they may still end up with 2)? Why is the B10 suddenly so fascinated with playing the ACC (from 0 to 2.3 bowls annually) at the cost of playing the B12 and MAC?

      Also, you need to consider expansion. The B10 added NE, UMD and RU after negotiating the last round of bowls. The ACC added 3.5 and lost 1, the SEC added 2, the B12 lost 4 and added 2 and the BE crumbled. Of course some bowl tie-ins would change. But which ones and between which conferences was the question.

      “The Cap One tie-in is now essentially Cap One/Orange, which qualifies as an upgrade.”

      Except the SEC didn’t have to blur the two, so it moves the B10 down the prestige ladder. And that’s with the bowls knowing the SEC will often have 1 more CFP team than the B10.

      “The Gator tie-in is now Gator/Music City, also an upgrade, IMO, because it adds variety and Nashville is a very fun city to visit (went to a fantastic Bachelor’s weekend there four years ago).”

      Unfortunately the Gator, while a crappy bowl in a terrible location, pays roughly $900k more per team than the Music City lately though that may change in the future. The weather is also a little better in Jacksonville. I also prefer the Music City for the variety and the location, though. The money difference isn’t important to me, but it is to some others.

      Like

  48. Pat says:

    Go Blue.

    Like

  49. Transic says:

    Maryland hopes its Big Ten membership will foster new rivalries and elevate the profile of all of its 20 varsity teams. Football is a priority because it is the big-money sport in college, and there is so much room for attendance to grow at Maryland. Football accounted for nearly one-third of the revenue from all of the school’s varsity sports in the most recent data compiled by the U.S. Education Department.

    And unlike the ACC, of which Maryland was a founding member, the Big Ten has its own television network, which pays big dividends to members.

    For now, Maryland’s football program has not grown big enough to fill the stadium’s Tyser Tower, a $50.8 million modernization project that opened amid a recession in 2009 and included an expansion featuring luxury suites with bars and flat-screen TVs. As of early June, 48 of the tower’s 63 suites were committed. The rest wait for the better days that Maryland officials believe will come when Big Ten teams begin arriving, if not before.

    As of June 4, Maryland had sold 15,046 football season tickets, according to the athletic department. That was 1,815 more than at the same time last year, but down from about 20,000 before the 2011 season. Maryland has won six of 24 games over the past two seasons.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-university-maryland-marketing-20130623,0,6966556.story

    Like

  50. gfunk says:

    Capital One Cup Update:

    This was actually a dramatic year on the men’s side. UCLA, UNC, Louisville and IU all made the CWS, thus each had a shot at winning the CUP with a NC. Due to point standings, pre-CWS, IU had the best odds of winning the Cup without securing a NC.

    If the UCLA-MissSt score holds – the Bruins will edge IU by 1 point for the Cup high drama indeed. I don’t see UCLA losing. I was rooting for IU to win the Cup, but then again I have a hard time rooting for this Miss St. team. Their swagger was too much and now the superegos are about to deflate.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The C1C is still crap, no matter how often you try to sell it.

      But regardless, how surprising is it that UCLA just won their first baseball title with 109 total NCAA titles?

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Brian, it may be in your opinion but it it’s short life it has already been won by 2 different teams from 2 different conferences. Getting a check for 250K is not bad either for the winning school. At least it is not another decade of Stanford winning because they sponsor the most sports. If Mississippi State had won then Indiana would have won the Cup this year which would have been a win for the B1G. They do need to make some adjustments to scoring so sports few schools play are not overweighted.

        Like

        • mnfanstc says:

          The Cap One Cup is nothing more than Espn and Cap One Bank’s own little propaganda award…

          Who cares…

          Like

          • gfunk says:

            mnfanstc,

            I’d be rather happy if Minnesota won a Capital One Cup, men or women. You’re making an excessive generalization.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          duffman,

          “Brian, it may be in your opinion but it it’s short life it has already been won by 2 different teams from 2 different conferences.”

          So was the Director’s Cup in its first two years.

          “At least it is not another decade of Stanford winning because they sponsor the most sports.”

          Which is completely false. OSU has the most sports and has never won it. Stanford routinely scores points in the most different, though. No school can score points in more than 10 sports for each gender.

          And for sports with fewer schools participating, the points drop off really quickly (all NC have the same value). Say a team finishes 10th. They might earn anywhere from 67.5 to 0 points.

          Stanford’s points this year came from:
          Cross Country (M&W)
          Football
          Field Hockey
          W Soccer
          WVB
          WBB
          W Fencing
          Gymnastics (M&W)
          Swimming (M&W)
          Wrestling
          Golf (M&W)
          Tennis (M&W)
          W Track
          W Water polo

          Points not counted:
          W Lax, W Rowing, Softball

          How many of those shouldn’t count?

          And BTW, this year’s Director’s Cup was the closest race in a long time with 3 schools within about 30 points of each other (often Stanford has won by 200+).

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Also, IN potentially winning the C1C doesn’t make it any more valid. I’d dismiss it if OSU won it.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian, My biggest pet peeve is Water Polo which is pretty exclusive to the PAC. Buckeyes may have more sports but I am willing to bet the sports they participate in are more across most of the major conferences. As for this years Directors Cup I believe it was Water Polo points that allowed Stanford to beat Florida this year. I do agree with the differential between crowded sports and ones that are not crowded tho and the disparity of points. I suggest awhile back that the point should be distributed by participation.

            Say something like this (5 conferences being ACC, B1G, B12, PAC, and SEC)

            100 points for winner where all 5 conferences have participants
            80 points when you just have 4 of 5 conference represented
            60 points for 3 of 5
            40 points for 2 of 5
            20 points for 1 of 5

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            Brian,

            Cut the quotations & then your spin, you do this all the time – your deconstruction skills need work. Your first quotes-capture then rebuttal of Duffman is absurd because hindsight proves that Stanford has pretty much won nearly every Director’s Cup at this point. The Capital One Cup’s system, flawed or not, will never allow for such dominance – it’s split amongst the sexes, foremost, and yes they weigh sports, albeit with some major flaws. As for high drama in this year’s Director’s Cup, it was over before the CWS was determined. Stanford won it by June 14, 2013. As for the Capital One Cup, it truly came down to the CWS and four teams, as mentioned, had a shot at winning it all.

            The 100 points per sport system by the Director’s Cup, regardless of the sport’s participation, needs to get axed. Just as Capital One’s 60 points for lacrosse over say 30 points for Men’s & Women’s Swimming needs to get re-evaluated.

            There’s a better system than the above two. Who’s going to start it? Is the better question. Or can Capital One and the Director’s Cup adjust for a fairer system. Your endless rants & justification for the Director’s Cup hit a wall every time you respond to me or someone else. No way should Water Polo earn 100 points. No! No! No! I feel the same way about fencing, among other sports.

            As for your “fewer schools participating” argument, just sit back and really think about what you’re saying here. There’s just no justification for it other than the Director’s Cup – their continuous, illogical use of such a formula.

            I do have a problem with Stanford winning the Director’s Cup nearly every year, partly because money plays a huge factor in Stanford’s success with athletics. They’re an incredibly rich school & with this money they clearly play the system each year. Finally, I think it’s quite interesting & frankly more fair that the Capital One crowns champs by sex.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “Brian, My biggest pet peeve is Water Polo which is pretty exclusive to the PAC.”

            No, it isn’t. There are 34 women’s water polo teams in D-I.

            P12 – 5
            B10 – 2 (about to be 3)
            BE – 1
            ACC – 1 (about to be 0)

            http://www.collegewaterpolocoach.org/womens-division-i-water-polo-programs.html

            Arizona State University
            Brown University
            Bucknell University
            California State University, Bakersfield
            California State University, Northridge
            University of California, Berkeley
            University of California, Davis
            University of California, Irvine
            University of California, Los Angeles
            University of California, Santa Barbara
            Colorado State University
            George Washington University
            Hartwick College
            Harvard University
            University of Hawaii, Manoa
            Indiana University, Bloomington
            Iona College
            Long Beach State University
            Loyola Marymount University
            Marist College
            University of Maryland, College Park
            University of Michigan
            University of the Pacific
            Princeton University
            San Diego State University
            San Jose State University
            Santa Clara University
            Siena College
            University of Southern California
            St. Francis College
            Stanford University
            Villanova
            Wagner College

            “Buckeyes may have more sports but I am willing to bet the sports they participate in are more across most of the major conferences.”

            OSU – 39 teams
            Stanford – 36 teams

            OSU sports with less than 100 D-I teams:
            Men’s gymnastics – 16 teams
            Rifle – 21 teams
            M VB – 23 teams
            Fencing – 24 teams
            Women’s hockey – 34 teams
            Hockey – 58 teams
            M LAX – 61 teams
            Women’s gymnastics – 62 teams
            Wrestling – 77 teams
            Field hockey – 79 teams
            Rowing – 87 teams
            W LAX – 91 teams

            Plus synchronized swimming.

            “As for this years Directors Cup I believe it was Water Polo points that allowed Stanford to beat Florida this year.”

            They are included in their total, yes, but any of the sports that got them more points than the gap to UF could be said to have allowed them to beat UF. Why shouldn’t they get to count WWP? If you don’t count Women’s Gymnastics either then Stanford would’ve won. Besides, what stops UF from being good at some of these small sports, too?

            “Say something like this (5 conferences being ACC, B1G, B12, PAC, and SEC)”

            What makes those conferences special outside of the major sports? Plenty of small schools do well in the other sports (hoops, hockey, lax, etc).

            “100 points for winner where all 5 conferences have participants
            80 points when you just have 4 of 5 conference represented
            60 points for 3 of 5
            40 points for 2 of 5
            20 points for 1 of 5″

            All this does is favor SEC schools because they sponsor fewer sports, devaluing everyone else’s wins. One team adding or dropping a sport shouldn’t change it’s value by up to 100%.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “Your first quotes-capture then rebuttal of Duffman is absurd because hindsight proves that Stanford has pretty much won nearly every Director’s Cup at this point.”

            But was I factually correct? We have no idea what hindsight will have to say about the C1C, so I compared apples to apples.

            “The Capital One Cup’s system, flawed or not,”

            It’s definitely flawed. Even most of its supporters admit that.

            “will never allow for such dominance”

            And you know this how? There’s nothing inherent in the DC that should make Stanford a perennial champ, yet they are.

            ” – it’s split amongst the sexes, foremost,”

            So it’s impossible for one school to be dominant in women’s sports? Or in men’s sports? But magically when combined it’s easy to dominate?

            “As for high drama in this year’s Director’s Cup, it was over before the CWS was determined. Stanford won it by June 14, 2013. As for the Capital One Cup, it truly came down to the CWS and four teams, as mentioned, had a shot at winning it all.”

            And literally tens of people probably follow either “race” closely.

            “Your endless rants & justification for the Director’s Cup”

            I’ve never justified the DC. I’ve explained how it works and explained how it is incompatible with the C1C since they measure different things. You keep trying to sell the value of something created by ESPN and a sponsor versus something created by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics. Guess which one the ADs are more likely to care about? I’ve never cared whether you like the DC or not and have said so repeatedly. I’m not trying to convert anyone.

            “No way should Water Polo earn 100 points. No! No! No! I feel the same way about fencing, among other sports.”

            The C1C is at least as bad in valuing sports, plus it has an agenda.

            “As for your “fewer schools participating” argument,”

            It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of fact. The points drop off faster the fewer teams compete for the championship.

            “There’s just no justification for it other than the Director’s Cup – their continuous, illogical use of such a formula.”

            So finishing #10 in a 64 team bracket should be valued the same as #10 in a 16 team bracket? That’s what you’re arguing for, which seems stupid to me.

            “I do have a problem with Stanford winning the Director’s Cup nearly every year, partly because money plays a huge factor in Stanford’s success with athletics.”

            Yes, that surely explains why OSU with more revenue and more sports can’t touch them. Neither can UT, the clear leader in annual revenue. Nor can other rich private schools like ND or the Ivies. It’s a conspiracy to reward Stanford.

            “They’re an incredibly rich school & with this money they clearly play the system each year.”

            Yes, by being good in a lot of sports. That’s the whole point, though. UF scored points in almost all of the same sports as Stanford

            Fall – The only difference was Stanford scoring in women’s field hockey. They both scored in the same 5 other sports.

            Winter – Stanford scored in WBB while UF scored in MBB. Stanford scored in fencing and men’s gymnastics and wrestling. UF scored in women’s indoor track. Both scored in 4 others.

            Spring – UF scored in W LAX and softball (Stanford couldn’t count those teams or rowing) and men’s track. Stanford scored in W water polo. They both scored in 5 others.

            That’s 14 sports in common out of a possible 20 that can count, plus they both play some more sports in common (MBB and WBB, for example). Yeah, Stanford really games the system. How dare they offer more sports rather than focusing on CFB like an SEC school?

            “Finally, I think it’s quite interesting & frankly more fair that the Capital One crowns champs by sex.”

            Good for you. Again, that’s the C1C measuring something different.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I’d credit Stanford’s 12 seeded tennis team winning the title as the most significant unexpected points. But as Brian said, every point scored is the same value. The first point of the total is the same as the last.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            The problem with these things is that people don’t agree on what they want to reward or how to reward it.

            1. I think the general idea is to reward the best overall athletic department. The problem is in how you define “best.” Some want to stress breadth and diversity, others revenue sports.

            2. Even if people could agree on a definition of best, they’re all over the place in deciding how to reward the teams.

            How much should a title be worth in each sport? All the same (DC)? Arbitrarily assigned (C1C)? Based on how many major conferences play (Duffman)? Based on how many teams play (many)?

            How should the points be distributed below #1? Linear decay or not? Does everyone get a point, or is there a cutoff? Where is the cutoff and why? For an easy example, compare NASCAR scoring (#1 = 43, #2 = 42, … #43 of 43 = 1) to F1 scoring (#1 = 25, #2 = 18, #3 = 15, … #10 of 22 = 1).

            There is no formula that will please everyone, but I think you could find a decent compromise.

            Basic rules:
            1. More competition means more points, but with a reducing factor since winning any title is hard. This tries to reach a compromise between the DC’s ideal of treating all sports equally and the desire of others to weight sports by the amount of competition.

            P = 10 * square root (# of teams)

            P(MBB) = 185 (343 teams)
            P(FB) = 112 (124 teams)
            P(WWP) = 58 (34 teams)

            If you go straight by the number of teams, a sport like football loses a lot of value compared to hoops and that’s wrong. I went with an easy choice, but you could come up with other ways to achieve a similar effect. You could reduce the spread or increase it.

            2. Only the top 20% get points.

            No participation ribbons here. The top 20% is the same as the top 25 in CFB, which seems like a reasonable definition of the best teams. Obviously you have to adjust the points for bracketed sports versus unbracketed sports.

            #(MBB) = 69 – adjust to 68 and reward all tournament teams
            #(FB) = 25 – use AP poll except the 4 CFP teams must be #1-4
            #(WWP) = 7 – adjust to 8 and reward all tournament teams

            3. Points should decrease faster than linearly at the top.

            I’d roughly use a geometric progression for points, adjusted so the last team gets 1 point and teams on the same bracket level get an equal share of the pool of points for their places.

            WWP – 58, 33, 19, 11, 6, 4, 2, 1, 0 (8 team bracket with games to determine each place)
            FB – 112, 93, 70, 70, 55, 45, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 14, 13, …, 1, 0 (CFP + poll)
            MBB – 185, 171, 153, 153, 4 x 122, 8 x 78, 16 x 32, 32 x 6, 4 x 1 (68 team single-elim. bracket)

            4. All sports should count.

            The DC limits you to 20 (10 for each gender), but I don’t think that’s necessary. I think the previous 3 rules would eliminate any issues with schools with more teams benefiting unduly. All those extra sports are generally small ones, so they have less value anyway. Besides, I think a school should be rewarded for having a broad AD. But the best way to tell is to back apply rules 1-3 to the past and see what happens. If there is an issue, then you apply a formula for diminishing returns.

            5. Just to make gfunk happy, you can have 3 winners – Overall, Men’s and Women’s.

            There’s no reason not to have an overall AD winner, but some schools may have no reasonable chance in one gender due to their student body demographics (GT, Army, etc). Besides, a few schools actually run their ADs sort of separately (UT, for example). As long as the overall winner is treated as more important, I see no harm in rewarding the gender specific winners.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            I do agree with the differential between crowded sports and ones that are not crowded tho and the disparity of points. I suggest awhile back that the point should be distributed by participation.

            Say something like this (5 conferences being ACC, B1G, B12, PAC, and SEC)

            100 points for winner where all 5 conferences have participants
            80 points when you just have 4 of 5 conference represented
            60 points for 3 of 5
            40 points for 2 of 5
            20 points for 1 of 5

            If it was weighted by the number of schools participating in a sport, rather than by conference, how would this year’s final C1C totals have differed? Let’s assume we limit it to the five conferences named above, and let’s add Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville to the equation since all will be in the ACC by fall 2014. (I wish we could add Brigham Young to the mix, but since all its other sports are in the WCAC, that makes it difficult.) That’s a total of 65 schools; we could weigh it per sport as

            100 points, 53 to 65 schools field teams
            80 points, 40 to 52
            60 points, 27 to 39
            40 points, 14 to 26
            20 points, 13 or fewer

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian,

            You have WWP but I was more thinking about MWP and the Big 5

            Top 20 this year :

            1 USC = PAC
            2 UCLA = PAC
            3 Cal = PAC
            4 Stanford = PAC
            5 Long Beach State = OTR
            6 Pacific = OTR
            7 UCSB = OTR
            8 Pepperdine = OTR
            9 St. Francis = OTR
            10 UC-Irvine = OTR
            T11 Air Force = OTR
            T11 UCSD = OTR
            13 Loyola Marymount = OTR
            14 Bucknell = OTR
            15 Princeton = OTR
            16 Brown = OTR
            17 Mercyhurst = OTR
            18 UC-Davis = OTR
            19 Navy = OTR
            T20 Johns Hopkins = OTR
            T20 Pomona-Pitzer = OTR
            T20 Santa Clara = OTR

            ACC = 0
            B1G = 0
            B12 = 0
            PAC = 4
            SEC = 0

            This means UCLA’s 12 points from finishing second in Men’s Water Polo will allow them to vault past Indiana after the 60 points are added for UCLA’s CWS win. Unless Ohio State + Florida + Oklahoma + UNC (random top schools in the remaining 4 conferences) all start Mens Water Polo, how is that fair?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            vincent,

            I was not trying to limit it to just the 5 big conferences but using them as a measuring device for all the conferences as they will include the smaller ones by default. Say for example, several B1G schools play a sport it is probable the MAC schools inside that footprint also play that sport.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            You’ve had a discussion for months about how Johns Hopkins has the premier lacrosse team and now are trying to discredit any sport that doesn’t have a lot of teams from the Big 5 conferences? Of those 8 schools who have dominated baseball, Arizona and Arizona St. did it almost all from the WAC, Cal State Fullerton from the Big West, and Miami as an independent. Minnesota did it from a conference that is mostly irrelevant in baseball. Only USC, Texas and LSU did it from major conferences.

            The Cap One is a lousy system designed by ESPN for their purposes, not to truly measure anything. The Directors Cup is at least rational.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “You have WWP but I was more thinking about MWP and the Big 5″

            OK. I did WWP because that’s the only one Stanford scored in.

            “Top 20 this year :

            ACC = 0
            B1G = 0
            B12 = 0
            PAC = 4
            SEC = 0″

            Yeah, but there were a while lot of others. Nothing prevents a smaller school from being competitive in a niche sport like WP.

            “This means UCLA’s 12 points from finishing second in Men’s Water Polo will allow them to vault past Indiana after the 60 points are added for UCLA’s CWS win. Unless Ohio State + Florida + Oklahoma + UNC (random top schools in the remaining 4 conferences) all start Mens Water Polo, how is that fair?”

            Who’s stopping IN from playing MWP? B10 schools regularly score points in niche sports. What’s unfair about giving hardworking athletes credit for winning?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian,

            I have no problem giving winners their due but when only 1 conference dominates a sport nobody else plays like MWP it seems out of touch. As you posted in your earlier post a better system is out there to be constructed. As it stands now it feels like stuffing a ballot box in a political election.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “5 Long Beach State = OTR
            6 Pacific = OTR
            7 UCSB = OTR
            8 Pepperdine = OTR
            9 St. Francis = OTR
            10 UC-Irvine = OTR
            T11 Air Force = OTR
            T11 UCSD = OTR
            13 Loyola Marymount = OTR
            14 Bucknell = OTR
            15 Princeton = OTR
            16 Brown = OTR
            17 Mercyhurst = OTR
            18 UC-Davis = OTR
            19 Navy = OTR
            T20 Johns Hopkins = OTR”

            Pretty nice set of “nobody” schools.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            They are both unfair. Justifying the DC as “rational” is absurd. As I’ve stated in previous posts, I’d pick DC over CO at the end of the day, but that does not mean I endorse it – not even close.

            As for the ESPN conspiracy, I’m in part agreement. But the CO winners have reflected 3 different conferences thus far: ACC (UNC), Pac12 (UCLA & Stanford) and SEC (Florida). And this year, a number of BIG teams cracked the top 20, male and female: IU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, and OSU. Md, still in the ACC, made the top 20, women’s side.

            Like

          • gfunk says:

            Also, $200,000 in scholarships for both sexes, the winners, that’s a pretty noble action by ESPN-Cap One.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “$200,000 in scholarships for both sexes, the winners, that’s a pretty noble action…”

            Rounding error for ESPN LHN monthly payroll.

            Perhaps DC is reflecting what it was intended? Honoring those succeeding in a broad based department? It is an athletic directors award, not the director of the most successful department defined by a certain chosen few sports award.

            Like

          • bulletr says:

            As cc points out, the Director’s Cup is quite rational. The only thing absurd is your failure to recognize that. It may not measure things the way you prefer, but it is direct and rational.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            As for the ESPN conspiracy, I’m in part agreement. But the CO winners have reflected 3 different conferences thus far: ACC (UNC), Pac12 (UCLA & Stanford) and SEC (Florida). And this year, a number of BIG teams cracked the top 20, male and female: IU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, and OSU. Md, still in the ACC, made the top 20, women’s side.

            I am not sure it is a ESPN conspiracy as much as one for the ACC based on which sports were slated for 60 point scores. Granted the Capitol One was set up before realignment but the ACC will now get Notre Dame and lose Maryland in addition to Louisville, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh.

            On the Men’s side with schools most prone to get points from Cap One Cup :

            Soccer : UVA (34) / MD (30) / CU (26) / Duke (25) / UNC (20) / WF (16)
            Lacrosse : SU (16) / MD (11) / UVA (9) / UNC (5) / Duke (4)
            Basketball : UNC (18) / Duke (15) / UL (10) / SU (5)
            Baseball : Miami (23) / FSU (21) / CU (12) / UNC (10)
            Football : split among Big 5
            Track & Field : Historically a PAC and SEC sport / FSU best ACC

            On the Women’s side with schools most prone to get points from Cap One Cup :
            Soccer : UNC (31/21) / UVA (24) / ND (19/3) Duke (18) / WF (16) FSU (13)
            Lacrosse : MD 10-7 / UVA 3-6 / UNC 1-1 / SU 0-1
            Basketball : ND (5) / Duke (4) / MD (3) / UNC (3) / UVA (3) / UL (2) / NCST (1)
            Volleyball : Historically a PAC sport
            Softball : Historically a PAC sport
            Track & Field : Historically a PAC and SEC sport / FSU best ACC

            As for the NCAA as a whole it seems to favor PAC schools
            Big 3 = Football, M Basketball, and Baseball

            UCLA : 109 = 72M + 37W (~14% = Water Polo / ~12% from Big 3 combined)
            Water Sports = WP 15 / S&D 1 / SS 0 / Sail 0 / Row 3 (~ 17% of total)
            Bruins are a Basketball school

            USC : 97 = 82M + 15W (~12 % = Water Polo / ~19% from Big 3 combined)
            Water Sports = WP 12 / S&D 10 / SS 0 / Sail 0 / Row 0 (~ 23% of total)
            Trojans are a Football and Baseball school

            Stanford : 104 = 61M + 43W (~13 % = Water Polo / ~5% from Big 3 combined)
            Water Sports = WP 14 / S&D 16 / SS 7 / Sail 1 / Row 1 (~ 38% of total)

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “On the Women’s side with schools most prone to get points from Cap One Cup :

            Volleyball : Historically a PAC sport”

            That’s not really true. They are good at it, but so are other western schools plus the B10.

            NC in WVB:
            Stanford (6) – 1992, 1994, 1996-1997, 2001, 2004
            UCLA (4) – 1984, 1990-1991, 2011
            USC (3) – 1981, 2002-2003
            UW (1) – 2005

            PSU (5) – 1999, 2007-2010
            NE (3) – 1995, 2000, 2006

            HI – 3
            Long Beach St – 3
            Pacific – 2
            TX – 2

            B10 Runners Up:
            NE – 3
            PSU – 3
            MN – 1
            IL – 1

            B10 Semifinalists:
            NE – 5
            PSU – 2
            OSU – 2
            MN – 2
            IL – 2
            MI – 1
            MSU – 1

            “Softball : Historically a PAC sport”

            UCLA and AZ dominated the 80s and 90s, true. But beyond those two schools, it’s been balanced nationally with B12, SEC and B10 schools also winning titles. There is more parity now.

            11 – UCLA
            8 – AZ
            2 – ASU, OU, TAMU
            1 – AL, MI, UW, Cal, CSF, Fresno

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian,

            More like no historical B1G volleyball schools as their weight has been pulled by just 2 schools and both (Penn State and Nebraska) are new to the B1G. Especially Nebraska as their big wins were as members of the B12. The B1G is still not anywhere near the PAC in volleyball (nor is most any other Big 5 conference not named PAC). As for softball there is more parity than the early years but the PAC still put 2/3 of their conference in the CWS while the B1G got 2/12 in with Michigan and Nebraska. That does not sound like true parity to me.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “More like no historical B1G volleyball schools as their weight has been pulled by just 2 schools and both (Penn State and Nebraska) are new to the B1G.”

            Just because the B10 isn’t elite at something doesn’t make it unfair. The other B10 teams lack titles but have added 2 finals losses and 8 final fours. Besides, you completely ignored all the other western teams that are good. You don’t get to ignore them just because they aren’t AQ schools. It’s also OK to have regional sports. West coast teams are good at volleyball and water sports, the north rules hockey, the midwest owns wrestling, the east owns lacrosse and the south has baseball and track. It’s almost like local interests and weather impact the success of teams.

            “Especially Nebraska as their big wins were as members of the B12.”

            But they weren’t P12 which is all that really matters for refuting your argument.

            “The B1G is still not anywhere near the PAC in volleyball”

            No, it isn’t. So what?

            “(nor is most any other Big 5 conference not named PAC).”

            But a lot of other western schools do challenge the P12 in it. Not being AQ means nothing to smaller sports like this.

            “As for softball there is more parity than the early years but the PAC still put 2/3 of their conference in the CWS while the B1G got 2/12 in with Michigan and Nebraska. That does not sound like true parity to me.”

            Why does parity always mean comparing the B10 to the best conference to you? The SEC does quite well in softball, and so do other conferences. As for your stats, they’re impossible. Only 8 teams make the WCWS, so the P12 couldn’t have 8 teams in it plus NE and MI going.

            National seeds:
            SEC – 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16
            P12 – 3, 5, 11
            B12 – 1, 4
            B10 – 8, 14
            Other – 13, 15

            WCWS:
            B12 – 2
            B10 – 2
            P12 – 2
            SEC – 2

            That looks a lot more like parity than P12 dominance to me.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian says:

            Just because the B10 isn’t elite at something doesn’t make it unfair. The other B10 teams lack titles but have added 2 finals losses and 8 final fours. Besides, you completely ignored all the other western teams that are good. You don’t get to ignore them just because they aren’t AQ schools. It’s also OK to have regional sports. West coast teams are good at volleyball and water sports, the north rules hockey, the midwest owns wrestling, the east owns lacrosse and the south has baseball and track. It’s almost like local interests and weather impact the success of teams.

            You are correct in that certain regions excel at certain sports at least wrestling, lacrosse, baseball, and track you have overlap in the Big 5 + old Big East + Notre Dame.
            wrestling = B1G and B12
            lacrosse = ACC and Big East and Notre Dame and B1G (MD included)
            baseball = ACC and SEC and PAC
            track = PAC + B12 + SEC

            Mens water polo is just the PAC which is my point.

            .

            .

            “As for softball there is more parity than the early years but the PAC still put 2/3 of their conference in the CWS while the B1G got 2/12 in with Michigan and Nebraska. That does not sound like true parity to me.”

            Yes the SEC has made gains but the PAC still dominates.

            As for your stats, they’re impossible.

            PAC teams in the post season for the WCWS
            Arizona – 8 championships
            Arizona State – 2 championships
            California – 1 championship
            Stanford
            UCLA – 11 championships (12 but 1 vacated)
            Oregon
            Oregon State
            Washington – 1 championship

            B1G teams in the post season for the WCWS
            Michigan – 1 championship
            Nebraska

            That is 8 PAC teams invited out of 12 PAC teams possible and 2 B1G teams out of 12 B1G teams. I stand by my original comment as correct and the data is correct. That does not look like parity to me. As for the actual 8 teams that advance all the final games in Oklahoma City the PAC averages 3 of 8 teams every year for the past decade and have 7 of the last 10 WCWS champions. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Alabama represent the other 30%. So the math over the past decade :

            PAC = 70%
            Everybody else combined = 30%
            70% > 30%

            Tell me more about this parity that you keep talking about! :)

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You don’t think a diverse offering should be rewarded? Is there anything preventing water polo being played in other B5 conferences? Seems like a fair number of have not’s manage to.

            I may be a bit older but I remember when nearly every SEC and PAC school wrestled. A few more drops and it could be called strictly regional (at D1). Should we reward those “exceptional” athletic departments by dropping its DC value, because those departments choose not to offer it any longer? The award is for the department measured by 10M and 10W among all those the NCAA sponsors, not for specific, selective sports. All NCAA sports count.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “You are correct in that certain regions excel at certain sports at least wrestling, lacrosse, baseball, and track you have overlap in the Big 5 + old Big East + Notre Dame.”

            So what? You have never explained why that makes things better. Why is having 1 team from each AQ conference be good better than having 10 good schools from the same AQ conference? And why on earth should I care about whether the conference is AQ or not if the sport isn’t football?

            “Mens water polo is just the PAC which is my point.”

            No, it isn’t just P12. You just ignore everyone else and claim it’s just the P12.

            “Yes the SEC has made gains but the PAC still dominates.”

            No, it doesn’t. The SEC is the dominant top to bottom softball conference now.

            “PAC teams in the post season for the WCWS”

            Making the postseason and making the WCWS aren’t the same thing. Which are you talking about? It looks like you’re doing some weird blend of 2013 and history plus the postseason and WCWS with no explanation.

            “B1G teams in the post season for the WCWS
            Michigan – 1 championship
            Nebraska”

            The B10 has 22 WCWS visits, roughly on par with the B12, SEC and Big West. The P12 has 79. Nobody said the P12 didn’t dominate in the past, but the present is not the past.

            “That is 8 PAC teams invited out of 12 PAC teams possible and 2 B1G teams out of 12 B1G teams. I stand by my original comment as correct and the data is correct.”

            No, it isn’t correct. You said 8 P12 teams made the WCWS, plus MI and NE. 10 teams can’t make an 8 team tournament.

            “That does not look like parity to me. As for the actual 8 teams that advance all the final games in Oklahoma City the PAC averages 3 of 8 teams every year for the past decade and have 7 of the last 10 WCWS champions. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Alabama represent the other 30%. So the math over the past decade :

            PAC = 70%
            Everybody else combined = 30%
            70% > 30%”

            By your logic, only the SEC is good at football. They have 8 of the last 10 titles and average at least 3 teams in the top 10 every year.

            SEC = 80%
            Everybody else combined = 20%
            80% > 20%

            I’d say that’s crap, but math is math.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            As for softball, the SEC had 7 of the top 17 in the final rankings while the Pac 12 had 3. Of course the Big 12 had the top 2-#1 Oklahoma and #2 Texas.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            So what? You have never explained why that makes things better. Why is having 1 team from each AQ conference be good better than having 10 good schools from the same AQ conference? And why on earth should I care about whether the conference is AQ or not if the sport isn’t football?

            Like it or not popularity drives sport. Football is popular so it produces revenues which in turns drives athletic departments to derive as much revenue as possible. While you keep questioning the use of the Big 5 you never acknowledge the market share they represent. As stated in several previous posts using the Big 5 is using a proven sample size that drives the popularity / revenue of the college sports market as a whole. The rivalry between Ohio State and Michigan is well known so if both schools started competing in tiddlywinks there would be be demand yet neither school does so. Could it then be possible the reason neither school does so is that tiddlywinks (as a sport) just does not move enough fan interest?

            By having a Top 25 each year that has at least 1 school from each of the Big 5 shows the popularity is not exclusive to a single Big 5 conference but that it actually follows multiple conferences who are engaged in the sport. I respect that you have enough of a brain to know that sports at the college level are fed by high school sports which are fed by grade school sports. If only the PAC schools are represented in the Top 25 and no other schools in the Big 5 are then it suggests there is a reason. My primary guess is Men’s Water Polo is not popular in the ACC, B1G, B12, and SEC at the high school level so it is not played at the college level.

            Following that process why should the sports points go to what is a monopoly of only 1 of the Big 5 when no other schools are represented? You point of the SEC dominating football is different in that at least all Big 5 conferences (and EVERY school inside each one of these conferences) participate in the sport. This is not the case with MWP. It seems only to exist to allow the PAC monopolistic points where the barrier to entry by the other big 5 is prohibitive due to resources or in state high school support.

            .

            .

            Duff : “Mens water polo is just the PAC which is my point.”

            Brian : No, it isn’t just P12. You just ignore everyone else and claim it’s just the P12.

            Brian, here is the Top 20 for Men’s Water Polo straight from the NCAA

            http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/waterpolo-men/d1

            #1 – #4 are all PAC schools
            Show me 1 school in the rest of the Top 20 that are in….
            The ACC?
            The Big 12?
            The B1G?
            The SEC?

            It is not me claiming this, it is the NCAA themselves.

            Now look at another sport with low participation by schools
            NCAA Rifle Top 20
            #1 West Virginia = Big 12
            #2 Kentucky = SEC
            #3 TCU = Big 12
            #7 Nebraska = B1G
            #9 Mississippi = SEC
            #12 Ohio State = B1G
            #13 NC State = ACC

            So you have MWP with the following Big 5 breakdown :
            PAC = 4 schools
            ACC = 0 schools
            B12 = 0 schools
            B1G = 0 schools
            SEC = 0 schools

            And you have Rifle with the following Big 5 breakdown :
            PAC = 0 schools
            ACC = 1 school
            B12 = 2 schools
            B1G = 2 schools
            SEC = 2 schools

            Can you seriously not see this or are you just trolling?

            .

            .

            Duffman : “Yes the SEC has made gains but the PAC still dominates.”

            Brian : No, it doesn’t. The SEC is the dominant top to bottom softball conference now.

            Brian here is the WCWS for the past 10 years : Winner in BOLD
            2013 : PAC 25.0% / B12 25.0% / B1G 25.0% / SEC 25.0%
            2012 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 37.5% / B12 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
            2011 : B12 50.0% / PAC 25.0% / SEC 25.0%
            2010 :PAC 37.5% / SEC 37.5% / B12 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
            2009 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 37.5% / B12 12.5% / B1G 12.5%
            2008 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 25.0% / B12 12.5% / ACC 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
            2007 : PAC 37.5% / B12 25.0% / B1G 12.5% / SEC 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
            2006 : PAC 50.0% / SEC 25.0% / B1G 12.5% / B12 12.5%
            2005 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 25.0% / B1G 12.5% / B12 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
            2004 : PAC 50.0% / SEC 12.5% / B1G 12.5% / B12 12.5% / ACC 12.5%

            That does not look like SEC dominance to me. Why you are in denial about PAC dominance is beyond me but these are the facts and are not in dispute. Look at the NCAA records and please show me this SEC dominance that you speak of over the past decade? You can deflect all you want but it does not change the reality.

            .

            .

            Making the postseason and making the WCWS aren’t the same thing. Which are you talking about? It looks like you’re doing some weird blend of 2013 and history plus the postseason and WCWS with no explanation.

            Do you not understand how the softball tournament works? It starts with 64 teams just like basketball. To get to either championship game you have to be one of the invited teams in the field of 64.

            This years W NCAA basketball invitations for PAC and B1G :
            B1G = 6 teams
            Purdue
            Iowa
            Nebraska
            Michigan
            Penn State
            Michigan State

            PAC = 4 teams
            UCLA
            Colorado
            Stanford
            California

            This years W NCAA softball invitations for PAC and B1G :
            B1G = 2 teams
            Nebraska
            Michigan

            PAC = 8 teams
            Arizona
            Arizona State
            California
            Stanford
            UCLA
            Oregon
            Oregon State
            Washington

            How hard is this to understand? If you are not one of the 64 teams invited to either basketball or softball post season play in the NCAA you can not win the championship.

            Again, this is really simple math
            PAC = 8 invites
            B1G = 2 invites
            8 > 2

            When the PAC is invited 4 to 1 on the B1G it indicates there is not parity!

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The barrier is that high tech, water retention system that the west refuses to share the secret (the cement pond)? Kids don’t swim except in the west? How many HS rowing programs are there compared to college, or equestrian?

            By definition a department award is not about excellence in profitable sports or a popularity contest.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet says:
            June 29, 2013 at 6:25 pm

            As for softball, the SEC had 7 of the top 17 in the final rankings while the Pac 12 had 3. Of course the Big 12 had the top 2-#1 Oklahoma and #2 Texas.

            duffman,

            “Like it or not popularity drives sport. Football is popular so it produces revenues which in turns drives athletic departments to derive as much revenue as possible. While you keep questioning the use of the Big 5 you never acknowledge the market share they represent. As stated in several previous posts using the Big 5 is using a proven sample size that drives the popularity / revenue of the college sports market as a whole.”

            10 > 5

            So why doesn’t 10 P12 teams being good at something mean more than 1 team from each of the 5 AQ conferences being good at it? More importantly, why do insist on thinking that the AQ market share is the same in all sports? The number one TV school for lacrosse is JHU, a D-III school. In niche sports, smaller schools are often big names.

            “The rivalry between Ohio State and Michigan is well known so if both schools started competing in tiddlywinks there would be be demand yet neither school does so. Could it then be possible the reason neither school does so is that tiddlywinks (as a sport) just does not move enough fan interest?”

            So now the relevance of any sport is determined by whether OSU and MI play it or not? What a strange criterion. Why do you refuse to account for some conferences choosing to focus on fewer sports rather than supporting as many as they can afford? There’s be more teams in many sports if the SEC and B12 spent money on things other than revenue sports and Title IX sports.

            “By having a Top 25 each year that has at least 1 school from each of the Big 5 shows the popularity is not exclusive to a single Big 5 conference but that it actually follows multiple conferences who are engaged in the sport.”

            Newsflash – There are other conferences than the AQs. They are often good at some of the smaller sports, too. You’re just an AQ bigot. Look at the top teams in hockey. How many are not AQ?

            “I respect that you have enough of a brain to know that sports at the college level are fed by high school sports which are fed by grade school sports. If only the PAC schools are represented in the Top 25 and no other schools in the Big 5 are then it suggests there is a reason.”

            Like needing to be near an ocean or needing a long season of outdoor pool weather? It’s not the P12’s fault that they are the only AQ on the west coast.

            “Following that process why should the sports points go to what is a monopoly of only 1 of the Big 5 when no other schools are represented?”

            Why shouldn’t they? Nothing prevents those others from playing. The B10 recruits easterners to play lacrosse. They could recruit westerners for water polo.

            “You point of the SEC dominating football is different in that at least all Big 5 conferences (and EVERY school inside each one of these conferences) participate in the sport.”

            It’s not my fault you used stupid criteria to decide the P12 dominates. The SEC in football more than met your standards.

            “This is not the case with MWP. It seems only to exist to allow the PAC monopolistic points where the barrier to entry by the other big 5 is prohibitive due to resources or in state high school support.”

            Since when is recruiting out of state athletes too expensive for an AQ school? They all have pools.

            “Brian, here is the Top 20 for Men’s Water Polo straight from the NCAA

            http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/waterpolo-men/d1

            #1 – #4 are all PAC schools”

            And #5-20 aren’t. That’s 80% of the top 20 that you just ignore, including 2 service academies and 2 Ivies in addition to a bunch of west coast schools.

            “Can you seriously not see this or are you just trolling?”

            Your bigotry seems more like trolling.

            “Brian : No, it doesn’t. The SEC is the dominant top to bottom softball conference now.

            Brian here is the WCWS for the past 10 years : Winner in BOLD”

            See the phrase “top to bottom” up there? The WCWS is mostly irrelevant to my claim.
            But let’s play your game by looking at the national seeds and the current alignment:

            Overall seeds / top 10 seeds
            2013 SEC 7 / 5, P12 3 / 2 – edge SEC
            2012 SEC 6 / 6, P12 6 / 2 – edge SEC
            2011 SEC 6 / 4, P12 6 / 3 – edge SEC
            2010 SEC 6 / 4, P12 5 / 3 – edge SEC
            2009 SEC 4 / 3, P12 5 / 5 – edge P12
            2008 SEC 6 / 4, P12 4 / 3 – edge SEC
            2007 SEC 5 / 3, P12 4 / 3 – edge SEC

            That sure looks like the SEC did better than the P12 lately to me.

            “Why you are in denial about PAC dominance is beyond me but these are the facts and are not in dispute. Look at the NCAA records and please show me this SEC dominance that you speak of over the past decade?”

            See above. I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s not denial when I’m correct.

            “Do you not understand how the softball tournament works?”

            I understand the tournament, just not what you wrote. I find things like this to be confusing at best:

            “PAC teams in the post season for the WCWS”

            You say that but then trumpet the number of total national titles for each team. So what was your point? The total number of titles? Nobody argued that the P12 didn’t used to dominate. If it was about who made the tournament in 2013, then their total titles is meaningless. And why mention the WCWS if you mean the field of 64?

            “When the PAC is invited 4 to 1 on the B1G it indicates there is not parity!”

            No, it indicates the P12 is better than the B10 at said sport. Besides, your numbers are wrong again.

            2013 teams in the field of 64
            SEC – 11
            P12 – 8
            B10 – 3 (MI, NE and MN)

            Yes, look at that P12 dominance. Oops, I mean SEC dominance.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian,

            2007
            PAC (10 schools)
            (8) invites 80.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Arizona
            SEC (12 schools)
            (7) invites 58.3% : (1) CWS team 8.3% : (0) Champion

            80.0% > 58.3% / 30.0% > 8.3% / 1 > 0
            PAC clearly dominates 2007

            ……………………….

            2008
            PAC (10 schools)
            (7) invites 70.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Arizona State
            SEC (12 schools)
            (8) invites 66.7% : (2) CWS team 16.7% : (0) Champion

            70.0% > 66.6% / 30.0% > 16.7% / 1 > 0
            PAC clearly dominates 2008

            ……………………….

            2009
            PAC (10 schools)
            (6) invites 60.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Washington
            SEC (12 schools)
            (9) invites 75.0% : (3) CWS team 25.0% : (0) Champion

            60.0% 25.0% / 1 > 0
            SEC gets more teams in but PAC dominates in finals (11-2 in 2 games)

            ……………………….

            2010
            PAC (10 schools)
            (7) invites 70.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Washington
            SEC (12 schools)
            (7) invites 58.3% : (3) CWS team 25.0% : (0) Champion

            70.0% 25.0% / 1 > 0
            PAC clearly dominates 2010 – championship game was 2 PAC teams!

            ……………………….

            2011
            PAC (10 schools)
            (7) invites 70.0% : (2) CWS teams 20.0% : (1) Champion = Arizona State
            SEC (12 schools)
            (7) invites 58.3% : (2) CWS team 16.7% : (0) Champion

            70.0% > 58.3% / 20.0% > 16.7% / 1 > 0
            Closer early on but PAC wins again

            ……………………….

            2012
            PAC (10 schools)
            (8) invites 80.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (0) Champion
            SEC (12 schools)
            (9) invites 75.0% : (3) CWS team 25.0% : (1) Champion = Alabama

            80.0% > 75.0% / 30.0% > 25.0% / 1 > 0
            Close for both and SEC wins first SEC ever for edge

            ……………………….

            2013
            PAC (12 schools)
            (8) invites 66.7% : (2) CWS teams 16.7% : (0) Champion
            SEC (14 schools)
            (11) invites 78.6% : (2) CWS team 14.3% : (0) Champion

            66.7% 14.3% / 0 = 0
            SEC gets more in but PAC performs better

            Brian, I might give you some leeway on 2012 as Alabama actually won, but this year I would give the edge to the PAC because TAMU and MU got in and Colorado and Utah did not which signifies the SEC got 2 better softball additions than the PAC did. This does not however mean the PAC lost their top teams like UCLA and Arizona or their grip on softball. So here is the summary.

            2007 = PAC domination
            2008 = PAC domination
            2009 = PAC domination
            2010 = PAC domination
            2011 = PAC edge
            2012 = SEC edge
            2013 = PAC edge

            See above. I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s not denial when I’m correct.

            No Brian, I am right and it is you who are wrong. You are in denial because you are not correct. Simple as that. Admit this is something you do knot know well and you made a mistake and act like a grown up. There is nobody in their right mind that would say the SEC has dominated the PAC in racking up the hardware when it comes to softball. Alan and Bamatab are SEC guys and even they would admit this point so I am wondering why you will not?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian,

            As for the rest of your “selective” editing you totally ignored the main point contrasting MWP to Rifle. You omitting it tells me you comprehend the validity of the discussion and your lack of response tells me you continue to nitpick out the trees while you do not seem to admire the forest. The service academies participate in both sports yet you ignored that in your response. Interesting.

            I point out the obvious imbalance of these 2 points and you respond by calling me a bigot. Do you not see the speck in my eye because of the log you refuse to remove from your own?

            So you have MWP with the following Big 5 breakdown :
            1 Big 5 conference out of 5 possible
            PAC = 4 schools
            ACC = 0 schools
            B12 = 0 schools
            B1G = 0 schools
            SEC = 0 schools

            And you have Rifle with the following Big 5 breakdown :
            4 Big 5 conferences out of 5 possible
            PAC = 0 schools
            ACC = 1 school
            B12 = 2 schools
            B1G = 2 schools
            SEC = 2 schools

            Where exactly is my bigotry? Have I ever disparaged the race or religion of folks in the PAC or playing MWP in the PAC? No, I noted their is an imbalance in one sport when compared to another sport an you label me a bigot? Really? Did you look in the mirror when you wrote your original response? Rifle looks much more inclusive than MWP does and yet you argue for the less inclusive one. Interesting.

            You argue the other 4 conferences should start MWP teams yet never suggest the PAC should add a rifle team instead. Why do you not suggest such a thing? Could it be that you are the one devoted to your own opinions and prejudices and treats others with loathing and hatred? You are a Buckeye but have you ever even been to a Rifle match where the Buckeye’s are competing? Or are you a “football only” Buckeye fan that loathes all the other sports the university participates in.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I look at that softball data and see
            2007 Pac 12 stronger
            2013 SEC stronger
            2008-2012 equivalent

            There are sports where the Big 5 aren’t all that good. For example in baseball, there is a top 7-in no particular order-Big West, Pac 12, Big 12, CUSA, Sun Belt, SEC, ACC. The Big 10 is not one of the top conferences. In basketball the last 3 or 4 years the SEC and Pac 12 have been down from their norm. The MWC and A10 have been better. There’s been a top 6-in no particular order-Big 12, Big 10, A10, ACC, Big East, MWC.

            And of course, there are Division II schools that are pretty good in hockey.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yawn. Throwing more data at the problem isn’t helping your case. You took 1000 words (not an actual count) trying to prove that the P12 was “clearly” dominant. If that was true, the number of teams in the NCAA tournament wouldn’t favor the SEC. As you may recall, I claimed the SEC was better “top to bottom.” You’re the one who claimed the WCWS was somehow the end all be all of evidence. All I had to do was drop to NCAA invites to show an edge for the SEC, and that still doesn’t account for the rest of the conference.

            “No Brian, I am right and it is you who are wrong.”

            You wish. This is just like your blind obsession with hating the B12. No amount of facts ever penetrates your preconceived on that subject either.

            “Admit this is something you do knot know well and you made a mistake and act like a grown up.”

            There’s no mistake. The data supports me that the P12 is NOT “top to bottom” dominant anymore.

            “There is nobody in their right mind that would say the SEC has dominated the PAC in racking up the hardware when it comes to softball.”

            And I didn’t say that either. That’s just your typical approach of creating straw man arguments to fight against because you can’t win against what I actually said.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “As for the rest of your “selective” editing”

            Nobody has enough free time to respond to the entirety of your screeds.

            “you totally ignored the main point contrasting MWP to Rifle.”

            That was your main point? You could have fooled me. It seemed like yet another irrelevant tangent to me. Rifle has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were discussing. I honestly didn’t even bother to read that part, so I couldn’t respond to it.

            “I point out the obvious imbalance of these 2 points and you respond by calling me a bigot.”

            No, I called you a bigot because you dismiss out of hand every non-AQ school even though we’re talking about niche sports and not football. A top 20 that is 80% non-P12 is somehow dominated by the P12 in your bigoted view.

            “You argue the other 4 conferences should start MWP teams”

            No, I argued they COULD start them. I couldn’t possibly care less if anyone starts a MWP team. I’d be fine with nobody but the P12 playing it and I ‘d still give them full credit for it.

            “yet never suggest the PAC should add a rifle team instead. Why do you not suggest such a thing?”

            Because no P12 fan is whining about the B10 scoring points in rifle.

            “You are a Buckeye but have you ever even been to a Rifle match where the Buckeye’s are competing?”

            And that would be relevant to whatever point you are making in what way, exactly? Would my watching cause there to be more or fewer rifle teams somehow? Would it somehow cause the P12 to be dominant in softball again? Would it change the SOS of the B12?

            Like

      • Arch Stanton says:

        I was surprised that was UCLA’s first baseball title as well.

        USC was far and away the most accomplished team in college baseball post WWII through the 80s, so the Bruins baseball program was in that shadow historically. They might have firgured, if we can’t beat USC in baseball, don’t worry about it and put more resources into other sports.

        Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      The ‘Capitol One Cup’ is just another reason to hate ESPN. It pisses me off as much as The Weather Channel trying to name winter storms.

      Like

  51. Brian says:

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/06/24/pac-12-football-new-bowl-lineup-takes-shape/

    Scott added that there will be mechanisms in place to 1) avoid having a repeat participant in a particular bowl and 2) take advantage of obvious benefits of having a team in a specific bowl.

    I have to think the Kraft and Holiday bowls will work with the Pac-12 to maximize matchups against the respective Big Ten opponents.

    In other words: The bowls will flip Pac-12 teams when it best serves the teams and fans.

    So despite not using tiers, the P12 might shift teams around a little.

    Also note: The Sun Bowl has moved down the Pac-12 lineup. It was No. 3 for many years … then No. 4 … and now No. 5.

    Can’t imagine many teams (or fans) will be heartbroken over the situation.

    It doesn’t sound like the P12 likes that game very much. The B10 could push to get back into the Sun Bowl if they want another TX game in the future, not that El Paso is an ideal bowl location.

    Like

  52. ccrider55 says:

    How does Oregon’s departed HC get a show cause (while in probation for earlier violations and they get 1 scolly deduction for two years, and a bit more probation +, while USC got hammered with only an assistant getting a still contested show cause? Phil Knight’s power greater than that of Heritage Hall?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Because Oregon hired the agents instead of the students?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        New motto: Just keep doing it. We got your back…

        Compliance officer? Is he the head of Loop Hole Discoveries, LLC?

        Like

    • Brian says:

      ccrider55,

      “How does Oregon’s departed HC get a show cause (while in probation for earlier violations and they get 1 scolly deduction for two years, and a bit more probation +, while USC got hammered with only an assistant getting a still contested show cause? Phil Knight’s power greater than that of Heritage Hall?”

      1. OR cooperated and USC fought the NCAA.
      2. None of OR’s recruiting violations were found to be intentional.
      3. OR also lost a lot of recruiting rights.

      http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9424556/oregon-ducks-put-probation-ncaa-lose-scholarship

      • A reduction of official paid football visits from 56 to 37 for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years.
      • A reduction of permissible football evaluation days from 42 to 36 in the fall of 2013, 2014 and 2015 and permissible football evaluation days from 168 to 144 in the spring of 2014, 2015 and 2016.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        My biggest gripe is that the school allowed Knight to kick out the AD and install his buddy, who never graduated college. The AD with no degree’s mission was to get the new basketball arena (Matt Knight Arena) project finished quickly. All that athletic department oversight was just an inconvenient nuisance, intentionally transferring department control to an unqualified person. Is that still maintaining g institutional control? I can’t prove it, but I believe the more egregious transgressions (Willie Lyles) under Kilkenny would not have happened, or detected and self reported very early had Moos still been there.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Some ADs are better than others, sure. But unless the AD was installed specifically to ignore violations, I don’t have a problem with it.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The position wasn’t arena project facilitator. It was head of the athletic department, and all that entails. If a hospital allows a janitor to perform surgery, but not specifically to do harm, you wouldn’t object?

            There is a reason even assistant coaches are often required to have (or be working toward) advanced degrees. Can’t swear to it, but I read on line that Kilkenny was the only AD with no degree in the NCAA, NAIA, or NJCAA. Great public face for an AAU school…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            There are also plenty of successful businessmen who never graduated from college. Should I have objected to Bill Gates running Microsoft because he dropped out of school? Education isn’t always necessary to be successful in a job.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            You should have if it was a state entity, and they waived the states requirements for the position. Requirements that were installed to assure the proper qualification of the applicant for the job.

            There were no requirements for Gates to attempt a start in business, didn’t require a hundred million dollar support organization to provide the opportunity (a state organization in this case), and opportunity wasn’t limited in number, like the number of D1 athletic director jobs. Just the imagination and chutzpah to make the private effort – the gamble. That’s not how state institutions operate (or shouldn’t).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            And if they’d decided to hire Bill Gates as AD a few years ago, should I still object because he lacked a degree? Or would years and years of leading a Fortune 500 company perhaps show him to be capable despite the lack of formal education?

            I’m not saying they hired the right guy, but I also don’t believe in worshiping degrees. Plenty of talented people lack degrees and plenty of people with degrees are useless. i don’t know this guy, so I refuse to speculate on whether he was a worthy candidate.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I agree many may be talented enough without a degree. Many, many many more are not. The degree provides a level of assurance and accountability. We really can’t just gamble that an ability to make money in a specific field confers the ability to administer a completely foreign organization, both in function and goal.

            I’m surprised at you equating a university and its departments as a base business. There are business aspects, yes, but that isn’t its primary function.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            You’re talking about the AD. That’s a purely managerial position. It’s the one position at a university most like being an executive in the real world.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I can’t prove it, but I believe the more egregious transgressions (Willie Lyles) under Kilkenny would not have happened, or detected and self reported very early had Moos still been there.

          There’s the rub, right? The NCAA’s authority is limited to what it can prove, with the investigative techniques permitted (e.g., no subpoenas). I would bet that most of these schools we’re discussing (USC, Ohio State, Oregon,…) were guilty of more than the final report stated, but at some point investigators reached a dead end.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You guys are actually trying to make the argument that there should not be minimum requirements for powerful, public jobs?

            Brian: Kilkenny’s expertise was growing profits of an insurance company. He held a San Diego Padre box. He also attended school. Is he qualified to be chancellor of the UC system? Why don’t you start a grass roots move to draft him to take Gee’s place? He ran a big company and made money. What more could possibly be required?

            I don’t think tOSU would let itself be a play thing for its biggest donor.

            Marc:

            “There’s the rub, right? The NCAA’s authority is limited to what it can prove,”

            1: when has that ever limited the NCAA.
            2: how hard is it to show an unqualified person was put in place for a singular purpose (demanded by a donor), in-spite of not meeting any requirements, no experience in college athletic administration, not even a bachelors degree in anything, and over academic senate objections.
            3: multiple administrators wind up in court over actions Kilkenny took directly in opposition to regulations the president had formulated and got passed while dean of law school, but then chose not to enforce as president (can’t upset sugar daddy).

            I don’t think the NCAA was lacking in evidence of where control resided during that time, and it was not in Eugene.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “You guys are actually trying to make the argument that there should not be minimum requirements for powerful, public jobs?”

            No. I’m saying requirements are often arbitrary with no actual proof that clearing that hurdle always makes you a better candidate. For a top level executive position like AD, work experience means much, much more to me than a college degree from 30 years ago.

            “Brian: Kilkenny’s expertise was growing profits of an insurance company. He held a San Diego Padre box. He also attended school. Is he qualified to be chancellor of the UC system?”

            When did we switch to discussing other jobs? I spoke about one specific job. You don’t get to generalize that to all jobs at a university.

            “I don’t think tOSU would let itself be a play thing for its biggest donor.”

            Yeah, because they have no say on what happens in OSU’s athletic department. OSU’s BOT has several super-donors on it. They have a lot of influence over major decisions like firing Tressel and not firing Smith and hiring Meyer and firing Gee.

            “1: when has that ever limited the NCAA.”

            Since always. No proof means no punishment.

            “2: how hard is it to show an unqualified person was put in place for a singular purpose (demanded by a donor), in-spite of not meeting any requirements, no experience in college athletic administration, not even a bachelors degree in anything, and over academic senate objections.”

            Without a smoking gun email, it’s very hard actually. You can’t assume intent. Schools hire friends of super-donors for jobs they might not be ideal for sometimes, and academic senate objections are meaningless for the AD job. Those senates object to lots of things, especially if they involve money for athletics. The NCAA doesn’t have requirements for an AD, so they can’t punish a school based on who they hire. If OR broke the law, that’s up to the state to punish.

            “3: multiple administrators wind up in court over actions Kilkenny took directly in opposition to regulations the president had formulated and got passed while dean of law school, but then chose not to enforce as president (can’t upset sugar daddy).”

            NEWSFLASH – Rich people get special treatment.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            Work experience in pro sports, USOC administration, even a modest government job would have informed his ability to be an athletic director. He was king of the company he built, he dictated in challenged. I agree a degree doesn’t automatically make you better tha one without, but it increases the likelihood. And it has been, and is again, a requirement they they waived.

            “When did we switch to discussing other jobs? I spoke about one specific job. You don’t get to generalize that to all jobs at a university.”

            You defended his taking on something he really had no understanding (or interest in), rather than the specific job he had shown expertise in. Frankly, the autonomy of a chancellor would fit him better.

            “Since always. No proof means no punishment.”

            Tell that to the USC show cause assistant. Or PSU, getting penalized for non athletic, criminal actions prior to any trial or conviction.

            “Yeah, because they have no say on what happens in OSU’s athletic department”

            They influence regarding school/athletic issues. They don’t dictate the removal of arguably the best athletic director UO ever had because the palace intended to named after Matt Knight was not progressing as fast as wished.

            “Without a smoking gun email, it’s very hard actually. You can’t assume intent.”

            What is waiving requirements intended to increase the likelihood a candidate will be able to perform the job? Isn’t intent being circumvented?

            “…broke the law, that’s up to the state to punish.”

            Which the court said they did in one case, but the remedy being asked for was no longer available.

            “NEWSFLASH – Rich people get special treatment”

            Treatment is one thing, but apparent ownership?

            Like

      • bullet says:

        If you think they didn’t know they were paying an agent to steer kids to them, I’ve got a bridge to sell….

        Like

        • Brian says:

          What I think and what the NCAA could prove are 2 different things. I wouldn’t have acquitted OJ either, but the jury did the right thing based on the case presented to them.

          Like

  53. CookieMonster says:

    (I already feel dumb asking this because it’s always no) Any truth to the Dude’s tweets about Big12 package with Netflix for all past espn and fox content?

    Like

  54. mnfanstc says:

    The latest “pat on the wrist” “penalties” to the Oregon football program further prove that the NCAA will go to NO lengths to “punish” athletics programs that are perceived as money-making, dominant names.

    See other examples… North Carolina, Auburn, Ohio State, USC.

    Penn State does not count because the NCAA had no business in the Penn State stuff–as those were criminal actions by an individual (with others involved as enablers/ignorers) that the courts decide… Any other actions in the PSU case should be handled in civil court (lawsuits,etc.), or by the state/federal organization(s) that have authority over institutions of higher learning (not the conference/ncaa).

    Very-related…this talk of the so-called “power-schools” desiring stipends, etcetera… breaking off from the rest of the NCAA also re-inforces thought that these powers-that-be have lost their heads… The first mission of these universities is higher education—NOT—pro football/basketball grooming. If that is what is desired–then, start up a junior or semi-pro league (or leagues) a la baseball or hockey. Kids that either don’t have the educational chops, or desire, can go this route—or like hockey—play in the junior leagues and still get a college education.

    The most recent U of Minn budget (2013/14 fiscal) was approved at 3.6 Billion (BILLION) dollars. Approx $800 million of that budget goes towards academic research and what it entails. Approx $80 million of that budget goes towards athletics. That leaves apprx $2.7 Billion for running the university (salaries/academic aid/overhead/etc). There are approx 54,000 students—of which approx 1000 are involved in inter-collegiate athletics, and approx 125 of these are in the “Money” sports (FB, MBB, MHKY). The athletes make up approx 1.9% of the student body. The athletic budget makes up approx 2.2% of the overall budget. At MN the athletics revenue/expenditures are maintained as a balanced budget. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any of the 1.9% deserve a stipend, or any extra perks above what they already may be receiving. Please do tell…

    MOST athletes have no chance at a professional career. Many of these kids (or their family/coaches) are delusional in regards to the odds that their little Johnny is the next AP or Elway. Please stop the madness. It is not the university’s, nor the public’s responsibility to see the kids get their education…

    Each individual’s choices/actions dictate where they will go…

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Mostly agree. One question, though? Are you referring to Southern Cal? Although the punishment was delayed, They took a gut shot. Far closer to PSU’s in consequences on the field than the minimal “don’t do that or we may warn you again” the others you mention.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      mnfanstc,

      “The latest “pat on the wrist” “penalties” to the Oregon football program further prove that the NCAA will go to NO lengths to “punish” athletics programs that are perceived as money-making, dominant names.

      See other examples… North Carolina, Auburn, Ohio State, USC.

      Penn State does not count because the NCAA had no business in the Penn State stuff”

      Frankly, you’re just wrong. USC got hammered. PSU got crushed and you don’t get to decide that it doesn’t count. The NCAA could have not done anything and left it all to the courts, showing the NCAA chose to punish a top brand. OSU got an unprecedented bowl ban (nobody else had ever got one for the same level of infractions). MI got in trouble for minor practice time violations. People are mad at the NCAA for working so hard to find Miami guilty. That’s a lot of top brands punished in the past few years despite your claim.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        OSU got the ban because the head coach covered up and lied to the NCAA. It wasn’t the infractions which were fairly minor, it was the involvement of the head coach. Its REALLY rare for a head coach to get caught.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          No, they didn’t. The NCAA explicitly said the exact opposite. It had nothing to do with Tressel. OSU got the bowl ban for the second set of infractions by players.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I’ve just re-read the press release and scanned through the report. Both documents mention the Tressel’s infractions prominently. The section on penalties goes through a long summary of everything the school did wrong, and then gives a list of sanctions. I don’t see where it says that a particular penalty is, or is not, tied to a particular infraction, except that Tressel’s personal show-cause is obviously tied to him alone. Otherwise, it appears that the full set of penalties is tied to the full set of infractions, which obviously includes Tressel’s.

            It would be most strange if Tressel’s misdeeds had nothing to do with the most severe penalty imposed, which was missing the post-season last year. Since the whole NCAA system depends on self-monitoring and voluntary compliance, the scenario here was practically the worst imaginable: the head coach knew he was playing ineligible players, and did nothing about it. On top of that, had the whole truth been promptly known, it is rather unlikely that the players would have been cleared to play in the Sugar Bowl; and without their participation, it is rather unlikely that OSU would have won the game. If that conduct doesn’t contribute to a bowl ban, I don’t know what does.

            After all, what the NCAA punishes most severely is not the ineligibility itself, but rather, the failure of school officials to act once they know (or willful blindness to what they should have known). When it’s the head coach himself, how much worse can it get?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            OSU got the failure to monitor charge for the player violations with a booster (after the tat-gate stuff) and because OSU was a repeat violator due to a previous booster issue. Without the FTM charge, OSU doesn’t get the bowl ban. Thus, Tressel wasn’t the cause of the bowl ban.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        But yes, USC and PSU were brands that got hammered. Alabama got hit pretty hard a few years back.

        Miami and UNC remain to be seen.

        Like

  55. StevenD says:

    As the number of conference teams increases, there are more divisional games and fewer opportunities to play teams in the other division. With 14 teams B1G divisions still work quite well; however, if it goes to 16 or more, the divisions become more and more isolated from each other.

    This can be mitigated by dividing divisions into pods and rotating the pods to create new, temporary divisions (such divisions being necessary to qualify for a Conference Championship Game). This works very well in principle but is probably too complicated and too unsettling for the ordinary fan.

    In my opinion, the best way to deal with 16 (or more) teams is to use shadow-pods and shadow-divisions. Yes, we should use rotating pods and temporary divisions, but we should hide them from the casual observer. There is no need to mention pods and divisions at all.

    For example, assume the B1G goes to 16 teams (with Kansas and Virginia added). Then the setup for Nebraska would look something like this:

    Nebraska — OSU — Michigan — PSU
    Kansas
    Iowa
    Northwestern

    Kansas, Iowa and Northwestern are Nebraska’s pod-mates. OSU, Michigan and PSU are Nebraska’s fixed crossovers. However, you don’t announce this. You simply say that every year Nebraska will play Kansas, Iowa, Northwestern, OSU, Michigan, and PSU. In addition Nebraska will play three other teams (which change each year). What could be simpler than that?

    Let’s look at Iowa:

    Nebraska
    Kansas
    Iowa — Wisconsin — Minnesota — Rutgers
    Northwestern

    The Iowa fans are told: every year you play Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rutgers and Northwestern (plus 3 others). Pretty good schedule, isn’t it?

    It’s nice and simple: you’ve got six teams you play every year and three teams that rotate in and out of the schedule. No mention of pods, no mention of temporary divisions. When the conference standings are produced, it should be a single list ranked from top to bottom — with no pods and no divisions shown.

    At the end of the season, the top team goes to the CCG. That is easy, everyone will understand that. The second team will be determined by looking at the shadow divisions (in order to comply with NCAA requirements for a CCG). In most years the second place team in the conference standings will be the leader of the other division. This has been the case since Nebraska joined the B1G. Last year the top two teams were OSU (8-0) and Nebraska (7-1), both leading their respective divisions. In 2011 the top teams were MSU (7-1) and three teams tied on 6-2 (one of which was Wisconsin, which led its division).

    Occasionally the top two teams will be in the same shadow division and the second team will miss out. This may cause some controversy; however, it will be no worse than the controversy arising in 2008 from the tie-break rule used to determine the participants in the Big12 CCG.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Fans like to follow the standings. Whether you name the divisions or not, we’ll all know they exist and we’ll want to see the division standings to know what our team needs to do. All the web sites will show the division standings. The writers will talk about them, too. There’s no point in hiding them.

      I’d say the best method is to not use the word “pod” but just tell each school here are your 3 locked teams. And by the way, this year you’re in the “Whatever” division. Using E and W anchor pods is ideal to me because then many fans always know which division they’re in, too.

      Unfortunately, pods suck for your chosen 16 teams:
      A – NE, KU, IL, NW
      B – MI, MSU, IN, PU
      C – OSU, WI, IA, MN
      D – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA

      or

      A – NE, WI, IA, MN
      B – MI, MSU, NW, KU
      C – OSU, PU, IN, IL
      D – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA

      I’d stay with divisions, unfortunately:
      E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, IN, RU, UMD, UVA
      W – NE, WI, IA, NW, PU, MN, IL, KU

      Like

      • StevenD says:

        You miss my point. There are not three locked teams. There are six: your three podmates and your three locked crossovers. I’m suggesting we present them as six locked teams.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I’m not convinced the B10 would lock 3 crossovers for everyone. How many of those games truly need to be locked? Also, I think the B10 would refuse to lock 3 kings for any one team.

          I think the more likely system would be 4 locked games (3 in pod, 1 out of pod). That should cover almost all needed games. Anchor pods in the W and E also seem likely to me since the west and east have almost no ties (longest is PSU at 16 games vs IA).

          A – NE, WI, IA, MN
          B – MI, MSU, NW, KU
          C – OSU, PU, IN, IL
          D – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA

          Lock: OSU/MI, NE/PSU, WI/MSU, NW/IL, KU/IN, PU/UMD, IA/UVA, MN/RU

          I still think divisions are more likely, with a 7-2 schedule.

          Like

          • StevenD says:

            Really? 7-2 is the best we can do? With just two crossover games, it will take four years (minimum) to play every team.

            And what do you do about Purdue and Indiana? Drop their rivaly to once every four years? Or leave them with just one crossover to cover seven teams?

            By using shadow pods, every team plays every other team in just three years. Including Purdue and Indiana.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “Really? 7-2 is the best we can do?”

            Under the current rules, yes that’s the best we can do. This is why expansion is a bad idea so often. There’s a heavy price to pay in FB scheduling for adding teams. Besides, your plan is a 6-3 schedule. That’s not all that different.

            7-2 = 7 x 100% + 8 x 25%
            6-3 = 6 x 100% + 9 x 33%

            “And what do you do about Purdue and Indiana? Drop their rivaly to once every four years? Or leave them with just one crossover to cover seven teams?”

            I’d let them decide, but personally I’d lock it and leave them 1 rotating game. It’s hard to make divisions that don’t split a vital rivalry unless you do Inner/Outer, and your 2 additions mess with that, too.

            A – OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PU, NW, IL, KU
            B – NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, UMD, UVA

            “By using shadow pods, every team plays every other team in just three years. Including Purdue and Indiana.”

            And multiple games people don’t care about are locked. And fans are confused by the changing divisions.

            Pods:
            3-6 = 3 x 100% + 12 x 50%
            4-5 = 4 x 100% + 11 x 45%
            5-4 = 5 x 100% + 10 x 40%
            6-3 = 6 x 100% + 9 x 33%

            I’d rather lock fewer games if you’re going with pods. But more importantly I don’t think the B10 would bother with pods for 16 teams.

            Like

        • StevenD says:

          Brian says: “I’m not convinced the B10 would lock 3 crossovers for everyone”

          These are not normal crossovers. When you have divisions, crossovers are needed to play teams from the other division.

          However, when you have fully rotating pods, crossovers are not necessary because the pods automatically rotate through all the teams. Therefore you can lock all the games.

          By locking six games permanently, you give each team a more stable schedule and insure all significant rivalries are played yearly. Moreover, you enable six king-vs-king matchups every year.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “These are not normal crossovers. When you have divisions, crossovers are needed to play teams from the other division.”

            And your plan does have divisions, you just think you can hide them from people. Therefore, 2 of the 3 will be crossovers but which 2 will change as thew pods rotate. Feel free to coin a new term, but crossover conveys the point pretty well I think.

            “However, when you have fully rotating pods, crossovers are not necessary because the pods automatically rotate through all the teams.”

            They’re necessary to fill out the schedule unless you think the B10 would drop to 7 games. They’re also needed to maintain a high frequency of play. No crossovers would mean playing 12 teams only once every 3 years.

            “By locking six games permanently, you give each team a more stable schedule”

            But that stability is exactly what you don’t want in a large conference. You want as much change as possible to rotate through teams faster.

            “and insure all significant rivalries are played yearly.”

            You also ensure several unnecessary “rivalries” are forced on everyone each year. Nobody in the B10 needs 6 locked opponents to maintain their rivalries.

            “Moreover, you enable six king-vs-king matchups every year.”

            E/W locks 3.75. Pods lock anywhere from 2.5-6. The kings don’t want to all play each other annually, and the other schools don’t really want that either since it would mean them playing OSU, MI, NE and PSU less often.

            Like

      • StevenD says:

        Brian is half right. When you have only three locked games, pods suck for my 16 chosen teams. However, when you have six locked games, pods work great!

        I intentionally chose Kansas and Virginia because they are awkward additions. As Brian pointed out, with just three locked games, pods are inferior to divisions. That’s why I am locking three crossovers to produce six locked games.

        Six locked games enables every significant rivalry game to be played every year. Moreover, it produces six king-vs-king games every year.

        Like

        • StevenD says:

          For those of you who like details, here is my suggested structure for 16 teams with Kansas & Virginia. I have also looked at variations for Virginia & Georgia Tech, Virginia & Notre Dame, and Kansas & Missouri. They all work great.

          Nebr – OSU – Mic – PSU
          Kans – Pur – Ind – Virginia
          Iowa – Wis – Min – Rutgers
          Nort – Ill – MSU – Maryland

          Every team is locked to its three horizonal and three vertical neighbors. This provides six king-vs-king games, gives the two new teams annual games with historic rivals, and enables the following trophies to be contested every year:
          Land of Lincoln
          Illibuck
          Purdue Cannon
          Old Brass Spittoon
          Old Oaken Bucket
          Floyd of Rosedale
          Heroes Trophy
          Heartland Trophy
          Paul Bunyan Trophy
          Little Brown Jug
          Paul Bunyan’s Axe

          Like

          • Brian says:

            All 4 kings would complain about the SOS gap. WI and MN would complain about missing NE so often. KU and UVA would complain about playing each other annually. RU would complain about playing the triangle of hate, and those 3 would complain about playing RU.

            I don’t see how that plan works great.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Brian thinks the kings are going to complain about playing other kings? I don’t see it. Nebraska played all the kings (plus all the princes) in 2011 and again in 2012. Did they complain? No they relished the challenge and finished the season 7-1.

            So which of the B1G kings is going to whimp out and complain about playing other kings?

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Brian thinks Kansas, Rutgers and Virginia are going to complain about their schedule. Really? Rutgers is so pathetically grateful to be in the B1G, they won’t say a word. Ditto Kansas.

            And as for Virginia, they get annual games with their closest neighbours (except for OSU) so a flight to Kansas City every second year is no big deal.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @StevenD: Brian is right on all counts.

            In the first place, your premise fails because fans want to see standings. I oppose the NCAA’s current CCG rule as unnecessary, senseless, and anti-competitive. But as long as it remains the rule, fans are going to want to follow the standings of the two divisions.

            Nebraska’s AD did complain (mildly) about having to face all three kings their first two years. But at least that arrangement was not permanent: this year, they miss OSU in the regular season.

            Yes, I think Kansas and Rutgers would complain (and should complain) about having artificially-created annual “rivalries” at the opposite geographic end of the conference. But regardless of whether they’d complain, it’s simply a bad idea. Every game that you lock, is a game not available for that team to play other opponents. It therefore makes sense only to lock those games that make a modicum of geographic or historical sense.

            That’s exactly the approach the Big Ten took with the new divisions, starting next year: the only locked cross-divisional rivalry is the one that’s truly needed: IU-PU. There are others they could have locked, with varying degrees of justification, but they took a minimalist approach. They certainly couldn’t have come up with meaningful cross-division rival for every team; the rivalries just don’t exist.

            I also agree with Brian that if the next two teams are UVA and KU, the league will probably adopt the KISS principle, and just add those teams to the existing East-West divisions. The league was burned with the confusing Legends-Leaders split, which hardly anyone liked. They lucked out when the addition of Maryland and Rutgers gave them a free do-over. Simple is better.

            Mind you, there are expansion scenarios where East-West doesn’t work anymore. But if the two teams are UVA and KU, it still works perfectly, so I think that’s what they’d do.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “Nebraska played all the kings (plus all the princes) in 2011 and again in 2012. Did they complain?”

            Yes, they did. Their fans called it hazing but accepted it as the price they had to pay to join the B10. Accepting it for 2 years is very different from accepting it for the foreseeable future. They know that a schedule like that guarantees more losses and thus fewer division and conference titles and they’d complain.

            “So which of the B1G kings is going to whimp out and complain about playing other kings?”

            All of them.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “Brian thinks Kansas, Rutgers and Virginia are going to complain about their schedule. Really? Rutgers is so pathetically grateful to be in the B1G, they won’t say a word. Ditto Kansas.

            And as for Virginia, they get annual games with their closest neighbours (except for OSU) so a flight to Kansas City every second year is no big deal.”

            Yeah, and nobody would complain about Inner/Outer either, right? After all, they all got to play their neighbors in that scheme.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “@StevenD: Brian is right on all counts.”

            Thank you.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Marc thinks that the addition of Kansas and Virginia would make it simple for KISS divisions to continue. He is wrong.

            KISS puts Kansas in the west and Virginia in the east. That means the divisions continue to be split between Indiana and Purdue.

            So which is it, Marc? Do Indiana and Purdue play once every four years? Or do they play every year, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams?

            Adding one team in the west (Kansas) and one team in the east (Virginia) causes this awful problem for Purdue-Indiana. However, if you add two teams in the east (Virginia, Georgia Tech) or two teams in the West (Kansas, Missouri), Purdue and Indiana are reunited in one division and the problem disappears.

            So, if the B1G adds a pair in the east or a pair in the west, it will probably continue with the KISS divisions. But it is much less likely to do this with a Kansas-Virginia add.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            KISS puts Kansas in the west and Virginia in the east. That means the divisions continue to be split between Indiana and Purdue.

            So which is it, Marc? Do Indiana and Purdue play once every four years? Or do they play every year, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams?

            Adding one team in the west (Kansas) and one team in the east (Virginia) causes this awful problem for Purdue-Indiana.

            The Big Ten already decided that it is willing to tolerate this “awful” problem, not because it is perfect, but because they felt that all other options were worse. My guess is, yeah, the Indiana schools will continue play annually, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams. That’s the “least bad” option.

            The alternative you’ve suggested is considerably more complicated, and they’re not going to do that just to even out the two Indiana schools’ schedule rotation. There’s got to be a proportionality between the complexity of the solution, and the severity of the problem you’re purportedly solving. That’s what’s lacking here.

            However, if you add two teams in the east (Virginia, Georgia Tech) or two teams in the West (Kansas, Missouri), Purdue and Indiana are reunited in one division and the problem disappears.

            Correct. Of course, with realignment now apparently off the table for the next decade or more, a lot could change between now and the next time the Big Ten has to consider this question. When we first started discussing these scheduling options on this blog, a lot of us thought that further expansion was imminent. Now, it doesn’t appear to be. These imaginary divisions are like a stovepipe league, something that has very little chance of occurring anytime soon.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “Marc thinks that the addition of Kansas and Virginia would make it simple for KISS divisions to continue. He is wrong.”

            No, he isn’t. It’s the natural continuation from the 14 team alignment. It’s very simple to do it.

            “KISS puts Kansas in the west and Virginia in the east. That means the divisions continue to be split between Indiana and Purdue.”

            Yes. I’m still waiting to hear what’s difficult about it.

            “So which is it, Marc? Do Indiana and Purdue play once every four years? Or do they play every year, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams?”

            That’s not a difficulty, it’s a downside. Every system has downsides. Yours confuses fans and forces fake rivalries.

            There are many choices:

            1. Lock IN/PU and leave them with 1 rotating game. They could schedule other B10 teams OOC to maintain frequency of play if they wanted.

            2. Don’t lock IN/PU and have an equal rotation of 25%. They could schedule the game OOC in the years it isn’t played.

            3. Go to 10 games and lock IN/PU.

            4. Use pods.

            5. Change the NCAA rule so that divisions aren’t necessary.

            “Adding one team in the west (Kansas) and one team in the east (Virginia) causes this awful problem for Purdue-Indiana. However, if you add two teams in the east (Virginia, Georgia Tech) or two teams in the West (Kansas, Missouri), Purdue and Indiana are reunited in one division and the problem disappears.”

            Which sounds like a reason not to add UVA and KU, not a reason to use double secret scheduling systems.

            “So, if the B1G adds a pair in the east or a pair in the west, it will probably continue with the KISS divisions. But it is much less likely to do this with a Kansas-Virginia add.”

            According to you. Do you have any corroboration for your opinion? Do others agree with you?

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Marc says: “The alternative you’ve suggested is considerably more complicated, and they’re not going to do that just to even out the two Indiana schools’ schedule rotation.”

            The alternative is not considerably more complicated. Every team has six fixed opponents (just like now). Every team has three games that rotate (just like now). What’s complicated about that?

            My alternative doesn’t just fix the Indiana-Purdue problem. It also restores the Illibuck and the Little Brown Jug as annual contests, and it enables six king-vs-king games every year.

            I don’t see the problem with all the kings playing each other every year. The fans and the TV people will love the matchups, and the kings will benefit from tough conference games as preparation for a tough post-season.

            As long as all the kings face the same tough matches, there should be no problem. The only complaint Nebraska had (and it was a muted one) about playing all the kings last year was that the other kings did not face the same competition.

            In my proposal all the kings play all the other kings so it is a level playing field. No problem.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “The alternative is not considerably more complicated. Every team has six fixed opponents (just like now). Every team has three games that rotate (just like now). What’s complicated about that?”

            Pods are more complicated than divisions. Adding lots of locked games between pods is more complicated than having no locked games.

            “It also restores the Illibuck and the Little Brown Jug as annual contests,”

            I’m a staunch traditionalist, but even I will admit few fans really care about those games anymore. Besides, you conveniently skip over all the non-rivalry games you also locked that reduce frequency of play.

            “I don’t see the problem with all the kings playing each other every year.”

            Willful blindness doesn’t make a problem disappear.

            “The fans and the TV people will love the matchups,”

            Some fans will. Others will hate all the extra losses that cost their team division and conference titles.

            “and the kings will benefit from tough conference games as preparation for a tough post-season.”

            Tough games can prepare a team, but they also hurt the W/L record. More losses means fewer CFP/BCS appearances. That’s not a benefit.

            “As long as all the kings face the same tough matches, there should be no problem.”

            Right, NE will be fine with WI playing PU, IL, MN and RU annually while NE plays MI, PSU, NW and KU and they compete for titles and bowls. What possible complaint could NE have?

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Brian does not understand my proposal (or he is intentionally misrepresenting it). I am proposing that NE play three kings every year, and Wisconsin play two kings every year.

            This is no different than 2011 and 2012, when NE played three kings and Wisconsin played two.

            Just to be clear, my proposal does the following:
            (1) Every king plays 3 kings annually
            (2) Every non-king plays 2 kings annually
            (3) Every team is played triennially (minimum)
            (4) All significant rivalries play annually
            (5) CCG (it complies with current NCCA regs)

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Brian does not understand my proposal (or he is intentionally misrepresenting it). I am proposing that NE play three kings every year, and Wisconsin play two kings every year.

            This is no different than 2011 and 2012, when NE played three kings and Wisconsin played two.

            Brian understands it perfectly, as far as I can tell. There is a difference between locking a particular scheduling inequity permanently, and an inequity that happens to have existed for two years, before rotating off.

            The other problems with your proposal are there wouldn’t be published division standings, and you’re locking rivalries that no one wants.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Marc says: “The other problems with your proposal are there wouldn’t be published division standings, and you’re locking rivalries that no one wants.

            First, if they want to publish division standings, that’s fine by me. The only reason I suggested that they not be published was to avoid confusion.

            Second, my proposal does not lock rivalries that no one wants. It merely gives each team six permanent games.

            In the new B1G schedule (starting in 2014), Nebraska will have a permanent game with Purdue. Are you saying Nebraska-Purdue is a locked rivalry that nobody wants?

            When you give a team six permanent games, some of them are bound to be less exciting than others. That’s what happens with the current B1G schedule, and my proposal is no different.

            The important thing about my proposal is that it provides more king-vs-king matchups and enables more trophy games (like the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck) to be played annually.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            First, if they want to publish division standings, that’s fine by me. The only reason I suggested that they not be published was to avoid confusion.

            Standings aren’t exactly a minor matter: if you can’t clearly show which teams are leading in the race to the CCG, then you’ve failed.

            Second, my proposal does not lock rivalries that no one wants. It merely gives each team six permanent games.

            Many of the games you’ve chosen are games no school would seek. Surely you are able to see that.

            In the new B1G schedule (starting in 2014), Nebraska will have a permanent game with Purdue. Are you saying Nebraska-Purdue is a locked rivalry that nobody wants?

            Nebraska–Purdue is a rivalry that no one particularly wants. But organizing into geographic divisions is a pretty normal system in sports. In any division set-up, inevitably some rivalries are more important than others. People don’t mind, as long as the divisions themselves make sense. That’s why East–West works, but Legends–Leaders didn’t. Once you have no divisions at all, the exact purpose of locking non-existent rivalries eludes me. Lock what needs locking, and no more.

            The important thing about my proposal is that it provides more king-vs-king matchups and enables more trophy games (like the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck) to be played annually.

            The league does not seem to want to lock all the king/king games permanently. Personally, I’d favor a system that allows LBJ and Illibuck to be played more often. But the cure can’t be worse than the disease.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “First, if they want to publish division standings, that’s fine by me. The only reason I suggested that they not be published was to avoid confusion.”

            How would that avoid confusion? If anything, it would increase the confusion for most fans.

            “Second, my proposal does not lock rivalries that no one wants. It merely gives each team six permanent games.”

            Do you really not understand that those two sentences contradict each other? People use the phrases “locked rivalries” and “permanent games” interchangeably. More importantly, you have 6 locked games when only 3 are mandatory and 4 would cover essentially every important rivalry.

            Let me quote your plan from above:

            “Nebr – OSU – Mic – PSU
            Kans – Pur – Ind – Virginia
            Iowa – Wis – Min – Rutgers
            Nort – Ill – MSU – Maryland”

            Why would you do that when you could do geographic pods and lock 1 extra game at most?

            W = NE, WI, IA, MN
            N = MI, MSU, NW, KU
            S = OSU, IL, PU, IN
            E = PSU, RU, UMD, UVA

            Locked (NW vs SE) – OSU/MI, IL/NW, (NE/PSU, IA/KU), [MN/PU, WI/RU, MSU/UMD, IN/UVA]
            Locked (NE vs SW) – OSU/MI, IL/NW, (NE/PSU, WI/MSU, IA/KU), [MN/RU, PU/UMD, IN/UVA]
            Locked (NS vs EW) – OSU/PSU, (NE/MI, WI/MSU, IA/KU), [MN/IL, NW/RU, PU/UMD, IN/UVA]

            () – nice but not necessary
            [] – can mix and match

            Marc would say to lock only those that are necessary, but I’d expect at least 3 games under each scenario to be deemed too important to lose (OSU/MI, IL/NW & NE/PSU or OSU/PSU, NE/MI & WI/MSU) with a 4th being logical (IA/KU for regional play to help the newbie). At that point the B10 would have to decide whether to expand that to everyone or stop at 4.

            That all assumes equal rotation, though. I’d personally never pair EW vs NS for travel reasons. That reduces the problem as the obvious locked games are OSU/MI, IL/NW, NE/PSU and IA/KU, with no obvious choices for the others. My guesses are MN/PU, WI/RU, MSU/UMD and IN/UVA since that brings the bigger brands into NYC and DC, limits travel by putting MN with PU and pairs two soccer schools. I’m not sure the B10 would consider those worth locking, but they might for the DC and NYC markets.

            Schedule:
            4 x 100% + 8 x 50% + 3 x 33% (OSU, MI, IL, NW, NE, PSU) or
            4 x 100% + 7 x 50% + 4 x 38% (IA, KU) or
            3 x 100% + 12 x 50% (those without a locked game)

            That’s 3-4 locked games per team with few rivalries lost and 4 king/king games every year. More importantly travel is reduced as local teams play each other more. That’s good for players and fans. That seems like a much better compromise than your system to me. Obviously you disagree.

            But when looking at it, I think the B10 would clearly choose divisions. The E/W solution is too easy and obvious.

            “In the new B1G schedule (starting in 2014), Nebraska will have a permanent game with Purdue. Are you saying Nebraska-Purdue is a locked rivalry that nobody wants?”

            Yes.

            “When you give a team six permanent games, some of them are bound to be less exciting than others. That’s what happens with the current B1G schedule, and my proposal is no different.”

            Except that your 6 make less sense than the 2014 6 do. The whole point of pods is too avoid all the locked games that divisions require. If you’re going to lock 6 games anyway, you lose that advantage.

            “The important thing about my proposal is that it provides more king-vs-king matchups and enables more trophy games (like the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck) to be played annually.”

            You are making way too much out of the king/king games and minor rivalries while ignoring all the downsides. The B10 chose geographic divisions specifically to get the 3 eastern kings into the new markets as often as possible and reduce travel overall. Your system completely changes that which seems unrealistic for additions like UVA and KU.

            Like

  56. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9430582/michigan-sets-dynamic-ticket-prices-based-supply

    MI is going to start using dynamic pricing for single-game tickets.

    Opponent – season ticket price – initial single game price (end zone)
    CMU – $65 – $70
    ND – $65 – $195
    Akron – $65 – $65
    MN – $65 – $85
    IN – $65 – $85
    NE – $65 – $110
    OSU – $65 – $175

    Like

    • Mark says:

      I think this is a big improvement. It allows folks who just want to see UMich play be able to buy a cheaper ticket for Akron from UMich, avoiding the need to deal with a scalper or Stubhub and will probably allow UMich to sell more Akron tickets. I expect the Indiana prices to fall close to Akron level. I assume the OSU price is influenced by the date – weather will certainly be nicer for the ND game.

      Like

      • frug says:

        I suspect the ND is price is because it is the last game in the series that will be played in the Big House

        Like

        • Brian says:

          That and MI’s dreams can’t be ruined before the ND game. By the end of the season, enthusiasm might be a touch lower depending on how things go.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            That and MI’s dreams can’t be ruined before the ND game. By the end of the season, enthusiasm might be a touch lower depending on how things go.

            True, but Michigan routinely sells out practically every game before any of that is known. Fans will buy Nebraska and Ohio State tickets well in advance, based on the premise that those are important games — whether or not that turns out to be true.

            Anyhow, I am pretty sure that neither Michigan nor OSU has any trouble getting fans interested in The Game, even if one of the teams is having a down year. The Nebraska game could certainly be a letdown if Michigan is already out of the division race by then.

            There are a lot of reasons people will get excited about ND: last game in the series (at least for now), the only home night game of the year, ESPN Game Day likely in attendance, and the way the last one turned out. Still, I am a bit surprised that tickets for OSU are lower. I think they could charge double for that game, and still sell out.

            In case anyone is wondering, student season tickets are $40 a game.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Well, it is only the starting point. The more interesting numbers will probably be the final prices.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            yes, I am outraged … yes, outraged !!! … that the ND ticket price is higher than the ticket price for The Game. LOL Actually, I agree with others. Both MI and tOSU could charge double for The Game and still sell it out. There would be a mighty howl of outrage, but in the end, the stadiums would be full.

            Like

      • wmwolverine says:

        I don’t think the cheaper games will drop much if they do poorly, not much room for them to drop and the Big House is already close to 85% sold out. It’s the ‘major’ games that’ll be more volatile, those Nebraska & Ohio games could move up or down a good deal. Again, these are just general tickets which there aren’t a lot available at Michigan Stadium after season & student tickets.

        Like

    • wmwolverine says:

      Glad I have season tickets. PSL fees + season tickets aren’t looking like a bad way to go anymore.

      Like

  57. Brian says:

    http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2013/06/michigan_state_athletic_direct_6.html

    Mark Hollis predicts the B10 will stay at 14 schools for a while.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Agreed. Barring the unforeseen (e.g. ESPN reneging on its promise to create an ACC network), TV deals have things locked down for the next decade.

      Like

  58. Brian says:

    http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-06-27/big-ten-schedule-ranking-nonconference-ohio-state-michigan-wisconsin

    The B10 has the best OOC schedule of the big 5 this year.

    Games against BCS teams: Big Ten (38 percent); Pac-12 (30 percent); SEC (30 percent); ACC (29 percent); Big 12 (27 percent).

    Games against non-BCS teams: Pac-12 (46 percent); Big 12 (46 percent); SEC (45 percent); Big Ten (44 percent); ACC (42 percent).

    Games against FCS teams: ACC (29 percent); Big 12 (27 percent); SEC (25 percent); Pac-12 (24 percent); Big Ten (18 percent).

    Duffman, do you want to warm up your anti-B12 rant?

    Like

    • frug says:

      It’s always interesting to me that the ACC manages to play the lowest % of games against non-AQ’s but the highest % against FCS.

      Also, the Big XII doesn’t really look that bad. They are only very slightly “worse” than average in all three metrics. They probably have the weakest OOC SOS, but (at least on paper) the ACC, SEC, PAC and Big XII are so tightly packed together the difference is pretty negligible.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        It’s always interesting to me that the ACC manages to play the lowest % of games against non-AQ’s but the highest % against FCS.

        Wake and Duke love their VMI, Richmond, Elon and Liberty.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Well if one school has an ooc of Washington St., Duke and Idaho St., just because its 2 BCS schools doesn’t mean its better than someone playing Boise St., BYU and Appalachian St.

      Without looking at the specific teams, it all looks pretty close. Which means the Big 12 and Pac 12 have the toughest overall since they play 9 conference games. If you factor that extra conference game in to compare, the Big 12 would comparatively be at 45% BCS and 20% FCS while the Pac 12 would be at 47% BCS and 18% FCS.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        If you calculate over the full 12 game schedule its:
        Pac 12 BCS 82.5%, FCS 6.0%
        Big 12 BCS 81.8% FCS 6.7%
        Big 10 BCS 79.3% FCS 6.0%
        SEC BCS 76.7% FCS 8.3%
        ACC BCS 76.3% FCS 9.7%

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Since when has duffman ever considered that 9th game when discussing this topic?

        Like

    • duffman says:

      Here is the one for the B12

      http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-06-24/big-12-ranking-nonconference-schedule-bcs-games-oklahoma-texas

      Big 5 OOC games in BOLD

      According to the article here is how they rank :

      First to worst

      1. Oklahoma: Louisiana-Monroe, Tulsa, @ Notre Dame
      2. Texas: New Mexico State, @ BYU, Ole Miss
      3. TCU: LSU (Jerryworld), Southeast Louisiana, SMU
      4. Iowa State: Northern Iowa, Iowa, @ Tulsa
      5. Oklahoma State: Mississippi State (Reliant), @ UT-SA, Lamar
      6. West Virginia: William & Mary, Georgia State, @ Maryland
      7. Kansas: South Dakota, @ Rice, Louisiana Tech
      8. Texas Tech: @ SMU, Stephen F. Austin, Texas State
      9. Baylor: Wofford, Buffalo, Louisiana-Monroe
      10. Kansas State: North Dakota State, Louisiana-Lafayette, UMass

      (3) SEC games – LSU biggest of 3
      (1) B1G game – rival game with Iowa State
      (1) ACC game – scheduled when WVU was in the Big East
      (1) IND game – Irish fit the ACC tho
      (0) PAC game – even tho such a game makes the most sense

      00% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
      60% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
      40% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams

      .

      .

      now here is the PAC (who also plays 9 conference games)

      First to worst

      1. Arizona State: Sacramento State, Wisconsin, Notre Dame (JerryWorld)
      2. California: Northwestern, Portland State, Ohio State
      3. UCLA: Nevada, @ Nebraska, New Mexico State
      4. Stanford: San Jose State, Army, Notre Dame
      5. USC: @ Hawaii, Boston College, Utah State, @ Notre Dame
      6. Oregon: Nicholls State, @ Virginia, Tennessee
      7. Washington: Boise State, @ Illinois, Idaho State
      8. Utah: Utah State, Weber State, @ BYU
      9. Colorado: Colorado State (Denver), Central Arkansas, @ Fresno State
      10. Oregon State: Eastern Washington, Hawaii, @ San Diego State
      11. Washington State: @ Auburn, Southern Utah, Idaho
      12. Arizona: Northern Arizona, @ UNLV, @ UT – SA

      (5) B1G game – against better B1G teams
      (2) SEC games – Scheduled when Auburn and Tennessee were up
      (2) ACC games – granted not the toughest of ACC schools
      (3) IND games – @ CA schools and a AZ school
      (0) B12 games – even tho such a game makes the most sense

      33.33% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
      33.33% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
      33.33% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams

      The PAC average 1 Big 5 game for every school
      The B12 averages about 1/2 Big 5 game for every school

      I still stand by that the B12 is lame when scheduling OOC especially when two of the Big 5 games were scheduled before TCU and WVU moved or it would be be even uglier.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I still stand by the Big 10 and SEC schedules being lame as well. The Pac 12 is not and typically is not as I have said before.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          bullet,

          To be fair I have always given Oklahoma credit for scheduling well but they are more outlier than conference average.

          Here is the B1G using the same as above :

          From first to worst

          1. Purdue: @ Cincinnati, Indiana State, Notre Dame, N Illinois
          2. Michigan St: W Michigan, USF, Youngstown St, @ Notre Dame
          3. Michigan: C Michigan, Notre Dame, Akron, @ UConn
          4. Nebraska: Wyoming, Southern Miss, UCLA, San Jose State
          5. Wisconsin: UMass, Tennessee Tech, @ Arizona St, BYU
          6. Illinois: Southern Illinois, Cincinnati, Washington, Miami (OH)
          7. Northwestern: @ California, Syracuse, W Michigan, Maine
          8. Penn State: Syracuse (Meadowlands), E Michigan, UCF, Kent State
          9. Iowa: N Illinois, Missouri St, @ Iowa State, W Michigan
          10. Ohio State: Buffalo, San Diego State, @ California, Florida A&M
          11. Indiana: Indiana State, Navy, Bowling Green, Missouri
          12. Minnesota: UNLV, @ New Mexico S, W Illinois, San Jose State

          (5) PAC games
          (3) IND games
          (2) ACC games
          (1) SEC game
          (1) B12 game

          .

          .

          here is the comparison between the B1G and the B12

          B1G
          8.33% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
          83.34% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
          8.33% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams

          B12
          00% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
          60% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
          40% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams

          Again the B1G averages 1 Big 5 OOC game per conference member while the B12 averages about half of that.
          Looks to me like the B1G is tougher than the B12 OOC again this year!

          Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “here is the comparison between the B1G and the B12

            B1G
            8.33% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
            83.34% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
            8.33% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams

            B12
            00% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
            60% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
            40% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams

            Again the B1G averages 1 Big 5 OOC game per conference member while the B12 averages about half of that.
            Looks to me like the B1G is tougher than the B12 OOC again this year!”

            And like always, you neglect the fact that the B12 plays a 9th B12 game. That means 2 things:

            1. Each B12 team starts with 9 Big 5 games. That means they average 9.5 Big 5 games this year while the B10 averages only 9.0.

            2. Each B12 team only has 3 OOC games and they all need at least 2 at home with 5 of them needing 3 at home. Magically that math works out to half the B12 playing 1 Big 5 team OOC (the half with 5 home games in conference).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Big 10 and Big 12 ooc looking at actual games both look pretty bad this year. I think the Big 10’s is even worse than last year’s. The Big 12 looks slightly better than last year’s.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            It really hurts the B10 that Cal is so down from where they were when OSU scheduled them. Also, Vanderbilt bailed out of their games with OSU (SDSU replaced them) and NW.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian, This is why I did the head to head between the PAC and the B12 because both played the 9 game schedule. Clearly the PAC dominates the B12 in their OOC. I know you keep making a big deal about the 9th game in the B12 but as stated before, 4 of the top 6 all time winners in the B12 left leaving just 2 and 6 bottom feeders. Think if the B1G kept their top 2 all time winners but lost the 4 right below them how differently we would view the B1G :

            All time via wik for 12 team B1G (before Maryland and Rutgers) :

            1 Michigan .735
            2 Ohio State .713
            3 Nebraska .704
            4 Penn State .658
            5 Michigan State .592
            6 Minnesota .571
            7 Wisconsin .571
            8 Purdue .534
            9 Iowa .531
            10 Illinois .520
            11 Northwestern .439
            12 Indiana .419

            Now remove #3, #4, #5, and #6 (similar to the B12 losing theirs)

            1 Michigan .735
            2 Ohio State .713
            7 Wisconsin .571
            8 Purdue .534
            9 Iowa .531
            10 Illinois .520
            11 Northwestern .439
            12 Indiana .419

            Now add back Maryland and Rutgers for a 10 team B1G

            1 Michigan .735
            2 Ohio State .713
            3 Wisconsin .571
            4 Purdue .534
            5 Iowa .531
            6 Maryland .525
            7 Illinois .520
            8 Rutgers .508
            9 Northwestern .439
            10 Indiana .419

            You can not tell me with a straight face the sports talking heads would be saying how the B1G got tougher after such a realignment! I firmly believe over time more folks will wake up that the B12 is no longer as strong as it was and they will be the next conference to fall in 10 – 20 years. Without Texas and Oklahoma how many of the 8 remaining teams have a MNC after say WW II? How many have a MNC since the Supreme Court case in the late 70’s?

            Here is the B1G claims by school :
            (6 / 1) Ohio State : 1954, 1957, 1961, 1968, 1970, 2002
            (6 / 0) Michigan State : 1951, 1952, 1955, 1957, 1965, 1966
            (5 / 3) Nebraska : 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997
            (3 / 1) Michigan : 1947, 1948, 1997
            (2 / 2) Penn State : 1982, 1986
            (1 / 0) Minnesota : 1960
            (1 / 0) Iowa : 1958
            (1 / 0) Illinois : 1951
            (35 / 7) from 8 of 12 members = 66.7% of conference has at least 1 MNC

            Here is the B1G claims by school :
            (7 / 2) Ohio State : 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000
            (4 / 1) Texas : 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005
            (11 / 3) from 2 of 10 members = 20.0% of conference has at least 1 MNC

            If the rest of the remaining B12 was this great football conference then why do the remaining 8 teams have not 1 MNC between themselves to show for it? If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less? It was the teams that left (Nebraska and Colorado) that had the MNC’s not the teams that stayed or the replacements.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Edit that last part as I flipped B1G for B12 and Ohio State for Oklahoma
            (here is how it should have read)

            Here is the B12 claims by school :
            (7 / 2) Oklahoma : 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000
            (4 / 1) Texas : 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005
            (11 / 3) from 2 of 10 members = 20.0% of conference has at least 1 MNC

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “Brian, This is why I did the head to head between the PAC and the B12 because both played the 9 game schedule. Clearly the PAC dominates the B12 in their OOC.”

            Everyone already knows that the P12 always has the toughest OOC schedule. It’s the only way they can draw fans. But you also criticize the B12 in comparison to the other leagues that play 8, and we’re pointing out how silly that is considering you intentionally ignore the 1 extra AQ game built into their schedule.

            “I know you keep making a big deal about the 9th game in the B12″

            It’s as big a game as any AQ game. If playing IN and IL and MN and PU all count, then so does playing a B12 team.

            “but as stated before, 4 of the top 6 all time winners in the B12 left leaving just 2 and 6 bottom feeders.”

            Nobody but you cares. They still play 9 AQ teams in conference.

            TCU has more wins (#41 all time) and a higher W% than IA, PU, IL, NW and IN. WV is #14 in total wins, putting them above MN, MSU, WI and all those behind TCU. WV is equivalent to TAMU in terms of wins and W%. TCU is equivalent to MO. Is the B12 worse for also losing CO and NE? Of course it is. But that doesn’t make them bad, just worse than they used to be.

            “Think if the B1G kept their top 2 all time winners but lost the 4 right below them how differently we would view the B1G :”

            By wins, that would mean losing OSU, PSU, MN and MSU. But to make more sense, replace OSU with NE. That would be the old B10 minus MN and MSU. But then add TCU and WV. TCU is a downgrade from MN, but not a huge one. WV would be at least as big an improvement over MSU, though. Net result is essentially the old B10. I’d consider a 9 game schedule in the old B10 as reasonably difficult.

            By W%, it would be losing NE, PSU, MSU and WI. Again, WV and TCU make a roughly fair trade and we end up with an old B10 equivalent.

            “Now add back Maryland and Rutgers for a 10 team B1G”

            But the B12 didn’t add UMD and RU. They added WV and TCU. Both of those programs are much better than either UMD or RU.

            “You can not tell me with a straight face the sports talking heads would be saying how the B1G got tougher after such a realignment!”

            Nice straw man. Show me one time anybody here has ever argued that the B12 got tougher via expansion. Go on, I’ll wait.

            As for the NC stuff, so what? Is a team worthless if it finishes #2 (TCU in 2010)? WV has had top 5 finishes. Is MN a better program for having a 50+ year old title?

            “If the rest of the remaining B12 was this great football conference then why do the remaining 8 teams have not 1 MNC between themselves to show for it?”

            TCU won it in 1938.

            “If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less?”

            Because most are located in small cities and/or sparsely populated states (ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU, WV)? Because 2 of them are smaller and private? Because another is located in the middle of nowhere in a big state? 5 B10 stadiums seat 62.5k or less and we’re about to add 2 more.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Brian,

            TCU has more wins (#41 all time) and a higher W% than IA, PU, IL, NW and IN. WV is #14 in total wins, putting them above MN, MSU, WI and all those behind TCU. WV is equivalent to TAMU in terms of wins and W%. TCU is equivalent to MO. Is the B12 worse for also losing CO and NE? Of course it is. But that doesn’t make them bad, just worse than they used to be.

            Wow, at least you are finally stating they are not as good as they were. Far different from your stance in the past when you have argued they experienced no drop off losing 4 of their 6 teams in the old Big 12 and replacing them with TCU and WVU as better. I have never said Oklahoma was bad and always give them props for tough schedules. My argument is has been and continues to be that the Big 12 of old is not the Big 12 of today. They are no longer a market leader but a market laggard. Sure Texas and Oklahoma will survive but WVU < TAMU and TCU < MU so the quality will drop accordingly. Look at the numbers :

            TAMU = 53 K students, 83 K seats*, SWC / B12 / SEC, and #2 in #2
            WVU = 30 K students, 60 K seats, IND / SoCo / BE, and #1 in #38
            *TAMU is building a new 1/2 billion stadium that will seat over 100K

            MU = 35 K students, 71 K seats*, B 8 / B12 / SEC, and #1 in #18
            TCU = 10 K students, 45 K seats, WAC / CUSA / MWC, and #5/6 in #2
            *MU is expanding to 77K or 80K seats currently

            So TAMU and MU were playing power conference schedules most of their history while WVU and TCU were not. TCU and WVU may have more actual wins but they should because they were not playing Oklahoma + Nebraska + Texas every season. TCU went from 11-2 to 7-6 their first season in the B12. West Virginia went from 10-3 to 7-6 their first season in the B12. It is even more telling in conference play :

            TCU 2011 went 7-0 in conference
            TCU 2012 went 4-5 in conference

            WVU 2011 went 5-2 in conference
            WVU 2012 went 4-5 in conference

            Further indicating the high win numbers were inflated by playing in weaker conferences.

            pre realignment the Big 12 was probably #2
            #1 SEC
            #2 B12
            #3 B1G
            #4 PAC
            #5 ACC

            post realignment the B12 looks more like this
            #1 SEC
            #2 PAC – should at least be #2 or #3 long term
            #3 B1G – down right now but should move to #2 or #1 in next decade
            #4 B12 – could easily fall to 5th place in next decade
            #4 ACC – could move ahead of Big 12 in next decade

            Once realignment is complete the ACC should pass the Big 12, leaving the B12 in last place. that is a pretty big fall in just a few years.

            My main point in all of this is that the B12 will have to go out of their way in the future to schedule better OOC games because they will be seen as another ACC in terms of deadweight football teams once you get past Texas and Oklahoma. I also like how you still avoid the fact that 40% of the Big 12 fails to schedule even (1) Big 5 OOC game.

            .

            .

            Nice straw man. Show me one time anybody here has ever argued that the B12 got tougher via expansion. Go on, I’ll wait.

            As for the NC stuff, so what? Is a team worthless if it finishes #2 (TCU in 2010)? WV has had top 5 finishes. Is MN a better program for having a 50+ year old title?

            Brian, you state this and then this is your very next reply!

            TCU won it in 1938.

            At least I divided it to post WWII titles and post 1970’s titles! I could have added all the Michigan and Minnesota titles if I really was playing your “creative” accounting game.

            .

            .

            Duffman : “If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less?”

            Brian : Because most are located in small cities and/or sparsely populated states (ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU, WV)? Because 2 of them are smaller and private? Because another is located in the middle of nowhere in a big state? 5 B10 stadiums seat 62.5k or less and we’re about to add 2 more.

            Brian, Nebraska says hello
            States by population and schools stadium size
            # 2 TX : UT = 100K / TCU = 45 K
            #18 MO : MU = 71 K
            #22 CO : CU = 54 K
            #28 OK : OU = 82 K / OSU = 60K
            #30 IA : Iowa = 71 K / ISU = 45K (seats) + 10K (hilltop)
            #33 KS : KU = 50 K / KSU = 50 K
            #34 UT : Utah = 45 K
            #37 NE : UNL = 87 K and could increase to 93 K in the near future
            #38 WV : WVU = 60 K

            Brian, it is about winning. Nebraska wins and they have a big stadium for a small state. West Virginia wins but not at the same level as Nebraska so they have about 30,000 fewer seats to sell. This is not hard to comprehend. long term Nebraska will be better served playing in a conference where more teams are MNC contenders. Long term WVU and TCU will benefit less playing in a conference with only 2 MNC contenders. Heck, Alabama is not a huge state but that does not stop them from having (2) programs in the state with stadiums in the 100K range. Why does Auburn have almost 30,000 seats more than West Virginia and they have to play second fiddle to Alabama while WVU has the whole state to itself?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            My argument is has been and continues to be that the Big 12 of old is not the Big 12 of today. They are no longer a market leader but a market laggard. Sure Texas and Oklahoma will survive but WVU < TAMU and TCU < MU so the quality will drop accordingly.

            The Big XII was never a market leader. I mean, why did they lose the schools they did? It’s because they were already in a position of weakness, and the schools with better options moved on.

            Once realignment is complete the ACC should pass the Big 12, leaving the B12 in last place. that is a pretty big fall in just a few years.

            It’s not a big fall, because the Big XII was in fourth place to begin with, and they still are. Will the ACC surpass them? It’s not so clear. Football continues to be the most lucrative revenue sport, and the ACC’s best football programs aren’t as good as Texas and Oklahoma.

            On top of that, four of the ACC’s better football programs (VT, GT, FSU, Miami) have weak historical ties to the league. Once the GoR expires, there is nothing preventing the last three on that list from accepting better offers. If Virginia eventually goes to the Big Ten, VT would be in the same boat. In contrast, UT and Oklahoma are tied to in-state schools that they can’t easily abandon.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “Wow, at least you are finally stating they are not as good as they were. Far different from your stance in the past when you have argued they experienced no drop off losing 4 of their 6 teams in the old Big 12 and replacing them with TCU and WVU as better.”

            No, I said previously that their average was unchanged from before. Clearly their history dropped as NE and CO left, but CO is so bad right now that they and NE cancel out.

            “My argument is has been and continues to be that the Big 12 of old is not the Big 12 of today.”

            They’ve still been clearly better than the ACC, BE and B10 lately.

            “They are no longer a market leader but a market laggard.”

            Wrong on both counts. That lost teams in part because they weren’t a market leader. And on the field, they’re still in the elite because up and comers have provided quality depth since NE and CO left.

            “Sure Texas and Oklahoma will survive but WVU < TAMU and TCU < MU so the quality will drop accordingly. Look at the numbers :"

            I'm sorry, I thought football was about winning, not a facilities and student body size competition.

            "So TAMU and MU were playing power conference schedules most of their history while WVU and TCU were not."

            So all those Big 8 powerhouses count for MO but the SWC is meaningless for TCU? What about WV's long independence playing Pitt, Syracuse and PSU (their 3 most frequent opponents, all with a strong FB history)?

            "TCU and WVU may have more actual wins but they should because they were not playing Oklahoma + Nebraska + Texas every season."

            Neither was anyone else. They didn't join the same conference until 1996 and NE was in a different division.

            "TCU went from 11-2 to 7-6 their first season in the B12."

            Losing a lot of starters might have been a small factor in that, too.

            "pre realignment the Big 12 was probably #2"

            Reasonable.

            "post realignment the B12 looks more like this
            #1 SEC
            #2 PAC – should at least be #2 or #3 long term
            #3 B1G – down right now but should move to #2 or #1 in next decade
            #4 B12 – could easily fall to 5th place in next decade
            #4 ACC – could move ahead of Big 12 in next decade"

            Completely disagree.

            1. SEC
            2. B10, P12, B12
            5. ACC

            There is no evidence that the B10, B12 and P12 will settle into clear positions. The B10 has been the worst of the 3 on the field lately but seems to be bouncing back. OR and Stanford have been at all time highs and it seems unlikely that they both stay there. OU and UT have been down and are likely to bounce back. The ACC could easily join that group, too, but they've been down for a while so I left them separate.

            "Once realignment is complete the ACC should pass the Big 12, leaving the B12 in last place. that is a pretty big fall in just a few years."

            I fail to see Pitt and Syracuse boosting the ACC in football. Will playing ND? Maybe.

            "My main point in all of this is that the B12 will have to go out of their way in the future to schedule better OOC games because they will be seen as another ACC in terms of deadweight football teams once you get past Texas and Oklahoma."

            In the past 3 years:
            KSU was #1 and was above OU and UT
            OkSU was #2 and was above OU and UT
            TCU was #2 and was above OU and UT

            WV was in the top 5 for most of 2007. Baylor has been respectable and just had a Heisman winner. That's 5 other schools to go with OU and UT. How many of the AQ conferences can claim that 60% of their conference was in the top 5 in the past 6 seasons?

            "I also like how you still avoid the fact that 40% of the Big 12 fails to schedule even (1) Big 5 OOC game."

            I don't avoid it, I just understand it. They already play 9 AQs. MN only plays 8 next year. 10 of the B10's 12 only play 9 total. Only NW plays 10 which is what you're expecting of the B12. I'd say the B12 wins that comparison easily.

            "Brian, you state this and then this is your very next reply!

            TCU won it in 1938."

            Because you said nobody else had a mythical national title in the B12.

            "At least I divided it to post WWII titles and post 1970′s titles!"

            The AP poll started in 1936. What makes a 1947 title better than a 1938 one? Both are ancient history and from a game we'd barely recognize.

            Duffman : “If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less?”

            Brian : Because most are located in small cities and/or sparsely populated states (ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU, WV)? Because 2 of them are smaller and private? Because another is located in the middle of nowhere in a big state? 5 B10 stadiums seat 62.5k or less and we’re about to add 2 more.

            Brian, Nebraska says hello

            And OU ignores them. Of course a king has a bigger stadium. But you asked why the others don’t, so I told you.

            “Why does Auburn have almost 30,000 seats more than West Virginia and they have to play second fiddle to Alabama while WVU has the whole state to itself?”

            1. AL has more than 2.5 times the population of WV.
            2. The entire state of AL is obsessed with football.
            3. It’s harder to travel within WV than AL.
            4. AU has more living alumni than WV.

            Like

      • frug says:

        The PAC average 1 Big 5 game for every school
        The B12 averages about 1/2 Big 5 game for every school

        Yes, you showed that the PAC schedules tougher OOC than the PAC. Congratulations on proving something everyone already knows.

        two of the Big 5 games were scheduled before TCU and WVU moved or it would be be even uglier.

        So then are you going to the Big XII credit for the UNL-UCLA game since that was scheduled when Nebraska was still in the Big XII?

        Like

    • Eric says:

      To be fair to the Big 12, they do have 9 conference games (right now only matched by the PAC-12). While they might have fewer OOC games against BCS teams, they have more on their schedule thanks to the extra conference game.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I don’t have the energy to do this, but if you were going to be fair about it, I think that counting the number of Big Five OOC games is far too crude.

      That’s not only because some leagues have nine conference games, and others have eight. It’s