When it comes to conference realignment-related lawsuits, every school that has left a conference has attempted to claim that it owes nothing in exit fees. In turn, every conference has attempted to claim that the defecting school owes every single penny. Ultimately, though, it’s all a dance to get to a settlement (as is the case in 99% of all lawsuits as a general matter) and the parties invariably meet somewhere near the middle.
As a result, Maryland’s new counterclaim filed on Monday against the ACC (see the full complaint here) needs to be viewed through that prism. Maryland is now claiming that the ACC is liable for $157 million, which reflects treble damages for allegations of anti-competitive behavior (which we’ll get to in a moment). The ACC’s original claim states that Maryland owes the entire amount of the $52.2 million exit fee that the conference passed a couple of months prior to the Terps defecting (although Maryland and Florida State voted against it). The reality is that Maryland doesn’t truly believe that the ACC is going to pay $157 million and the ACC doesn’t truly believe that Maryland will pay the full $52.2 million exit fee. It’s just that they can’t say anything less along those lines in court or public or else they’ll lose a massive amount of leverage.
The headlines for the counterclaim focus on two tantalizing allegations that the ACC (1) attempted to recruit 2 Big Ten schools after Maryland announced that it was leaving and (2) received “counsel and direction from ESPN” on expansion targets. Now, my semi-educated guess is that these allegations are blowing some fairly mundane conversations out of proportion. Conferences are constantly recruiting schools, as the Big Ten has done quite a bit over the past several years. The word on the street is that Penn State was definitely one of the Big Ten schools that was contacted, while Northwestern appears to be the most likely other target. Note that Maryland stated that the ACC did not recruit any schools west of the Mississippi River (which was a distinction to bolster their argument that the “relevant market” that needs to shown in antitrust cases was as limited as possible and that the ACC had market power in such market), so it looks like the ACC didn’t want to go after Minnesota, Iowa or Nebraska. Regardless, the fact that representatives from Wake Forest and Pittsburgh* attempted to recruit Big Ten schools in and of itself doesn’t mean very much other than showing that there’s no limit to John Swofford’s hubris. Pitt’s president calling up Penn State’s president with a “Want to join the ACC, bro?” inquiry and quickly getting rebuffed is a recruitment on paper, but it never went anywhere. The real test is whether there was any evidence of reciprocal interest (i.e. the Big Ten entering into confidentiality agreements with multiple ACC schools besides Maryland in 2012) and Maryland didn’t present anything to that effect.
(* It’s not surprising that Wake Forest and Pitt were chosen as the schools to put out feelers because they are probably the last two schools from the ACC that would garner any interest from the Big Ten. Now, that doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with them, but rather they are the two schools that do the least to fill what the Big Ten specifically would be looking for in expansion. Wake is a small enrollment undergrad-focused private school that shares its state with 3 other schools with larger fan bases, while Pitt is the only ACC school that is located in a current Big Ten state and wouldn’t bring any new markets to the table. Everyone else in the ACC would bring in a new TV market and recruiting territory to the Big Ten at a minimum putting aside any academic and cultural fit issues.)
At the same time, ESPN’s “counsel and direction” isn’t unique to the ACC. While I have seen a number of people try to argue today that the ACC is an “ESPN property” while the Big Ten is a “Fox property”, this belies the fact that ESPN’s top college football package still consists of the Big Ten’s first tier rights, the Big Ten continues to receive more money from ESPN than the BTN even under an older pre-sports rights boom contract, and Disney will very likely be paying a monster amount (as in the largest contract in college sports history) to retain those rights sooner rather than later (which is a topic for another day). The reality is that ESPN is having these types of conversations with everyone. If the ACC lobs in a call to Bristol and asks whether they’d be willing to pay more if they added Penn State, they’re probably giving an honest affirmative answer. Likewise, if anyone thinks that Jim Delany and the Big Ten didn’t have the exact same conversations with ESPN about what they’d be getting if Maryland and Rutgers joined (the latter being the old Big East that had all of its rights owned by ESPN), then that’s a serious case of naivete. That doesn’t mean that ESPN is actually directing conference realignment decisions, although it highlights the substantial conflict of interest that ESPN has by having so many contracts with a multitude of competing parties.
Separately, it appears that the quote of former Boston College AD Gene DeFilippo in Boston Globe after the ACC added Syracuse and Pittsburgh, where he says, “We always keep our television partners close to us. You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV – ESPN – is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball,’’ will probably live on in infamy for the foreseeable future in conference realignment lawsuits. Granted, my belief is that the quote is taken a bit out of context where the emphasis that DeFilippo was likely trying to get across was that ESPN was telling conferences that football was worth more than basketball as a general matter as opposed to providing actual membership directions, but it shows that the public will pounce on any hint of meddling from Bristol because they want to believe that ESPN constitutes the Conference Realignment Illuminati behind every move.
For all of the lawsuits, mudslinging and public posturing, we’re probably going to see the ACC and Maryland end up splitting the baby in a settlement in relatively short order. Absolutely no one involved – Maryland, the ACC, the Big Ten, ESPN – wants anything to do with this matter going to trial. A year ago, I thought that this would settle for between $25 million and $30 million, and that still seems to be the likely outcome from my standpoint.
(Image from Fansided)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
#1! (finally)
LikeLike
nerd. 🙂
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
So what do you think of SEC TV and the carriage deal with Dish? Or is that a blog post coming soon?
LikeLike
@Matthew Smith – I’ll have some more on TV rights soon. Lots of stuff to look at there.
LikeLike
particularly because it seems a sort of Letter of Intent since Dish and Disney are still at logger heads over Hopper. If that isn’t resolved, Dish won’t be carrying any Disney owned channels.
LikeLike
Hawkeye hoops #1!
LikeLike
Not even in your own state…
http://espn.go.com/blog/espnevents/post/_/id/575/iowa-state-men-women-enjoying-magic-ride
LikeLike
KenPom has Iowa #5, ISU #15. Good try.
http://kenpom.com/
LikeLike
but you lost to ISU
LikeLike
The biggest problem I have with the rating system (besides class size playing too big a factor) is that the big pool of 3 stars is too undifferentiated.
A 3 star with mostly offers from G5 schools and a handful of bottom-tier P5 programs is almost certainly not the same level of talent as a 3 star with a bunch of P5 offers including several kings.
That’s why an Elo system (that another NU fan developed) is likely better.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The biggest problem I have with the rating system (besides class size playing too big a factor) is that the big pool of 3 stars is too undifferentiated.
A 3 star with mostly offers from G5 schools and a handful of bottom-tier P5 programs is almost certainly not the same level of talent as a 3 star with a bunch of P5 offers including several kings.”
Actually, only Scout actually uses the star system directly anymore. The others convert back to stars afterwards because that’s what people are used to hearing. Rivals uses a scale of 5.2 – 6.1. 247 and ESPN use a scale up to 100.
General chart (it varies from site to site):
5 stars = top 1%
4 stars = top 10%
3 stars = top 25%
2 stars = top 50%
What you also have to remember is that there is less difference between players as you move down the rankings, just like in the polls for CFB. Like most things dealing with people, a bell curve is appropriate for plotting player rankings.
Rough equivalency:
5 stars = 2.5+ standard deviations from the mean
4 stars = 1.6-2.5 std dev
3 stars = 1.2-1.6 std dev
2 stars = 0-1.2 std dev
LikeLike
“What you also have to remember is that there is less difference between players as you move down the rankings, just like in the polls for CFB.”
True with 2 stars.
With 3 stars, it feels like the difference between the top 3 stars and bottom 3 stars is bigger than the difference between an average 4 star and top 3 star.
So 11-12th percentile is closer in talent to 5th percentile than 24-25th percentile.
This actually makes some sense with football players because different strengths can be exhibited (and weaknesses covered) with the right schemes and heart & desire has such an impact on performance (compared to, say, baseball, where all catchers have to do roughly the same job, etc., & you can’t beat the other side just by wanting it more and outfighting them).
Then add in that all this rating is subjective.
In NFL practices, no-name guys fighting to stay on the roster or taxi squad blow up big-name Pro Bowlers all the time.
LikeLike
Richard,
“With 3 stars, it feels like the difference between the top 3 stars and bottom 3 stars is bigger than the difference between an average 4 star and top 3 star.”
Yes, but that’s apples and oranges. You’re comparing half of the 4 star range to the whole 3 star range. Of course any rough scale will have issues near the dividing points. But look at the Gaussian distribution numbers I gave you.
Bottom 3 star / top 3 star = 1.2/1.6 = 0.75
Top 3 star / top 4 star = 1.6/2.5 = 0.64
Top 3 star / median 4 star = 1.6 / 2.05 = 0.78
It’s almost the same talent gap.
“Then add in that all this rating is subjective.”
Very much so, although they factor in stats and combine data as well. That’s why it’s still somewhat impressive that the rankings have the level of meaning that they do.
LikeLike
“Yes, but that’s apples and oranges. You’re comparing half of the 4 star range to the whole 3 star range. Of course any rough scale will have issues near the dividing points.”
Sure, but that’s why I feel that dividing the big group of 3 stars would be informative.
LikeLike
A finer scale is always more informative. But the whole point of the star scale is to provide a quick set of stats a casual recruiting fan can look at. That’s why I pointed out that all but Scout actually use finer scales to rank players and determine team rankings, then just convert it to stars at the end.
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank:
Good post, but I find this an interesting counterweight to UMD’s claims:
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
I think think the $25 to $30 million is too high. Maryland never agreed to the increase up to $52. There is also no recent market evidence that suggests a reasonable penalty for leaving a conference is in the $25-$30 million range. All other settlements have been less than $20 and I would suspect that’s where Maryland will land. Maryland doesn’t have the means to pay a $30 million exit fee. This number is also likely more than what the ACC will likely withhold from Maryland prior to departure. Personally I think a reasonable exit fee is in the $10 million range. .
LikeLike
I think think the $25 to $30 million is too high. Maryland never agreed to the increase up to $52.
However, Maryland DID agree to comply with the ACC bylaws, and bylaws are not required to pass unanimously. If it goes to trial (and I agree with FTT it probably won’t), the only question is if the bylaw is is legal. When you’re in an organization, you have to follow all its legally adopted bylaws, not just the ones you voted for.
All other settlements have been less than $20 and I would suspect that’s where Maryland will land. Maryland doesn’t have the means to pay a $30 million exit fee.
Whether they have the means is not part of the legal analysis. Anyhow, if they can pay $20, they can pay $30.
Personally I think a reasonable exit fee is in the $10 million range.
It is meant to be at least somewhat unreasonable. At $10 million, there would be hardly any disincentive at all.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
“When you’re in an organization, you have to follow all its legally adopted bylaws, not just the ones you voted for.”
Actually, this is the issue that Maryland is focused on just as much, if not more, than the amount of the exit fee and if its a penalty or not. If it goes to trial, a major issue will be if all required procedures were followed in amending the by-laws. If, as UMD claims, the ACC failed to adhere to required procedures, it can jeopardize the exit fee increase, regardless of how its characterized.
But I do agree that there is no way this goes to trial. Heck, there is no way this case goes too far into discovery. Neither side wants emails/sworn statements getting leaked to the press…
LikeLike
The ACC by July will have withheld something in the vicinity of $25-$30 million. So Maryland will be able to pay it. Likely they already will have.
Missouri paid around $14 million to the Big 12 on a roughly $25-30 million maximum. I don’t see it being any lower than Missouri. WVU is the highest at $20 million, but they left early and created some scheduling headaches for the BE (which is also why Missouri paid about $3 million more than Texas A&M despite leaving the Big 12 the same year).
LikeLike
Interesting to see if the ACC has the right to withhold NCAA monies. I can see TV payments etc… but not sure on the NCAA distribution. I think the TV only money for Maryland would total less than $20 million over their remaining term. Either way they likely will never get that back and the ACC will never get more than what they are withholding.
LikeLike
Certainly ~ AFAIR, NCAA distributions are to the conference of the participating school, how they are divvied up is up to the by-laws of each conference.
LikeLike
Pingback: Did the ACC try to poach two teams from the B1G?
Frank,
Nice, more rational, interpretation of all this head-spinning expansion madness. Really, none of these conferences are innocent when it comes to seeking candidates for expansion. But, I do think the ACC gets away with making dirty moves more so than other conferences. By far, they’ve expanded the most & only time will tell if their new additions went too far. The ACC gets an A+ for covering up their sneakiness & pr issues, esp some schools & even outside of just expansion. When looking at the above NY Times article, it’s truly unfair that the author cites the PSU move to the BIG as the seismic cause of expansion. What? Really? Arkansas and SC (independent like PSU) moved to the SEC before PSU to the BIG & the SWC’s doom was already years in the making. I believe the SWC-Big8-Big12’s lack of cohesion over the years has been the biggest driver of expansion, followed by the Big East’s inability to solidify as a football, not just basketball, conference. Conferences like the SEC, BIG, & ACC took advantage of such instability & more, but again, “instability” from within the aforementioned conferences was the primer.
Back to the ACC & the fact that their members somehow get away with breaking rules, I find it stunning & increasingly hypocritical that UNC will likely get off easier than say Minnesota when it comes to academic fraud, the latter paying significant, long-term costs for such “fraud”. It appears Minnesota did far less cheating than UNC.
LikeLike
You have your timeline wrong. Penn St. was invited to join the Big 10 in December 1989. Arkansas and South Carolina were invited in August 1990. It just took a little longer for Penn St. to transition.
Penn St. was indeed the trigger that set off everything. And it never really died down. The Big 10 announcing it was seeking applications continued realignment started with the 1989 invitation to Penn St. as the Big East and Big 12 schools continued to search for their favorite landing spot.
LikeLike
And the Big East’s instability can be traced to its rejection PSU’s application in 1982 (in which Syracuse cast the deciding vote against admission).
LikeLike
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/quad-qa-big-east-commissioner-mike-tranghese/?_r=0
As I noted in the previous thread, that is a myth. Syracuse voted in PSU’s favor all 5 times Gavitt brought the matter to the floor.
LikeLike
I stand corrected. I thought I had read in a December 1982 article that ‘Cuse was the decided vote against.
LikeLike
Apparently, the three “No” votes were from St. Johns, Villanova, and Georgetown.
LikeLike
Foundation members of the New Big East ~ so they ended up in the BBall-only conference for which such a vote would make sense. But if Penn State was the start of the wave of the Big Eastern Independents joining conferences, then it really can be traced back to the court decision that college football media rights other than NCAA championship playoff games were owned by the school, not by the NCAA.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF
That court case was decided in 1984, two years after the Big East vote against PSU and about 6 years after Paterno first started working to form an Eastern all-sports athletic conference with football playing northeast schools (plus WVU).
That case is a major factor, no doubt, but not the start of the present madness. The seeds were sewn before that.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Nonsense! There is so, so, much more to expansion history than PSU to the BIG. I know that PSU reached agreement in 89, but the SWC-Big 8 issues, esp those in the SWC, were already in the making before 89 – undeniable facts here. Moreover, the SWC had prime football powers & a pretty successful history. I clearly remember my dad, a sports journalist for many decades, discussing the inevitable downfall of the SWC years before he reported PSU to the BIG. Moreover, the Big East (which PSU unsuccessfully sought before BIG membership), was from the beginning, searching for a football dentity. You could say the same for the ACC, more of a hoops conference in the beginning – their flirtations with FSU pre-date 1989 because some of their current (GT & VT post 89) & former members (SCar) had ties to the Southern Conference & Metro Conference Back to the bigger point, I think the SWC’s doom was set in motion pre-PSU to the BIG, & their relationship with the Big8 was decades in the making as well, esp considering OU and OkSt were once SWC members.
What is understated, esp on the football side, the conferences that got to 12 created their own advantages due to a ideal number to setup a CCG, the Big12 didn’t capitalize enough on common culture, the SEC did. The BIG didn’t get to 12 until after the SEC, ACC, and Big12.
Expansion, esp down South, has been going on incestuously for decades – movement down there has been far more regular than in BIG land. Look up the movements for yourself.
Bottom line, you can’t put expansion on one school & I think the bigger point I’m making is that other conferences who implode are the bigger cause of expansion, the more stable conferences are there to pick up the pieces.
LikeLike
Everyone reacted to Penn St. joining the Big 10. Arkansas leaving hastened the fall of the SWC. Yes it was inevitable, but it sped things along. And it led to the formation of the BE football conference as the eastern independents grouped together which led to the collapse of the metro as well.
And absolutely everything was triggered by the Big 10’s announcement that they were expanding again. Delany said so himself, that he would do it more quietly next time, rather than cause such turmoil.
Now TV has been the ultimate driver, but the Big 10 has been the trigger.
LikeLike
There has always been realignment.
OU v NCAA, and those who understood what it would mean for conferences and their bargaining strength, probably contributed to the (almost) complete dissolution of the group known as independents. Strength moved to the aggregation of newly won schools media rights.
LikeLike
I guess the B1G is the straw that stirs the drink.
LikeLike
Or is it the BIG wanted to get to 12 quite badly in order to get a CCG like the ACC, Big12 and SEC, as the latter two, their conference winners, often fielded the BCSNCG? I mean really now, the BIG moved to 12 partly because they felt like they were falling behind, esp on the gridiron. Those CCG’s, esp the SEC were getting big time exposure post Thanksgiving, apparently giving an edge to all conferences who held them. BIG went public with no. 12, no doubt, but other conferences were plotting & again, the Big12, ACC and SEC were already at 12. Never mind the Big East was constantly contacting and expanding during this time as well.
You overstate Bullet, you are either not old enough to remember the constant expansions before PSU to the BIG, or choose not to dig up the historical details. The demise of the SWC was a gradual, well publicized process – certain members were constantly getting nailed with probation.
I’m jealous of CCrider, he put it best: “there has always been realignment”. It’s just that the BIG’s move was unexpected because they’ve had a history of going slow & only til Rutgers-Md, moved slower than the rest, but now the Pac12 remains at 12. Before PSU, ND to the BIG was discussed multiple times & schools like Iowa State and Nebraska as well. When MSU joined the BIG it was a big deal. Moreover, my BIG allegiance aside, the conference has generally won the hype sweepstakes, but hype is often filled with myth.
LikeLike
I remember quite well gfunk. You just blindly refuse to acknowledge the B1G’s part as the “straw.”
There was very little movement among the major conferences from 1966 to 1989. The Big 8, Big 10 and ACC didn’t change. The Eastern Indies didn’t change much. The SWC only added Houston in 1971. The Pac only added the Arizona schools around 1978. The ACC lost S. Carolina in 69 and replaced them with Georgia Tech around 1978. That’s 4 adds and 1 loss in 23 years. The Big 12 alone had more than that in 2010-11. The Big East had about 3 times that many moves just last year. Most of the realignment was in the mid-majors like the Missouri Valley and minor conferences and had to do with the NCAA realignments from 2 divisions to 3 and the addition of I-AA. Even the WAC and MAC combined only had 2 schools leave in those 23 years (Marshall got kicked out of MAC and NIU left).
Now from 1940-1966 there was a fair amount as WWII and the growth of the state universities changed things. A bunch of eastern indies dropped fb or dropped down. The ACC was formed. SWC added Texas Tech. Big 8 added CU and OSU. Pac lost Montana, dissolved, reformed w/o Idaho. SEC lost Sewanee, Tulane and Georgia Tech. Big 10 lost Chicago and added MSU. Much more than the following quarter century.
LikeLike
“The Big 12 alone had more than that in 2010-11. The Big East had about 3 times that many moves just last year.”
The BEast was in dying convulsions, and the B12 was resuscitated by media promis to continue paying as if thedefections and replacements hadn’t happened (and the Spector of what became a billion dollar ESPN investment in Austin). Those can’t be laid at outside conferences feet.
LikeLike
The I-A/I-AA split happened in 1978, so let’s start there.
1978 – 33 independents
1979 – 31
1980 – 30
1981 – 27
1982 – 21
1983 – 20
That’s 13 of 33 (39.4%) of them gone, mostly by dropping to I-AA.
1990 – still 20
1991 – 12 (Big East formed)
1992 – 10 (FSU, SC)
1993 – 9 (PSU)
1994
1995
1996 – 4 (CUSA formed)
Note that I’m ignoring any new teams that joined I-A, just tracking those original 33 independents.
Are people claiming the Big East would never have formed if the B10 didn’t invite PSU? Would the SEC never have gone to 12? Would FSU never have wanted a home?
LikeLike
Brian, I think the point is that while the dominoes were ready and waiting to fall over (i.e., the SWC was inevitably going to break up, the independents were going to need conference homes, etc.), the Big Ten was the first conference to tip one of them over.
Former ACC commissioner Gene Corrigan once admitted, basically, that the Big Ten’s addition of Penn State caught the league completely off guard. He and league presidents realized they missed the boat. (As others have imagined, just imagine if the ACC, not the SEC, had been the first league with the foresight to go from 8 to 12 in the late 80’s or early 90’s, adding PSU, FSU, Miami, and either Syracuse or Pitt, at a time when PSU, FSU, and Miami were at the peak of their powers.)
I agree, of course, that if Penn State hadn’t moved on Penn State when it did, the SEC might have moved on Arkansas at some point. But the Penn State move jolted other leagues into realizing they had better start thinking about expansion and, as Jim Delany would say, monitoring the landscape. It definitely shocked the ACC into looking at FSU and Syracuse.
The Big Ten also was the initiator back in 2009, as well, when it announced its intentions to expand. Yes, just like in ’89, other things may have happened eventually, namely that the Pac-12 would have considered expansion regardless. But the Big Ten was the first to tip the domino.
The one big exception was 2003 when the ACC recruited the Big East schools. That one, however didn’t result in any change for 4 of the other then-six power conferences (B1G, B12, Pac-12, SEC). It merely had an effect on the ACC, Big East, non-AQ leagues, and non-FBS leagues
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Brian, I think the point is that while the dominoes were ready and waiting to fall over (i.e., the SWC was inevitably going to break up, the independents were going to need conference homes, etc.), the Big Ten was the first conference to tip one of them over.”
But the B10 wasn’t the first to talk about realignment back then.
1979 – Big East forms (no FB, but BC and SU are in)
1982 – Pitt joined the BE but PSU was turned down (still no FB)
That was the first domino. PSU wanted to join a conference and the BE said no. That meant PSU had to join the A10, and thus fall behind in money.
1989 – again the BE rejected adding PSU
That drove PSU to seek to join the B10.
What drove expansion was that the money balance shifted heavily towards football. When hoops brought a higher percentage of total revenue than it does now, FB independents were OK. Now that hoops is worth half of FB at best, independents struggle.
You can say the B10 started things, but that’s ignoring the situation at the time and the previous few years. The shift in TV money drove expansion.
“Former ACC commissioner Gene Corrigan once admitted, basically, that the Big Ten’s addition of Penn State caught the league completely off guard. He and league presidents realized they missed the boat.”
But he knew the BE had rejected PSU previously, so the only shock was that PSU looked west and not south. There was no shock about PSU looking for a conference.
“The Big Ten also was the initiator back in 2009, as well, when it announced its intentions to expand.”
I don’t think anyone has denied that the B10 stirred things up in 2009. I think they did the correct thing in announcing their attentions rather than making a stealth attack. The B10 didn’t cause the B12 to fall apart, though. That was their own internal issues.
LikeLike
Nebraska wasn’t considering leaving the Big 12 until the Big 10 announced they were looking. That was also the trigger for Texas & Co. to consider moving en masse to the Pac. Colorado probably would have moved inevitably, but that would have been a minor impact. And it was that whole instability that caused Texas A&M to start looking at the SEC again.
If the Big 10 didn’t take Nebraska (or Missouri), the Big 12 would probably still be 12 with WVU, Louisville or BYU replacing Colorado.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Nebraska wasn’t considering leaving the Big 12 until the Big 10 announced they were looking.”
That’s not entirely true. NE had thought about joining the B10 several times before. I’ll agree it wasn’t in the front of their minds at that point, though.
“That was also the trigger for Texas & Co. to consider moving en masse to the Pac.”
Which they didn’t, so it’s a moot point.
“Colorado probably would have moved inevitably, but that would have been a minor impact.”
There still would have been shuffling among major conferences.
“And it was that whole instability that caused Texas A&M to start looking at the SEC again.”
A move they had also considered before.
“If the Big 10 didn’t take Nebraska (or Missouri), the Big 12 would probably still be 12 with WVU, Louisville or BYU replacing Colorado.”
So we agree, change would have happened without the B10 doing anything. Thus, you can’t accurately claim the B10 triggered all expansion. The B10 triggered this particular path of expansion, but expansion was going to happen even if the B10 was last to expand.
LikeLike
I thought UNL called the B1G and said that an attempt to solidify the B12 was happening that would involve signing a GOR, so if they wanted Nebraska it had to be very soon.
Colo. was leaving/left, whether with a group or alone.
aTm was leaving inspite of the momentary save, and MO soon followed.
The only impact the B1G made was in choosing which of several requests/pleas was accepted.
LikeLike
If you beleive the Wagrin account of the death of the SWC, It is kind of a bummer that UT didn’t figure out that they didn’t have a path into the PAC or Big 10 (or that they didn’t like the SEC) before they encouraged Arkansas to leave for the SEC. I know the SEC had a better hand than the Big 8 in TV terms, but man, the geography for Arkansas would have been sweet.
I never liked the old Big 12, but I would have loved it with Arkansas, UT, A&M, and Tech in that conference. Maybe you add BYU and Baylor for 14. That might have survived intact.
LikeLike
None of those schools even thinks about leaving except Colorado if the Big 10 doesn’t announce its plans.
LikeLike
@love
Not sure what account you are talking about. But there are some dates that support Arkansas getting a green light.
Early August 1990, Texas President briefs board of regents on discussions with Pac 10 and that he has been told all the schools were ready to give Texas an invitation. He gets informal approval to close the deal.
August 2, 1990 Arkansas accepts invitation to SEC.
Later in August 1990 Texas gets told that its invitation didn’t pass. Stanford voted no.
August 25, 1990 Texas and Texas A&M commit to the SWC as A&M also closes its conversations with the SEC.
September 26, 1990 South Carolina gets invited to SEC.
LikeLike
…none of these conferences are innocent when it comes to seeking candidates for expansion. But, I do think the ACC gets away with making dirty moves more so than other conferences.
What exactly is “dirty” about it? Two willing parties — a league and a school — enter into a business transaction. Maybe the school’s former business partners are unhappy, but that’s life. Joining a league is not a “forever” decision. If you find a better league, and that league accepts you, then you move.
Nothing guilty, dirty, or sneaky about that.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily think that it’s “dirty”, but the sports media (who generally isn’t very strong in knowing about business issues and/or can’t stand talking about them) is significantly more sympathetic to moves that look good on-the-field and/or on-the-court (which I can’t exactly blame them for). Making more money while immediately improving competitiveness is simply much more justifiable to media members than making more money while only hearing about demographics, TV revenue and markets. The Big Ten’s addition of Nebraska was generally praised in that regard, but the Maryland/Rutgers expansion was looked at as a pure money grab (and to be sure, that’s mostly what it was). That’s going to garner less sympathy from the media-types than adding a Louisville program that just won a National Championship, BCS bowl and a College World Series slot in the same school year, regardless of the long-term implications. Conference realignment has proven to be a fairly unpopular topic for traditional media-types (who are often old school and just want everything to go back to what it was in 1970), so they want to believe that there’s at least a merit component in conference realignment beyond where school happens to be located.
LikeLike
Agree with Frank more, Marc you should have been on the cast of “Wolf . . . Wall Street” : ). You can’t say Md to the BIG was without “sneakiness”, esp considering the reaction of many prominent Md alum & ACC officials – these ACC officials are obviously still pissed. And I’m damn sure Big East officials were quite upset about the clandestine measures taken by many of its former members – too many examples here. Expansion requires a bit of “sneakiness” and it’s “dirty” as well because there will always be traditionalists. In fact, Delany remarked that openly seeking expansion members was a bad idea, thus be sneaky.
LikeLike
Actually, I am not sure what I said that Frank disagreed with. He was simply adding the gloss of how the media portrays it, and he is completely right.
“Confidential” is a more neutral word for what you are calling “sneaky”. Parties routinely keep business negotiations a secret until they have made a deal. Do you expect negotiation to be a spectator sport?
Sure, the ACC and the Big East are unhappy. The question is whether they have any legitimate right to be unhappy, or if it’s just sour grapes. The Wolf of Wall Street is a film about criminals. Expansion is about schools voluntarily leaving lesser leagues for better ones.
Sure, there are traditionalists who wish that nothing would ever change. But conference switcheroos aren’t “dirty” just because traditionalists disagree.
LikeLike
Marc,
There’s a damn : ) after my “Wolf” statement. Take it easy.
LikeLike
What the MWC did to the WAC, two or three times, was dirty and seemed to be personal. They were trying to kill it. ACC with the Big East was pretty similar, although not as flagrant.
LikeLike
UA and ASU from the WAC to the PAC in ’79 (?).
LikeLike
What the MWC did to the WAC, two or three times, was dirty and seemed to be personal. They were trying to kill it. ACC with the Big East was pretty similar, although not as flagrant.
I haven’t studied the MWC/WAC situation very closely, so I won’t comment.
But I certainly disagree with your characterization of what the ACC did. The ACC wanted to get stronger, and the best available schools were in the Big East. The Big East was weak, and all of its football schools were on the lookout for better homes.
It’s not as if the ACC gobbled up those schools against their will. The schools wanted to move, because the Big East simply wasn’t very good. It was a move that benefited both parties.
To the sad Big East relicts, I’d say: “Next time, don’t suck at football.” It’s certainly not the schools fault that they wanted to improve their lot, nor the ACC’s fault that they took the opportunity when it came along.
LikeLike
@Marc
ACC was 3-13 in BCS games prior to this year with wins over future member Virginia Tech, Cincinnati and Northern Illinois. West Virginia had that many wins on their own in the Big East. While you may question the computers, since the 2005 raid up until 2013, the Big East frequently had higher computer ratings than both the ACC and B1G. So the ACC has no business trash talking the BE in football. The BE was going to get a contract more valuable per school than the ACC’s $12.9 million before they turned down the ESPN deal and Pitt and SU left (ESPN offered $150 million which would have been about $14+ million to the 9 fb schools).
LikeLike
Its also not as if the Big East did not do the same because they were pure of heart ~ they did not do the same because the big BBall-only annex made them far less flexible in terms of FB-oriented conference expansion, at a time when it was fairly clear that there was likely room for one East Coast Power conference but not two.
LikeLike
I think what sets the “sneakiness” of the Maryland move apart from all of the other recent moves is that the sneakiness and non-disclosure were an essential element. For example, if Pitt, Syracuse and the ACC had announced they were in talks weeks or months before anything became final, it would have been messier and the other Big East schools would have been upset earlier (and might have caused some additional legal or political trouble), but it still probably would have happened.
If Maryland had announced they were in talks with the Big Ten (or if the Big Ten announced they were looking to expand east), Maryland’s boosters and fans would have shut it down tout suite. Many have come around or resigned themselves or justified it, but if given the choice in advance, it would have been stopped in its tracks. It had to be done in the dead of night, in violation of open meetings laws with nondisclosure agreements and all the attendant shadiness, or it wouldn’t have happened at all.
That, combined with the Maryland and Rutgers adds being viewed as purely territorial/cash grab like FTT says, is why the narrative is different for this move.
The other element is that the Maryland President announced right away that they would not be paying the exit fee. Sharp contrast with others who have included checks with their exit notices, to show good faith. Syracuse and West Virginia got into legal battles with the Big East about the 27 month notice requirement but neither suggested they would not meet their financial obligations (I believe both paid more than was required, in fact), they just wanted to leave earlier for more money.
LikeLike
When a bunch of non-profits make decisions based on how much more revenue they will get, why have sympathy?
Money is not the key statistic in sports. A-Rod may go down as the richest baseball player, but became very unpopular right at the time he signed his quarter-billion deal. If he had gone home to Miami for that money, it would have been seen better. But it was just about the money and a disproportionate amount of it at that. And that was before any serious PED issues regarding him. There were more obvious violators at the time.
If the Big 10 wants to put money before everything else, they certainly can. Money is a measurement. It’s just not one that most fans care about or want to care about.
The Rutgers/Maryland adds do not make the Big 10 better at either revenue sport. Maryland has had a good basketball history with a national title. But it is not a difference maker. Is Maryland a top 4 program for the Big 10? Is it definitely better than Iowa, Purdue, and Michigan? Was it ever a consistent threat to Duke or North Carolina for supremacy in the ACC over a significant period of time? And Rutgers, of course, speaks for itself.
Nebraska made the Big 10 better at football. That’s what most of us want to see when being forced to swallow expansion. The Big 10 can be happy with its adds (and perhaps should be), but the rest of us are not impressed.
LikeLike
The Big 10 didn’t add Maryland and Rutgers for athletics. That’s obvious. In the short run it no doubt weakens the conference. However, I don’t think they primarily added them for TV money and the BTN. I think they added them primarily for the intangibles of exposure in DC and NYC. Whether or not it pays off eventually in athletics or TV money, I think the administrators of the Big 10 are the least likely to be dissatisfied with expansion to 14 relative to the SEC and ACC.
LikeLike
Why would the SEC or ACC be dissatisfied? You may be right, of course. But I am not sure why they would be dissatisfied.
LikeLike
“The Rutgers/Maryland adds do not make the Big 10 better at either revenue sport.”
If you think that there’s something wrong with non-profits basing their decisions on revenue, then why do you emphasize the revenue sports over the other sports? Maryland is a king program in lacrosse, women’s field hockey, and competitive cheer. They’re a power in soccer as well.
LikeLike
People liked the revenue sports before they became revenue sports. So many people liked them that they became revenue generators.
True, if the Big 10 wants to dominate the sports of lesser interest, that would be a fine decision. But they did it for money. Plain and simple.
LikeLike
And while Rutgers does not compare to the big Four of Florida, California, Texas and Georgia as far as football recruiting grounds, it jumps right up to the second richest FB recruiting state within the Big Ten footprint, after Ohio. I do not see how one can at the one hand fault the Big Ten football programs for “athleticism”, which is to say fault them for not being located with the same rich recruiting grounds as in the SEC or ACC footprints, and also fault them for going after one of the best recruiting grounds actually available to them and contiguous with their existing footprint.
LikeLike
Not faulting the Big 10 for lack of athleticism. Just pointing out why people other than Big 10 apologists like the Nebraska add WAY more than Rutgers/Maryland. For all the talk of school similarity and recruiting, the monetary demographic was most important. Not much different than A-Rod, really.
LikeLike
A-Rod would have gotten at least 80% (still an obscene amount) by staying in Seattle (and the Mariners had already secured the ability to sign Ichiro, it wasn’t an either/or). It was the the lying about whether money would be the deciding factor, and followed that with saying the Rangers was the best choice to win. How’d that workout?
B1G expansion isn’t strictly about just one or two sports. They are parts taken into consideration to make the whole stronger in many ways. It isn’t necessary to impress outsiders, only those involved.
LikeLike
The Big 10 is A-Rod in a sense.
LikeLike
No. Nothing against them but UT is A-Rod in the B12. The B1G is closer to the Yankees bringing in what they feel can help, while not creating a completely unbalance group.
LikeLike
I take it A-Rod is a player in that other throwball sport?
LikeLike
14 is a pain to schedule. It splits up rivalries. ACC is trying to get changes to the rules for ccgs because they don’t like the way scheduling is working out. SEC ADs have been complaining about the difficulties of 14.
And its not clear that 14 makes more money per school in a vacuum than 12 (or even 10 perhaps). The Pac 12 did a new deal when they added the 2 new members. CU and Utah don’t add a lot of value except as a 12th game. The ACC re-worked their deal with over half the increase coming from extending the term. The rest may all have come from Friday night games and selling the naming rights to their tourney. The SEC probably comes out ahead financially by getting better rates in Texas than they otherwise would on the SECN. But their Tier I deal didn’t go up a dime. I’m not sure the Big 10 will make more money directly. However, the new TV deal will hide the impact.
LikeLike
It’s not like the CCGs have worked out great for everyone. There have been several dud games… a top 5 team vs. a team with 4 or 5 losses. Happens with 12 too… see the PAC a few years ago.
It behooves every conference to find a way to avoid that. With so many conferences at 14 now, seems inevitable. Wait until 12-0 Ohio State beats 8-4 Nebraska in a CCG, and falls behind a 12-0 Alabama that beat a 11-1 South Carolina in a CCG, allowing Bama to overtake Ohio State in the playoff ranking hierarchy.
Again, behooves all conferences to test their champions to the greatest extent in the CCG. Or not–if a conference wants to protect its 12-0 team…. could be their choice, I guess.
LikeLike
“It behooves every conference to find a way to avoid that.”
No. It absolutely doesn’t. They can change the likelihood by how divisions are created, but the games need to be played after the rules are set. And upsets will/do happen. To do otherwise is to become WWE and have fixed results, or a popularity contest.
Perhaps you meant to say it behooves teams (tOSU, Miami, USC, etc) to manage to not get sanctioned?
LikeLike
acaffrey: “It’s not like the CCGs have worked out great for everyone. There have been several dud games… a top 5 team vs. a team with 4 or 5 losses. Happens with 12 too… see the PAC a few years ago.
It behooves every conference to find a way to avoid that.”
Yes, I think it does. This is a change in moving a direct two team playoff to four teams in the CFP ~ the odds go up that when your two best teams happen to be in the same division, whichever team wins the CCG is going to get a spot in the CFP.
LikeLike
I think that perhaps conferences might want to push for a rule change that allows–but does not require–the conferences to substitute a 1-loss overall team for a team that has 2+ losses overall.
So… if FSU is 12-0, Clemson is 11-1, and Duke is 10-2, the ACC could substitute Clemson for Duke. But if Clemson was 10-2 (losses to Florida State and South Carolina) and Duke was 10-2 (losses to UNC and Virginia Tech, giving them a much lower perception), there would be no substitution.
Is there a real loser in such a provision? Sure, the divisional concept is weakened. But that is a better game for TV… a better chance for FSU to lose (shaking up the top 4 and giving someone else an opening)… a better chance to judge FSU and every other conference champion.. and so on.
And let the Big XII have a championship game. Whatever. We are talking one extra game being added into the college football season.
LikeLike
acaffery:
Swofford just did, and the B12 talked about it a couple years ago. Marc Shepard will be your cheering section.
LikeLike
“Is there a real loser in such a provision?”
Well, the team that got robbed. 99% of fans would think such a set up is a farce.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
Face it. You Syracuse fans failed in your objectives in destroying competition in the Northeast because Delany made a bigger play. You might still succeed in diminishing UConn but that’s only a partial victory. Maybe you can claim to be “Boston’s College Team” because BC isn’t getting it done. 😀
LikeLike
Rutgers and Maryland are only a “bigger play” in money, a product of the demographics. The Big 10 can be first in revenue, but it is first in nothing else that matters to fans of the revenue sports (which are revenue sports because of their inherent, historical popularity). Enjoy the CA$H.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
I think we, as fans of ACC teams, have to tip our caps to the Big Ten for being first in basketball in recent seasons. (Maybe a very close second to the Big 12 this year.)
To me, neither conference will truly dominate the northeast. Doing so would require both Notre Dame and Penn State as absolutely essential anchors in the same league. Instead, one league (the Big Ten) has only one of them, with two supporting cast members in large markets but also with fairly mild fanfare. The other league (ACC) kinda-sorta-but-not-really has the other anchor alongside a slightly longer northeastern supporting cast list with slightly better fanfare (except for BC) but in smaller markets than the B1G’s.
Even after the realignment of recent years, or recent decades, for that matter, nobody’s been able to pull together the northeast, and no one will dominate it. The Big East had everything–except for the all-important Penn State and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
How is the Big 10 first in basketball in recent seasons???
If you go back to 2000 to include the last Big 10 national title, the Big 10 has that one title. Excluding the movers (Syracuse, Louisville, Maryland), you have 4 titles for the ACC, 3 for the SEC, 2 for the American, and 1 for the Big 12 and Big 10. If you want to count Maryland for the Big 10, then I guess you have to count Syracuse for the ACC. Perhaps even Louisville for the ACC.
It is impressive that the Big 10 has had 5 different teams lose in the national championship game (Michigan, MSU, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio State) over that same period. But that is about all I can come up with as a metric for Big 10 basketball supremacy.
If you go back forever, the ACC has at 12-10 edge on champions. And just look at all the Duke/UNC championship game losses historically… ha ha ha. 8 with Dean Smith and Coach K alone.
LikeLike
And yet more people watch B10 basketball now and for the past 30 years or so than any other league’s.
LikeLike
Really, they outdraw the Big East and ACC, conferences with higher percentages of small enrollment private schools? I suppose MLB outdraws AAA too.
LikeLike
So you are saying B10 is MLB and ACC/BE is AAA? Interesting choice of words.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if a fair number of AAA teams out draw Tampa. 🙂
LikeLike
cc – you may be surprised that Tampa Bay did indeed outdraw every minor league team in 2013, but so did my LSU Baseball Tigers.
18,646 – Tampa Bay Rays average per 81 regular season home games.
10,885 – LSU Tigers average per 37 regular season home games.
9,212 – Columbus Clippers had the highest MiLB average attendance in USA or Canada for all classifications.
LikeLike
Alan:
What would it be if the Rays weren’t in the AL east with the Yankees and Red Sox?
LikeLike
cc – since I’m procrastinating from doing some work, I looked up the answer for you.
The Rays played nine home dates each against the Yankees and the Red Sox. Six of the nine home games against the Yankees took place during weekends. All of their home games games against the Red Sox took place on weekday nights.
23,465 – Rays average home attendance against the Yankees for nine games.
18,646 – Rays overall average home attendance for 81 games.
18,043 – Rays average attendance minus the nine Yankee games.
16,963 – Rays average home attendance against the Red Sox for nine games.
For the weeknight games against the Yankees and one Friday night game, attendance was below 20,000.
The Rays only broke 20,000 for one game against the Red Sox, which was a Thursday during the September pennant chase.
My original point was that my LSU Baseball Tigers’ attendance average is better than any minor league team and almost 60% of the Rays.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Really, they outdraw the Big East and ACC, conferences with higher percentages of small enrollment private schools? I suppose MLB outdraws AAA too.”
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/03/college-basketball-tv-ratings-part-2-numbers-for-the-second-half-of-the-season/
For the season, six of the ten-highest rated games were Big Ten conference matchups, and seven of the top-ten involved a Big Ten team.
They outdrew them on TV, too.
LikeLike
All Big 10 schools have more enrollment. Naturally, there are more fans to go to games and more fans to watch on TV. Sorry, money and ratings are not necessarily a direct correlation with the product. This year has been great for the Big 10–it deserves all the props in the world for having a loaded conference. But every year is different.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“All Big 10 schools have more enrollment. Naturally, there are more fans to go to games and more fans to watch on TV.”
So why doesn’t the SEC top the BE and ACC? What about the P12 and B12? Why does the national audience favor the B10?
Remember, you’re the one who asked:
“How is the Big 10 first in basketball in recent seasons???”
You’ve now been given two ways (attendance and TV ratings) and conveniently dismissed them both as unfair to the BE and ACC.
How about this?
Sagarin conference ratings (by central mean):
2014 – 1. B10, 4. BE, 5. ACC
2013 – 1. B10, 2. BE, 6. ACC
2012 – 1. B10, 3. BE, 5. ACC
2011 – 1. BE, 2. B10, 4. ACC (B10 #1 by simple mean and Win50%, his other 2 measures)
BTW, the B10 was #1 by all 3 measures in the last 3 seasons.
That would seem to show the B10 being first in basketball in recent seasons.
LikeLike
But, I do think the ACC gets away with making dirty moves more so than other conferences.
I’m with you right there. Add into that the obnoxious fans, especially from their recent additions.
LikeLike
I really thought that this was going to be the topic of the next FTT post:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24409747/compensating-athletes-figures-to-be-key-issue-at-annual-ncaa-convention
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
So ESPN/ACC didn’t think much about the Big Ten Grants of Rights when trying to take in 2 Big Ten schools to increase the ACC TV value to ESPN, did they???
So if ESPN/ACC didn’t think the Big 10 GOR was not the immovable object to acquiring two Big 10 schools, wouldn’t it logically fit that maybe Delany does not believe the ACC GOR is the immovable object as well when it comes to possibly acquiring an additional 2 ACC schools before the ACC GOR has run its course?
I would love for you to make a comment on this if you can. Thanks
LikeLike
I brought that point up in the previous page. If the ACC thinks of nothing about the B1G’s GoR then it becomes a free-for-all as to who becomes the power conference on the East Coast.
LikeLike
“Sources: NFL Wants Thursday Games Simulcast On NFL Network”:
“Also: Other details began to emerge from the proposals, which the NFL sent to all network partners and Turner Sports. One element creating buzz is the fact that the NFL told networks they could make multiple proposals for any games from Week 2 through Week 16, except for the Opening Night and Thanksgiving night Thursday games.”
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2014/01/15/thursdays.aspx
I get why they want it, but if a cable channel wins, that means the game could potentially air on four different channels (national cable, NFL network, and two over the air local TV stations in the markets where the teams playing are from).
As for the specifics of the proposal, the lack of a set defined plan is interesting. I’d expect some over the air networks seek Thursday night games in November (sweeps month) where more teams are still in competition for the playoffs. With flex, after Thanksgiving it can get a bit dicey with scheduling.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – This is a strange curveball from the NFL. I feel as if though they only want to be “a little bit pregnant”. They want to maximize the exposure and rights fees for Thursday night football, but then also maximize the viewership and subscriber fees for the NFL Networks. Those two goals seem to be completely at odds with each other. The NFL obviously has a ton of power, but I’m curious as to what networks are actually going to be willing to pay for simulcasts. There isn’t anything on TV that can compete with NFL ratings, but even they have their limits when you’re talking about placing the same game on multiple channels at the same time.
LikeLike
Perhaps the NFL is testing/soliciting ideas on how ‘megacasting’ (like was done with the FSU/Auburn game) could either work for it and/or be monetized? I have always hoped that something like it would be the wave of the future.
(As I dislike FOX’s broadcast style (of all sports) and have from the beginning, I would welcome an alternative.)
Frank, as a fellow Chicagoan I’m sure you remember how many Bears fans used to (still?) mute the tv feed and instead listen to the WBBM radio broadcast before the the two feeds became so far out of sync.
LikeLike
An NFL simulcast can also have the Film Room bit from the BCS Title Game during commercial breaks and halftime. Serious nerd potential from the NFL Network on this.
LikeLike
Another stadium renovation (at Arizona State) reduces seating.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10299103/arizona-state-starts-50-million-campaign-sun-devil-stadium-renovations
LikeLike
By > 16%.
LikeLike
I blame Todd Graham.
LikeLike
Obligatory reference to the Rice MOB on Todd Graham.
http://mob.rice.edu/history/scripts/200711240
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2014/01/15/maryland-applying-serious-settlement-pressure-to-acc-with-latest-counterclaim/
Some analysis of the UMD counterclaim and what UMD’s strategy is.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/01/14/restructuring-tops-agenda-at-ncaa-convention/4481951/
Not really any new information but this article does that state
A) No changes to the NCAA structure are likely to finalized this month
but
B) it’s likely that by next fall, the NCAA will operate with a new structure.
also
C) A separate subdivision is not in the proposal to be considered this week, and appears unlikely. Although football is the driver for much of the change, there’s no apparent for changes that would harm the NCAA basketball tournament.
LikeLike
Looking at how Maryland is using USNews rankings to justify their lawsuit, I wondered at what a purer, completely objective metric would look like when comparing conferences. I wanted to rank the SAT averages of BCS schools. I found that some schools didn’t report SAT averages, so for those I listed their ACT rank in parentheses. Rank is just among BCS schools.
1. Stanford
2. Vanderbilt
3. Duke
4. Northwestern
5. Notre Dame
6. Michigan
7. Cal
8. USC
9. Virginia
10. Boston College
11. Illinois
12. Minnesota
13. Georgia Tech
14. UCLA
15. Wisconsin
16. North Carolina
17. Miami
18. Maryland
19. Texas
20. Pitt
21. Florida
22. Ohio State
23. Washington
24. Baylor
25. Nebraska
26. Clemson
27. Georgia
28. Texas A&M
29. Iowa
30. Iowa State
31. Rutgers
32. Oklahoma
33. Penn State
34. Purdue
35. Missouri
36. Florida State
37. NC State
38. Colorado
39. South Carolina
40. TCU
41. Indiana
42. Utah
43. Tennessee
44. LSU
(44. Kansas)
45. Michigan State
46. Louisville
(46. Mississippi State)
47. Syracuse
48. Alabama
49. Kentucky
50. Arkansas
51. Arizona
52. Arizona State
53. Oklahoma State
(53. Ole Miss)
54. Oregon State
55. Auburn
(55. Washington State)
56. Oregon
(56. West Virginia)
57. Texas Tech
Wake Forest (no data provided)
Kansas State (no data provided)
Virginia Tech (no data provided)
These are 75th percentile averages. There are some differences between ACT and SAT averages, for example Missouri has a higher ACT average than Nebraska but a lower SAT average, where as Colorado has a higher ACT average than Missouri but a lower SAT average. But overall it’s usually not more than a few spots in one direction or the other, so I think substituting in the ACT average for the missing schools works ok.
Dividing them into 3 tiers:
Tier 1: 1-20
Tier 2: 21-40
Tier 3: 41-61
Tier 1
Pac 12: 4
SEC: 1
ACC: 9
B1G: 6
Big XII: 1
Tier 2
Pac 12: 2
SEC: 5
ACC: 3
B1G: 6
Big XII: 4
Tier 3
Pac 12: 6
SEC: 8
ACC: 1
B1G: 2
Big XII: 4
So all 5 BCS conferences are fairly well represented in tier 2. The Pac 12, SEC, and Big 12 have pretty many schools in tier 3, where as the ACC and B1G only have a few. The ACC dominates Tier 1 but the Pac 12 and B1G have a fair amount of schools there as well, whereas the Big XII and SEC have 1 each.
LikeLike
data here:
http://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/act_75pctl_rank.html
LikeLike
I think the ACT is a better test, but neither captures student academic performance as much as I’d like to see in overall intelligence, but I get the practicality of such tests. If I’m not mistaken, BIG schools have more ACT based applicants, likely the Big12 as well. I also think there’s probably a strong correlation between the ACC and these results due to the number of private institutions and the fact that the SAT is pretty damn universal on the East Coast.
LikeLike
Feel free to look through both on the list. I didn’t see a huge difference between the two in the rankings. Had to pick one or the other.
LikeLike
Using average test scores to compare schools doesn’t necessarily help in the assessment. Larger universities may have lower averages but they may have more kids (population wise) scoring above 30 for example just based on the number or enrollees. These top students naturally select some of the more rigorous curriculum in the sciences or other technical areas of study. Smaller class sizes increase selectivity but not necessarily quality.
LikeLike
It’s not a perfect rating but at least it’s simple and objective. I agree that the larger schools are at a disadvantage in this metric.
LikeLike
Baylor being that high must be the impact of the Flutie effect by RG3. I guess A&M will go up in next year’s ratings. Baylor’s not someone I would expect to see in the bottom 3rd of the P5, but I wouldn’t expect to see them right behind Ohio St. and Washington either.
LikeLike
The privates have a lot more leeway than the publics in terms of emphasizing whatever criteria makes them look good in the rankings. In part because they are much smaller, in part because they think nothing of devoting a ton of money to promotion/recruiting, but also because they aren’t required to adhere to a formula (which UT has to, for instance).
LikeLike
Baylor’s working to upgrade, but traditionally they’ve been a good, reasonably priced college for the middle class who want a private school, but not elite. They’re about twice the size of SMU and TCU and have historically been much less expensive.
LikeLike
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/15/baylor
It helps that they pay freshman to retake the SAT’s to boost their rankings.
LikeLike
For the record, I have no idea if Baylor is still doing this or not.
LikeLike
Andy,
I think you will find that you can learn more about a university’s academic standing when you assess ACT scores using rankings based on their 25th percentile — not the median or 75th percentile — and a second, related metric is the spread of the 25-75th for the incoming class.
Each year a school must enroll a class that has a specific target goal for enrollments with an acceptable range around the target. This class has a mix of paying students — ranging from those who pay fully to those who have a free ride (or more, at IU, our top scholars receive full tuition scholarships and we give cash stipends to students — I believe IU’s best deal is $10,000 per year in cash).
Typically, students at the highest range — the 75 percentile or greater — receive the lion’s share of scholarships and stipends from a school and those students on the lower end of the scale (50th percentile or lower) will pay a greater percentage of tuition.
So, the 25th percentile is an indicator of “how low you have to go” as a university in order to fill a class with students who pay. At the higher end, a school can “buy” enrollments.
In general, the lower 25th and the 25-75 spread will also give you an insight into quality problems: If there is a low 25th and a large spread — how do you group students? It is the classic problem in k-12. Realistically how do teach a class with 25% of the class with a 24 ACT or lower and 25% with a 32 or higher? There are solutions — but literally every solution weakens and diminishes the quality of the program (e.g., “honor’s colleges, direct admits into schools, weak academic majors and so on) — attempts to enroll students who you don’t really want to admit — but you want their money – and so you will take their money but don’t really have them well-positioned for success upon graduation. The solution is unacceptable for most p5 schools — raise 25th percentile scores and reduce the 25-75 spread — becasue you have raised the 25th percentile faster than the 75th raises. — the problem — is that over time the most likely result is that you will shave the size of your incoming class by hundreds of students per year.
FYI — Big 10 has been moving in the wrong direction. It is still good, just slipping. The next decade will be really interesting — the P5 universities have literally played every card that they have to play.
LikeLike
Interesting post. I take it you have (or had) some involvement with admissions. Some of the Big 10 schools have increased their enrollment in recent years, which is surprising, giving the decrease in the number of HS students in the area. Population isn’t declining, but its aging.
LikeLike
@bullet – A big thing is the rise of enrollment of out-of-state and international students who pay higher tuition rates, which is compensating for the stagnant Midwestern population growth rates. When I was going to Illinois, we had over 90% of students from in-state. Now, it’s between 75%-80% in-state and dropping. The other Big Ten schools have seen even more dramatic drops with their in-state numbers (with an increasing influx of international students, East Coast kids, and Chicago area natives that couldn’t get into Illinois). We also see this in many of the non-California Pac-12 schools in drawing in more and more California students – Oregon is now becoming to California kids what Iowa has been to Illinois kids.
LikeLike
Texas has the opposite pressure. There were a higher % of out of state students when I went there. Now with enrollment and political pressures, they take a higher % of in-state students.
For the Big 10, Maryland and New Jersey with the high % of students going to private schools or out of state look like gold mines.
LikeLike
JF!
LikeLike
Reading through the comments has taught me one thing: Fans or alumni of schools who are pretty much secure in the P5 going forward or whose schools can essentially write their own ticket to another conference can wax poetic about the morality of conference realignment. However, fans or alumni of schools who can not be in any guaranteed position to be secured in the future can ill afford to take any philosophical position.
That to me says that there is a lot of power within college sports circles on the part of media and conference presidents because there will continue to be fans and alumni who are receptive to conference realignment rumors, until there is such a change in the paradigm as to render that factor obsolete.
LikeLike
In that, CFB is like the rest of life. The haves can afford to talk morality while the have-nots worry about survival.
LikeLike
So we are discussing how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs impacts college football realignment?
LikeLike
That’s what makes this blog unique.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
There is a part of me that wonders if this blockbuster of a revelation is not ESPN indirectly telling the Big Ten to think twice about taking their Tier 1/2 rights outside of the Worldwide Monopoly? Since the Big Ten had already decided that they are letting their current rights expire without “added incentives”, it seems that the 4-letter monster is sensing a vulnerability within the ranks. Whether or not that’s the reality on the ground is immaterial at this point. Nothing should be left to chance. This is what is increasingly worrying me. I look at the Big Ten as the one hope in college athletics that can have some control over who they want to deal with when contracting out media rights. That’s why I hope Frank is dead wrong.
Frank is saying that Delany may have had background discussions with ESPN prior to November 2012. I just don’t believe it. Maybe it is naivete on my part, but it would have been better for the Big Ten to act independently of their television partners. Television partners come and go but the well-being of the members of the conference go above that. That type of behavior is more suited for the ACC types. I have always looked at the Big Ten with a great amount of respect, knowing that no organization is without flaws. Their philosophy of being beyond athletic competition is its more appealing feature, where schools like Iowa, Ohio State, Purdue and Wisconsin can feel like they belong. This was never present in the Big East, where there was never any great cohesion between private and public schools, let alone football and non-football schools. The ACC may claim its academic prowess but it’s a conference that only cares about athletic performance, and will look down on anyone who is not “at their level”. It’s the basketball equivalent of the SEC, with its own yahoo contingent in the deep South who look down at Northern schools because of perceived football inferiority. The ACC is where private schools can feel superior to public schools. Any wonder Syr/Pitt/ND/UVa/Duke/Wake find themselves there?
It would sicken me if the ACC somehow turns the tables and breaks the security of the Big Ten. Even if the B1G loses 2 I would prefer it. But what if the move causes others to doubt the conference? I’m talking about a school like Nebraska, who may start having second thoughts if a football brand (or even 2) is poached away. Then you have the other issue where it won’t be easy to find suitable replacements because of: a) the B1G standards for admitting new members; and b) any suitable candidate being uninterested or locked in another conference’s GoR. This has the potential of quickly unraveling the Big Ten because they’re never been in a position of being on defense and, thus, no experience on how to handle threats from without.
For these reasons, I think ESPN did not mind at all the allegations from UMD’s legal team being out there. They could be sending a message to the B1G higher ups that they may consider them as the best assurance of security against losing one of their more coveted brands. Conspiratorial? Maybe, but I can’t rule anything out.
I hope I am wrong and this conference sticks together but, in back of my mind, the uncertainty may cause them to wilt and re-up with the SEC’s favorite network. And more years of the fans complaining about Kirk Herbstreit and Mark May.
LikeLike
Who would seriously consider leaving the Big Ten though at this point?
It doesn’t sound at all like either of the schools that were approached seriously considered anything of the sort.
Schools are going to be approached about this all the time. The Big Ten (and every other conference under the sun) approached Texas in the past 5-6 years.
All indications are that the schools targeted were Penn State and Northwestern. Neither has any real reason to leave at this point.
The two schools with the most in common with Penn State in the Mid-Atlantic were just added to the conference in Maryland and Rutgers.
Northwestern isn’t going to leave the Big Ten for the ACC; even if Northwestern is sort of out of place; the Big Ten is a much better stage in terms of visibility nationally, and Northwestern isn’t like ND.
Northwestern would much rather be unique as the Big Ten’s elite private school rather than one of a half dozen private elite schools in the ACC.
LikeLike
@zeek – That’s definitely part of the point I’m trying to get across in this post. The ACC “recruiting” a Big Ten school is as simple as Pitt’s president calling up Penn State’s president and asking if they’d be interested in joining, with PSU quickly responding, “No thanks.” I don’t know if people are having an image of this “recruitment” as reflecting multiple clandestine meetings and actual discussions. Maryland is simply attempting to throw any morsel against the wall to see if it sticks here to build an antitrust claim. I don’t consider a weakness for the Big Ten any more than the B1G having its own “recruitment” of UNC and UVA means that they’re suddenly going to leave the ACC.
LikeLike
Yes, you’re reach normally exceeds your grasp in the final accepted market definition (on both sides), but a judge cannot accept a claim of a market boundary that you don’t make, so may as well set it up like a Matryoshka doll … in nesting smaller and smaller layers if you are arguing for the anti-trust intervention, in nesting larger and larger layers if you are arguing against the anti-trust intervention.
And if its not a jury trial, some arguments in favor of a claim falling down doesn’t necessarily undermine the claim if other arguments stand up.
LikeLike
Penn State is generally disgruntled (like Maryland), and if they could be shanghai’d (two or three people in on the decision before it’s rammed through the board of directors) the way Maryland was, I could see it happening. I don’t think the ACC operates that way, though.
I think Maryland and Rutgers were definitely a bone thrown to PSU to prevent this, but was it enough?
In the long run, the money is the same, so it’s all about who they want to play against and identify with if they’re making 50-year decisions.
Short-term, sure, nobody leaves the Big Ten. The money is great right now.
LikeLike
“I don’t think the ACC operates that way, though.”
Because the Pitt and Syracuse adds were so well publicized far in advance?
LikeLike
If they had been, would anyone at Pitt or Syracuse have objected? They would have at Maryland.
LikeLike
Which says nothing about how the ACC operates.
LikeLike
Penn State is generally disgruntled (like Maryland), and if they could be shanghai’d (two or three people in on the decision before it’s rammed through the board of directors) the way Maryland was, I could see it happening. I don’t think the ACC operates that way, though.
I think Maryland and Rutgers were definitely a bone thrown to PSU to prevent this, but was it enough?
Penn State fans are generally disgruntled. They are also ignorant. I have never seen any indication that anyone in the PSU administration would prefer to be in the ACC.
The one absolutely inviolable rule of realignment, is that no school has ever willingly switched conferences to lose money. Until the ACC is a wealthier conference than the Big Ten, there is zero chance that any Big Ten school would switch.
LikeLike
The one absolutely inviolable rule of realignment, is that no school has ever willingly switched conferences to lose money.
But leaving a conference to lose money has happened (see South Carolina, 1971, a decision that left the Gamecocks in the wilderness for two decades). Administrators learned from that mistake and always made sure to have a landing space after leaving a league.
LikeLike
Colorado went to a conference that made less money. And there was the potential that it would continue to make less money. Noone knew what the Pac 12’s contract would be at that point.
Of course, Colorado planned to more than make that up with its own fund-raising, so they weren’t actually going for less overall. Its hard to see what non-TV financial benefit any of the Big 10 schools could get going to the ACC.
LikeLike
Come on, bullet. Colo. went to a conference as it was in the midst of preparing for a new media contract, had consultants who provided estimations, and didn’t officially become a member until it had been signed. They also knew there would most likely be a P12N and the various forms it might take. The non athletic side connecting with the west likely is worth more to the school than any gain for the AD.
LikeLike
@VP19:
“But leaving a conference to lose money has happened (see South Carolina, 1971, a decision that left the Gamecocks in the wilderness for two decades)”
Moves that long ago are irrelevant in the modern conference realignment. I mean, Tulane left the SEC in the mid 60’s, and so did GT. That has no bearing on the present-day SEC. Frankly, the first move that bears some relevance was the Pac8 taking the two Arizona schools in the late 70’s, recognizing that Arizona was a growing state and market. And even that move isn’t illustrative that much because taking two schools in a state is a idea largely in the past, when TV markets and TV revenue is factored in.
LikeLike
So you are agreeing with me cc?
LikeLike
And actually Nebraska didn’t realize it was going for less money, but it is making less (at least until its buy-in ends) than if it had stayed in the Big 12. The Big 12 got a new contract 2 years early and so got more than they were expecting.
LikeLike
Bullet:
In an oblique way. They will long term be far better off. That is the future they were/are concerned with, not the size of next weeks check. As to UNL, I’m sure they were aware of the terms and conditions when joining, or have you adopted he who won’t be named’s theory of junior member for the period of buying equity in the BTN? If you are going to apply an early B12 increase made (a direct result of the defections) to save the conference, then you should apply the coming PAC increase. That was much more to be expected than broadcast partners sudden and unusual largess.
LikeLike
opossum,
“Penn State is generally disgruntled (like Maryland),”
No, some PSU fans are disgruntled. Huge difference.
“and if they could be shanghai’d (two or three people in on the decision before it’s rammed through the board of directors) the way Maryland was,”
And why would they support sacrificing millions of dollars per year and access to the CIC, not to mention paying to break the GoR?
“I could see it happening.”
I can’t.
“I don’t think the ACC operates that way, though.”
Yes, they were so transparent with all their expansions.
“In the long run, the money is the same,”
Says who? Recent contracts don’t support that statement at all.
LikeLike
Someone explain to me how Northwestern is “out of place” in the Big Ten.
It’s a school, with students, that plays sports against other schools that are relatively close academically and geographically. They have a long history of competition and affiliation with these other schools.
These are academic institutions, not co-workers at a social gathering. As long as nobody invites the Joliet Junior College, I’m pretty sure the Everton Cats feel just fine. The only people who ever talk about “feeling out of place” work at Notre Dame, and that’s just a euphemism for “Midwestern”.
LikeLike
It’s much smaller than the other members and is the only private school. In those aspects, NW is out of place.
LikeLike
@Transic – I’m as big of a Big Ten guy as anyone, but it’s hard to believe that a conference whose expansion where the source of funding is largely based upon its own TV network didn’t consult its TV partners. Recall the projected revenue figures that the Big Ten presented to Maryland – those numbers weren’t being pulled out of thin air and bases on purely internal information.
Also, we can’t just expect the Big Ten to take a stand against ESPN on principle. The only sports entity in America that has that type of power is the NFL. Otherwise, it should be emphasized that ESPN isn’t merely the most powerful entity in college sports or even the sports world in general. Instead, ESPN is the single most powerful company in ALL of entertainment and media today. That network alone is worth as much as every other asset that Disney owns combined (and if you see the amount of Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney Princess and Disney Junior toys that are in my house along with preparation materials for an upcoming Disney World spring break trip, yet ESPN is worth multitudes more than all of that underlying intellectual property, that’s shows how insanely valuable and powerful ESPN is in the marketplace).
I don’t think the Big Ten is going to be “forced” to extend with ESPN. To the contrary, it’s likely going to be in the best interests of the parties to do it sooner rather than later, anyway. I’ve always pushed back on the “B1G = Fox” and “SEC/ACC = ESPN” dichotomy because it’s completely inaccurate. The Big Ten wants to do what the NFL does – get huge revenue streams from multiple networks, one of which is ESPN because (a) they provide the best exposure for the general sports fan and (b) they can afford to pay the most. Could some Big Ten games move to Fox? Sure – I could definitely see something along the lines of the Pac-12 deal where there’s a split between ESPN and Fox. However, the notion (hope by some people?) that the Big Ten will completely leave ESPN is faulty. You don’t have to personally like ESPN (as it has been well documented that top NFL and NBA officials have had similar acrimonious discussions with Bristol just like Jim Delany), but you *have* to do business with them if you want to be anything other than a niche sports entity.
LikeLike
Not to mention, ESPN is far, far superior to anyone in else in broadcasting CFB games. Fox and the BTN are amateur hour in terms of personnel and production value.
LikeLike
Those who have the Longhorn Network say it does an outstanding job. But of course, it is an ESPN operation. ESPN is far superior to Fox and to the syndicated Big 10 (presumably BTN) games I have seen.
LikeLike
I’ve had the Longhorn Network in Baton Rouge, on my Cox sports tier, for months and didn’t know it. When I finally stumbled across it, I watched a few of the studio programs, reruns of Friday Night Lights, and the Texas/Ole Miss game. The LHN’s production value is just as good as any of the channels within the ESPN family of networks, and the talking heads are ESPNU quality.
While traveling, I’ve watched the BTN on occasion. I’m glad to see that former LSU coach Gerry DiNardo has steady employment. But in terms of production quality, the BTN is nowhere close to the LHN.
LikeLike
CBS does an excellent job with its college football coverage (and maybe it’s just me, but I think they have the best sound quality in particular) and ESPN is right there with them. NBC is passable, but I don’t think their Notre Dame coverage rises to the level of what they provide for NFL, NHL or Premier League games. Fox’s college football production isn’t anywhere near any of them at this point.
LikeLike
Bullet:
The B10 doesn’t syndicate any football games now; they’re all on the BTN if not ABC/ESPN.
Back in the day, when the B10 did syndicate football games, they must have hired the same company that produces local Chicagoland football games. The quality wasn’t much different.
LikeLike
I personally don’t see a huge difference between BTN and ESPNU which is BTN’s stated target guideline comparable. But as others mentioned there is a big difference between the Fox productions and CBS/ESPN. Although for some reason I’ve seen a decline in some of the ESPN/ESPN 2 production quality.
Haven’t seen LHN or Pac12 Nets. Anyone have experience viewing the Pac12 Network? Curious how that is working out. It appears their studio set is more appealing than what the BTN created.
LikeLike
MLB could shirk ESPN. Most of their revenue is derived from local sports channels on a team by team basis and interest is largely contained on those levels (outside of the “national” brands, like the Yankees). ESPN has a very real interest in those games, else they’d let the networks have them.
Of course they wouldn’t, but I don’t see Major League Baseball needing ESPN’s partnership.
LikeLike
Frank – One should be well-advised to read this article (it’s from 2013 but still relevent):
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-nightmare-scenario-2013-5
The real danger, to me, is relying on the incumbent media company when they’ve always doubled down and even tripled down on content they’ve had before. I’m not saying that Fox is some panacea to the Big Ten’s respect issues but having more than one stakeholder in the distribution of your content (especially when the conference might do much of that in-house) prevents one distribution outlet from controlling the message of your product.
Personally, I would love a combo of NBCSN, NBC, Universal Sports and CNBC, with possibly Telemundo in the mix for basketball, Olympic Sports, etc. NBC already has the Olympics so what better for them to promote the Big Ten than have many of their olympic sports like field hockey, lacrosse, tennis, etc., which could go on their Universal Sports platform easily. BTN would then be used primarily for football and basketball, then promoting the Big Ten universities’ academic programs. NBC would have one Big Ten night game a week except November and the Big Ten would have one afternoon game each on NBCSN, BTN and CNBC. That kind of mix would present a real challenge to the ESpin Worldwide Monopoly that threatens the autonomy of athletic programs across the country.
LikeLike
@Transic – Yes, I agree that the Big Ten should have more than one stakeholder in its product, which is what it has right now with ESPN and the BTN/Fox. What I highly disagree with is that it would be a smart decision for the Big Ten to leave ESPN entirely. This exercise isn’t about challenging ESPN (as much as fans might want that) – it’s about maintaining the right balance of maximum revenue AND maximum exposure for the Big Ten, whether it’s via ESPN, Fox, NBC, or some combination thereof. If you’re talking about nationally carried over-the-air games on Fox or NBC, then that’s one thing – that’s a comparable substitute for ESPN games when it comes to the exposure side. However, FS1 and NBCSN are absolutely not substitutes for the mothership ESPN when it comes to exposure at this time and won’t be for the foreseeable future. FS1, with its lineup of MLB, Pac-12, Big 12, Big East, NASCAR, USGA and FIFA events, has a better chance of being a broader-based competitor, but even the best case scenario for them is to be an ESPN2-level channel in terms of ratings and distribution. NBCSN is sort of the “yuppie/hipster” sports network with the NHL, Premier League and Olympics, but that niche isn’t not going to get it done for the Big Ten’s football and basketball packages. (However, I’m sure that the Big Ten would be happy to sell NBCSN more hockey games, which would make sense for both parties involved.)
Jim Delany isn’t short-sighted – the BTN beast has always been intended as a supplement. In order for the Big Ten to continue to grow (especially if we transition more to an a la carte environment), then it still needs outlets that provide the broadest exposure possible in addition to its own network. Just look at the NFL – it could hold the entire TV industry hostage if it just took all of its games in-house or sold them off to an entity with unlimited oil sheik funds like beIN Sport, but that revenue maximization still has to be tempered by the league’s realization that wide exposure still matters. You’ll kill the proverbial golden goose if you act otherwise. That’s why the NFL is trying to get its Thursday night games more exposure on network television.
Beyond the money aspect, I simply think a lot of Big Ten fans complain about ESPN way too much. When you take a step back, the only conference that has it better than us is the SEC when it comes to ESPN’s coverage (and that includes the ACC). It’s the equivalent of us owning the biggest mansion in Beverly Hills and then whining that Architectural Digest wrote that it likes the house next door to us better. As I’ve stated before, ESPN’s primary bias is towards winners, which I honestly don’t have much of a problem with. The SEC has won a heck of lot more than the Big Ten over the past 7 or 8 years, so I’m not exactly sure why people believe that the Big Ten should be given the benefit of the doubt. Plus, when you have a lot of exposure like the Big Ten has, you’re going to get a lot more scrutiny (which is exactly what has happened). It’s the same reason why Tony Romo and the Cowboys get scrutinized more than any other mediocre 8-8 team – the Big Ten gets talked about a lot (whether it’s positively or negatively) because the Big Ten actually matters and draws eyeballs. I know it probably sounds weird, but that’s a good thing. Talking about a bad Pac-12, Big 12 or ACC season isn’t nearly as interesting to the general public. We (the fans) fall for the bait every time. Finally, the fact that we are even aware of what ESPN’s commentators are saying about the Big Ten is indicative of why it’s so critical to still be part of their promotional machine. Does anyone have any idea of what Clay Travis has said about the Big Ten on Fox Sports 1? I highly doubt he was flattering, but the point is that it doesn’t matter one way or the other because (a) Fox doesn’t have the promotional heft to make any of its comments, whether positive or negative, to have any impact on the general public (unlike ESPN) and (b) the Travis hire itself should indicate to all of us that the thought that other networks aren’t going to hire people that are even more of shills for the SEC than the people on ESPN is entirely wishful thinking. Other networks are going to pimp the superiority of the SEC just as much.
I think a lot of people are severely underestimating how much of a difference it makes to be on ESPN versus the other cable networks. It’s not even in the same vicinity and the Big Ten alone can’t change that. That doesn’t mean that the Big Ten needs to sell all of its first tier games to ESPN like now, but the conference absolutely needs to consistent presence with that network.
LikeLike
This exercise isn’t about challenging ESPN (as much as fans might want that) – it’s about maintaining the right balance of maximum revenue AND maximum exposure for the Big Ten, whether it’s via ESPN, Fox, NBC, or some combination thereof. If you’re talking about nationally carried over-the-air games on Fox or NBC, then that’s one thing – that’s a comparable substitute for ESPN games when it comes to the exposure side. However, FS1 and NBCSN are absolutely not substitutes for the mothership ESPN when it comes to exposure at this time and won’t be for the foreseeable future. FS1, with its lineup of MLB, Pac-12, Big 12, Big East, NASCAR, USGA and FIFA events, has a better chance of being a broader-based competitor, but even the best case scenario for them is to be an ESPN2-level channel in terms of ratings and distribution. NBCSN is sort of the “yuppie/hipster” sports network with the NHL, Premier League and Olympics, but that niche isn’t not going to get it done for the Big Ten’s football and basketball packages.
Maybe it’s you that is downgrading the popularity of the Big Ten programs, if you believe that people would stop watching Big Ten teams if they’re not on the ESPN networks. If someone is a fan of their school, he or she would find the games even if it takes a little effort. This reminds me of all those people who thought hockey was going to disappear when they left ESPN. Hockey fan s are very passionate and diehard about their game. They have been patient when ESPN was shuffling the product around, sometimes airing it and sometime not. But there is something called respect and hockey fans were disrespected by ESPN. When a network has so much stuff they prioritize. When NBC had baseball, football and basketball, they couldn’t care less about the other sports, except for Olympics. Why would they when they had the main events? When ESPN slowly chipped away at the content, it was only then that the other networks realized that they needed a 24/7 dedicated sports network to expose and monetize on content.
Today, ESPN has a smorgesbord of content from five different conference, plus G5 and others. There is no way that they can do it in a way that would please fans of all the schools in the power conferences. The Big Ten is poised to do everyone else a favor by diminishing the power of ESpin without sacrificing the exposure that you are so concerned about. Now let’s say the Big Ten lands on NBC and NBCSN. Well, you say that they’d sacrifice exposure by going to a cable network that’s in less homes than ESPN. But do you think Big Ten fans would sit and accept that? No, they’ll call to have NBCSN put in their homes. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes. BTN. People called in and demanded that BTN be added. It took some time but that happened. If you have BTN, NBCSN or FS1 and either Fox or NBC, well, you already have the broadcast part for those marquee games, then two secondary games on BTN and either NBCSN or FS1. The broadcast could be aired either after a ND game (NBC) or before/after a B12 game (Fox). Then there are the ancillary programming that accompany the product like NBC Sports does for the NHL. You could have Big Ten academic programs on BTN after a football game, while NBCSN airs a behind-the-scenes program about coaches. ETC.
Beyond the money aspect, I simply think a lot of Big Ten fans complain about ESPN way too much. When you take a step back, the only conference that has it better than us is the SEC when it comes to ESPN’s coverage (and that includes the ACC). It’s the equivalent of us owning the biggest mansion in Beverly Hills and then whining that Architectural Digest wrote that it likes the house next door to us better. As I’ve stated before, ESPN’s primary bias is towards winners, which I honestly don’t have much of a problem with.
Well, the Big East won a bunch of football games against other conferences in the BCS era. Guess what? That league no longer exists. Why? ESpin’s agenda. They have a thing against college entities that wanted an existence outside the Worldwide Monopoly. Winning and losing only matters to those who don’t see the bigger picture. I continue to think that ESPN has a thing against soccer even though they have the World Cup until next year. Unfortunately, because they’ve had a head start against NBC, Fox, CBS, etc., their competitors don’t yet have the experience of promoting a product. However, NBC with the Premier League has done a good job of expending valuable resources to promote it and fans of the EPL are generally pleased with the progress so far. It’s about respect, not just exposure and money.
I have nothing against noting that the Big Ten teams have not done well on the football field recently. That I get. But it is merely a convenient reason for the shills like Dick Vitale to fawn over Dook and ACC, in basketball or Mark May opining that the Big Ten shouldn’t even be in the conversation. You bring up Clay Travis as a counterexample. Well, if FS1 had Big Ten games and Clay Travis’ opinions resulted in less viewership than expected, then I’d agree with you. But I would think a new channel is more interested in getting people to watch what they’re airing and not allow some punk like Travis to have too much influence. Yet, ESpin is a-OK with personalities denigrating the Big Ten. That to me says that it is official editorial policy of ESpin. One of these days somebody at higher ups at corporate will spill the beans, maybe Disney itself.
You are simply confusing contractual obligations with some notion of favoritism. I’m actually arguing that it’s happening despite the obligations. I bet my life savings that they’ll offer a downgraded contract with several games pushed to internet and regional networks and tell them that that’s what they’re really worth, just like with the old Big East. When the Big East said “No” they helped pushed schools to the ACC. Of course, the ACC didn’t mind and kissed their hand. When the B12 had internal issues, two schools went to the SEC. Guess what? The emergence of the SECN. Then ESPN suckered Fox into joint bidding on the PAC after Colorado joined. Fox should’ve said “No” even if it meant NBC would win. They could always go back and win with B12 and Big Ten and let NBC have the West Coast. You never help ESPN because ESpin always get the upper hand.
I think a lot of people are severely underestimating how much of a difference it makes to be on ESPN versus the other cable networks. It’s not even in the same vicinity and the Big Ten alone can’t change that. That doesn’t mean that the Big Ten needs to sell all of its first tier games to ESPN like now, but the conference absolutely needs to consistent presence with that network.
That’s the kind of thinking that continues to give them power over you. They are a middle-man. They don’t start sports leagues of their own but contracts with different sports leagues. They can’t please everyone and know it. Their power gives them the leeway to tell you what sports matter and what don’t, what athletes matter and what don’t, what personalities they think should matter. Thank goodness alternatives are emerging but it would be hard to get people to change because: low-information viewers; conservatism; need for validation.
The new networks have been great for so-called niche sports because they now have more of a fighting chance to attract new viewers to what they’re offering without the editors of ESpin telling you what to watch. If/when we do go to a streaming model, look for new companies to better challenge the Worldwide Monopoly. Hopefully, that will be the change we all need.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Beyond the money aspect, I simply think a lot of Big Ten fans complain about ESPN way too much. When you take a step back, the only conference that has it better than us is the SEC when it comes to ESPN’s coverage (and that includes the ACC). It’s the equivalent of us owning the biggest mansion in Beverly Hills and then whining that Architectural Digest wrote that it likes the house next door to us better. As I’ve stated before, ESPN’s primary bias is towards winners, which I honestly don’t have much of a problem with. The SEC has won a heck of lot more than the Big Ten over the past 7 or 8 years, so I’m not exactly sure why people believe that the Big Ten should be given the benefit of the doubt. Plus, when you have a lot of exposure like the Big Ten has, you’re going to get a lot more scrutiny (which is exactly what has happened).”
You sidestep some of the biggest issues for those B10 fans that complain. First is their continued employment of anti-B10 talking heads like Trev Alberts and Mark May. No other conference deals with that treatment from ESPN. The other issue is there unequal treatment of peer teams. The clearest example being how little they had to say negatively about OU while trashing OSU despite similar results from both schools. That continuous trashing of OSU in turn impacted the rest of the B10. If ESPN had treated others as harshly, the B10 wouldn’t have suffered so much in comparison.
None of that it to excuse the B10’s failure to win more. But on paper the B10 wasn’t as bad as it was on ESPN.
LikeLike
They tend to just ignore Big 12 schools. That’s worse than getting trashed. And if Ohio St. didn’t get whipped so much in BCS games, they wouldn’t get as much trash talk. In fact, there’s a perception the SEC crushes the B10 in bowl games, but its really just Ohio St. The rest tend to hold their own overall.
As for people watching, its the loss of casual fans that hurts you on Fox. They simply don’t get as many. There have been some really good games with mediocre ratings on Fox the last couple of years. That may change over time, but its not happening overnight.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They tend to just ignore Big 12 schools. That’s worse than getting trashed.”
No, it isn’t. That’s like claiming that Fox News’s coverage of Obama is good for him somehow.
“And if Ohio St. didn’t get whipped so much in BCS games, they wouldn’t get as much trash talk.”
OSU went 6-4 in BCS games with 2 one-possession losses. OU went 4-5 with 3 losses by 10+ points. Other non-SEC AQ teams with a winning BCS record in 3+ BCS games – USC, WV, Miami, UT, OR.
“In fact, there’s a perception the SEC crushes the B10 in bowl games, but its really just Ohio St.”
There’s that perception because ESPN perpetuates that myth. OSU has 5 one-possession losses to SEC teams in bowls plus 1 victory. In the BCS era, OSU had 3 bad losses to SEC teams in bowls. OSU also had 2 close losses and a BCS win versus the SEC in that era.
LikeLike
@Brian:
As a fellow B1G fan, I am perfectly fine with how ESPN covers the Big Ten. I very much prefer perceived negative coverage than to be completely ignored. Its a relative of the old idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
And ESPN promotional power is absolutely critical to the Big Ten’s past, present, and future success. Without it, ESPN will focus their gaze on other conferences, building them up at the B1G’s expense. You don’t leave the biggest network on the block in a fit of anger over perceived bias.
A textbook example is the intense publicity ESPN centered on the OSU vs NU ABC Saturday night game this past season. Gameday at NU! Mike & Mike from NU! Both coaches doing day long interviews on all ESPN outlets. The intense publicity drove ratings to for that game much higher than one would expect for those two teams playing each other. Had that game been on BTN, or Fox, or FS1? ESPN would have covered it like just another normal game. And neither BTN or Fox can publicize a game anywhere near what ESPN can.
Put another way: Ask the Kardashians if they care how bad their TV show make the family look. They’ll laugh at you–while laughing all the way to the bank (and happy that you know their name and that their media strategy is working).
LikeLike
@Wainscott – That’s an excellent example. Ohio State fans in particular might be immune to that type of coverage, but the amount of exposure that Northwestern received that week could simply not be replicated on any other network. I couldn’t turn on any ESPN program that week without being bombarded with almost universally positive Northwestern stories. Believe me – Pat Fitzgerald and the Northwestern administration could give two craps about what Mark May says on ESPN compared to the literally millions of dollars of exposure that the school received as a result of the ESPN promotional machine.
It perplexes me why fans get so hung up on pundit opinions… and even if you do care, once again, Fox hired CLAY TRAVIS. CLAY. TRAVIS. That should be a lesson to everyone that if you want a pundit friend on TV, go adopt a dog. What matters are the best time slots on the most widely-distributed platforms, branding, promotion throughout the week, and top discussion and highlights on shows that the general public actually watches (i.e. SportsCenter). Those are what billion dollar decisions should be made on.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Ohio State fans in particular might be immune to that type of coverage,”
Pretty much. OSU gets coverage like that reasonably often.
“It perplexes me why fans get so hung up on pundit opinions”
1. Because they show them during the games (halftime, etc).
2. Because that’s all I see from ESPN. I don’t watch them outside of games and the post-game wrap-up shows.
3. Because ESPN chooses those specific pundits.
4. Maybe you’d understand better if you were an OSU fan, since we have taken the brunt of the abuse for the past 7 years.
“… and even if you do care, once again, Fox hired CLAY TRAVIS.”
Have you ever seen me support Fox? I was going to give FS1 a shot just because ESPN irritates me, but I dropped that idea as soon as I heard they had hired him. It’s as bad as ESPN hiring Paul Finebaum.
“That should be a lesson to everyone that if you want a pundit friend on TV, go adopt a dog.”
So I can’t complain because their competition also is offensive? Why can’t I wish a pox on all their houses?
“What matters are the best time slots on the most widely-distributed platforms, branding, promotion throughout the week, and top discussion and highlights on shows that the general public actually watches (i.e. SportsCenter). Those are what billion dollar decisions should be made on.”
I’ve never advocated for the B10 to leave ESPN/ABC. That doesn’t prevent me from having issues with ESPN. I do think the B10 should make a point of mentioning these issues when discussing the next deal, though. There is clear evidence that ESPN alienates many B10 fans, and they seem to do it on purpose. ESPN has shown that the B10 is valuable to them with what they pay us, so it seems odd to continue to antagonize their customers. They should be above shock-jock tactics.
LikeLike
Clay Travis makes no sense. There are no SEC games on Fox. And he is one of the biggest SEC homers out there. He makes ESPN look negative towards the SEC by comparison.
LikeLike
I agree with Frank.
“Ohio State fans in particular might be immune to that type of coverage,”
Yep, which is why OSU and UM fans are particularly ill-positioned to speak for the B10 as a whole when it comes to exposure.
“If someone is a fan of their school, he or she would find the games even if it takes a little effort.”
However, casual & neutral fans will be watching an equally compelling SEC game on ESPN while the B10 game languishes on NBCSN unseen by all but die-hards. That is what you want?
“But there is something called respect and hockey fans were disrespected by ESPN.”
Anyone ask the NHL if they’re happy receiving a small fraction in TV money in the US of what the other major sports leagues receive? The NHL’s TV money in the US is equivalent to those of one of the major collegiate conferences, which are regional entities.
“But do you think Big Ten fans would sit and accept that? No, they’ll call to have NBCSN put in their homes.”
So you’d get NBCSN added in more households in the B10 footprint. Congratulations. The BTN and NBCSN would still each be in less than half the households that get ESPN.
“I bet my life savings that they’ll offer a downgraded contract with several games pushed to internet and regional networks and tell them that that’s what they’re really worth, just like with the old Big East.”
I’d take the opposite side of that bet. This is because the B10’s fan base is just a tad bigger than the old BE’s. As in something like roughly twice the size or more. How much are your life savings?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Yep, which is why OSU and UM fans are particularly ill-positioned to speak for the B10 as a whole when it comes to exposure.”
Actually, every fan base is in a bad place to speak for the whole conference on that issue. Every school has different wants and needs from the TV deal. One group of schools regularly gets exposure but never gets respect from ESPN (and therefore complains about the talking heads). Another group normally gets little exposure and is grateful for the times when ESPN does cover them, so they don’t care what negative things ESPN has to say the rest of the time. A third group gets little exposure at all and is just glad to get the money.
This is one reason why I’ve never said the B10 should leave ESPN. I recognize that they are the premier TV outlet for CFB and that’s good for everyone in the B10, but especially the smaller programs. What I also recognize is that while I want ESPN to carry the games, I’d like many of their talking heads (Mark May, Paul Finebaum, etc) to disappear. I think of their game coverage and their talking heads as different departments, and I see no problem liking one and hating the other.
LikeLike
@Brian – Believe me – I wish that one of the sports networks would take an NPR-like approach to analysis in terms of tone. I’d love it. However, I’m resigned to the fact that all networks purposely hire asshats for pundits and that’s not going to change. ESPN does it with Mark May, Fox does it with Clay Travis, and NBC would inevitably do it if they got any properties beyond Notre Dame. Fox and NBC certainly take the asshat pundit approach for political “analysis” on their respective news channels, too, so we shouldn’t expect anything less than that for sports.
So, if people don’t like the ESPN pundits, that’s perfectly fine. They *do* suck. I fully grant that. The only point is that they’ll suck everywhere, so it shouldn’t factor into any decision about whether the Big Ten should stay with or leave ESPN.
To the extent that there are shows that actually matter, they’re (1) SportsCenter and (2) GameDay because those are shows that truly do have a legit fan audience and recruits absolutely care about those shows *specifically*. Overall, I see GameDay as a net positive for the Big Ten with all of its pundits having Big Ten ties and the fact that they’ll frequently travel to Big Ten sites (including choosing to go to the Big Ten Championship Game this year instead of the SEC or ACC Championship Games even though the B1G game was on Fox). All of the positive platitudes in the world on FS1’s college football show don’t mean more than a speck compared the exposure on GameDay and SportsCenter.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Believe me – I wish that one of the sports networks would take an NPR-like approach to analysis in terms of tone. I’d love it. However, I’m resigned to the fact that all networks purposely hire asshats for pundits and that’s not going to change. ESPN does it with Mark May, Fox does it with Clay Travis, and NBC would inevitably do it if they got any properties beyond Notre Dame. Fox and NBC certainly take the asshat pundit approach for political “analysis” on their respective news channels, too, so we shouldn’t expect anything less than that for sports.
So, if people don’t like the ESPN pundits, that’s perfectly fine. They *do* suck. I fully grant that. The only point is that they’ll suck everywhere, so it shouldn’t factor into any decision about whether the Big Ten should stay with or leave ESPN.”
And I haven’t said it should change where the B10 goes. But you keep saying you don’t understand why people complain about ESPN, and I’m telling you that hose asshats are the reason.
“To the extent that there are shows that actually matter, they’re (1) SportsCenter”
Which regularly brings on said asshats for “analysis” so the anti-OSU/anti-B10 hate gets spewed to a wide audience.
“and (2) GameDay because those are shows that truly do have a legit fan audience and recruits absolutely care about those shows *specifically*.”
And GameDay also gets some asshat “analysis” as part of the show.
I think you should also include the halftime/studio guys in this, though, because they are part of the game broadcasts so the recruits see those, too. And that is where the asshats live.
I see nothing wrong with thinking the B10 should ask ESPN to tone down the B10 hate from some of it’s “analysts” or make them pay more.
LikeLike
“I see nothing wrong with thinking the B10 should ask ESPN to tone down the B10 hate from some of it’s “analysts” or make them pay more.”
But enough folks out there like to watch that sort of hate, either because they agree or because they enjoy getting riled out. Its like folks listening to Rush Limbaugh: Most do it because they agree with him, but some listen for the shock value or because they disagree and like getting all riled up.
I agree with you that the Skippy Bayless’ and the Mark May’s of the world cause me to mute TV sets, but enough tolerate/tune in to make it worthwhile.
Also, they only talk about stuff that they know people will tune in for. Like all the Tebow coverage, how ESPN’s ratings skyrocketed whenever they mentioned his name,so they talked about him more. You should be flattered by ESPN choosing to talk about OSU, even if negative.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“You should be flattered by ESPN choosing to talk about OSU, even if negative.”
Really? Would your mother be flattered if you called her every day but all you did was call her a whore and hang up? After all, you’d be calling your mother every day so she should be flattered.
LikeLike
“You should be flattered by ESPN choosing to talk about OSU, even if negative.”
Really? Would your mother be flattered if you called her every day but all you did was call her a whore and hang up? After all, you’d be calling your mother every day so she should be flattered.”
Are you actually equating someone calling their mother a derogatory term for the female anatomy on a daily basis with ESPN bloviating analysts criticizing/attacking a Big Ten football team in order to attract viewers? Really?? And you thought your analogy made sense???
You really take what the Mark May’s of the world say that seriously?
Brian, you’re better than that. Come on.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Are you actually equating someone calling their mother a derogatory term for the female anatomy on a daily basis with ESPN bloviating analysts criticizing/attacking a Big Ten football team in order to attract viewers? Really?? And you thought your analogy made sense???”
Yes, calling people names is calling people names. You said OSU should be flattered to be denigrated non-stop on ESPN. I pointed out how little sense that makes. If you prefer, equate it to saying Obama should be flattered by the coverage he gets on Fox News or calling your mother fat every time instead. There really is such a thing as bad publicity and it isn’t flattering.
“You really take what the Mark May’s of the world say that seriously?”
When the WWL repeats the same insults and myths often enough with enough different people, they become fact to most CFB fans. In that sense, I take what he says seriously. But I also don’t listen to him at all. I change the channel when he comes on because I know he’s about to be insulting to OSU if the opportunity arises and I don’t feel the need to subject myself to it. I don’t take calling your mother a whore all that seriously either, though.
LikeLike
@Brian:
“Yes, calling people names is calling people names. You said OSU should be flattered to be denigrated non-stop on ESPN. I pointed out how little sense that makes. If you prefer, equate it to saying Obama should be flattered by the coverage he gets on Fox News or calling your mother fat every time instead. There really is such a thing as bad publicity and it isn’t flattering.”
Its not non-stop, its occasionally bu select commentators. And the Obama analogy doesnt work because Obama, by virtue of his position, gets so much coverage that he ignores the blowhards on Fox. And occasionally, the White House will strike back with refusing to have surrogates appear on Fox News Sunday and Fox will tone it down a bit (its not a coincidence that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and some of the other extreme Obama-haters are no longer on the network).
OSU has no birthright, unlike the president of the United States, on any publicity. It is a name brand due to decades of success in football, and ESPN helped make it a more national, house hold name (as it has done with most college sports). ESPN is the far and away King of College Sports Media, and it publicizes OSU events like it does for few other schools. Part of the price for the prime time games, positive segments and such is the negative that comes along with being a name brand school–some will attack to make waves. Almost any other school in the nation would switch places with OSU–gleefully taking the good with the bad. And if ESPN ignored OSU, within a decade, it would be a less popular school vs. what other school ESPN decided to focus its gaze on.
I understand that you might be bothered by ESPN’s coverage of OSU sometimes, but its a small price to pay for all the good ESPN has done, and does do, for OSU–hyping OSU-Michigan, hyping other OSU games, interviews with Meyer, features of Meyer, and the like. The rantings of Skippy Bayless, Mark May, and the others are a small price to pay. Indeed, one of ESPN’s best analysts is your boy Herbie!
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Its not non-stop, its occasionally bu select commentators.”
In regards to non-factual discussions of OSU (no opinion given, just facts like the score), it is close to non-stop. And I’ve mentioned before that I’m only talking about the talking heads, not their game broadcasts.
“And the Obama analogy doesnt work because Obama, by virtue of his position, gets so much coverage that he ignores the blowhards on Fox. And occasionally, the White House will strike back with refusing to have surrogates appear on Fox News Sunday and Fox will tone it down a bit (its not a coincidence that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and some of the other extreme Obama-haters are no longer on the network).”
Oh, you mean like me suggesting Delany should consider mentioning the issue during the contract negotiations? Yes, clearly my analogy is pointless.
“OSU has no birthright, unlike the president of the United States, on any publicity.”
Which is wonderful, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. I complained about the tone of it, not the quantity. Everyone has the birthright to complain about the tone of their publicity.
“It is a name brand due to decades of success in football, and ESPN helped make it a more national, house hold name (as it has done with most college sports).”
No it didn’t. OSU was a household name long before ESPN was a factor in CFB. Newspapers and radio and broadcast TV made OSU a household name.
“ESPN is the far and away King of College Sports Media, and it publicizes OSU events like it does for few other schools. Part of the price for the prime time games, positive segments and such is the negative that comes along with being a name brand school–some will attack to make waves. Almost any other school in the nation would switch places with OSU–gleefully taking the good with the bad.”
Saying the grass is always greener doesn’t change anything. Get back to me when your alma mater takes 7 years of non-stop abuse from ESPN. You talk like ESPN is bestowing a gift on OSU. ESPN shows OSU for two reasons:
1. OSU is huge brand that makes money for them by drawing high ratings
2. OSU is generally highly ranked and thus draws high ratings
The second OSU doesn’t make more money for them than an alternative, they show that other game.
“And if ESPN ignored OSU, within a decade, it would be a less popular school vs. what other school ESPN decided to focus its gaze on.”
Yes, because clearly OU and UT have lost a lot of popularity now that ESPN ignores the B12 (according to bullet).
“I understand that you might be bothered by ESPN’s coverage of OSU sometimes, but its a small price to pay”
Frankly, you have no idea the size of the price. It seems small to you because your school doesn’t pay it. How many times have ESPN talking heads said they wouldn’t send their son to play for your school despite it being a top 10 school year after year? You think that helps OSU recruit?
“for all the good ESPN has done, and does do, for OSU–hyping OSU-Michigan, hyping other OSU games, interviews with Meyer, features of Meyer, and the like.”
That’s all good ESPN does for ESPN. Any benefit for OSU is a by product, not their intent. And again, you say it like ESPN chose OSU out of a hat to do this for rather than OSU having done something to reach that point.
“Indeed, one of ESPN’s best analysts is your boy Herbie!”
1. I almost never hear him because I don’t watch Game Day and I hate Musberger so I mute the ABC prime time games the few times I watch them.
2. Herbstreit is actually despised by a sizable portion of the OSU fan base for some things he has said and not said in his time at ESPN. This is what led him to move out of Columbus a few years ago.
LikeLike
Getting ignored is worse for a Baylor, Oklahoma St. or Kansas St. than a Texas or Oklahoma, schools that already are a brand.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Getting ignored is worse for a Baylor, Oklahoma St. or Kansas St. than a Texas or Oklahoma, schools that already are a brand.”
And continuous negative publicity is bad for brands. Which OSU is. Which is why I said it’s bad for OSU.
LikeLike
Agree with Frank, and I don’t understand this hatred/fear of ESPN. Why is hitching your wagon to Fox better? Their production quality certainly isn’t better.
The B10 does what’s best for its members, and, because of our fanbases, the B10 has sway as well.
Who can forget the “Bristol is Big Ten Country” stuff:
http://deadspin.com/163665/bristol-is-big-ten-country
LikeLike
Well, I have stated my position many times. I agree that it would be shortsighted for the B1G to forgo ESpin’s money, but that does not make me blind to ESpin’s constant denigration of the B1G and it’s teams and schools.
i find it very interesting how little acrimony the recent NC game garnered on ESpin. Lots of pimping for Auburn, sure, but very little trashing of FSU.
Reason: Espin owns both the ACC and SEC.
If tOSU had made the game, ESpin would have trashed OSU for weeks.
The fact that Espin makes a lot of money televising B1G games does not negate that ESpin also trashes the B1G. Those are not mutually exclusive. A thug can give you a diamond bracelet and still beat you senseless later that night.
In 2006, Delany said “consider them [the dice] rolled” and we are now seven years into ESpin’s continued trashing of the B1G. It is purposeful and company-wide just like, for awhile, everything on every platform was Tebow Tebow Tebow.
The constant denigration of the B1G has a significant impact. That most CFB writers have disapproved of the MD and RU additions partly flows from that. ESpin is an opinion leader and, consequently, many writers/talking heads in other media lazily follow the lead dog.
It has a huge impact on recruiting.
I am astonished why you, Frank, (and others) refuse to acknowledge ESpin’s B1G bashing and refuse to acknowledge the hostile and negative environment that it creates. It is not fun to watch my team play while the announcers over and over p*** on my team team and pimp some SEC school for the NCG. I dont care if the schedule was weak or not; do it on some other show; not while the teams are playing.
I could go on and on, but I’ve written it and you’ve all read it before.
LikeLike
I just think the supposed bashing from ESPN is overstated. Is there an SEC bias? Sure, but that’s as much about ESPN being frontrunners on all of their programming. They’re frontrunners for the Miami Heat. They’re frontrunners for whoever is #1 in the basketball poll in a given week. They’re frontrunners for the Red Sox. We (Big Ten fans) are in a weak position to talk because we can complain about bias all day, but the scoreboard says that the SEC keeps winning national championships. So, our other option is to turn on Fox Sports 1 and listen to the completely balanced commentary of… Clay Travis. And we’re complaining about Kirk Herbstreit and Desmond Howard (B1G alums)?! If we were winning games at the highest level, then we’d have more of a case to complain about bias, but if we keep losing big games, I’m not sure what we expect ESPN (or Fox or CBS or anyone else) to say about us.
LikeLike
I also think that the largest, most passionate fan bases in college football are the fans of schools in the SEC and the fans of schools in the Big Ten. Right now, SEC football is on top so ESPN is naturally going to “pimp” the SEC because it will garner interest and generate discussion/ratings. At the same time, the Big Ten is down, so talking about the Big Ten being down is also going to garner interest and generate discussion/ratings. It’s completely irrelevant whether the Pac 12 is better than the SEC or whether the Big 12 or ACC is worse than the Big Ten. With two or three exceptions, the level of interest isn’t there for schools in the Pac 12, Big 12, or ACC.
LikeLike
I just think the supposed bashing from ESPN is overstated. Is there an SEC bias?
I agree with Frank. Let the Big Ten start winning more of the big games first. Several of their most prominent commentators (Corso, Herbstreit, Howard) are all ex-Big Ten guys. You can’t blame them that the Big Ten fields so many mediocre programs.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s much Big Ten bashing as it is SEC exaggerating. During the NCG, Musburger kept touting, using a deep voice, Auburn as having come from “the S… E… C,” as though FSU should just lay down and give up to the almighty conference. People on that network say, with completely honesty, that the SEC is almost as good as professional football. The promotion of that one league is so over the top that it is almost like bashing every other league.
I agree with whoever said that it’s probably a little more fashionable to bash the Big Ten because the Big Ten is relevant. It is definitely the most national conference; the American may have a wider spread geographically, but B1G fans are the most dispersed. ESPN can’t afford not to talk a good amount about the Big Ten the way it can with the ACC, Pac-12, or Big 12 because too many Big Ten fans watch ESPN. And since they exaggerate everything to where the SEC is the almighty league, they exaggerate the Big Ten’s relative struggles such that Ohio State’s schedule was described as a cakewalk.
I do think Danny Kannell has been pretty funny in talking down the SEC. He’s definitely a minority voice there, but at least there’s a dissenting voice for once. I think he goes too far in talking up the ACC more than it deserves to be, but at least someone on that network has something good to say about ACC football. I’m a bit surprised no one is doing that for the Big Ten. Both leagues really get a bad rap, mostly for racking up losses to the SEC (the B1G’s more in bowl games, the ACC more in the regular season), but they’re both much better than they’re given credit for.
LikeLike
ESPN can’t afford not to talk a good amount about the Big Ten the way it can with the ACC, Pac-12, or Big 12 because too many Big Ten fans watch ESPN.
Dick Vitale not ring a bell to you? You’re only looking at the issue from a football-only standpoint. I look at it from a total standpoint.
And, yes, airing games doesn’t equal a favorable bias when it comes to the B10, any more than airing the Big East Tournament was a pro-bias for the Big East.
ESpin’s first thing is maintaining its Worldwide Monopoly. And it’s clear that their favored leagues are the SEC and ACC, not in any order.
But don’t worry. When Delany finally takes his league out of ESpin’s iron grip there’ll be more hours available for Wake-Duke, GT-BC or whatever passes for time until basketball season over there. After all, they have to give a few more favors to Swofford for his dealings.
LikeLike
“When Delany finally takes his league out of ESpin’s iron grip there’ll be more hours available for Wake-Duke, GT-BC or whatever passes for time until basketball season over there”
Delany is not leaving this so-called “iron grip” because he profits tremendously from ESPN. Don’t let your hatred of ESPN blind you from financial realities.
LikeLike
You and I both, BuckeyeBeau. ESpin will stop at nothing at denigrating the Big Ten. If the Big East had stuck together and not get suckered in by small-time thinking, they had a chance at surviving and even thriving at a Fox Sports 1 or NBCSN, thereby further checking ESpin’s power.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidlariviere/2014/01/15/conference-realignment-strikes-blow-to-big-east-basketball/
It’s just sad what happened to that conference, but the schools did it to themselves, led by the scummy private schools like Cuse and BC. The Domers are only loyal to themselves, so I wasn’t expecting much different from them. But the rest were too busy bashing fellow members to notice what was really happening.
Thank goodness for Delany and the B1G. I just hope we stick together in the next three years.
LikeLike
It’s just sad what happened to that conference, but the schools did it to themselves, led by the scummy private schools like Cuse and BC.
Why are you blaming those two? Syracuse and BC both voted in favor of PSU, a move that would have solidified the Big East for the longterm.
It was Georgetown, ‘Nova and St. John’s that led to the Big East’s downfall. (I’ll add that ‘Cuse also wanted to take ESPN’s $130 million a year offer, but public schools Rutgers, Pitt and WVU, along with Georgetown, pressured the conference to pass)
LikeLike
If you believe that it was the best offer the old Big East could’ve gotten. Who’s to say that they wouldn’t have attracted a better offer on the open market? Unfortunately, we’ll never know because certain schools preferred leaving. No one is blameless throughout the entire ordeal, but that’s a consequence of the infighting and mistrust that went on there. Finally, the leadership, not limited to Marinatto, was lacking. But even Delany would have trouble bringing about a compromise within that group, so maybe it would have not mattered.
Oh, sure, the basketball-onlies did a lot of the damage but the beginning of the end was when BC left, not Miami or V-Tech. At least with the latter two, one could argue that they were going where they can play regional opponents. It was BC that earned the nickname “Fredo” because they turned their backs to the idea of a northeastern-based league. Right then and there, there should have been some internal soulsearching as to why this was allowed to happen and how to fix up the weaknesses and show strength and resolve. Instead, they went on like it was business as usual. After all, they were being shown on Big Monday and ESPN was with them from the beginning so why, they say, mess with a beautiful thing? And “certain members should just up their basketball game so that we won’t be embarrassed to be associated with them,” they say.
Well, for ESpin to be effective in destroying conferences, they need others to create situations where they could then issue plausible denials. That’s where the arrogant elitists dressed in orange come in. They were the primadonnas that wanted to have it both ways, while putting down the public schools as inferiors. And as long as the basketball-onlies played to their tune it was peachy-keen for them. Meanwhile, RU was slowly improving on the football field until they finally had a breakout year in 2006. Once that happened, the Orange began fearing that they’d lose recruits from the state of NJ to RU. Even Connecticut was showing promise in football. The Orange just couldn’t withstand the idea of those two public schools competing in football. So began the motif of “Big East football” as a pejorative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syracuse_University_people#Media_and_communications
That link above says it all about the connection between employees at ESpin and the slow decline in perception of Big East football. If the Orange couldn’t dominate in all aspects of the conference, then just have their lackeys at ESpin create the narrative that the conference has no future and the schools should just leave. The only question was timing. Well, that time came with the expiration of the TV contract. Did ESpin knew that they had that brass knuckle at their disposal? Don’t know for sure that sure sounds plausible.
What they didn’t count on was the Big Ten deciding that it wanted a presence on the East Coast. That threw off the Orange/ESpin/ACC gameplan. Thank goodness Wallace Loh saw the game for what it is: a dirty low-down from individual schools who don’t want fair competition. He’ll never be forgiven by diehards of the All Carolina Conference, including some UMD fans but he’s a hero to me. 😀
LikeLike
SU (I’m a native Syracusan who absolutely despises the term “Cuse”) is less to blame for the demise of the original Big East than its inherent polyglot structure. In a college athletics universe where football reigns supreme, having a conference blending football and non-football members is a recipe for disaster.
Remember, Syracuse was within a vote of joining the ACC back in 1990 (it and Florida State initially vied to become its ninth member, and the first vote was 4-4), and had Swofford’s son not been part of the Boston College athletic department in 2003, I’m almost certain SU — a far stronger brand than BC — would have joined Miami and Virginia Tech in that wave of conference expansion, instead of waiting roughly a decade.
LikeLike
It’s just sad what happened to that conference, but the schools did it to themselves, led by the scummy private schools like Cuse and BC. The Domers are only loyal to themselves, so I wasn’t expecting much different from them.
Oh, and you think the public schools are there out of the goodness of their hearts? They are looking out for themselves, too.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
Regarding public schools, you are right, but its not exactly the same. Public schools have legislatively-established mandates and by and large, are getting less from states. In addition to trying to do more than less, they are trying to maximize resources without reverting to jacking up tuition (or jacking it up less). Monetizing sports and maximizing sporting revenue helps, especially when sports does not get state money anyways.
LikeLike
@Transic
Did Jim Boeheim run over your dog or something? I just don’t see how what Syracuse or BC did was any worse than any other school.
Indeed, the two sleaziest moves by any of the Big East defectors were both made by public schools. In 2003 V-Tech pledged loyalty to the Big East and (along with the other Big East schools) sued both Miami and the ACC arguing that the raid was illegal and did massive damage to the Big East, blah, blah, blah. Except then they realized that they (unlike the rest of the Big East) had the political connections necessary to leverage themselves an ACC invite and subsequently dropped their lawsuit against Miami and the ACC and began trashing the Big East.
Even worse, 10 years later, Pitt successfully lobbied the Big East to turn down ESPN’s $130 million a year offer at the same time they were in negotiations to join the ACC, something they didn’t bother to tell their conference mates.
If you believe that it was the best offer the old Big East could’ve gotten. Who’s to say that they wouldn’t have attracted a better offer on the open market? Unfortunately, we’ll never know because certain schools preferred leaving.
That is exactly the point though; every single Big East football school would have accepted an invitation to either the ACC or Big Ten and most would have taken an SEC invite (and despite your conspiracy theory it had nothing to do with media perception; it was the simply facts that those conferences were wealthier, far more stable and flatly superior to the Big East). The Big East knew they were taking a risk when they turned that deal down which is why Marinatto told to accept ESPN’s offer. Instead, 4 schools (3 of them public) successfully persuaded the other 12 to roll the dice.
LikeLike
If there was an ESPN bias against the B1G, then the network would probably spend less time hyping B1G games on all its platforms, including having Gameday air live from several B1G schools.
The B1G, and the markets it has a presence in, is very, very good business for ESPN. Based on the roster of teams, and alumni from those schools, its likely the most nationwide conference there is, with as many, if not more, major brand names than any other conference (I’d put Michigan, OSU, PSU, and Neb up against any other conference’s top for team brands, and note where alumni from those schools live, when analyzing national appeal.)
Its not an accident that ABC generally airs B1G games, and ESPN/ESPN2 airs SEC games, and not vice versa (with some mirror flipping). ESPN/ABC knew what it was doing when it made its contracts with both conferences for the TV rights. That right there illustrates to me the perceived national appeal of the B1G relative to other conferences, regardless of the actual result on the field or in the BCS.
LikeLike
This idea that ESPN in general is anti-B10 is hilarious. Yes, certain personalities are (Mark May, I’m looking at you), but as others have noted, ESPN also employs a ton of B10 alums (you can thank NU’s journalism school for a good chunk of that contribution). Herbstreit and Howard are alums. So is Musberger, and he tries to talk up the B10 whenever he can (just listen to the Rose Bowl telecast).
LikeLike
It’s all about ego validation. People tend to be a little sore when they discover they’re not as hot as they thought they were, and most people tend to blame others instead of themselves.
LikeLike
There’s definitely not an anti-Big 10 bias. But there’s not a pro Big 10 bias like the WWL has developed for the SEC the last 3 or 4 years.
LikeLike
Bias is when you get ignored.
ESPN had their semi-final BCS show the year Alabama beat LSU. They discussed who should play LSU. They discussed why Alabama should get in ahead of Stanford. Why they should get in ahead of Oregon. They didn’t mention Oklahoma St.
On one of their shows this year when Baylor was undefeated they were discussing whether someone might catch Ohio St. for the #3 spot. They discussed whether one loss Missouri or South Carolina or Auburn would catch them. No mention of unbeaten Baylor who nearly caught them that following week and probably would have had they beaten Okahoma St. the week after that.
ESPN shows more SEC and Big 10 on Saturdays than anything else and never forgets that.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree that Oklahoma St. got railroaded in that BCS ranking. But also consider that Fox was getting content from the B12 and if OSU had been in that final, Fox could’ve used that to promote the following B12 football season.
LikeLike
So do we believe it when this document says that the ACC only looked at schools East of the Mississippi? Wasn’t there quite a bit of speculation regarding Texas and Kansas as possibilities for the ACC?
LikeLike
The Texas thing was a rumor. Supposedly, if OU and Ok. State had been able to go on their own to the Pac-12 when they flirted with that league back in 2011, Texas was considering going to the ACC for a ND-style membership (4-5 games/year vs. the ACC). Of course the ACC would have listened if Texas called. It’s Texas. But there was never any kind of serious discussion among influential conference and Texas officials like John Swofford and Bill Powers (or other big shots). There were probably just some very informal phone calls, never anything akin to a negotiation. All it amounted to was just about a week of curious sports talk radio discussion about a long-shot possibility of that happening.
As for Kansas, I am not aware of either the ACC or the university ever having any sort of contact with one another. As far as I know, it was just writers and fans throwing crap against the wall because, hey, the ACC cares a lot about basketball, but unlike the Big East, the ACC has only football-playing schools, and what better football-playing school is there to get than Kansas? Gene Wojciechowski wrote some non-sensical column about a year ago based purely on speculation, not at all on discussions with substantial sources, suggesting that the ACC should end realignment by going after Kansas. I guess it was a slow news week. But I’ve seen the same amount of substantial evidence that either Kansas or the ACC had interest in the other as I have that either the ACC or Washington State had interest in the other: zero.
LikeLike
As for Kansas, I am not aware of either the ACC or the university ever having any sort of contact with one another.
Well, I’m not sure why you necessarily would be aware.
When it looked like six Big XII schools might move en bloc to the PAC, I’m sure the Big XII leftovers were making plenty of phone calls to figure out their options. Kansas is probably the most valuable Big XII school that the PAC wasn’t interested in. I wouldn’t be surprised if they spoke to the ACC.
LikeLike
Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. I wouldn’t be shocked if they did, but there is nothing substantial to suggest that they did. No credible media member has ever cited any source which could verify contact between KU and the ACC. Short of that, we’re just throwing crap against the wall.
Heck, along those same lines, it wouldn’t be shocking if the Big 12 tried to gauge Auburn’s potential interest in joining that league. After all, Auburn could escape from Alabama’s shadow, get to be the only Alabama school in the Big 12, etc. (sound familiar?). But there is absolutely zero evidence that that ever happened.
What I have actually read about from media members who cited credible sources was that Kansas attempted to set up contingency plans with the Big East back in 2010. Now, I don’t know whether their intentions would have been to recruit BE members to join KU and other remaining members of the Big 12 or if the plan was for KU and others to join the BE.
LikeLike
“Now, I don’t know whether their intentions would have been to recruit BE members to join KU and other remaining members of the Big 12 or if the plan was for KU and others to join the BE.”
I believe the Big East made significant overtures to the leftover B12 schools about forming a BE West Division. This I believe was around the time TCU was slated to join the BE. I think it would have been KU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor, along with TCU and I believe Houston or SMU to form a western division. I might be off on the specifics, but that’s the general gist of it.
LikeLike
And yes, I think we can safely believe that the ACC did not look at Minnesota, Iowa, or Nebraska. There’s not a single reason that any of those schools would be interested in the ACC or vice versa. Setting aside the fact that the ACC would mean a huge pay cut and giving up membership in the CIC, one could at least argue that Penn State could at least have more of an east coast presence with schools it had played frequently in its history (Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, etc.). Northwestern, it could be argued might have had interest in being with other private schools.
LikeLike
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/15/tp-stipends-on-agenda-at-ncaa-meeting/
I wonder if this is one of the things the P5 wanted to control:
“The NCAA also will vote this week on a change to its transfer regulations that would give student-athletes who transfer schools the ability to petition the NCAA for a sixth year in which to complete their four years of eligibility.
Those seeking transfers still would have to demonstrate hardship — for instance, a family illness that requires the student-athlete to attend a school closer to home. However, the big difference is that if the rule change passes, the NCAA would no longer grant these student-athletes waivers that allow them to play immediately.”
I think the athletes get plenty for their efforts and shouldn’t be paid. But this does sound more like indentured servitude. Colleges don’t have to honor their commitments, but athletes do?
LikeLike
I don’t see the big change here. Regular transfers within FBS already sit out a year.
All this revision would do is to make ALL transfers sit out a year, but give the ones that can demonstrate hardship another year to use up their eligibility (because many of them may have redshirted already at their original school).
A sick family member is an excuse to get closer to home, it shouldn’t be an excuse to get closer to home and (unlike other transfers) the ability to play immediately.
LikeLike
I think the athletes get plenty for their efforts and shouldn’t be paid. But this does sound more like indentured servitude. Colleges don’t have to honor their commitments, but athletes do?
Given who writes the rules, it’s no surprise they’re in the schools’ favor.
LikeLike
Maryland ‘applying serious settlement pressure’ to ACC with latest counterclaim
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2014/01/15/maryland-applying-serious-settlement-pressure-to-acc-with-latest-counterclaim/
This is what this counterclaim is all about, nothing more.
All this stuff about ACC schools trying to recruit Big Ten schools sounds sensational, but as Frank describes it, is merely a Pitt official calling a PSU official to say, “Hey bro, wanna join the ACC?” But regardless of whether it was something more, Maryland is just trying to settle the other lawsuit and get this behind them so they can enter the Big Ten without having ACC matters lingering over its head long past its exit from the league.
LikeLike
Click to access Phoenix-GWM-U.S.-Ranking-States-By-Millioinaires-Per-Capita-2006-13.pdf
HT: Ozone.net.
FWIW (probably nothing), but Maryland and NJ top the list of states with millionaires per capita. I am sure this is why Rutgers and MD were added. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, that ranking and thought process may help the spirits of UConn fans…Connecticut is next in line with the 3rd most millionaires per capita…maybe B1G officials are using this criteria.
LikeLike
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/16/drug-use-and-attitudes-about-entitlement-among-athletes
Interesting survey results on athletes. Lots don’t feel comfortable outside other athletes on campus. Division III leads in drug use. Division III presidents are in favor of abolishing penalties for marijuana use.
LikeLike
I think it speaks much more to a cultural issue than an athletics issue. I’m in my forties, so I have a different attitude about drugs and athletics. It looks like some college presidents are looking to throw up their hands. I can’t really blame them. Only people can change themselves.
LikeLike
As blog improvisation (Duane Allman style!):
In an April 2007 interview for NME magazine, music journalist Mark Beaumont asked Keith Richards what the strangest thing he ever snorted was, and quoted him as replying: “My father. I snorted my father. He was cremated and I couldn’t resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn’t have cared … It went down pretty well, and I’m still alive.”
As Keith Richards soliloquy: (My father was injured in World War II during the Normandy invasion, you wanker!)
Keith Richards says: Just Say No.
LikeLike
Faculty Athletic Respresentatives advocate a separate FBS division from Division I:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/04/faculty-advocate-new-ncaa-division-far-governance-plan
This is from October, but is a different group.
Comments below the article are amusing.
LikeLike
ABC wants TNF, NFL likely only going to sell it to a broadcast network:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2014/01/16/TNF.aspx
Broadcast networks make everyone happy: More exposure, more reach, avoiding having to simulcast games on broadcast networks should TNF be on cable.
NFL network hook here should be like the draft: No commercials, continuous feed of the stadium during breaks, using in stadium cameras.
LikeLike
For the broadcast networks, makes sense: Promotional power on Thursday night is very important/lucrative. Allows more advertising of new and returning Thursday night shows before they debut. Likely to draw more viewers than regularly scheduled shows. Regularly schedules shows will air less reruns, making fans happy.
I can see September, October and some November being the ultimate bid, October to compete with baseball playoffs, November to get some sweeps month ratings boosts. December is likely less valuable due to lack of flexing.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Fascinating and, I’ll be honest, surprising. ABC has had a lot of ratings issues lately, but Thursday night is actually the one evening where it has been strong. My wife will *not* be happy that Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal are going to get shifted around if this happens. I guess the argument would be that those shows would be used stabilize a different evening (Monday? Tuesday?) and make the network look a lot better overall.
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank:
Actually, I’d bet both shows start second or third week in November (depending on the calendar) with 6 weeks worth of TNF ads promoting them. The upshot for your wife (and mine and millions more) is that there will be lest reruns, less “Winter FInale” breaks, and a more-or-less straight shot to the season finale in May with less interruption.
Win (ABC)-Win (TNF and ABC show viewers)-Lose (for husbands after TNF ends).
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Another winner is ESPN – another direct competitor like FS1, NBCSN or TNT doesn’t get access to NFL games while their sister company is helped out (along with pushing the ESPN on ABC branding) for probably less in rights fees than if ESPN took the games themselves.
LikeLike
Well, there was no chance the NFL would let its regular season games be shown on second-tier cable channels. The only cable network that would ever show live, regular season games would be ESPN and a Turner network (TNT) (and of course NFLN). That rules out CBS Sports Net, NBCSN, and FS1.
I think the NFL values the exposure that being on a broadcast network brings, even if it means leaving money on the table. Heck, I’m sure that some in the NFL would prefer MNF be on broadcast, but that no major network was willing to pay anywhere close to $1.1 billion for non-flexed games, which is I believe $500 mil more than NBC is paying for SNF.
LikeLike
If there’s no limit to John Swofford’s hubris for thinking the mysterious Big Ten School #2 (Northwestern? Purdue? Michigan State?) would be interested in the ACC, then is there also no limit in Delaney’s hubris in thinking that UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami or FSU are interested in the Big Ten?
All of those scenarios are silly. Some others are not.
LikeLike
You mean a scenario of the ACC raiding the Big Ten as a condition of ESPN to finance an ACC Network?
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/06/04/the-accs-third-tier-rights-and-why-theyre-killing-the-conference/
=> Nepotism?
LikeLike
From the above Forbes link:
*… When the ACC signed its previous ESPN contract a few years ago, Swofford insisted on maintaining a partnership with syndicator Raycom Sports, possibly giving away increased media rights revenue in the process:
“Swofford let the strongest bidders, ESPN and Fox, know that he wanted to include Raycom, which went into the talks as a partner to both networks, rather than trying to bid against their deeper pockets.”
The ACC television rights that Raycom secured are credited with keeping the syndicator alive: “company executives acknowledged that keeping a piece of the ACC’s business was the only way the small, regional TV syndicator and production company could stay relevant.” Raycom pays $50 million annually in a sublicense agreement with ESPN; ACC schools see none of that money.
It’s rather surprising that a conference would so willingly take less TV money – the core source of revenue in collegiate athletics – just to keep a broadcast company from folding. There are, of course, plenty of conspiracy theories to explain Swofford’s irrational decision. Raycom Sports is based in North Carolina, and the ACC is often accused of favoring its four NC schools. Then there’s Swofford’s son, Chad Swofford, who is the Senior Director of New Media and Business Development at Raycom Sports (he was also employed by Boston College athletics when the school received an invite from the ACC). But regardless of what theory you choose to believe, the ultimate conclusion is that the ACC has not been the best at negotiating its TV rights contracts …*
Alfred : Look, the Umbrella-Signal!
Jesse : Conspiracy?! Roddy Piper reunion?!?
Alfred : Nah, just another sweetheart deal.
Jesse : (No wonder why Maryland left)
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, c&p and for the summary. The summary gave me a good morning laugh.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
I also found this link:
http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/tag-team/
Hilarious!
LikeLike
Aristotle says:
First premise : Private companies don’t publish financial statements.
Second premise : Raycom Media / Raycom Sports is a private company.
Conclusion : Chad’s salary & compensation is none of your d**n business.
LikeLike
Then there’s Swofford’s son, Chad Swofford, who is the Senior Director of New Media and Business Development at Raycom Sports (he was also employed by Boston College athletics when the school received an invite from the ACC).
After then-Va. Gov. Mark Warner jumbled up the ACC’s 2003 expansion by insisting Virginia Tech be thrown into the mix — otherwise possibly pressuring UVa into a “no” vote that would have scuttled the entire process — many wondered why Boston College (and not Syracuse, which has a better collegiate athletic tradition, was coming off an NCAA men’s basketball title that April, and had been one vote shy of joining the ACC in 1990) was retained to accompany the Gobblers and Miami in the growth to 12. This may be the smoking gun. Maryland fans are increasingly glad to escape Mayberry.
LikeLike
There is a greater chance of Milton Friedman replacing Ben Bernanke as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve than Northwestern leaving the Big Ten.
LikeLike
If there’s no limit to John Swofford’s hubris for thinking the mysterious Big Ten School #2 (Northwestern? Purdue? Michigan State?) would be interested in the ACC, then is there also no limit in Delaney’s hubris in thinking that UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami or FSU are interested in the Big Ten?
There’s a huge difference. A few years ago, most people thought that NO founding member of the ACC would leave for the Big Ten. Maryland did. All of those schools would make more money in the Big Ten, and although tradition and geography surely count for something, money usually wins out in the end.
FSU voted against the ACC’s exit fee, so clearly they were willing to consider offers. I don’t think the Big Ten was willing to expand to non-contiguous territory, and FSU’s academics probably aren’t good enough. But if the Big Ten had come calling, you think FSU wouldn’t have listened?
LikeLike
“But if the Big Ten had come calling, you think FSU wouldn’t have listened?”
Does a bear poop in the woods?
LikeLike
Of all the founding members, Maryland was the odd man out. They’re more Ed Hardy t-shirts and cargo shorts than the rest of the league (note: you know they belong in the B1G because all of you just thought “what’s wrong with Ed Hardy and cargo?). That’s hardly a good argument to make. Maryland has griped for years at the ACC and was the main force behind the whole ‘Tobacco Road makes all the decisions’ movement. Seems that Maryland didn’t want to be part of the ACC team where every team checks its ego and does things as a conference. They also didn’t want to truly excel in any one aspect to offer something to justify its shelfish behavior. Every other school in the ACC brings something to table; Maryland quite frankly was simply redundant.
No offense, vp19, but you have to admit your fanbase has always a chip on its shoulder.
LikeLike
Well, I’ve been out of school for ten years and I had to google Ed Hardy and I didn’t recognize the style, but I’ll take your word for it that Big Ten country loves it. You seem like you really have your finger on the pulse of what’s hot on each campus in various conferences throughout the country.
By the way, every fan base in the country has a chip on their shoulder. I have yet to find any group of fans that doesn’t think ESPN College Gameday has a personal bias against their school.
“No, but they really do hate my school!”
LikeLike
I concur with some of your reasoning — and I’m no fan of the “you suck” mentality that permeates College Park — but for the first two decades of the ACC, Maryland dominated the conference in many sports, such as soccer, wrestling and track. Eventually, other ACC members, notably UNC, UVa and Duke, caught up with the Terrapins in these endeavors.
The angle I’ve always used in my pro-Big Ten debate isn’t the old Tobacco Road argument, but that Maryland is a better institutional and academic fit in the Big Ten, which aside from Northwestern (and soon, on a very limited basis, Johns Hopkins) is comprised of the land-grant large flagships that are College Park’s peers. And in the 14 months since the conference switch was announced, people are coming around to that point. Academically, Maryland has more in common with Michigan, Purdue, Minnesota and Penn State than it does with relatively small, liberal arts-oriented flagships such as Chapel Hill and Charlottesville, much less private colleges such as Wake, Duke, Boston College or Syracuse.
LikeLike
Who the heck’s Ed Hardy?
LikeLike
A tattoo artist who launched a brand of clothing popular with a certain type of youth. Similar to the Affliction brand.
LikeLike
As I noted last year, Ed Hardy happened to design Notre Dame’s Shamrock Series uniforms:
http://frankthetank.me/2012/08/22/a-big-ten-guys-defense-of-notre-dame-except-for-the-ed-hardy-uniforms/
LikeLike
There’s way too much mental illness going around nowadays.
LikeLike
SEC Network’s cost will top that of other college nets:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx
$1.30 in SEC footprint, $.25 outside footprint. DISH and AT&T have signed on. TWC and Comcast have not. ESPN predicts 75 million homes as an end game.
Question, does Texas a&m mean $1.30 all over Texas or just in College Station/Houston? Same question for UF: does that just mean in Tampa area or does it apply in Miami?
LikeLike
In Florida they already have the Sunshine Network in place and Atlanta is both an SEC and ACC city so maybe that goes through Cox. Texas is the bigger question as there was no TV network in place and the Big 12 probably has a greater market share across the state than the SEC would.
You have to think TAMU would reject any LHN piggyback but since ESPN now has both if they will force the issue. The interesting part of the discussion is not how TAMU fans affect carriage but how other SEC fans living in TX affect carriage?
LikeLike
The question isn’t so much a matter of how popular other teams are as how popular the SEC teams themselves are. The trouble for the Big Ten Network in Philadelphia wasn’t college competition so much as not quite enough coverage interest from the general public to immediately justify that much money (a lot of people x the full price).
LikeLike
Isn’t it interesting how offended many Big Ten fans, though not all of them, are that ACC schools might actually be interested in having Big Ten schools join their league? The ACC is all of a sudden “dirty.” Meanwhile, the Big Ten is somehow some shining light of innocence and morality when it secretly signs a membership deal with Maryland that prohibited anything but a rushed decision with almost no discussion within its Board of Regents. The ACC is slimy for the way it conducts business, but the Big Ten is just being smooth when it signs confidentiality agreements with any number of other ACC schools about potential membership. Really?
I fail to see how these aren’t double standards.
I’ll grant you that Swofford’s deal with Raycom was awful. Just plain awful, and I cannot believe that all the non-NC schools (i.e., schools which outnumbered NC schools 2-to-1 at the time and now outnumber them almost 3-to-1) to get there way with it. It’s a black eye on Swofford’s leadership. I don’t think Slive or Delany ever would have allowed something like that to happen, not because they do everything morally correct but rather because they serve their members’ financial interests without influence from their children’s business relationships.
Why should Big Ten fans be any more offended when the ACC tries to dominate the east coast than ACC fans should offended for trying to do the same? Should ACC fans be upset that the Big Ten singularly owns almost the entire Midwest? Should Big Ten fans be upset that the ACC has a major presence from Boston to Miami?
I just don’t get all the hate for the entire league. It’s one thing if you’re like Frank and hate individual schools, namely Duke. Duke is pretty easy to hate. But until the ACC starts chanting “ACC! ACC! ACC!” and exaggerating at every opportunity how good it is (i.e., as SEC fans do when they say with a straight face that the SEC is “basically an NFL development league”), I don’t see what this league is doing that is so offensive.
As for Maryland fans such as Scott Van Pelt complaining that the ACC was never concerned about meeting its needs, what do they think they’re going to get from a Midwest-centered conference? Yes, Maryland is going to get more money, and yes, it has the CIC, but it’s not going to be more appreciated in the Big Ten than it ever was in the ACC.
LikeLike
“Isn’t it interesting how offended many Big Ten fans, though not all of them, are that ACC schools might actually be interested in having Big Ten schools join their league?”
Hardly anyone is offended. Rather, most recognize that all conferences are always inquiring with teams in other conferences to gauge interest. Standard operating procedure.
“The ACC is all of a sudden “dirty.” ”
I believe you are painting with an awful large brush based on one person’s viewpoint. Most disagree with this assessment.
“Why should Big Ten fans be any more offended when the ACC tries to dominate the east coast than ACC fans should offended for trying to do the same?”
Again, hardly anyone is offended. But its more that the ACC is seemingly reacting to events without a cohesive plan, adding schools as part members or adding schools that in the past would have never merited consideration based on the academics and school culture. Both reflect to the outsider a significant degree of desperation and fear.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
Everything you said is a completely rational response. In this age of particularly frequent expansion, it’s standard operating procedure for everyone.
The Notre Dame addition has probably been the most divisive choice. I agree that it did reflect a need to try and catch up with the other leagues in a growing revenue gap. It did make some sense from a institutional fit standpoint. For one, ACC now has more private schools (6) than the other four P5 leagues combined (5). ND is also somewhat of an east coast school at heart, and it has joined another east coast league, only with fewer Catholic schools but with more schools that matched ND’s academic profile.
The Louisville addition was exactly as you described. After losing a charter member and having already taken the Big East’s best, aside from WVU, its choices were limited.
Of available replacements for Maryland’s academic profile, UConn came closest, but still fell short. It also came closest to a large market, but it definitely offer less market presence than UMd did. Louisville falls dramatically short of UMd’s academic credentials, but it captured its market handily and, at least at the present time, was actually an improvement athletically. Basketball at UConn & Louisville were close to even, and both a bit better than UMd’s. Louisville had the best football, hands-down. Maryland had the most history, UConn by far the least, but Louisville appeared to have the best future. The thing that probably put Louisville over the edge was its athletic department’s financial resources, which obviously was better than Maryland’s and apparently was enough stronger than UConn’s to beat out the Huskies for the ACC invitation. I won’t argue that the move meant the ACC had to give up its past arguments for why a school like WVU couldn’t get in.
LikeLike
I’d say Louisville is a better fit than WVU. Just as strong football program, much stronger basketball program with history. Located in a city like BC, GT, Miami, PItt. Kentucky is at least Southern, West Virginia is…West Virginia. Papa John’s offers a major backer for the future of the athletic department. Both are equally as bad in terms of academics, but who else on the table is better? UConn’s academics may not be quite as bad but once you’re already lowering your standards, why not pick the overall best fit remaining?
Churchill Downs also adds at least some class which can’t be found in West Virginia.
LikeLike
What Wainscott said. Plus, I think it’s flattering. My worry is for the fans that find others being interested in B1G schools a concern at all. They don’t seem to see the big picture and/or underestimate their own conference’s value.
LikeLike
Agreed. The ACC’s best chance of having a leg up over the Big Ten passed a long time ago. Its best chance would have been back in the late 80’s or early 90’s if it had been able to get Penn State, Florida State, Miami, and either Syracuse or Pitt, either all at once or close to the same time. With Miami and FSU’s national titles in ’91, ’93, and ’99, NCG appearances by UM & FSU in ’92, ’96, and ’98, plus at least a NCG appearance for Penn State in the Orange Bowl against Nebraska in ’94, the ACC would have dominated the 90’s. Maybe that would have allowed the ACC to carry some more momentum into the 2000’s. And with Syracuse, Duke, UNC, Maryland, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and early 90’s FSU all playing great ball at the time, the ACC would still have been the best basketball league for the decade, too.
By now, the league would have commanded a heck of a lot more TV money than it actually does today.
But that’s not what happened, and there’s no turning back. As an ACC guy, I am absolutely certain there is no way the ACC is getting any Big Ten team. In about 18 years, after the Big Ten GOR expires and who knows what other kinds of changes could happen, sure, I suppose the ACC could, in theory, be able to get Penn State to join, but I’m not counting on it. The ACC would have to overcome financial disparities between itself and the other P5 leagues, somehow gather more casual fans nationalwide than the larger alumni bases of the Big Ten, and start winning a heck of a lot more non-conference games in football. On top of that, the ACC would have to provide a convincing reason for PSU to leave behind the CIC. (Good luck with that!) Much more likely, PSU won’t be going anywhere. PSU will have been in the league for 40 years by then. The now well-established presence on the east coast will have further enhanced the Big Ten’s revenue. Rutgers and Maryland, most likely, will have appeased PSU’s appetite for east coast rivalries enough to keep them from making a drastic move to another conference, especially because PSU will probably have played Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, and other eastern schools. Besides, with 40 years in the league under its belt, Penn State may finally have identified its rivalries with Midwestern programs as much as it does with eastern programs.
Anyway, Penn State is the only Big Ten school that the ACC could have even a sliver of a chance of getting, 18 years from now. I don’t think anyone in the Big Ten is ever going lose any sleep over this.
LikeLike
Who’s offended? Corruption and nepotism is a fact of life. It only harms the institutions and people who would otherwise benefit without it. Swofford’s slimy deal with Raycom means less money for ACC schools. Maryland wised up and flew the coop.
LikeLike
The ACC is doing what it must do, as are the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12 as far as conference expansion goes.
The only conference that I’d be critical of over the past 10-15 years in terms of how they’ve handled their membership is the Big East, but they were the runt of the litter as soon as the first ACC raid had finished and were a dead man walking for a long time.
I don’t think it’s offensive that the ACC would check on whether any Big Ten schools would want to join it. That’s the ACC’s right and prerogative, and it’s certainly the first place to go if they’re looking for additional schools.
I’d be more concerned about the ACC if they hadn’t gone to Penn State first to ask.
Penn State is the ACC’s Texas if you will. If the ACC gets Penn State, they really shut off the Big Ten from the East Coast…
LikeLike
Personally, even though I’m a Big Ten fan; I’m hoping that the ACC survives over the long haul and doesn’t lose any other members.
The Big Ten and SEC can’t service the East Coast on their own. They each only have 3 East Coast schools at the moment and there’s no real way for either to get that to a representative number of big conference East Coast schools without taking over a half the ACC, which makes no real sense to me.
There’s plenty of room for an East Coast-centric conference, and there’s plenty of room for smaller public schools and private schools in the big scheme of things.
LikeLike
And the ACC has their population spread across the conference in multiple states. Which is why, although set for now, many feel the B12 would more likely be at risk if four becomes the number of power conferences.
LikeLike
Yep, sibling rivalries add spice in the out-of-conference bedroom, especially when out-of-conference win-loss records also function as in-conference tie-breakers as needed.
LikeLike
IMO (as a Big Ten alum):
If any Big Ten school wants to leave – for whatever reason: money, opportunity, scheduling – then that school should leave! As Soon As Possible. The Big Ten ain’t no hostage holder.
And vice versa: If any non-Big Ten school doesn’t want to join – for whatever reason: lousy football, cold weather, midwestern culture – then that school should not join! The Big Ten ain’t no charity.
LikeLike
I think the only offensive thing is the hypocrisy of the ACC’s (and their fans) complaints about the B10 adding UMD.
LikeLike
What offends me is this statement at this link:
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/02/big_ten_expansion_north_caroli.html
=> “People belong with their own kind.”
As if people should only associate with other people of the same race, religion, sexual orientation or opinions.
NUTS!
LikeLike
What’s NUTS is picking out the dumbest thing some random blogger has said, and treating it as representative of the whole fan base.
LikeLike
General McAuliffe says:
Touche!
LikeLike
We talk about demographics a lot especially re: Rutgers and Maryland, but what about wealth? Wealth is a significant part of the equation in the Rutgers/Maryland additions as well:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/16/where-are-the-u-s-s-millionaires/?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Top 2 states in the country in terms of percentage of millionaire households are Maryland (7.70%) and New Jersey (7.49%).
Obviously that translates into % of people that likely have cable, and IF you get carriage, that translates directly into BTN dollars.
Still it adds another dimension to the demographics picture; you’re adding two of the wealthiest states in the union in terms of the population that is being added to the conference.
LikeLike
When I read that this morning I could literally hear Delany laughing from across the Lake.
“Bwahahahahaha!”
I also read this little screed from FOX’s ClayTravis, who believes Franklin/Meyer are building an SEC north in the Big Ten. Most of his points are accurate but you’d swear it was written by an SEC ball boy.
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/travis-meyer-franklin-building-sec-north-in-the-big-ten-011614
LikeLike
Thought that was an incredibly lazy article. Does he even watch the games?
LikeLike
Davis is a lazy writer in general. His schzitck (sp?) is to compare anything B1G to the SEC. He’s a one-trick pony and, thus, boring.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
No doubt about it, if NJ and MD were Arkansas and Wyoming in terms of wealth, Rutgers and UMD would have much less attraction. I believe this point had been made on these boards at length.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just think it plays into a lot of things in terms of attractiveness.
For example, we talk about the Big Ten schools looking for future students outside of their footprints.
Well those are the states where you’re going to find the students that are more able to accept out-of-state tuition prices at the Big Ten schools, etc.
I just thought it was interesting to see those two states at the top.
LikeLike
Another article on NJ being a very wealthy state: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-29/where-americas-wealthiest-suburbanites-live-and-where-they-dont
LikeLike
Apparently, Syracuse wants to downsize from the Giant Air Conditioner Dome:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/01/17/6632/cuomo-to-propose-300m-in-public-money-for-new-syracuse-college-football-stadium/
LikeLike
You mean the “Giant Non-Air-Conditioned Air Conditioner Dome.”
LikeLike
Amazing that they could get money from the state for a private university football stadium.
I can’t imagine that passing in Texas or Georgia. Pros yes. Private colleges, no.
So Syracuse is joining Cal, Stanford and Arizona St. of the Pac 12 and Tennessee and Kentucky of the SEC in downsizing. UK, TN and SU are downsizing BELOW their average attendance over the last 15 years. Arizona St. exceeded their proposed 60,000 capacity almost half the time. They are either expecting a permanent downturn or are trying to raise prices and required donations.
LikeLike
Also, Illinois and Purdue…..Illinois in football and basketball.
LikeLike
It is quite remarkable that Syracuse would get a publically financed stadium to replace the Giant AC. Politics at its finest/worst. Though, apparently it would be more of a multi-purpose arena for the city, which makes it a little better (but only a little).
LikeLike
Watch this get swept under the SEC rug.
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/travis-controversial-alabama-booster-now-has-bama-memorabilia-business-011614
LikeLike
Pingback: So, What Does ESPN Stand For? « The Pole's Position
Purdue and Illinois at least have hideous circular arena design as a justification for downsizing their basketball arenas. I think Purdue could be a dark-house candidate to leave the B1G if the SEC (needs 2 more to do the 4-pod thing if TX/OK or VATECH dont jump) or ACC or even BigXII comes calling, considering who their President is now and his emphasis on ROI.
LikeLike
Only the AAC or MAC would actually want to add PU. They don’t bring nearly enough value to any major conference.
LikeLike
Purdue is a charter member of the BIG. They would never leave the conference, and definitely not for the SEC or Big 12. That is an insane thought…
LikeLike
Separate division for the AQ conferences rears its head again…
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised-to-create-separate-division-for-sec–big-ten–acc–pac-12–big-12-212725211.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory
LikeLike
Interesting
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10311275/majority-delegates-ncaa-convention-wants-power-conference-autonomy
An unofficial straw poll of hundreds of delegates at the NCAA Convention in San Diego shows they support Division I athletics moving toward a model that would grant more autonomy to the five conferences with the most resources — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC.
The vote showed that 58 percent of athletic decision-makers in attendance either supported or strongly supported a change in the way Division I athletics are governed. The vote was nonbinding and the proposed new governance model is still raw, but it represents the first tangible acknowledgement that change is needed.
“People agree this is the appropriate way to have Division I stay intact and grant these degrees of freedom to higher-resource conferences,” Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch, who also serves as Division I president, told ESPN.com.
Yep, together but unequal.
LikeLike
Another telling quote
“The biggest challenge for us right now is we don’t feel we’re able to get an intact piece of legislation through the program that will benefit our 65 programs,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. “I don’t say that to be critical of others. But the fact is what is a great decision for us, may be a marginal decision for (the Football Championship Subdivision) and an awful decision for the rest of the Division I. Those are honest disagreements.”
So the groupings are P5, FCS, and non-football. The non-AQ conferences are to be just completely ignored or treated as FCS.
LikeLike
The alternative inference is that its because of Go5 support that the balance of power rests with the FCS … something where the Go5 is marginal and its awful for FCS and non-FB is a non-starter in division politics because of the numbers.
LikeLike
He could have been implying that the non-AQ’s by and large support the proposed changes, which wouldn’t overly surprise me. For the most part, the non-AQ schools aspire to be as much like AQ schools as possible (if not AQ schools outright). Although many of the non-AQ schools would probably be hard pressed to offer the same level of scholarship that the AQ schools can at this moment, I would imagine most would certainly like to have that option available to them in the future.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/01/demo-reel-part-1-nba-young-mlb-old-nhl-affluent/2/
Frank tweeted the link to this article about the demographics for TV audiences of some recent sporting events.
Bullet points:
1. Young people and/or poor people like the NBA
2. Old people like baseball
3. Rich people and young people like hockey more than other groups, but not enough fans in total
4. Rich people also like CFB
5. Old people really care about the Rose Bowl, younger people not as much
To follow up on the Rose:
BCS ratings by age group (<18, 18-34, 35-54, 55+)
NCG – 3.9, 7.5, 11.1, 12.8
Rose – 2.2, 3.7, 6.4, 10.2
Fiesta – 1.9, 3.1, 5.1, 6.3
Orange – 1.4, 2.7, 4.6, 5.4
Sugar – 1.4, 2.5, 4.5, 5.1
Rose/NCG = 0.56, 0.49, 0.58, 0.80
Rose/Fiesta = 1.16, 1.19, 1.25, 1.62
So the Rose did a little over half as well as the NCG except with older fans where it did 80% as well. Likewise, it did 20%+ better than the other BCS games except with older fans where it did 60% better.
It also shows in the average age of the viewer:
Rose – 53
Orange, Sugar, Fiesta – 49
NCG – 48
LikeLike
The under 35 numbers have got to be really disconcerting to ADs. Maybe that’s why UK, TN, ASU are downsizing.
Did the Fiesta really beat the Orange and Sugar?
LikeLike
Fiesta had a better time slot.
LikeLike
Still, more people turned into a less interesting game with Baylor and Central Florida than two other games involving 3 kings.
LikeLike
bullet/frug – that’s why the SEC, B-12, and the Sugar Bowl locked down the NYD primetime slot for the next 12 years.
LikeLike
It’s not that surprising it would be the Orange Bowl. The OB was on a Friday night and it had direct competition from the Cotton Bowl.
Beating the Sugar Bowl was somewhat less likely, but New Year’s night is a great time slot.
LikeLike
Before worrying, I’d like to see comparable data from say 10 and then 20 years ago, etc.
Has the under 18 group always been small? Has the over 35 age group always been the largest segment of viewers?
LikeLike
I remember a Buick executive about 20 years ago saying, look the population is aging. That our average owner’s age is above 50 is not a problem. Now their average owner’s age is close to 70.
LikeLike
(at least it seems that way).
LikeLike
Buick’s lifeline is China.
Without China (where it is a powerhouse brand, in part because Buicks were what the rich and powerful in China before the Commies took over were chauffeured around in), GM would have ended the brand long ago.
In 2010, Buick sold 3 times as many cars in China as in the US.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The under 35 numbers have got to be really disconcerting to ADs.”
CFB has never done well with kids. Most fans don’t start until their 20s at best. That means they’re mostly measuring 23-34 but labeling it 18-34, which explains the lower number. Younger people may be more likely to be active rather than watching TV, too.
LikeLike
MLB and CFB’s numbers and ratings profiles are very very similar.
LikeLike
Vandy hires Stanford DC.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21580710&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnews%2Fpt1
LikeLike
Off topic, but interesting.
http://m.mysanantonio.com/business/national/article/Hackers-tapping-into-home-s-devices-5153758.php
LikeLike
Next, they will turn off that refrigerator and let our beer get hot.
LikeLike
Sorry if this was posted before…
Where Football Players Call Home
http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-football-hometowns/index.html#
You can even check by conference where the players are coming from today. What is interesting is that, even though people talk about the Northeast as a barren place for recruiting that there are players recruited out of MA, CT and NY, especially downstate. It’s also true that no major conference can afford not to have a presence in either TX, FL or CA. Even the Ivy and Northeast leagues have players from those three states. I think the Big Ten has a real opportunity to increase their presence into downstate NY, including Nassau and Suffolk counties.
LikeLike
NY and New England are definitely underecruited (possibly because kids don’t get the chance to show as much of their talent or are less developed). A guy as quick and explosive as Victor Cruz who grows up in SEC country would have been snapped up by an SEC school; in the Northeast, he falls to UMass.
LikeLike
To some extent, Louisiana, North Carolina and even Texas look better than they are because of the number of schools.
LikeLike
I dunno if NY and NE are under-recruited. I’m not certain that the area produces much elite football talent. NJ does. I’m sure Syracuse, UConn, and BC would like the region to produce more talent.
LikeLike
They don’t produce a lot of talent but NY, at least, is still underrecruited.
For instance, here is a map of where all NFL players played HS football:
http://www.maxpreps.com/news/J_G3Olz0lUaivTrWxlHrLQ/where-every-active-nfl-player-went-to-high-school.htm
LikeLike
By comparison, here is a list of kids who played FBS football by state:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida
What you’ll see is that NYS doesn’t produce a ton of NFL players but the state produces them in numbers comparable to Sun Belt states like MS, TN, and AZ. Yet AZ has far more kids in FBS schools while MS & TN has almost double the number of kids in FBS football. This despite the fact that NYS produces just as much top-level talent (as measured by NFL players) as AZ & TN and only slightly less than MS.
If you compare the numbers, you’ll see that NJ and VA are under-recruited as well. Despite producing more NFL talent than AL & NC (as well as IL and MI), both states have fewer kids recruited in to FBS football than NC, MI, or IL (and far less than AL).
BC and UConn have actually done better than you’d expect given their resources, while Syracuse was good as recently as the ’90’s (playing in 3 Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition/BCS bowls that decade). BC is a small private school in a pro sports city, yet have won their division and made their CCG twice, which is a number that no other small private school in a P5 league, including those located in the supposedly much more fertile Sun Belt (such as Baylor, Wake, Duke, Vandy, and Miami) have matched. UConn made a BCS bowl less than a decade after joining FCS.
LikeLike
The fact that NYS, which has many times the number of residents as MS, TN, & AZ, produces roughly the same number of NFL players in those states shows that the investment in recruiting is not necessarily there, especially since NYS is also many times the size of those states, which would make recruiting more expensive/time consuming.
Also, recruiting and producing NFL players are not nearly the same thing. For every Victor Cruz (UDFA turned star WR) you get a Vlad Ducasse (2nd round draft pick turned human turnstile). How many 4 & 5 star recruits does NYS produce on average? I don’t actually know the answer to this, so I wonder.
LikeLike
“The fact that NYS, which has many times the number of residents as MS, TN, & AZ, produces roughly the same number of NFL players in those states shows that the investment in recruiting is not necessarily there, especially since NYS is also many times the size of those states, which would make recruiting more expensive/time consuming.”
Huh? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Travel makes recruiting expensive. NYS isn’t any more spread out than TN.
In any case, NJ and VA have only a little more people than TN, IN, WI, and MN, but produce far more NFL players and even produce more NFL players than IL, NC and MI despite have smaller populations than those states.
LikeLike
My apologies for reviving an old discussion, which is something I generally try to avoid, but I had to clarify my point here.
““The fact that NYS, which has many times the number of residents as MS, TN, & AZ, produces roughly the same number of NFL players in those states shows that the investment in recruiting is not necessarily there, especially since NYS is also many times the size of those states, which would make recruiting more expensive/time consuming.”
Huh? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Travel makes recruiting expensive. NYS isn’t any more spread out than TN.
In any case, NJ and VA have only a little more people than TN, IN, WI, and MN, but produce far more NFL players and even produce more NFL players than IL, NC and MI despite have smaller populations than those states.”
NYS is a very large state, larger than MS and TN, and more spread out then AZ (which has large portions of vacant/federal land). If the state of NYS’s size produces approximately the same number of NFL players as smaller states with less people overall, by definition, its a better use of resources to drive around smaller states.
Looking here: http://www.maxpreps.com/football-signing-day/football/home.htm , at least for the recruiting standpoint, NYS has only 24 recruits for this upcoming recruiting class, which is a tiny number for any state, let along the 3rd most populated one (and large one, too). If you’re gonna have to apportion monies for recruiting, and you’ll have to spend time driving around, better to do it in either a large state with many more targets (FL, TX, CA) or smaller states with more targets, especially for non-NYS schools. BC, for example, focusing its monies on FL, not so much NY.
LikeLike
“NYS is a very large state, larger than MS and TN, and more spread out then AZ (which has large portions of vacant/federal land). If the state of NYS’s size produces approximately the same number of NFL players as smaller states with less people overall, by definition, its a better use of resources to drive around smaller states.”
However, most of NYS’s population is in greater NYC. In fact, that’s where the vast majority of NJ’s population resides as well. Nothing prevents coaches from driving across state lines when recruiting.
LikeLike
You keep assuming NYC produces elite CFB players at a similar per capita rate as everywhere else.
http://dataomaha.com/big-ten/state/NY
Let’s look at B10 recruits from NY for 2002-2011. Of the 41, 21 came from upstate NY. But 63% of New Yorkers live in metro NYC. Maybe the B10 coaches were bad at penetrating NYC, but likely the cost of land in NYC combined with the large number of immigrants means upstate NY is more productive. In addition, I’d imagine people from NYC are less thrilled about going to some of the midwestern schools than those from upstate NY.
LikeLike
“In addition, I’d imagine people from NYC are less thrilled about going to some of the midwestern schools than those from upstate NY.”
Not among the general student body population.
Tons of NYC’ers at Wisconsin according to my friend who went there. Tons at Northwestern as well.
LikeLike
SEC distributions. Averaged $20.8 million. Missouri and A&M were the lowest. They didn’t get a 100% share. Sounds like they still had to take less on certain revenue streams (prior year NCAA credits?). Article shows the history for the last 7 years:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/01/sec_average_payout_reached_208.html
SEC Money During BCS Title Streak
Year
Total Revenue
Avg. Payout to Schools
2012-13 $314.5 million $20.8 million
2011-12 $271.8 million $20.4 million
2010-11 $261.1 million $19.5 million
2009-10 $244.4 million $18.3 million
2008-09 $148.0 million $13.1 million
2007-08 $161.6 million $11.3 million
2006-07 $149.2 million $11.0 million
LikeLike
“Missouri and A&M were the lowest”
Does that mean they were “junior partners”? Say it ain’t so.
LikeLike
No…”The difference in distribution was because of money accumulated prior to Texas A&M and Missouri becoming SEC members on July 1, 2012, SEC Associate Commissioner Herb Vincent said.” Just like the money accumulated and invested in the aprox. 50% BTN ownership….
LikeLike
Not big reductions like in the B1G or XII. The 12 preexisting SEC members got between $21.0M and $21.3M with MO and A&M getting about $1.5M less. That is still a 93% first year payout.
LikeLike
Also doesn’t last 5 years or more like junior members Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland, (and Utah, TCU, West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse).
LikeLike
The President has now equated the dangers of playing football with smoking.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195895-obama-danger-of-concussions-in-nfl-no-longer-a-secret
Amazing how some people think football is untouchable because of the money it brings in.
Political correctness rules all. The media lives for toppling sacred cows and now that the president has weighed in, they have their green light. Over the next few years football will slowly be strangled in its crib. First at warner level, them high school, then college then the pros. Brian scoffed, but I’ll say it again. Without revolutionary equipment advancements football will be illegal within twenty years. Until then, we can all celebrate the Christening of the Washington Bravehearts. Snyder’s lawyers have already submitted four trademarks for registration.
PC America F**CK YEAH!
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:34890p.2.3
LikeLike
(For the record, I can sympathize with those who find the Redskins name offensive, but according to Gallup, American Indians are generally supportive of keeping it. I just don’t like the government dictating what is or isn’t acceptable.)
LikeLike
Amazingly ESPN didn’t listen to the better angels of their nature.
‘ESPN’s ombudsman revealed that the network considered banning the use of “Redskins” but declined to do so because of the news that such a move would inevitably make.’
LikeLike
Without revolutionary equipment advancements football will be illegal within twenty years.
Smoking isn’t illegal and neither is boxing. Football could slip in popularity, but I seriously doubt it will be banned.
LikeLike
Your right, adult (pro) football likely won’t be illegal, but no institution responsible for the well being of minors/students will offer it for legal/moral reasons. And what parent will risk the social stigma of putting their child at risk? Again, its the collapse of the pipeline that will kill it. That and the abandonment of advertisers. This will all be a moot point if they come up with a new helmet, but as of now, the outrageously outraged have the upper hand.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Your right, adult (pro) football likely won’t be illegal, but no institution responsible for the well being of minors/students will offer it for legal/moral reasons. And what parent will risk the social stigma of putting their child at risk?”
Parents still smoke. Kids do boxing and MMA. Kids do extreme sports. Nobody believes it will happen to them. Many football players come from poor families that see sports as the only ticket out of that life.
“That and the abandonment of advertisers.”
Beer will keep sponsoring football for as long as they can. So will American cars. It’s their best chance to reach their target audience.
“This will all be a moot point if they come up with a new helmet, but as of now, the outrageously outraged have the upper hand.”
The problem isn’t the helmet, it’s what is inside of it.
LikeLike
Brian:
I disagree. It’s that the helmet gives the impression of protection while not doing enough to limit G forces within – skull protected from contact trauma but sudden acceleration forces still reach the brain.
LikeLike
Watching the AFC title game today got me thinking: why doesn’t everyone wear the mega-helmet that Wes Welker is wearing? It’s supposed to provide extra protection and he hasn’t seemed affected by the size.
LikeLike
But what does it protect you from? Concussions are due to the brain rattling around the skull. If the head moves, the brain moves.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I disagree. It’s that the helmet gives the impression of protection while not doing enough to limit G forces within – skull protected from contact trauma but sudden acceleration forces still reach the brain.”
Just because people don’t understand science doesn’t mean the helmet is faulty. It protects from cracked skulls and facial injuries like it’s supposed to. No reasonable amount of padding can prevent the brain trauma inside the skull. The head is a heavy object at the end of a flexible limb and whips around. A gelatinous mass floating in fluid sloshes around as that happens.
Everything involving sudden movement causes brain injuries. Soccer is generally the #2 sport for concussions. There is concern that headers actually cause brain injury.
The solutions:
1. Stop rapidly accelerating.
2. Thicken the brain fluid to provide cushioning inside the skull. This may be possible someday.
3. Stiffen the neck to prevent head motion relative to the body. Unfortunately, I think this would create other types of injury that are just as bad (spinal compression, etc)
A better helmet can provide a slight improvement over the current level of protection, but only in the degree of injury sustained. Since nobody knows how many hits of what intensity with what frequency are needed to cause traumatic injury, it may be pointless.
A far more practical fix for now:
1. Teach better technique.
2. Don’t play tackle football too young.
3. Train parents and coaches to diagnose concussion symptoms.
4. Teach adults to actually take brain injury seriously, not just pay lip service and then question the manhood of players that sit out.
5. Teach players to take brain injuries seriously. They have to overcome the societal pressure to play through injury. It’s obscene how many NFL players admit to still intentionally avoiding the concussion protocol so they can go back out and play. Former players are suing over the issue, the union is thinking about it, and the current players show that it doesn’t matter what info the NFL hid – they would have played no matter what.
6. Install G sensors in helmets, then automatically bench any player for the rest of the game if they exceed that level. A cheap method for lower levels of football is to install a sensor that breaks if the level is exceeded (like the shipping label sensors) and manually inspect every helmet when a player is hurt or comes off the field.
LikeLike
Oversized helmet (think Buzz Lightyear) that mead cannot touch, anchored to shoulders, neck is shock absorber. All shocks/sudden G forces transferred to torso. Head will flop around some. But, as is said about long falls, it’s not the fall but the quick stop at the ground that hurts. Eliminate the skull/brain from being able to take receive that contact.
LikeLike
@Frank – probably for the same reason NHL players don’t wear visors or cages if they don’t have to.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Oversized helmet (think Buzz Lightyear) that mead cannot touch, anchored to shoulders, neck is shock absorber. All shocks/sudden G forces transferred to torso. Head will flop around some.”
No, all the sudden G force isn’t directed to the body. The flopping head will still cause a very rapid acceleration at the end of its stroke just like it does now. Besides, this helmet would be wider than your shoulders. How could a player function in that? In addition, how many back injuries are caused because the head and shoulders can’t come near the ground?
“But, as is said about long falls, it’s not the fall but the quick stop at the ground that hurts. Eliminate the skull/brain from being able to take receive that contact.”
You still need to be able to use your shoulders to play football, though.
LikeLike
You can do what rugby union does and ban all tackles but arm tackles (shoulder charges aren’t allowed).
BTW, I’ve got to think that stuff like the foam bike helmets would help with concussions, would they not? Not as much force impacting the skull.
LikeLike
Brian:
“No, all the sudden G force isn’t directed to the body. The flopping head will still cause a very rapid acceleration at the end of its stroke just like it does now.”
No. Now the only comperable hit/whip is a chest or back blast that the helmet continues free motion-never hitting another player or the ground. Try driving a nail with a hammer with its head in a shell that it can’t touch and has a flexible shock absorber as its handle, and the shell is connected half way down the handle. Neck muscles will pull before brain G forces could approach those from helmet/helmet or helmet/ground impacts. A preferable injury/result.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“No. Now the only comperable hit/whip is a chest or back blast that the helmet continues free motion-never hitting another player or the ground.”
You say no, but then you agree with me. I didn’t say all the sudden acceleration would still exist, I said it wouldn’t all go away.
“Neck muscles will pull before brain G forces could approach those from helmet/helmet or helmet/ground impacts. A preferable injury/result.”
People have gotten whiplash concussions, plus you always risk brain stem injury when the head whips. The soft tissue injury can be slow to heal as well. It may be better, but it’s not good.
LikeLike
In over 30 years of coaching wrestling and following FB I have never seen a non head or helmet contact concussion. You’d think parachuting would cause them but I haven’t heard of them. I don’t think any FB hit will develope even 1/10 what g force testing did without an abrupt impact: http://search.yahoo.com/mobile/s?rewrite=72&.tsrc=apple&first=1&p=rocket+sled+g+force+test&pintl=en&pcarrier=AT%26T&pmcc=310&pmnc=410&fr=onesearch
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“In over 30 years of coaching wrestling and following FB I have never seen a non head or helmet contact concussion.”
I have.
“You’d think parachuting would cause them but I haven’t heard of them.”
Why? The G forces are pretty low unless your chute fails. I bet those people do get some concussions.
LikeLike
When did you see an athlete get a non head contact concussion (Shaken baby syndrome isn’t what we’re talking about)?
Ha! Yes, but they do have head/ground contact.
Going from 80-120 mph to 10-15mph in the moment the canopy opens more G’s than Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin would sprinting into each other (avoiding head contact). G force tests reached 50+ G’s, 80 once that seemed to almost kill the subject. But he was back testing in less than a week.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“When did you see an athlete get a non head contact concussion (Shaken baby syndrome isn’t what we’re talking about)?”
I can’t quote a date, and obviously I had to take TV’s word for what was wrong with him. I also have no way of knowing how healthy his head was before that play. It was a head on collision with the hit to his chest by a bigger guy while both players ran at full speed. He was knocked out and wobbly on his feet once he could get up.
“Going from 80-120 mph to 10-15mph in the moment the canopy opens more G’s than Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin would sprinting into each other (avoiding head contact). G force tests reached 50+ G’s, 80 once that seemed to almost kill the subject. But he was back testing in less than a week.”
A chute takes time to open, plus all lines stretch a little and even the harness has a tiny amount of give. It’s your hips that take the brunt of it, and it doesn’t hurt. I’ve been hit much harder in football, trust me. Besides, those Gs aren’t front to back like most concussion-causing blows.
Military chutes are worse (quicker opening), but they also don’t slow you down as much.
LikeLike
“Besides, those Gs aren’t front to back like most concussion-causing blows.”
Most. Skydivers don’t pull in a head first, or feet first dive. It is a front to back impact distributed over hips, torso and shoulders (allowing the neck to flex, spring like).
” He was knocked out and wobbly on his feet once he could get up.”
So he went down. With no helmet/ground impact? Even if he was ko’ed by the body blow it would probably be pain induced, not concussion caused. I don’t see how an unconscious person could keep his head from hitting the ground unresisted, or how one would surmise the first hit caused a concussion and not the second?
640mph to zero in 1.4 seconds: http://search.yahoo.com/mobile/s?rewrite=72&.tsrc=apple&first=1&p=rocket+sled+g+force+test&pintl=en&pcarrier=AT%26T&pmcc=310&pmnc=410&fr=onesearch
LikeLike
Sorry. Didn’t realize the links might not be working. Google “rocket sled g force test” . Really cool videos of the ultimate “amusement ride”.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Most. Skydivers don’t pull in a head first, or feet first dive. It is a front to back impact distributed over hips, torso and shoulders (allowing the neck to flex, spring like).”
But the drogue chute rotates you towards vertical before the main chute opens.
“So he went down. With no helmet/ground impact?”
Other than lying still, yes.
“Even if he was ko’ed by the body blow it would probably be pain induced, not concussion caused.”
OK, doctor. I’m just telling you what was reported as his injury. Besides, body pain doesn’t make you wobble when you walk like that.
LikeLike
He also said marijuana is safer than alcohol. Takes on football and alcohol. Guess he isn’t worried about carrying any southern states anymore.
LikeLike
It’s not like he can get elected again anyway.
LikeLike
Barry may sign an executive order allowing him to run again./………
LikeLike
Well, since we have the Marijuana Bowl coming, it’s going to interesting how the media covers his comments going forward.
LikeLike
Interest will be high…
LikeLike
Smoke a Super Bowl!
LikeLike
“He also said marijuana is safer than alcohol.”
By almost any criteria that you can measure them by, that’s true.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“The President has now equated the dangers of playing football with smoking.”
1. He’s a smoker.
2. That guarantees that a large chunk of America will support football to the death just to spite him.
3. Smoking is still legal and quite popular despite warnings since the 60s. Maybe we’ll just export football to Asia, too.
LikeLike
The thing is……..I think Barry’s right. I’m glad my son didn’t play HS football.
That said, I’m glad he has no male spawn. Thank God for small favors.
How long before the lawyers start going after school districts with class action lawsuits?
LikeLike
Too late! Several Fantasy Football Leagues have already listed BB jr as a player to be drafted.
Also, this little gem
LikeLike
I meant ‘BO jr’
LikeLike
Today’s debate du jour: http://tinyurl.com/kdu8haa
LikeLike
Most amazing change to me, in the light of all the news/debate about concussions, was that the NFL went to a 16 game regular season. We all know that the players are just meat to a large majority of the owners and execs, but it’s sad to see that $$$ trumps everything for the players union as well. Rather than going to 16, the responsible move would have been to reduce to 12………
LikeLike
Well they haven’t really changed the number of games. They’ve just switched a couple of exhibitions to regular season.
LikeLike
Didn’t the NFL do that 40 years ago?
LikeLike
The USFL had an 18 game schedule, and the league is remembered fondly for its quirks and spunky challenge of the establishment NFL.
@mushroomgod: Changing the number of games is a sideshow. Football is inherently violent. Adding or subtracting games will not do all that much to make it safer. At the end of the day, absent banning tackling, cleats, and down lineman, the game will remain incredibly violent. Whether an 8 year veteran plays 128 regular season games (16 game schedule), 96 reg season games (12 game schedule) or 144 (18 game schedule) won’t, in the grand scope of things, change all that much of the long term health outlook. If Earl Campbell played one fewer season, would his health be any different? Most likely not.
LikeLike
Not advocating an 18-game schedule, but 18 weeks to play 16 games. With two byes, there would be four 10-game breaks between games.
LikeLike
Coming in two weeks: the Marijuana Bowl
LikeLike
… pass the peace pipe …
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20140119/fowler-davis-musburger-nfl-network/?eref=sihp
ESpin putting soon-to-be 75 year old Brent Musburger out to pasture.
And more on the bidding for ThurNight Football.
“The bidding for a package of Thursday night NFL games closed last week with Reuters, which broke the initial story, reporting that Fox and CBS had submitted bids. Sports Business Daily media reporter John Ourand previously reported NBC, Turner Sports and ESPN/ABC were also bidding on the package.
One source familiar with the NFL’s thinking told SI.com that the number of games being bid on was not set to a specific number, meaning the package could be from anywhere from six to eight games or more, depending on the proposals from the networks. The source said the NFL was very interested in what broadcast group would provide the best promotional plan to amplify the viewership of Thursday night games. (On this end, ESPN would reportedly air games on ABC.)
The NFL sought bids for a single season, starting this September, with the likelihood of extending the contract after its first year. The league was happy with how the NFL Network positioned Thursday as a football night but feels a network partner can improve viewership numbers (which they will). The NFL Network — at least according to the league — will continue to air a simulcast of the games, using the announcing and production teams of the winning bidder. This year’s 13-game NFL Network schedule averaged 8.0 million viewers in 2013. That was up 10% from the 2012 season average, but well behind viewership for games on CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN. “
LikeLike
This writer thinks Musberger earned the playoff announcing spot? SEC fans might be stuck with him as lead announcer for the SEC Network?
LikeLike
I get he’s 75, but I personally think he’s a great announcer still in top form. Some network will definitely snap him up. BTN could do a lot worse than hiring Musberger as its #1 announcer. And, he is a Big Ten guy at heart. Doubt BTN is big enough for Brent, though.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more. Yes he’s bias toward the SEC (and even the PAC). That’s when ESPN’ers do. He would be a great hire by FOX or BTN, mistakes and all.
LikeLike
I’m trying to wrap my head around the statement that an announcer can be considered “in top form”, “mistakes and all”. Look, this isn’t regular season baseball, where announcer foibles (like a drunk Mike Shannon) can make the game interesting to listen to. In a sport where every week there’s a big game, I want the announcer to get the details right and provide information.
BTW, Musberger is a B10 homer is there ever was one.
LikeLike
Why do I get the feeling you didn’t like Musberger at any age.
LikeLike
As an announcer, that’s definitely true. I can’t remember a time when he hasn’t been bad in the announcing booth. I liked him in the studio.
LikeLike
I was always a fan of Brent Musburger. He definitely has that “big game” voice where the event feels more important when he’s calling it. From a personal standpoint, most of my earliest childhood sports memories were following the Mike Ditka/Walter Payton Bears of the ’80s and watching Musburger host the NFL Today in its heyday (when CBS had the NFC package that Fox has now).
LikeLike
Musberger in the studio is different from Musberger in the announcing booth, however. The 2 jobs are actually quite different.
LikeLike
I think Frank has the key point. To the average viewer, it doesn’t matter that Musberger occasionally muffs a play or gets a player’s number wrong. There’s an “it” factor that makes him appealing to the average fan, whether sports-obsessives like him or not.
LikeLike
I’m with Richard on this, and so are lots of “average” viewers.
LikeLike
I always thought he was something of an idiot.
He always made lots of stupid mistakes/misstatements.
Having said that, I liked his announcing this bowl season. It seemed to me he had found a measure of humility that wasn’t there before………so, of course, they put him out to pasture.
LikeLike
I’m glad Brent is gone. He is following the Keith Jackson path of deterioration into a shadow of his former self.
Fowler as the replacement? I hope not. He doesn’t call games very well in my opinion. Rece Davis is better at it. Maybe Tim Brando gets a shot?
LikeLike
Summerall, Madden, Enberg? With all they gave to broadcasting did they deserve to go out on their own terms?
LikeLike
Eh? “Gave to broadcasting”? I didn’t realize that these guys were donating their time for free at a charity.
LikeLike
Would you have preferred contributed? Either way, you’re semantical nonsense is wrong. ‘Give’ can also mean to ‘impart’, which may or may not be charitable.
LikeLike
For their contributions, they got paid. Pretty darn well.
Plenty of steelworkers, miners, and auto workers contributed to their companies and overall economy as well (usually at far more detriment to their health), yet I don’t see you out there saying that they earned the right to decide when to quit.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Summerall, Madden, Enberg? With all they gave to broadcasting did they deserve to go out on their own terms?”
Nobody deserves to keep a job they no longer do well. It’s a ridiculous notion.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/06/Media/Sports-Media.aspx
The August launch of the SEC Network will be a significant story this year. The launch was the main topic during a year-end panel at SportsBusiness Journal/Daily’s annual college athletics conference. Here are five thoughts I took away from that discussion.
Distribution battles will be tough….
SEC Network will cover news events….
College sports rights still have room for growth….
The football playoffs aren’t expanding….
The ACC is taking notes.
The ACC hasn’t decided whether it’s going to launch a channel. But Jordan, the conference’s media consultant, said it is keeping a close eye on the SEC Network’s launch. That’s because the ACC’s media deals are similar to the SEC’s, with ESPN set up as the primary rights partner.
(More detail in the article)
LikeLike
I think his playoff expansion discussion is important:
I believed that the new college football playoffs would expand from four to eight teams in the next five years. But I’ve changed my mind because none of the executives on the panel agreed, including Gerber and Jordan, the media consultants who sold the playoff media rights to ESPN.
The main reason: They believe a playoff expansion will dilute the regular season.
“When a conference tells me that they are willing to take less money for their regular-season package for more money that they’re going to split with a bunch of people in the postseason is the day that I’ll tell you that there’s going to be an eight-team playoff,” Gerber said.
Jordan said a playoff expansion would not bring in as much money as some have suggested. “The majority of the value of the playoff is in three games — two semifinals and a championship,” he said. “You’re not creating any more of those when you expand the playoff.”
I hope they’re right. If the money isn’t there, there really is no reason to expand it. Maybe TV experts told them that when they decided on the current system.
LikeLike
I think he’s totally off base on his regular season comment. Over-expansion of playoffs doesn’t impact the TV money so much as the live gate. That would seem to be where the issue is. And I don’t see how 8 does anything except perhaps make it better.
Now what he is saying is that the quarterfinals aren’t worth much more than a non-playoff BCS bowl. Given our limited experience with college football playoffs, a lot of that is based on speculation. They are informed panelists, but still really don’t know.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yeah, I don’t completely buy what they’re saying, especially when two of the panelists worked directly on selling the new CFP playoff TV package. They’re not going to throw their clients that just paid them hefty consulting fees under the bus and say that the marketplace is going to tear up the 12-year contract that they just negotiated within a couple of years. As a result, their quotes don’t carry much more weight than the party line from the conference commissioners that this deal is ironclad.
If he’s actually arguing that a quarterfinal game isn’t worth much more than a non-playoff BCS bowl, then he’s outright lying. I don’t even think that’s speculation – we have seen many regular season games with national championship implications outdraw BCS bowls significantly, which are essentially what would mirror the interest in quarterfinal games.
Speaking of the regular season, I agree with you that the 8-team playoff can actually enhance the regular season. I don’t think much of the smarmy Roger Goodell, but one of his quotes in the article that someone posted about the potential expansion of the NFL playoffs (I can’t recall if it was in this thread or in the last post) highlighted the different focus on regular season that “matters”. He looked at regular season success as the fact that 14 out of the 16 games played in week 17 this year had playoff implications and wanted to find a way so that more games would carry even more weight (i.e. a playoff spot at stake as opposed to just seeding). This is essentially the concept that I’ve been arguing for with respect to college football: the traditional viewpoint is more concerned about the handful of games like this year’s Alabama-Auburn game losing their impact, whereas I’m looking at whether there can be a dozen or more games on Thanksgiving weekend each year with legit national title implications (i.e. every single division race in the power conferences takes on a completely different tenor with a playoff spot at stake along with mattering much more nationally). Obviously, there’s a balance – too many playoff spots a la the NCAA Tournament truly does make the regular season into a seeding exercise. However, I don’t think an 8-team playoff (particularly one with 5 auto-bids for the power conference champs) is anywhere near that territory.
LikeLike
Don’t the conferences have a pseudo qtr final roils with CCG’s/conference championships? I see as possible a future four power conference (D whatever) being the basis for a defacto 8 team bracket, once the cost of dreaming of being in the power group weeds 30 or more from the wana be’s.
LikeLike
Pfft…
roils=round
LikeLike
CCrider:
Possible close to the expiration of the GOR’s when the B12 and maybe the ACC get raided and the remnants form the 4th major conference. SEC vs. Remnants in the Sugar. B10 vs. Pac in the Rose. Winners to the title game.
LikeLike
I like it. I don’t care if the PAC and B1G reps are ranked 1and 2. I value the Rose (and history, tradition, etc) above providing non B1G/PAC members their supposed “better” final matchup merely for their transient amusement.
LikeLike
It comes down to these couple of facts for me:
1. Value of games goes up more than linearly with more viewers (double an audience equals more than double pay, this is probably due to the games actually being compared to alternatives that could be aired rather than straight up number of viewers).
2. Higher stakes=higher number of casual viewers (particurally fans in markets outside the conference(s) in the game)
3. Interest in who gets in at the #7/8 spot in an 8 team playoff is limited until we get to the last couple of weeks of the year.
4. Interest in the top national teams is limited at the begining of the year with an 8 team playoff because loosing no longer is likely to knock them out.
5. Conference pride/interest has grown as a result of limited number of playoff spots.
So these would be my long term predictions with an 8 team playoff:
1. More interest in the teams ranked between 8-20 throughout the season. This is particurally true in late November.
2. Less interest in the top teams, especially early in the year. Being #2 or #5 matters but the difference isn’t a huge deal in an 8 team playoff. It’s unlikely that loosing as the #2 team often takes you from a top spot to below #8 (and if it does early in the year, you can recover from it in almost all circumstances), so all the do-or-die games we have become acustomed to involving actual national title favorites drop a lot in value.
3. If the Big Ten champ is going to the CFP regardless, why should casual fans in the Midwest watch a lot of ACC football? Same goes between all conference. Inter-conference following would take a hit with a bigger playoff.
LikeLike
Agree with Eric that the BCS had really promoted inter-conference interest. Without it, who would have cared about the 2007 Backyard Brawl? Certainly most people would not have if an 8-team playoff with automatic qualifiers had been in place as WVU would have gone to the playoffs regardless.
I also do not believe that the quarterfinals are comparable to big regular season games, as those are more like semifinals in feeling (at least for the losers). Plus, those regular season games would be lessened. Why tune in to the various LSU-‘Bama games of the past few years if you’re a B10 fan with an 8-taem playoff?
In any case, we can estimate what the QF ratings would be based on the NFL:(average of 34M viewers for the divisional games; 50M+ for both conference title games), so QF’s are roughly 2/3rd’s of semi’s. Conference title games are about half of the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
I guess I look at it the way people (including me) generally watch the NFL. *Every* NFL division race is compelling television because they have guaranteed playoff implications and the ratings reflect that. The fact that I’m a Bears fan didn’t detract from my interest in the NFC East title game game between the Eagles and Cowboys in week 17 or all of the AFC teams fighting for a wild card spot. People inherently gravitate toward “win and you’re in” games. That’s what I’d like to see more of in college football. Duke winning whatever ACC division it’s in this year (I’m probably at the forefront of realignment dorks and I *still* can’t remember those bass-ackwards divisions) doesn’t just become a nice footnote to the season nationally. Instead, their division race is literally a playoff race with national impact. Michigan State would have been paid more attention to nationally prior to the Big Ten Championship Game. We can extrapolate that across all of the conferences – meaningless consolation games (from a national standpoint) suddenly become very meaningful.
The interconference interest spoken of here during the BCS era really is a cross-interest in the top 2 or 3 teams in the rankings every week (and that may turn into the top 5 or 6 teams with the new CFP playoff). Ohio State fans this year weren’t watching the ACC as a whole – they were watching Florida State and that was really it. So, yes, there’s currently large national interest in those top end games. However, I see the other 95% of games generally ignored at a national level, which is where there are a lot of potential gains to be made. Relying upon tradition and bowl berths might be good enough for my generation and older to keep us watching that other 95%, but I don’t foresee that being good enough for future generations. We already see the issue with attendance at many schools and that can eventually cause issues on the TV front. People want to know that their team isn’t just automatically eliminated from national title contention because of preseason perceptions prior to a game being played or how pollsters look at who has “better wins” throughout the year. Otherwise, interest will eventually die out with the exception of the very spiky top.
And look, this isn’t some type of NCAA Tournament-style playoff where you can afford tons of losses and still get in. If you win your power conference, you did it objectively on the field without pollsters and computer rankings telling you whether you’re worthy or not. If you’re the best Group of Five team, the you’re in, too. That leaves 2 at-large spots, which is still a field so small that no team has much margin for error in any given week. We’re still going to have those do-or-die games every week.
The NFL has already shown the path on this. People can quibble about how they do things, but they absolutely know how to maximize interest in the regular season for ALL of its teams (not just the handful of marquee teams).
LikeLike
I think the broader point is that networks will feel less inclined to pay for Iowa-Nebraska if less is potentially on the line. Remember, if 5 of 8 slots are guaranteed to power conference champs, then the only real way to create interest is if division winners have yet to be determined. At most, 6-7 teams will be in competition for the 3 wild cards. That’s not exactly scintillating stuff, especially since we don’t know what teams those will be and the relevant TV deals for those teams.
If the B1G or SEC get the sense that they will get less money sooner, or more importantly, that the rate of future rights increases will slow down with a larger playoff, that will kill an 8 team tourney in its womb.
LikeLike
@Frank:
Also, the NFL is a unique beast. They genuinely have the Midas Touch without the negative moral of the story. CFB is not the same. Nobody is. In other sports, its less certain. MLB’s ratings overall for the post season are on a downward trend. NHL playoffs, while second only to the NFL in terms of excitement, are constantly under threat of strange realignment plans. NBA season basically starts in the post-season, once all the draft tankers are out of the way. MBB is one giant, pointless seeding exercise.
“And look, this isn’t some type of NCAA Tournament-style playoff where you can afford tons of losses and still get in. If you win your power conference, you did it objectively on the field without pollsters and computer rankings telling you whether you’re worthy or not. If you’re the best Group of Five team, the you’re in, too. That leaves 2 at-large spots, which is still a field so small that no team has much margin for error in any given week. We’re still going to have those do-or-die games every week.”
Generally, this is true. But there are outliers discussed on past threads that challenge this notion to a degree that its not absolute. (See 2011 UCLA (or a different year); 1996 Texas). A 6-6 conference winner in an 8 team playoff will spark genuine controversy/outrage.
LikeLike
Noone’s going to be outraged and there’s no controversy if a team wins its conference, even if its 7-5 or 6-6. Its done a lot more than Alabama did in 2011.
LikeLike
I think the broader point is that networks will feel less inclined to pay for Iowa-Nebraska if less is potentially on the line. Remember, if 5 of 8 slots are guaranteed to power conference champs, then the only real way to create interest is if division winners have yet to be determined.
What on earth do you mean by that? In either a 4- or 8-team playoff, a Big Ten team’s most likely path to to the playoff will be winning their division, and thereafter the CCG. In an 8-team playoff, Iowa-Nebraska will therefore mean at least as much as it does today.
Of course, there will be years when both Iowa and Nebraska are already eliminated by the time their game is played, which happened in 2013. There will be years when one or the other has already clinched the division, regardless of the outcome. And there will be years where one, or perhaps both, needs a win to clinch the division.
All of that is true today, and would be true still.
At most, 6-7 teams will be in competition for the 3 wild cards. That’s not exactly scintillating stuff, especially since we don’t know what teams those will be and the relevant TV deals for those teams.
But that’s more teams in competition for wild cards than there is now. The reason why an 8-team playoff increases interest in the regular season, is because there are more teams late in the season who still have a shot at getting in. It’s a system that turns some number of exhibition games into meaningful ones.
Of course, the beauty of college football is that so many teams are able to fill their stadiums for games that mean nothing except pride. But it is beyond me how you could argue that by injecting a real stake into a few of those games that currently lack it, they become less valuable.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“If he’s actually arguing that a quarterfinal game isn’t worth much more than a non-playoff BCS bowl, then he’s outright lying. I don’t even think that’s speculation – we have seen many regular season games with national championship implications outdraw BCS bowls significantly, which are essentially what would mirror the interest in quarterfinal games.”
Really?
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
2013 top games:
BCS NCG – 14.8/26.1M
Rose – 10.2/18.6M
Sugar – 9.3/16.3M
SEC CCG – 8.6/14.4M
B10 CCG – 7.9/13.9M
AL/AU – 8.2/13.8M
AL/TAMU – 8.5/13.6M
AL/LSU – 6.9/11.9M
Orange – 6.7/11.4
Fiesta – 6.6/11.3M
OSU/MI – 5.8/9.5M
3 regular season games with title implications for both teams topped 2 of the BCS games by less than 20%. 2 CCG with direct title implications topped them by roughly 25%. A quarterfinal would have less direct implications than the B10 title game did, too.
“Speaking of the regular season, I agree with you that the 8-team playoff can actually enhance the regular season.”
Define enhance. Are you talking purely the value of the TV deals? That’s all these guys were discussing.
“This is essentially the concept that I’ve been arguing for with respect to college football: the traditional viewpoint is more concerned about the handful of games like this year’s Alabama-Auburn game losing their impact, whereas I’m looking at whether there can be a dozen or more games on Thanksgiving weekend each year with legit national title implications (i.e. every single division race in the power conferences takes on a completely different tenor with a playoff spot at stake along with mattering much more nationally).”
But you have no basis to say that would increase the overall TV value. A bunch of small gains may not trump a few big losses in value. The experts seem to think you’re wrong on this.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
I mean very simply that an 8 team playoff adds relatively little value over a 4 team playoff that the networks aren’t going to pay enough to make it valuable to expand. The contest to fill an 8 team tourney will come down to three wild cards, and only a handful of teams will be in competition, not all that many more to command, say, double the tv money. That an extra 4 teams are in play doesn’t translate all that much financially, like the nfl where an extra wild card game is more than 100 million+ for the league.
As for the division races, there is no change in an 8 team playoff vs a 4 team playoff, so it’s folly to assume that those games would appreciate in value more than from basic market forces at work. And those races often times are anticlimactic , like the big ten one this year.
LikeLike
You argument is a good one Frank, but at the end of the day, I think the difference between college sports and the NFL is that college sports are naturally much more regional in following. The NFL is a 30 team league and the center place football league for the country (which I can admit even though I don’t really watch it). I think you need a lot more at stake for the big ranking with college sports. If you lock in the champs of the power 5, I agree you will get more interest in additional conference games. The problem is that I think those monster games you get now are actually probably worth more overall than a light uptake in interest you’re going to get with a bigger playoff. Going the direction of college basketball (with no really must-see national regular season games) seems more likely than the NFL.
LikeLike
@Wainscott:
You said: “I think the broader point is that networks will feel less inclined to pay for Iowa-Nebraska if less is potentially on the line. Remember, if 5 of 8 slots are guaranteed to power conference champs, then the only real way to create interest is if division winners have yet to be determined. At most, 6-7 teams will be in competition for the 3 wild cards. That’s not exactly scintillating stuff, especially since we don’t know what teams those will be and the relevant TV deals for those teams.
If the B1G or SEC get the sense that they will get less money sooner, or more importantly, that the rate of future rights increases will slow down with a larger playoff, that will kill an 8 team tourney in its womb.”
(This thread has basically ended, so I’ll be brief).
I have soooooo many problems with what you said. I’ll leave it at two: First, you talk about “interest being created” and all I see is more ESpin spin. I hate that and there is almost no interest “created” at the NFL level. There is interest in the teams because they are your team, they are good or because they can make the playoffs. That is just perfect !!
I want the power of ESpin to go down.
Second, I sure hope to hell that money is not everything for the Presidents and Chancellors. (I think it is not.)
LikeLike
Erik brings up some real concerns and pertinent observations about the 8-team playoff model. There are some easy tweaks to enhance its value to the point that it looks a lot better than the 4-team playoff:
1) Include automatic berths for the Big 5 champions AND the best Group of 5 champion. This enhances interest in the conference races – you win and you’re in – essentially. The Group of 5 conference races will attract more notice – at least in one or two conferences every year.
It also limits the at large pool to TWO teams. This scarcity will still make most of the big games down the stretch have playoff-inclusion implications, not just seeding. There will still be plenty of do-or-die games.
2) To enhance the stakes of seeding, give first round HOME games for the higher seed. Interest in the top teams will escalate because the stakes of how you are seeded are much higher. Being #2 or #5 have huge implications – you don’t just get a matchup with a perceived easier opponent; you get a home game and all the associate benefits beyond home field advantage (which is huge!)…or face a top-4 opponent in their house…
I would think that the Round 1 playoff games in the home stadiums of the top-4 seeds would easily outperform the non-playoff BCS games – in both gate and TV revenue. In fact, I would not be surprised if over the course of time, some sort of college football NIT would develop – perhaps involving the Group of 5 champs and several at large candidates that missed the CFP.
2013 Sample
Round 1:
#15 UCF* at #1 Florida State, in Tallahassee, FL
#7 Ohio St.^ at #2 Auburn, in Auburn, AL
#6 Baylor at #3 Alabama^, in Tuscaloosa, AL
#5 Stanford at #4 Michigan St., in E. Lansing, MI
* Highest-ranked Group of 5 Champ
^ at large
Semi-Finals, Round 2 (predicted):
#1 Florida State v. #4 Michigan St., at the Rose Bowl
#2 Auburn v. #3 Alabama, at the Sugar Bowl
Championship:
??, but AWESOME!!!
LikeLike
Brad Smith,
“Erik brings up some real concerns and pertinent observations about the 8-team playoff model. There are some easy tweaks to enhance its value to the point that it looks a lot better than the 4-team playoff:
1) Include automatic berths for the Big 5 champions AND the best Group of 5 champion.”
But the conferences don’t seem to want to give autobids, especially to the little guys. The SEC wants the right to fill all 8 spots, and everyone remembers the years of crappy champs being forced upon the BCS.
Certainly many fans don’t want to see that 6th autobid.
“2) To enhance the stakes of seeding, give first round HOME games for the higher seed.”
The conferences don’t want that, either. Only fans (mostly northern ones at that) like that idea. The schools want to play in attractive neutral sites with good weather for the games.
LikeLike
I think he’s totally off base on his regular season comment.
There’s very little doubt that he’s off-base. The presidents said for years that any kind of playoff would dilute the regular season, before finally agreeing to one. So why would you believe them, if they say it again?
I can certainly understand that an expanded playoff changes the meaning of a national championship. It’s no longer who had the best season, but who had a “good enough” season, then got hot in December and January. There’s no answer to this argument; you support it, or you don’t.
But there’s no evidence at all that an 8-team playoff would cause the schools to lose money. The evidence of almost every other sport says the opposite.
LikeLike
No other college sport does the schools control both the regular season gate/media money, and the post season.
LikeLike
“But there’s no evidence at all that an 8-team playoff would cause the schools to lose money. The evidence of almost every other sport says the opposite.”
There also isn’t a good parallel, because there are 5 power conferences all competing for TV dollars. Also, the issue for me is not that a conference will lose money as much as there is potential that future TV deals will not increase as much as a result.
Remember, if an expanded tourney adds $250 mil to the pot over 10 years, 25 mill per year is split up among the several conferences and then distributed to the schools themselves. All of a sudden, what seems like a lot of money becomes a relative pittance.
“There’s very little doubt that he’s off-base. The presidents said for years that any kind of playoff would dilute the regular season, before finally agreeing to one. So why would you believe them, if they say it again?”
Because a 4 team playoff did not really add games to the calendar like an 8 team playoff would. Co-opted existing bowl games into semifinals, and the existing BCS title game into the new title game. No impact on the academic calendar.
LikeLike
I’m not saying it might not conceivably be demonstrated, but when they trot out the same arguments that were used against the 4-team playoff, the format they eventually agreed to, you can color me skeptical.
a 4 team playoff did not really add games to the calendar like an 8 team playoff would. Co-opted existing bowl games into semifinals, and the existing BCS title game into the new title game. No impact on the academic calendar.
The “academic calendar” argument wasn’t the issue mentioned in that article. The claim in the article is that if playoffs expand to 8 games, the regular season would be worth less money, which defies all logic, and must be considered presumptively false, given who is saying it.
LikeLike
See:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324851704578133223970790516?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324851704578133223970790516.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-bcs-playoff-revenue-money-distribution-payouts/1762709/
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/21599899/smaller-conferences-crafting-plan-to-share-playoff-revenue
By the time the money filters down to the schools, its not as huge of a pot as we think. Getting an extra few million from an expanded playoff vs. the risk of losing rights fees for conference cable networks or smaller increases for national TV deals? Conferences like the B1G, SEC, and especially the PAC12 (with the wholly owned network) will definitely put their financial interest before agreeing to an expanded tourney.
LikeLike
“The “academic calendar” argument wasn’t the issue mentioned in that article. The claim in the article is that if playoffs expand to 8 games, the regular season would be worth less money, which defies all logic, and must be considered presumptively false, given who is saying it.”
Neither were the Presidents. Only conferences were. But if you bring up matters beyond the scope of the article, such as the Presidents past statements opposing playoffs, they become relevant to the discussion.
Moreover, “the Presidents” weren’t saying it would cause schools to make money, but two media rights consultants, one for Fox and one for the SEC said so.
LikeLike
Getting an extra few million from an expanded playoff vs. the risk of losing rights fees for conference cable networks or smaller increases for national TV deals?
It is utterly illogical to suggest that would occur. It defies the experience of every other sport, to say nothing of common sense.
Moreover, “the Presidents” weren’t saying it would cause schools to make money, but two media rights consultants, one for Fox and one for the SEC said so.
And Frank explained persuasively why they are not to be trusted, given the inherent conflict of interest if they say anything else.
LikeLike
“It is utterly illogical to suggest that would occur. It defies the experience of every other sport, to say nothing of common sense.”
Since two established media rights individuals say its possible, your postings on a message board are, shall we say, not persuasive. Your pleas to common sense are similarly without any meaning. And common sense would dictate that jeopardizing conference tv deals will not happen unless it is guaranteed the pot of gold from a bigger tourney will be much bigger.
“And Frank explained persuasively why they are not to be trusted, given the inherent conflict of interest if they say anything else.”
Why media rights consultants aren’t to be trusted? If anything, it would be in their interest to hype the value of a larger tourney and of conference networks so as not to imply that there is a limit or cap on CFB tv money. Moreover, if the pot of gold is indeed larger, then they would want to rip up these deals in order to secure more money for their clients.
LikeLike
These media rights consultants were working for the BCS group. So there is some reason to believe they might be touting the company line. You have to weigh whether what they say makes sense or whether it seems like mere talking points.
LikeLike
“But there’s no evidence at all that an 8-team playoff would cause the schools to lose money. The evidence of almost every other sport says the opposite.”
However, in “every other sport” (by which you mean the North American pro sports, I assume, as what you say doesn’t hold true overseas), the teams divide both the regular season and postseason revenues equally.
In CFB, the postseason money will be divided close to equally between the P5 with some left over for the peons, but each conference keeps its regular season money.
So, given the relative TV deals & networks each conference has, the B10 would definitely be opposed to playoff expansion, the SEC almost certainly would be opposed, and the Pac (with it’s own network) likely would be opposed as well. Plus, when you keep in mind that the college presidents tend to be on the conservative side (that is, a 10% increase won’t be enough to budge them from the status quo*; you’d need something like a 40% increase, IMO), I don’t see an 8-team playoff any time soon. _Maybe_ in 12 years. Maybe.
* BTW, their conservatism is sometimes a good thing. In 1998, a Swiss marketing firm offered the Presidents 2.4B over 8 years, at that time, a massive increase in revenues, to stage a 16-team playoff. That firm went bankrupt a few years afterwards. Imagine the consternation if the NCAA has accepted that proposal in 1998.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t see any chance whatsoever that it will happen within the next 12 years. The current 4-team playoff system will be taken to contract completion before there is even a chance of a new system.
The longevity of the BCS, despite widespread dissatisfaction, is pretty good evidence that the presidents are going to take further reforms extremely slowly.
LikeLike
My reply on this topic was accidentally posted in the threat immediately above this one.
LikeLike
Don’t the conferences have a pseudo qtr final roils with CCG’s/conference championships? I see as possible a future four power conference (D whatever) being the basis for a defacto 8 team bracket, once the cost of dreaming of being in the power group weeds 30 or more from the wana be’s.
There’s at least three reasons why that won’t happen.
1) The presidents have shown no inclination of adopting a format where Notre Dame couldn’t qualify as an independent; nor have they shown any inclination of forcing ND to join a conference.
2) The current system does not guarantee bids to CCG winners, and that’s not likely to change without going to 8.
3) Although it may be extremely difficult for a mid-major to qualify for the playoff, it’s not worth the anti-trust risk of adopting a rule that categorically precludes them. You avoid all sorts of congressional oversight with a system that includes them, however unlikely it may be that they actually make it.
LikeLike
1: I said I as possible, not probable, see a potential future…
2: The current system guarantees a selection not a bracket with direct result based advancement. That isn’t a playoff.
3: Nobody is explicitly excluded. They choose to, or not to compete in that division (with all its costs and requirements).
LikeLike
OK. After the B12 and ACC get raided:
Rose: B10 vs. Pac
Sugar: SEC vs. Best of the Rest
Winners in the title game.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think he’s totally off base on his regular season comment.”
How can he be off base when he’s just reporting what the experts said? They may be wrong, but don’t blame the reporter. Besides, on what basis do you declare the experts wrong? Do you have data they don’t, or some experience that allows you to interpret the numbers better than they do?
“Over-expansion of playoffs doesn’t impact the TV money so much as the live gate.”
You think regular season hoops hasn’t lost TV value due to the tourney?
“And I don’t see how 8 does anything except perhaps make it better.”
Which is nice, but you aren’t a media expert as far as I know. Apparently the people in the field disagree with you. My guess would be that you evaluate the tradeoff between more games mattering a little more versus some games mattering a lot less differently than they do.
“Now what he is saying is that the quarterfinals aren’t worth much more than a non-playoff BCS bowl. Given our limited experience with college football playoffs, a lot of that is based on speculation. They are informed panelists, but still really don’t know.”
But they’re more informed than we are, and less likely to view this emotionally or through personal preference. It’s important to note that this wasn’t 1 or 2 people saying it, but everyone on the panel.
LikeLike
I’m talking about Gerber the consultant. I’ve never heard anyone complain about the value of the TV packages. Basketball rights haven’t gone up as much as football, but they keep going up. So I know regular season TV hoops haven’t decreased in value. In any event, no one here is recommending a conference championship tourney followed by inviting 50% of the P5 to a football playoff as the basketball tourney does.
There’s more to it than simply media value. And so, there’s little doubt in my mind that a small expansion of the playoffs increases the non-media value.
Not sure that playoff comment wasn’t only the two consultants who worked with the BCS people. So, as Frank says, they could conceivably be touting the company line.
And while they are certainly more knowledgeable, we all know the ratings have been declining and the non-playoff bowls aren’t doing that well. You had games like Alabama/LSU last year and Alabama/A&M this year getting significantly better ratings than the Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Well, here’s what we know:
In the NFL, the Super Bowl draws twice as many viewers as the semifinals, which draw 50% more viewers than the quarter finals, which draw 50% more viewers than the average of the top-drawing regular season package (NBC’s Sunday Night Football).
In college football, the title game draws 25M+. We can expect the semifinals to draw about 13M or so. Quarterfinals would draw 9-10M. This is in line with the NFL as Saturday Night Football on ABC drew a little less than 6M on average and the SEC on CBS drew a little more than 7M on average.
Here’s the thing, though: The other BCS bowls averaged 14M viewers. That is, those BCS bowls are now as valuable as semifinals, and there are 4 of them. Regardless of the impact on the regular season, if another round of playoffs cannibalizes the ratings of the other BCS bowls (and they will), there is no way that the presidents would approve such a thing. Granted, it’s mostly geezers keeping the ratings of those other BCS bowls afloat, but they take a long time to die off. You can make the argument that an extra round of playoffs would attract younger viewers (I suppose we’ll see if that’s true with the semifinal rounds starting next year), but if an extra round means the same or worse ratings, there is no way that we will see an 8-team playoff within the next 12 years. Possibly longer. The media consultants make a fair point that most of the value of a playoff resides in the semis and final, and the presidents are inherently conservative by nature. They’d have to be blown away by the extra revenue that an extra round of playoffs would bring to lengthen the college football season and disrupt campuses even longer. 10% more playoff revenue would not cut it.
LikeLike
Richard is right, but leaves out that CFB is very matchup dependent. A bad or boring or uninspired matchup will impact ratings. See LSU vs Alabama in the BCS title game a few years back. Those semis and quarters would also be impacted by matchups, likely moreso than a title game.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’m talking about Gerber the consultant. I’ve never heard anyone complain about the value of the TV packages. Basketball rights haven’t gone up as much as football, but they keep going up. So I know regular season TV hoops haven’t decreased in value.”
I’m talking value relative to what it would be with a smaller tournament. If the tourney went back to 16 teams, how much more would regular season packages be worth to TV?
“In any event, no one here is recommending a conference championship tourney followed by inviting 50% of the P5 to a football playoff as the basketball tourney does.”
That doesn’t mean the same concept doesn’t apply, just that it is a lesser effect.
“There’s more to it than simply media value.”
Not in what they said. That’s my point. They didn’t talk about the bigger picture, they only talked about TV money. You’re looking at something different, and that’s a different discussion.
“Not sure that playoff comment wasn’t only the two consultants who worked with the BCS people. So, as Frank says, they could conceivably be touting the company line.”
They could be. Or they could be giving their honest opinion. Or their honest opinion may match the company line. You and Frank don’t have any evidence they’re wrong or not giving their honest opinion.
“And while they are certainly more knowledgeable, we all know the ratings have been declining and the non-playoff bowls aren’t doing that well. You had games like Alabama/LSU last year and Alabama/A&M this year getting significantly better ratings than the Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls.”
Umm, no. The Sugar easily beat every regular season game, as did the Rose and NCG. The Orange and Fiesta lagged 3 regular season games with national title implications for both teams by less than 20%, and 2 CCG with title implications slightly topped those 3 games. I gave the numbers above.
LikeLike
Thinking about this more, one thing that CFB has that the other sports who have expanded their playoffs time and again don’t have are 4 BCS bowls that draw semifinal-like ratings which CFB is unwilling to cannibalize. No other sport has that, and there are plenty of people who still consider those BCS bowl games to be championship games (a lighter version) in their own right. Going to the Rose Bowl or Sugar or other BCS bowl and winning it is still a big deal to plenty of people (not just of those schools but also those conferences). That will be true for at least another 12 years.
Mark my words: the B12 and ACC will get raided before the CFB playoffs expand again.
LikeLike
Bullet:
“The ACC hasn’t decided whether it’s going to launch a channel.”
I thought ESPN was the one that decides whether or not an ACCN happens. $2M (?) per school if their decision is no?
LikeLike
That’s what’s been reported. It doesn’t make sense. ACC has put out a good bit of misinformation, so I’m not 100% sold that is a fact, even though it has been reported by reliable media. And no one has ever said it is $2 million per school, just “$2 million” without explaining whether it was total or per school.
LikeLike
More on the possible expansion of the NFL playoffs:
http://tracking.si.com/2014/01/20/roger-goodell-playoff-expansion-games-friday-monday/?eref=sihp
Please, tripleheaders on Saturday and Sunday.
LikeLike
Also mentioned in that story: the NFL is considering a change to the scoring system. The extra point kick would be eliminated. A TD would be worth 7 points by default, with the option to go for an eighth point. If you go for it and miss, you lose a point and go back to 6.
The reasoning is that as the extra point kick is practically automatic (better than 99% converted), you can speed up the game by eliminating it in the hundreds of TDs every year where the scoring team elects not to go for two.
Not that I’m in favor of this; just reporting what he said.
LikeLike
Its such a minor element, its not even worth tampering with. And it does add a level of drama when, say, John Carney missed an XP that knocks the Saints out of the playoffs. (http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=231221030)
LikeLike
So much for fake extra points turning into two…
LikeLike
Or advancing a blocked XP back for one point, which I think you can do in the NFL but not CFB. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
LikeLike
One thing brought up by Kyle Long (rookie All-Pro offensive lineman for the Bears and son of Howie) speaking on the radio today about the possible elimination of PATs is the safety issue. He said that the field goal unit is actually one of the toughest and most brutal assignments for a lineman because everyone is throwing their bodies forward 100% in opposite directions against each other. So, it might be another belated bone that the NFL is throwing on the concussion front. If this is a particularly dangerous type of play for linemen (at least in terms of hits), but it’s rarely consequential, why put people out there at greater risk? It’s an interesting debate.
LikeLike
In CFB, on any PAT (1 or 2 points), the ball advanced back to the opposite endzone is worth 2 points to the defending team.
LikeLike
@Richard:
Thanks. I came across this on Wikipedia, chock-full of awesome:
There is, however, one notable exception in college football because the defense can also score two points on a return of a conversion try (and theoretically score a one-point safety) and the NCAA rules state that the conversion try must be run if any subsequent scoring on the play could impact the outcome of the game. Therefore, if a team scores to take the lead by one or two points as time expires, they must still attempt the conversion, although most teams will simply opt to take a knee to prevent the risk of the defense scoring. For example, on October 24, 2009, Iowa scored as time expired to take a 15–13 lead over Michigan State. Making the conversion would have made no difference in Iowa winning the game, but Iowa still had to attempt it, so Ricky Stanzi simply knelt down, as a return by Michigan State would have tied the game and forced overtime.
LikeLike
“Please, tripleheaders on Saturday and Sunday.”
LOL. The NFL will do what maximizes revenue. Not sure why you’re so emotionally invested in this issue.
LikeLike
The Washington Post is reporting a shooting has occurred at the electrical engineering building at Purdue. My thoughts are with the people in West Lafayette.
LikeLike
Pulled this off another forum so can’t vouch for its accuracy. Perhaps we over value the opinion of ranking services?
“Denver Roster Snapshot:
Five-Stars: 1
Four-Stars: 12
Three-Stars: 15
Two-Stars: 14
Unranked: 9
Pre-Rivals: 13
Seattle Roster Snapshot:
Five-Stars: 3
Four-Stars: 8
Three-Stars: 19
Two-Stars: 12
Unranked: 12
Pre-Rivals: 7
*From a Vandy football forum.”
LikeLike
Except that there isn’t an equal distribution of stars. There’s roughly 3.5 times as many 3-star recruits as 4-star recruits (while the number of 5-stars is miniscule). There are as many 2-star recruits as 3-star recruits, however.
There definitely is a problem with the ranking system: namely, that the pool of 3-stars is too undifferentiated: the best 3-stars are much better than the worst 3-stars, and most 3-stars are pretty close to 2-star recruits. You definitely get a higher proportion of elite recruits with 4 & 5 stars, however (and I would say top 3-stars as well).
Small differences can be overcome by good coaching and other factors, but if you fill your class mostly with 4-star recruits (as ‘Bama, OSU, FSU, and Texas have this year), you have a definite talent advantage over a team that is filled with the same number of mostly 3-star recruits (though granted, even the best talent can be squandered with bad coaching). Plus, this shows just how significant an advantage oversigning can be. Recruiting is definitely a numbers game, and if you can take in 25% more recruits each year than another school, you can have a team filled with mostly 3-stars and dominate a team of 4-stars, while a school that oversigns 4-stars dominates everyone. We saw just how importnant depth is with USC: roster completely filled with 4 and 5 star recruits, but no depth, so they were playng a student manager at wide receiver for a while.
LikeLike
I think position is extremely important when analyzing star status. There are a lot more 2 or 3 star linemen and TE’s that become NFL stars vs. the skill positions. Most of the top WR talent in the NFL draft were kids that had high star ratings out of HS. Some positions just require the natural god given talent and others can be developed.
LikeLike
And yet the combined Broncos (1) and Seahawks (3) rosters have a grand total of four 5 star ranked players.
LikeLike
That’s because they’re like unicorns. 5-stars are rarely given out. 5-stars account for a little more than 1% of all FBS recruits, yet make up 17% of 1st-round picks.
LikeLike
17% of first round plus however many of the other rounds…and yet about 3% of the Super Bowl participants this year? All I’m saying is it almost seems inverted. I’d think 120 D1 teams author 85 schollys, 32 NFL at under 60, if the rankings are even somewhat predictive I’d expect a much higher number as the selection process narrows the pool.
LikeLike
What makes you a great college player is correlated with success in the NFL, but aren’t necessarily the same (see Tim Tebow). You’re looking at the very pointy top of the pyramid of talent with the players that make the NFL and tangibles like size, speed and arm strength that the pros care about much more about than whether you can be successful in a particular system can shift during the course of college. So, it’s not a surprise that recruiting rankings don’t really predict NFL success very well, but they can certainly make or break a college’s realistic chances for the national championship.
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying but I think there is a far greater disparity between HS and college than college and the NFL. I’m just more skeptical about the accuracy of recruiting services, especially when I’ve seen ratings on players adjusted merely because a school decides the have a need and chose to offer a kid late in the process. Seems part predictive and part congratulatory. If a king is interested he may get a bump.
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying but I think there is a far greater disparity between HS and college than college and the NFL. I’m just more skeptical about the accuracy of recruiting services, especially when I’ve seen ratings on players adjusted merely because a school decides the have a need and chose to offer a kid late in the process. Seems part predictive and part congratulatory. If a king is interested he may get a bump.
That does indeed happen, but I am pretty sure the “predictive” part of it is dominant. The recruiting services aren’t perfect, but how could they be? NFL GMs aren’t perfect either. They are paid a lot more money, and they have much better data to work with. Nevertheless, they err. No system of predicting future performance of fallible humans is going to get them all right.
Despite that, the ‘stars’ are overwhelmingly correlated with future success, any way that you measure it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And yet the combined Broncos (1) and Seahawks (3) rosters have a grand total of four 5 star ranked players.”
This year 247Sports gave out 33 5-star ratings. Some of those won’t meet expectations, some will get hurt, some will leave football for other reasons (arrests, etc). That leaves a handful of players every year to progress to the NFL. Then spread those players over 32 teams. The typical NFL career is pretty short, too, so only a few of those classes can accumulate.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“17% of first round plus however many of the other rounds…and yet about 3% of the Super Bowl participants this year?”
70% of NFL players are drafted, or 37 players per team. 2 players per team would be over 5% of the drafted players, compared to less than 1% of HS players that get 5 stars. In other words, most of them get drafted in round 1 or don’t ever make it to the NFL (injuries, arrests, busts, etc).
247 gave 33 players 5 stars this year. That’s essentially one per NFL team before attrition hits. 1 out of 6 becomes an NFL first rounder and you think that’s bad?
“All I’m saying is it almost seems inverted. I’d think 120 D1 teams author 85 schollys, 32 NFL at under 60, if the rankings are even somewhat predictive I’d expect a much higher number as the selection process narrows the pool.”
Too bad every analysis I’ve ever seen disagrees with you completely. Higher rated players perform better. It’s a slightly stronger correlation for defense, where raw athleticism is more important, but it’s true across the board.
LikeLike
@Kevin – I think that’s a good point. Certain skill positions require talent that you’re born with in the same way that you can’t just train yourself to become an NBA center. In contrast, you might be able to “train up” at some other positions (granting that even those guys still have talent that 99.99% of the world has never had).
LikeLike
The other possibility is that recruiting services are simply better at identifying talent at certain positions than they are at others.
LikeLike
Predicting the physical growth of an OL is much harder than evaluating the skills of a smaller player. Many linemen add 50 pounds in college and may even grow another inch or two, while most skill players arrive much closer to their final size. Coaching is often shaky for OL in HS, too.
LikeLike
Also, QBs, WRs and RBs put statistics; linemen don’t.
LikeLike
Recruiting services are run by amateur scouts and not ex division 1 coaches. They are also paysites. It is well known that part of the evaluation process is who is offering said prospect a scholarship. So if Alabama and LSU offer a prospect he gets a bump is star ratings. It just so happens that the bump occurs for incredibly large fan base schools like Notre Dame, who besides 1 miracle season has done squat on the field lately, and Alabama. The difference between a 3 and 4 star prospect might very well be who is offering the scholarship and how many of their fans are willing to pay for recruiting information.
LikeLike
Recruiting rankings and the NFL Draft, from 2011:
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/star-power-how-recruiting-rankings-hold-up-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft?urn=ncaaf,wp1103
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/01/21/daytona-international-speedway-college-football/
Daytona wants to host a CFB game in 2016 or beyond.
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/01/21/notre-dame-under-armour-deal/
Something I never expected to hear from UnderArmour (talking about their new ND deal):
“Our job is to ensure that we uphold that legacy and move it forward,” he said. “… We need to honor and respect the history of the university. We believe that less is more.”
Since when does UA believe that less is more?
LikeLike
Maybe they meant less weight?
LikeLike
When was Ray Charles hired to approve their designs?
LikeLike
The less refers to the # of big games ND has won in the last 25 years. The more refers to hype, of course.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24416001/college-football-selection-meets-discussing-recusal-rankings
The playoff selection committee meets next week to iron out some details of how they’ll work, including recusal policy.
LikeLike
Screw the recusals. Just do the job fairly. Are they betting on outcomes, or have preseason projections they’d be needing to reverse themselves over?
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/01/two_lists_-_the_rivals_250_rec.html
A look at two lists most of the B10 really needs to improve on – the NFL early entries and the Rivals top 250 recruits.
“The SEC has 93 players in the Rivals 250, with 29 players leaving early for the draft.
The ACC has 41 players in the Rivals 250, with 14 headed to the draft.
The Pac-12 has 31 players in the Rivals 250, with 26 headed to the draft.
The Big Ten has 29 players in the Rivals 250, with four headed to the draft.
The Big 12 has 20 players in the Rivals 250, with three headed to the draft.
…
LSU (seven), Cal (six) and Alabama (five) lost more players than the entire Big Ten. Florida State, South Carolina, Florida and Notre Dame each lost four players, as many as the entire Big Ten.”
A breakdown of the B10:
Rivals 250:
OSU – 12
MI – 4
NW – 3
PSU, MSU, WI – 2
NE, MN, UMD, RU – 1
Early entries:
OSU – 2
PSU, IN – 1
LikeLike
How many games did Cal win?
LikeLike
Not many, which is one reason so many players left early. Also, this was year 1 of a new coach so some veterans probably realized they didn’t want to be there for year 2.
One outlier doesn’t disprove the general point, though.
LikeLike
BTW, I don’t think early entries is something to be proud of.
Anyway, we know that the SEC has a talent advantage over everyone else with the other P5 conferences scrumming to be 2nd.
However, here’s a list of NFL players by conference:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1641528-where-does-nfl-talent-come-from
SEC still leads, but not by anywhere as much as the recruiting rankings indicate. The B10, ACC, and Pac are essentially tied. Either SEC recruits are more overhyped or they don’t develop as well as kids elsewhere.
LikeLike
Richard,
“BTW, I don’t think early entries is something to be proud of.”
It’s nice you feel that way, but it’s still a valid measure of the number of elite players at various schools. It’s not the only measure, clearly, but it’s one of them.
“Anyway, we know that the SEC has a talent advantage over everyone else with the other P5 conferences scrumming to be 2nd.”
Yes, and that measure is just one way to quantify the advantage.
“However, here’s a list of NFL players by conference:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1641528-where-does-nfl-talent-come-from
SEC still leads, but not by anywhere as much as the recruiting rankings indicate. The B10, ACC, and Pac are essentially tied. Either SEC recruits are more overhyped or they don’t develop as well as kids elsewhere.”
1. The SEC gets more players farther up the learning curve, and thus they develop less in college than players elsewhere.
2. Recruiting services rate how good a player is now, not what his ceiling might be after 5 years of development.
3. The talent edge in the SEC has varied with time, and the NFL rosters will lag that by several years.
4. Talent evaluation is never an exact science. 30% of all NFL players weren’t drafted according to your link.
5. Breakdown the NFL by position and playing level (pro-bowler vs starter vs rotates in vs ST player vs other) and let’s see how things look.
LikeLike
“It’s nice you feel that way, but it’s still a valid measure of the number of elite players at various schools. It’s not the only measure, clearly, but it’s one of them.”
Sure, but it’s one fewer year of their services as well. With oversigning somewhat capped now, you can now have a situation akin to the one in bball where Izzo’s well-coached upperclassmen beat a team of underclassmen with much more raw talent.
LikeLike
I agree, and I wish nobody left early. But it’s something to be proud of that players have that choice, as in they’re good enough for the NFL to want them. That’s all I’m saying.
And with 4th year juniors especially, I don’t really feel bad about them leaving anyway. It’s the smart decision for them if they can get drafted highly.
LikeLike
If I’m selfish, I’d rather have great players for their full eligibility, but it’s a free country. No one should be under the illusion that these players actually intend to spend four years at their chosen institution. Many of them, in fact, are up-front that they’ll turn pro early if they can. It’s a part of the system, and we shouldn’t regard it as a failure when a student-athlete achieves precisely what he set out to do.
I know some people adhere to the quaint concept that athletics is an extra-curricular activity, and the athlete’s main purpose in attending the institution is to get an education. Of course, we all know the famous line from the commercial: 99% of them will go pro in something other than sports. But the 1 percent gets a disproportionate share of the media attention.
LikeLike
“…and the athlete’s main purpose in attending the institution is to get an education.”
No. The quaint idea I ascribe to is that it is the instruction that should be assuring that their student athletes are in fact students. I don’t begrudge one with the opportunity to leave a bit early. Especially if they played the first three years. The scholly was 100% used and freed up a year (or two) earlier than most so another student can receive a ride. I do admire the motivation of most of those who choose to stay when they could go. I may question the wisdom on occasion, as I do a few choosing to leave. But as long as they have been true students I don’t object to the three years out of HS NFL rule (that colleges have no say in anyway).
LikeLike
Sigh…
First line:
…instruction=institution…
LikeLike
Brian:
Right, and all that, but what I’m saying is that it actually gives the B10 a slightly better shot at beating the SEC. In fact, the more early entrants, they have, the better, as we still play them a ton in bowl games.
LikeLike
I think that’s a bigger factor in hoops. I don’t think the oversigning rule has slowed their roster management enough to prevent them from having greater depth, and that negates any experience advantage the B10 could have.
LikeLike
Brian:
“I think that’s a bigger factor in hoops. I don’t think the oversigning rule has slowed their roster management enough to prevent them from having greater depth, and that negates any experience advantage the B10 could have.”
Sure, talent depletion due to underclassmen leaving early is a bigger factor in hoops than in football, but it’s a bigger factor now than it was when the SEC was on it’s 7-title winning streak:
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/24/nfl-draft-underclassmen-problem/?eref=sihp
It’s too bad that the oversigning.com site hasn’t been updated,but top SEC West schools have been signing fewer recruits. For example, looking at 3 SEC West programs, Auburn signed 25 or more every year from 2006-2010, ‘Bama signed 25 or more every year from 2007-2010,and LSU signed 26 or more every year from 2006-2010. In 2011-2013, ‘Bama has signed over 25 once, LSU has signed over 23 once, and Auburn hasn’t had a signing class bigger than 24. Both times ‘Bama and LSU went over, they signed 26.
That brings them more in line with the B10 and SEC East powers (UF and UGa).
In 2009, ‘Bama, LSU, and Auburn lost 5 early entrants to the draft. In 2014, they will lose 15.
So take away 3 extra recruits a year and take away 3 extra seniors a year (1-2 more than B10 powers), and the B10, SEC East, and SEC West (as well as Texas, USC, and ND, who never oversigned) will actually be competing on a more level playing field.
LikeLike
I certainly hope things even out. It’s pretty clear to me that oversigning played a significant part in the domination of the SEC. If the recruiting becomes more equal in numbers, I think we’ll see a return to more national parity. That would be good for CFB.
LikeLike
Well, I still think that the SEC will win half the national titles going forward (which, you have to grant), is less than what they have won recently. 4 of the best-situated 6 kings that have the combination of all 3 of brand, money, and fertile local recruiting grounds are in the SEC (UF, UGa, LSU, and ‘Bama, with Texas and OSU being the other 2). You could argue that USC and FSU are just behind solely due to money (but have brands just as strong and insane amounts of local talent), but that’s half of the 8 best-situated schools being in the SEC. Then you have the kings with the brand and money and are close to talent but still have to draw the vast majority of their roster from out of state in order to win a title (UM, PSU, ND, OU, & Tennessee) as well as the princes that have everything the top 6 have in terms of money and local recruiting except brand (TAMU & Auburn) as well as Miami, which has the brand and local recruiting grounds but trails in money. The SEC makes up 3 of this next 8 as well.
LikeLike
A breakdown of the B10:
Rivals 250:
OSU – 12
MI – 4
NW – 3
PSU, MSU, WI – 2
NE, MN, UMD, RU – 1
This is a pretty good leading indicator that the Big Ten is going to continue to be the Big 1, Little 13, for quite a few years to come. Michigan fans were giddy over Brady Hoke’s alleged recruiting prowess, and he’s still pulling in only a third of the blue-chip prospects that Urban Meyer is getting.
Obviously, any system that predicts the future performance of 17-year-olds is going to make some errors, but with OSU having that big of a talent advantage, they’d have to screw up pretty badly for it not to be evident on the field.
LikeLike
“Michigan fans were giddy over Brady Hoke’s alleged recruiting prowess, and he’s still pulling in only a third of the blue-chip prospects that Urban Meyer is getting.”
. . . in 2014.
In 2013, UM had a top-6 recruiting class (#6 according to ESPN, #5 according to Rivals, and #2 according to Scout).
LikeLike
Recruiting rankings is complete hogwash. Recruits get higher stars if big name schools are interested in them. So Alabama and Notre Dame recruits get a bump if they offer a scholarship so any recruit Alabama and Notre Dame will always be ranked decently. It is also very curious that this phenomena just so happens to occur with schools with the most passionate fans being that recruiting services are paysites. Do more Notre Dame fans sign up when Notre Dame prospects have higher stars? Now it is true that if a bunch of high profile schools are after the same prospect then more than likely that prospect is very good but the star system is what I think is bogus by these sites. What’s the difference between an 3 star and 5 star guy when especially the guys running these services are amateur scouts and not anybody who has ever coached division 1 football. So its a scam.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“Recruiting rankings is complete hogwash.”
No, they really aren’t. They’re far from exact, but all the studies show they correlate with player success. Now, there is obviously more to a team winning than just the recruited talent level (Is there talent at all positions?, How good is the coaching?, How much attrition occurs?, etc).
Still, the recruiting rankings do a pretty good job of predicting the future AP top 10.
“Recruits get higher stars if big name schools are interested in them. So Alabama and Notre Dame recruits get a bump if they offer a scholarship so any recruit Alabama and Notre Dame will always be ranked decently.”
So it’s a negative that they consider the opinions of the true experts (I-A FB coaches)?
“It is also very curious that this phenomena just so happens to occur with schools with the most passionate fans being that recruiting services are paysites.”
Those teams have the most fans because they win, and players want to go to the best teams. When an elite head coach says a player is good (offers him a ‘ship), why shouldn’t that be considered?
“What’s the difference between an 3 star and 5 star guy”
5 star ~ top 1% of scouted players
4 star ~ top 10%
3 star ~ top 25% or so (IIRC)
“when especially the guys running these services are amateur scouts and not anybody who has ever coached division 1 football.”
But you’re also upset when they consider the opinions of said coaches. You can’t have it both ways. Besides, many of the scouts are former CFB players and coaches. That’s the same type of person the NFL, MLB, etc use to do scouting.
It’s funny to see a PSU fan complain about brand name schools getting preferential treatment.
LikeLike
Recruiting actually seems to have some correlation to NFL Draft picks. See:
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1359762
http://athlonsports.com/nfl/nfl-draft-do-recruiting-rankings-matter
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Before-they-were-college-football-stars.html
LikeLike
I am not complaining. I am just saying that using recruiting rankings to show future success on the football is silly. Ohio State has much better recruiting classes than Michigan State but that meant nothing. Boise State should never be able to beat anybody with their star rankings. Wisconsin has been the king of 2-3 star recruits turning into players and making them a very successful program against name schools for whom the recruiting services fawn over.
LikeLike
I am just saying that using recruiting rankings to show future success on the football is silly.
It is NOT silly, because every study has shown that recruiting rankings are highly correlated with every measure of success you can think of.
Yes, there are exceptions, but they don’t invalidate the trend. Your argument is like saying that cigarettes are perfectly safe, because you know people who smoked and lived to age 90.
LikeLike
Recruiting is entirely based on the present and recent past. Recruits today know Urban Meyer from Tim Tebow and Florida, so he can go anywhere in the country and extract an elite recruit. Recruits know Michigan, but todays recruits were around 10-11 when Lloyd Carr resigned (I just choked a little when I typed that). All they’ve seen from Michigan is Rich Rod and Brady Hoke. Both can sell a name, but neither has done enough on the field to make UM on par with OSU on the trail (though it obviously can be with, say, a Rose Bowl appearance to sell).
This can very easily reverse itself, and all Kings can reverse this (doesn’t Tennessee have a top ranked recruiting class coming in?) Brian Kelly was a shot in the arm for ND recruiting.
LikeLike
I put UM, ND, Tennessee, PSU, and OU in the same category of kings who are close to fertile sources of HS talent but have to recruit a lot of elite talent from out of state in order to contend for a national title.
This is opposed to kings like Texas, UF, UGa, LSU, FSU, USC, OSU, ‘Bama, (and Miami), who can win a national title with mostly in-state talent (or close-by talent in the case of Bama; I put ‘Bama in this category instead of the first even though AL produces roughly as much NFL talent as PA and MI because the talent in the states adjacent to AL far outnumbers the talent in the states adjacent to MI and PA).
Then there’s UNL, a king in it’s own special category, located nowhere close to any good source of football talent.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/01/21/michael-wilbon-on-maryland-and-the-big-ten/
Folks are getting nostalgic about UMD move out of ACC
LikeLike
To follow up on Brian’s recruiting post, here is a map of NFL players by where they went to HS:
http://www.maxpreps.com/news/J_G3Olz0lUaivTrWxlHrLQ/where-every-active-nfl-player-went-to-high-school.htm
If you allocate the talent in each state evenly among the P5 schools in that state, this is what you’ll get (with the average per school in parenthesis):
SEC: 461 (32.9)
ACC: 420 (30.0)
B10: 417 (29.8)
Pac: 364 (30.3)
B12: 241 (24.1)
Similar to what the other measures of talent show, the pecking order is SEC, then ACC/B10/Pac tighly together and then the B12 trailing.
However, the lead the SEC has over the rest is not big at all; the lead the rest have over the B12 is bigger.
I think what has happened is that the SEC always had a slight talent edge, but couple that with their resources (which only the B10 can compare with) and willingness to spend on assistants (which the B10 wasn’t willing to do for a long time and the other conferences for the most part were not able to do) and oversigning for a while (especially in the SEC West), and victories started piling up, so now that they have rattled off 7 national titles in a row (granted, broken just recently), and recruits have started to give a tie to the SEC program. Going forward, I think that’s irreversible, and while I believe schools in other conferences will win the national title as well, I think the SEC will win half of them for the foreseeable future while the kings (and maybe some princes with a stellar QB) in other conferences will split up the rest.
LikeLike
Irreversible is a strong statement. A lot will be changing in the very near future; 4 team playoff, big tens new contract, division 4, more realignment? Nick Saban and Urban Meyer were the impetus for the SEC’s surge while the BIG was stuck in the 90’s with its coaches. Saban is getting old and Meyers in the BIG now. No telling what the future will hold. The SEC will always have a slight advantage because it matters more down there but half the championships going forward forever is a little over the top.
LikeLike
“The SEC will always have a slight advantage because it matters more down there but half the championships going forward forever is a little over the top.”
Half of all national titles is actually less than what the SEC has won over the past decade. I also didn’t say forever; I said the forseeable future.
Also, college football doesn’t matter more down there. Not when 3 of the top 5 in attendance are B10 schools, and that’s not even counting Nebraska, where everyone with any association with that state for some reason ends up a Husker fan. The advantage that the SEC has is that there’s more HS talent down there.
LikeLike
Football in the south and Texas is a religion. The BIG might lead in attendance, but football practically defines their existence for fans down there. Because of that no rule is unbreakable, no cost too high, no test scores too low for acceptance. It is true that Texas and Florida are huge talent producers and give them an advantage but the will to win gives them an advantage when recruiting talent and coaches.
LikeLike
Your stats are pretty irrelevant given that schools don’t only recruit in their own territory. Don’t know how the numbers come out by conference the NFL players came from, but this is meaningless.
LikeLike
Not completely meaningless, as it’s still easier, generally, to entice a kid to play close to home than to play far away. I’ve looked at numbers, and the 2 leagues that share almost no territory with another P5 conference (B10 and Pac) generally take as many kids from outside their footprint as they lose from inside their footprint.
BTW, I posted the number of NFL players by conference somewhere else in this thread.
LikeLike
Conference representation in the Super Bowl.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/01/sec_leads_with_31_super_bowl_x.html
31 – SEC
23 – Pac 12
17 – FCS
16 – B1G
13 – MWC, ACC, and Big XII
9 – AAC
5 – CUSA
LikeLike
Good to see Irving Fryar’s moved past his fixing the 1984 Orange Bowl:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/nfler-irving-fryar-pleads-guilty-fraud-21608393
LikeLike
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/story?id=10328143
A playoff selection committee FAQ.
What criteria will the selection committee use to rank the teams?
Selection committee members will have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They will also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee will consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships. Each committee member will evaluate the data at hand, and then the individuals will come together to make a group decision.
…
How many teams will the selection committee rank?
The committee will rank 25 teams.
…
How will the teams that are not in the playoff be selected for the other bowls that make up this new arrangement?
All conferences negotiated individual bowl contracts for their champions. Five conferences have arranged contracts for their champions to play in New Year’s bowl games — Atlantic Coast (Orange), Big Ten (Rose), Big 12 (Sugar), Pac-12 (Rose), and Southeastern (Sugar).
The highest ranked champion of the other five Football Bowl Subdivision conferences (the American Athletic, Conference-USA, Mid-American, Mountain West and Sun Belt), as determined by the selection committee, will play in one of the six New Year’s bowls. Other available berths will be awarded to the teams ranked highest by the committee. The committee will assign teams to bowls.
When the Fiesta, Cotton and Atlanta bowls are not hosting semifinal games, their participants will come from three sources: (1) The highest ranked champion among the five conferences listed in the paragraph above, (2) conference champions that are displaced when their contracted bowls host semifinals and (3) the remaining teams ranked highest in the committee’s rankings.
The committee will assign teams to the non-playoff bowls to create the most compelling matchups, while considering other factors such as geographic proximity, avoiding rematches of regular-season games and avoiding rematches of recent years’ bowl games.
…
Will committee members have specific assignments, i.e. specific conferences?
Yes, committee members will gather information on conferences and will provide reports on the conferences’ teams to the full committee, but all committee members will be expected to study all teams and be prepared to discern among all the information available, including video, to make evaluations.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24416465/2014-acc-schedule-with-loaded-thanksgiving-week
The ACC may be moving to locked rivals on Thanksgiving week.
The ACC’s 2014 football schedule will include several end-of-year matchups that could mushroom into permanent rivalries across the league.
Pitt at Miami, Syracuse at Boston College, Wake Forest at Duke and N.C. State at UNC will be played Thanksgiving week, according to a source with knowledge of the league’s schedule, which will be released Wednesday.
The other six ACC teams will play in their already-established rivalries that week: FSU-Florida, Kentucky-Louisville, Virginia-Virginia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina and Georgia-Georgia Tech.
The league had discussed potential permanent rivals for Thanksgiving week, and this lineup for 2014 and possibly 2015 can be considered a test run for that process.
ND also has USC/Stanford that last week.
I think Pitt and Miami get the short end of the stick this way.
LikeLike
@Brian:
“I think Pitt and Miami get the short end of the stick this way.”
I thought the same thing when I read that. I would think that BC-Miami would work a little better, maybe play for the Flutie Flute or something. Or a box of Flutie Flakes.
But definitely an example of the downside of expansion–concocting rivalry game opponents.
Also, can anyone shed light on the split of the 4 NC teams? I would have thought the ACC would try to play up the Duke-UNC angle, but it also makes sense for the two big state schools to face off that week.
LikeLike
NCSU/UNC is a much bigger rivalry in FB than Duke/UNC. It used to be bigger in hoops, too, then Coach K took over at Duke. Duke has been so bad at FB for so long that they don’t have a real rival. Pairing the two small private schools makes sense.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. Wasn’t aware that UNC and NCSU both considered themselves rivals in football. Thought it was a little brother/one way rivalry situation.
LikeLike
Unlike in hoops, neither FB team has ever been a major power. That’s kept the rivalry more balanced. It’s 34-27 UNC since the ACC formed. Meanwhile, UNC is 41-14-1 versus Duke since 1957.
LikeLike
“Thought it was a little brother/one way rivalry situation.”
Yeah. Not that way at all. For there to be a big brother/little brother relationship, one of the football teams has to actually be good. In fan support, I believe their football teams are roughly evenly divided as well.
LikeLike
Prior to the establishment of the ACC and during the conference’s first decade or so, UNC was State’s big brother. State had a small on-campus stadium, similar to what Wake had when that college was actually located in the town of Wake Forest, north of Raleigh (in the mid-fifties, the school moved to Winston-Salem). For many years, State always played in Chapel Hill’s larger stadium, not a home-and-home situation. (This subservient status rankled many Wolfpack fans, one of the reasons the school hired Everett Case to coach basketball after World War II; he made State a national power and was the catalyst for the rise of hoops in the state.)
The Tar Heels finally played games in Raleigh in the early sixties, not long before State got a large stadium off-campus (the area where the arena later was built housing the NHL Hurricanes and State’s men’s basketball team after it left famed Reynolds Coliseum).
Perhaps UNC wanted to keep ending the season vs. Duke, but State probably objected to closing the season with Wake (which it did for much of the fifties and sixties).
LikeLike
VP:
OK, that’s nice, but that was what? Half a century ago?
LikeLike
The big brother/ little brother attitude does exist for a portion of UNC fans. Many claim they don’t care about the NCSU game because they’re “not our rival,” but that actually just adds to to the FB game’s energy. On the field, the game has been streaky. UNC won eight in a row in th 90’s. NCSU won five straight from ’07 to ’11, and UNC has won the past two.
Personally, I think it’s rediculous that this game hasn’t been each team’s season finale all along. The Duke-UNC football game never got anyone excited except for maybe 10,000 grand total Duke fans. NCSU- Maryland or NCSU-Wake Forest was just another ACC game. Meanwhile, whether they wanted to admit to it or not, the NCSU-UNC game has clearly been each team’s biggest rival for as long as I have followed this conferemce. Granted, UNC used to finish tge season vs. UVA, but that was a looooong time ago. Duke-Wake is also a good season-ender for those schools.
The one thing I would change for the ACC’s season ending games would be for Pitt somehow to close with WVU. Miami would have to finish against USF, UCF, or some AAC or C-USA team.
LikeLike
Miami could finish with USC and Stanford (whoever isn’t playing ND) or BYU. Or Vandy.
Actually, as a Northwestern fan, I’d like to have the same set up with Miami as ND does with the CA teams:
Play in Evanston early in the fall; visit Miami in late November. Vandy could have a similar setup.
LikeLike
I wonder if Miami objected to playing in a potentially frozen tundra at Pitt rather than indoors at SU every other year.
LikeLike
Here’s one from the recruiting archives ( I love the internet):
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/recruiting/news/1998/02/10/recruiting_wrapup/
Some names on there not heard from in years.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/94419/title-game-likely-to-stay-in-center-of-b1g
B10 CCG will stay in the center of the footprint. It sounds like Indy, Chicago and maybe Detroit are the only acceptable options. Cleveland and Cincinnati might be darkhorse options, but I doubt it.
“We believe it makes more sense perhaps to be more centrally located rather than moving that around to avoid a bad geographic matchup,” Big Ten deputy commissioner Brad Traviolia told ESPN.com.
…
“Say you have an Indiana-Nebraska game at a New York- or a DC-type location, or if you had Purdue-Maryland and you had that in Minneapolis — is that a good deal?” Traviolia said. “In talking through those things, we think football in the central region probably makes sense, and basketball, if we want to move around and be both in the East and the Midwest, basketball is probably the sport to do that.”
LikeLike
@Brian – Good for the Big Ten if they stick to that approach as I was worried that they were going to forcefeed East Coast locations for the conference championship game. The ACC made a large mistake trying to cater to geographic outliers FSU and Miami in holding its championship game, whereas having Charlotte as a host in the center of the conference footprint has been significantly better for ticket sales regardless of the matchup. The Big Ten needs to be practical here – it needs to be located either in the location that is geographically closest to the largest number of schools (Indianapolis) or where the largest number of alums live (Chicago). Everywhere else is going to be too dependent upon whether the most popular local team(s) make it to the game or not (which is something that can’t be guaranteed). Personally, I’d say the exact same thing for the basketball tournament (I think the Big Ten should own Chicago that week in the way that the Big East has owned New York in the past), as well, but I can at least tolerate that event being used as a chit to keep regional fiefdoms happy much more than the football championship game.
LikeLike
I agree, staying in the center is the smart move for FB. I still think Chicago is a bad choice. I’ll change my mind when these things change:
1. The grass
2. It’s outdoors
3. The game is played in primetime
As for hoops, as they point out all 14 teams play so you’ll always have the home team(s) in it. An occasional visit east makes sense to me, but I’d focus on Chicago.
Indy also hosts it well, but I’d give Indy the CCG and let Chicago get both hoop tourneys. It can visit Indy on occasion, just like NYC or DC.
LikeLike
A B1G Title Game in Lambeau would be pure magic. Sadly, a retro-fitted Wrigley would not seat nearly enough, but that too would be magic.
I respectfully disagree about an outdoor title game–all teams in the conference play in it anyways. And if for years, the defacto conference title game was decided outdoors (OSU-UM), then no reason the actual one cant be as well (yes I understand sponsors and casual fans and the like, but a man can dream).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“A B1G Title Game in Lambeau would be pure magic.”
Only for WI/GB fans. I’m guessing many Bears, Lions and Vikings fans would rather see Lambeau burn to the ground than watch their college team play there. As a non-fan of the NFL, Lambeau holds zero appeal to me, too. Besides, it’s in the middle of nowhere and has worse weather than Chicago.
WI playing there in the regular season makes sense.
“I respectfully disagree about an outdoor title game–all teams in the conference play in it anyways.”
No, they don’t. The B10 hasn’t even hosted one November night game yet, and this would be a December night game. In addition, many/most of the B10 teams play on turf so they have a better surface for bad weather. SF has a worse field than many high schools, especially in December.
“And if for years, the defacto conference title game was decided outdoors (OSU-UM),”
Noon isn’t primetime.
Turf isn’t bad grass.
A home game isn’t a neutral site game.
“then no reason the actual one cant be as well (yes I understand sponsors and casual fans and the like, but a man can dream).”
Except for all the reasons it shouldn’t be, sure.
LikeLike
@Brian
““I respectfully disagree about an outdoor title game–all teams in the conference play in it anyways.”
No, they don’t. The B10 hasn’t even hosted one November night game yet, and this would be a December night game. In addition, many/most of the B10 teams play on turf so they have a better surface for bad weather. SF has a worse field than many high schools, especially in December.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76214/why-b1g-has-no-november-night-games – they are coming. And I was referring to the cold, not necessarily the time of day.
““A B1G Title Game in Lambeau would be pure magic.”
Only for WI/GB fans. I’m guessing many Bears, Lions and Vikings fans would rather see Lambeau burn to the ground than watch their college team play there. As a non-fan of the NFL, Lambeau holds zero appeal to me, too. Besides, it’s in the middle of nowhere and has worse weather than Chicago.”
NFL fans of all teams recognize that Lambeau is a special place, like most recognize that Fenway and Wrigley are special in baseball. They don’t want to see it burned to the ground.Frank has spoken very kindly of Lambeau and he’s a Bears fan. That it holds no appeal to you is immaterial.
““And if for years, the defacto conference title game was decided outdoors (OSU-UM),”
Noon isn’t primetime.
Turf isn’t bad grass.
A home game isn’t a neutral site game.”
Again, the point is the weather, not the time of day.
LikeLike
Maybe you should look up the Ice Bowl before suggesting Lambeau.
Think Bob Lilly got frostbite in that game.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76214/why-b1g-has-no-november-night-games – they are coming. And I was referring to the cold, not necessarily the time of day.”
I know they’re coming. But probably not in late November for a while. OSU and MI have both said they won’t move The Game to prime time for safety concerns among other reasons, for example. Let’s see how happy people are in Madison at night in late November before calling for the CCG to be played even later in the year at night.
And I don’t know where you live, but everywhere I’ve ever lived it gets colder at night. Thus, time of day is relevant to the weather conditions for the game. An outdoor game at 1pm in Chicago is very different from one that starts at 8pm.
Chicago sunset on 12/7 is at 4:19pm. The average daily high is 40 degrees, but the low is 26. By the end of a night game, it will be around midnight. The high should happen in roughly mid-afternoon while it will be near the low by midnight. Not only does that make a huge difference in the stands, but also for 60k people driving home afterwards.
“NFL fans of all teams recognize that Lambeau is a special place,”
Not all college fans are NFL fans, and many NFL fans hate GB. That’s a lot of people with no special desire to go to a game there.
“like most recognize that Fenway and Wrigley are special in baseball.”
I’m not a MLB guy either, but those 2 are much more special than Lambeau. Lots of Yankeee fans don’t get giddy about going to Boston, though.
“Again, the point is the weather, not the time of day.”
Again, the point is that the time of day has a major impact on the temperature which is part of the weather.
LikeLike
@Brian:
““NFL fans of all teams recognize that Lambeau is a special place,”
Not all college fans are NFL fans, and many NFL fans hate GB. That’s a lot of people with no special desire to go to a game there.”
Lambeau is generally recognized as a unique and special venue by football fans. Not much more I can say about that.
“I know they’re coming. But probably not in late November for a while. OSU and MI have both said they won’t move The Game to prime time for safety concerns among other reasons, for example. Let’s see how happy people are in Madison at night in late November before calling for the CCG to be played even later in the year at night.
And I don’t know where you live, but everywhere I’ve ever lived it gets colder at night. Thus, time of day is relevant to the weather conditions for the game. An outdoor game at 1pm in Chicago is very different from one that starts at 8pm.
Chicago sunset on 12/7 is at 4:19pm. The average daily high is 40 degrees, but the low is 26. By the end of a night game, it will be around midnight. The high should happen in roughly mid-afternoon while it will be near the low by midnight. Not only does that make a huge difference in the stands, but also for 60k people driving home afterwards.
“NFL fans of all teams recognize that Lambeau is a special place”
People can handle night games in the cold just fine. NFL fans in Chicago, Green Bay, soon to be in Minny, and other cold cities do it just fine, be it night or day.
““Again, the point is the weather, not the time of day.”
Again, the point is that the time of day has a major impact on the temperature which is part of the weather.”
Or, its just about that I feel the B1G title game could and should be in the cold, and that fans, players, and TV viewers would love it. See:
“Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald thinks Soldier Field would be perfect.
“I want to play it here,” he said Tuesday. “What a great weekend that would be in Chicago: the Big Ten championship game on a Saturday and the Bears playing for a playoff spot on a Sunday. It’s the ideal place, it’s outdoors and we’d support it. It would be rocking.” (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-08-05/sports/ct-spt-0806-title-game-big-ten–20100805_1_commissioner-jim-delany-1st-big-ten-lucas-oil-stadium)
AND: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13762/lambeau-field-wants-big-ten-title-game
LikeLike
Geometrically speaking:
If you take two equal-size circles and place them on a USA map. And one circle touches Minneapolis, Minnesota and Lincoln, Nebraska, on its circumference. And the other circle touches East Lansing, Michigan and New Brunswick, New Jersey, on its circumference. Then these two circles touch near Indianapolis, Indiana.
Metaphorically speaking:
“… Standing behind him, Michaelis saw with a shock that he was looking at the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg, which had just emerged, pale and enormous, from the dissolving night …” (Source: The Great Gatsby)
IMO just another random coincidence.
LikeLike
Philosophically speaking: Immanuel Kant has interesting things to say about geometry.
Religiously speaking: This book at this link is highly recommended:
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/budasa-handbook/budasa00.htm
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Lambeau is generally recognized as a unique and special venue by football fans.”
In some places and by some fans, yes. I know plenty of NFL fans, and not a single one has ever expressed a desire to go there. For some it’s because it was a long trip and not worth it top them. For others it’s because GB was the enemy and they wouldn’t give them a penny of their money. Obviously there are lots of people that do want to see a game there, especially stadium collectors, but my point is that it alienates a certain group of potential customers in addition to not being centrally located. Thus, a CCG there certainly wouldn’t be magical to many people.
Indy doesn’t alienate large groups of midwesterners and is centrally located. Chicago is at least centrally located, plus a huge city full of potential customers. I wouldn’t call either of them magical either, but they are better choices for the CCG.
“People can handle night games in the cold just fine.”
But as was said elsewhere, rich people and sponsors don’t necessarily want to handle it. There isn’t a need to handle it.
“NFL fans in Chicago, Green Bay, soon to be in Minny, and other cold cities do it just fine, be it night or day.”
Yes, home fans of those teams. The CCG is a neutral site game. How many people from NJ or DC or other places want to fly in with arctic gear so they can sit in below freezing weather for 4+ hours? Of course Badger fans would fill the place, but they aren’t the only option to be there.
“Or, its just about that I feel the B1G title game could and should be in the cold, and that fans, players, and TV viewers would love it.”
Maybe you do feel that way, but it’s silly to me. Most B10 games aren’t played in the cold, so why should the most important one be forced into it? It’s like mandating they run the sprinklers so it’s like a rain game just because it’s fun to watch people slog through mud and fumble a lot. You’re intentionally trying to get bad weather. TV viewers would love it, sure. Many players wouldn’t. Do you think most guys from FL get excited about playing in the snow? Fans are split on the subject.
LikeLike
@Brian – Oh, I agree, and I’m about as much of a Chicago partisan as you’ll find. I can go on for quite a long time as to how the Soldier Field renovation really didn’t take Chicago’s long-term big picture opportunities beyond the Bears into account. Lucas Oil is simply a better venue for the football championship game in that regard. I know there’s a lot of romanticism with playing outdoors in the elements, but it would behoove the Big Ten to make sure that its champion wins in conditions where the elements aren’t a factor, as that’s how it’s going to be when competing against other conferences in the CFP playoffs and bowl games. Having a game determined by a weird fumble or snap in the snow isn’t going to happen in the playoffs.
LikeLike
Frank-
Intellectually, you are correct, but the idea that the conference title winner should not be determined in an game where the elements are a factor is a bit arbitrary, namely because all the games prior, ie the games that determine the participants, are decided in outdoor conditions where the elements do come into play. Few, if any, complained that Michigan-OSU has been an outdoor game forever, exposed to the elements, and often times determining the Big Ten’s Rose Bowl representative. Don’t see why climate is such an issue now.
Rant almost over.
Everyone complains that the Super Bowl will be held in the cold of NY/NJ, yet no one complains that the AFC participant was determined in a cold stadium a mile above sea level. Denver’s altitude gives it a significant home field advantage, yet no one outside of Lamar Hunt ever wanted neutral sites for conference title games. But now we scream about the elements.
Now, rant over.
LikeLike
“as that’s how it’s going to be when competing against other conferences in the CFP playoffs and bowl games”
Well, not quite:
Pac12: Top ranked team hosts, no domed stadia in the conference.
B12: Would be indoors, not no title game
ACC: Whole Lotta Char-lotta (outdoors)
B1G: Indoors
SEC; Indoors now, was outdoors at first.
Bowl Games:
Fiesta: Indoors
Rose: Outdoors, but not as prevalent for weather to be that bad
Orange: Outdoors, has rained lots during the game.
Sugar: Indoors
Peach: Indoors
Cotton: Indoors
The reason is for the supposed purity of the result, as you’ve touched on prior, not so much because its what everyone else is doing.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – What I was concentrating on was the latter list of bowl games – the only real place where the elements semi-regularly come into play is Miami with rain (and even then, it’s still typically 70 degrees or higher with extremely nice weather there in January) since Pasadena’s weather is reliable and the other bowls are indoors. The Big Ten champ needs to be able to excel in those environments. It’s not so much that I care about where the other conferences play their actual conference championship games per se, but rather countering against the fact that all of the other power leagues simply by geography have teams that are geared toward warm weather/indoor venues that the playoff and major bowl game are played in. That’s a specific disadvantage that the Big Ten has to overcome (which is different from the fairly even geographic distribution of NFL teams with respect to the Super Bowl), so I think the Big Ten Championship Game should mirror the environment of the playoff/bowl games as much as possible.
LikeLike
Frank-
“That’s a specific disadvantage that the Big Ten has to overcome (which is different from the fairly even geographic distribution of NFL teams with respect to the Super Bowl), so I think the Big Ten Championship Game should mirror the environment of the playoff/bowl games as much as possible.”
I understand what you mean, I just think that’s a weaker reason for a domed title game. The real reasons are the economic ones–making it more comfortable for fans, sponsors, and for the players. If anything, its easier for a cold weather team to adjust to nice weather than for a warm weather team to adjust to the cold. I mean, the Rams are one of three I think dome teams to win a Super Bowl (Saints, Indy Colts) and only two have won in outdoor Super Bowls. Cold weather teams don’t have that issue.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I understand what you mean, I just think that’s a weaker reason for a domed title game. The real reasons are the economic ones–making it more comfortable for fans, sponsors, and for the players.”
Actually, safety is one of the primary reasons for it. People have to survive the game first and then they need to get home safely. The extra drinking is a concern, as is player safety on a frozen patch of broken dirt painted green.
LikeLike
@Brian:
“Actually, safety is one of the primary reasons for it. People have to survive the game first and then they need to get home safely. The extra drinking is a concern, as is player safety on a frozen patch of broken dirt painted green.”
That’s not a real reason, for if it is, then there would be night games in any sport. Do championship games, with less die-hard fans, lead to more drinking? No.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“That’s not a real reason, for if it is, then there would be night games in any sport.”
Oh, you mean like the B10 barring November night games for years? Have you read the comments from B10 ADs on why they won’t consider playing certain rivalry games at night?
“Do championship games, with less die-hard fans, lead to more drinking? No.”
Does cold weather and all day tailgating lead to more drinking? Yes.
LikeLike
Few thoughts:
1. I agree the CCG should remain centrally located.
2. I think the basketball tournament should remain centrally located too. You want sell outs at high prices throughout and that’s easier with more alumni nearby.
3. I really like the idea of an outdoor CCG, but only if you play it earlier in the day. The rest the conference slate is outdoors and the fact that elements play a role I don’t think will help the underdog all that much more than the favorite.
LikeLike
Unfortunately for #3, the B10 and Fox seem committed to a night game for the CCG. That’s one reason I’m staunchly in favor of playing indoors. I agree that an afternoon game outdoors would be an option (just not on Chicago’s grass), but it’s a lot less valuable for TV apparently.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Ten championship is locked in for a prime time slot. Another reason is that the SEC Championship Game has ensconced itself at 4 pm ET on Championship Saturday, so no one (not even a cocky Jim Delany) wants to go up directly against them.
LikeLike
I’d settle for playing at noon, which is the ideal time for an outdoor game in December anyway. But then, I like noon games and most people don’t. I know TV would rather play at night.
LikeLike
Delany’s on record for wanting to rotate the MBB tourney to the east coast.
Football is probably best staying in the geographic center of the conference, especially since 2 of the 3 domed stadiums in the conference for football are in Indy & Detroit (third is the Vikings new stadium).
If they won’t play the game outdoors in Chi or Green Bay, then I don’t see how Cincy or Cle will host it in a outdoor stadium.
LikeLike
Delany is more of a big picture guy, though. As they dig into the nuts and bolts of it, the other people may point out enough issues to keep it from being in the east too often.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’ll be in the east as often. I’d be surprised of NYC & DC hosted MBB tourney more than a combined 4 years for every ten years, with the balance split between Indy & Chicago. In NYC, for starters, you’d have to find an open arena (that’s not the Prudential Center). MSG is booked for the foreseeable future with the new Big East, leaving Barclays Center as the only viable option. DC does not have that issue.
LikeLike
Why not the Prudential Center?
Unlike the other’s, it’s actually located in a B10 state.
LikeLike
Newark lacks the same cache as NYC. If you’re gonna uproot tradition to have a MBB tourney for a Midwestern conference in the east, you gotta do it in the city proper. (Yes, Prudential Center is very convenient to Manhattan by train). If Nassau Coliseum were a modern, state of the art facility, I would never expect the B1G to have a MBB tourney there.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I agree with that. MSG and Barclays Center have the NYC cache, but going to the Prudential Center would not yield the extra benefits and exposure that I believe the Big Ten would be looking for in an East Coast location. You’ve got to go big or go home in the NYC market, so with the Big East at MSG and the ACC looking at Barclays Center, using the Prudential Center would be a fruitless exercise. One thing that I’ve always found about New Yorkers is that they’re *extremely* provincial with boundary lines in that regard – the different boroughs already treat themselves as different countries and then crossing the Hudson into Jersey might as well be going into another universe for them (which is a risk that the Big Ten is taking on with Rutgers). It doesn’t matter that it’s quicker to get to Wall Street from Hoboken or Jersey City than from the Upper East Side. This is in contrast to, say, the Chicago area, where virtually everyone that lives in the metro area calls themselves “Chicagoans”.
LikeLike
Frank,
I think the Big Ten ought to look closely at the Barclays Center for the years after the A-10’s deal expires. Yes, the ACC should and will probably have a tournament there every now and then, but the ACC is going to have the tournament in North Carolina (for better or worse) more often than anywhere, not to mention years in DC and maybe Atlanta. The Big Ten ought to have its chances at Barclays.
The questions really center more on whether Barclays would be willing to have one-year deals with the ACC and Big Ten when the A-10 remains an every-year option. Is it worth it for Barclays to have, in a five-year period, one ACC and one Big Ten tournament, with the other three years having no tournaments? Would the A-10 be able/willing to pick up those non-ACC/B1G years, or would it insist on having a multi-year, exclusive deal?
I do agree that, with MSG tied up with the Big East for years to come, Barclays is the only real option. Otherwise, the B1G should avoid messing with a New York tournament and just go either to DC or to Philadelphia for its east coast tournaments. The rest should be either Indy or Chicago.
LikeLike
Frank,
NYC isn’t alone in that. Atlanta is similar with ITP vs OTP (inside the Perimeter vs outside the Perimeter, where the Perimeter is I-285). Many ITP people really look down on OTP people and businesses, and vice versa.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine that Barclays would be content to have just two big college tournaments every five years. By the same token, the Big Ten is going to be cautious about committing too many years to the east coast, before they’ve tried it once and see how it works out.
Remember, the PTB thought it was a great idea to move the BCS bowls to weeknights after January 1, and everyone now agrees they flopped in their new time slots. Sometimes, market research fails.
The Big Ten (whatever they may say publicly) must realize that holding their basketball tournament on the East Coast is an experiment that could have unintended consequences. It’s worth trying once, but not committing for a long period until it has been tested.
LikeLike
OK, yep. Philly and DC are definitely options. Philly is a day trip from NYC as well.
LikeLike
http://www.bustle.com/articles/13213-concussions-common-for-young-girls-playing-soccer-not-just-nfl
Apparently all sports will be outlawed in the near future.
…
In the midst of the books and documentaries suggesting the sport is inherently dangerous to the brain, and that no helmet can protect against that much blunt force, we’ve forgotten something important: Women play violent sports, too. Now, a new University of Washington study has found that young female soccer players suffer a striking amount of concussions, and, just like NFL players, tend to jump back into the game without giving the brain a chance to recover.
Female athletes suffer more concussions than men in most sports, according to recent studies.
…
Thirteen percent of those female athletes suffered a concussion each season, noted the study, and more than half went back into the game afterwards.
And then there’s women’s ice hockey, which has one of the highest rates of concussion for all college sports. And women’s basketball —which doesn’t allow for body checks like men’s basketball — yet sees almost twice as many concussions as its male counterpart.
Concussions are worse for the female brain than the male brain, though it’s not entirely clear why (researchers have speculated that it’s because blood flows differently to the female brain.) Female athletes suffer more concussions in general, and see longer recovery times and poorer memory recall, which means the brain is damaged to a greater extent.
Or perhaps society will accept that activity is inherently dangerous and focus on treatment for brain injury and prevention of CTE rather than wrapping everyone up in bubblewrap for their whole lives.
LikeLike
I got a concussion entering a taxi cab once. Therefore, all taxi cabs must be outlawed.
If the modern generation had to settle the frontier, we’d still be holed up in Fort Dearborn.
LikeLike
Don’t be silly. The modern generation would have quickly and easily tamed the virtual frontier and built up a kick-ass SimCivilization that would have gotten 50,000 “likes.” They would have had many online friends from Ft. Ticonderoga, Ft. Monmouth, etc. When they opened the palisade gates one morning they simply would have expected the non-virtual frontier to have been tamed already. “geez, isn’t that your JOB?”
LikeLike
Then again, I’m confident I could kill Bison on the frontier based largely on my exploits playing The Oregon Trail.
LikeLike
There was an article a few months back. Seems to be where this article is drawing its conclusions from:
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9902116/report-details-concussion-risks-high-school-athletes
Reported H.S. Concussion Rates
Rates per 10,000 athletic exposures, as reported by athletic trainers, by sport:
Sport
Boys
Girls
Football 11.2 NA
Lacrosse 6.9 5.2
Soccer 4.2 6.7
Wrestling 6.2 NA
Basketball 2.8 5.6
Field Hockey NA 4.2
Softball NA 1.6
Baseball 1.2 NA
Source: National Academy of Sciences, Datalys Center (2010-12)
The report noted that most concussion symptoms disappear within two weeks as measured by current testing tools but that 10 to 20 percent of concussion sufferers “are still experiencing symptoms anywhere from weeks to months to years later.” Across sports, 250,000 concussions were reported to emergency rooms in 2009 for people under age 19, up from 150,000 in 2001.
LikeLike
So I am sitting here watching the Iowa @ UM game on the BTN, and I am wondering how the state of non-revenue sports will impact the SECN. The Big Ten is consistently a top basketball conference, with several big, compelling games throughout the regular season. How will the SEC’s comparative lack of quality basketball games impact the rates/carriage of the SECN?
Obviously, the SEC outdoes all conferences on football ratings these days, but most other sports seem to be an afterthought in the SEC, at least relative to the B1G. Only Florida and UK can really consistently carry basketball ratings (maybe Missouri as well when they are better), but you can see the relative apathy for basketball shared by most other SEC fanbases. I am curious if anyone thinks this will cause some problems for the SECN? At the very least it would seem to undermine the network’s ability to charge much for ads, at least during the winter and spring sports seasons.
LikeLike
I would expect that the prospect of SEC football games alone will be enough to sustain the carriage rates sought by the network, without regard to the non revenue or less revenue sports.
If ratings mattered, it would be an issue (though, if ratings mattered for any cable sports network, they would all lose money)
LikeLike
They will carry them in the fall, but is it not a problem for ESPN/ABC if it has terrible ratings in the winter? I still haven’t seen any contract/payout numbers, and I think that is probably relevant to how badly ESPN wants solid ratings so that it can charge well for advertising.
LikeLike
Carriage fees and carriage agreements are not seasonal. They are multi-year contracts. Cable systems know what they are agreeing to when they agree to it. AT&T knows full well that the major value for the SECN is football, but will not yank the network the other month of the year. And it couldn’t if it wanted to.
LikeLike
The SEC Network is going to be perfectly fine. Sure, they’re not on par with the Big Ten and ACC in terms of basketball fan bases, but they still have an elite king (Kentucky), schools with solid hoops fan bases (Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri) and a program in a large market that has turned into a top tier team over the past decade (Florida). IMHO, they have more valuable assets to work with on the basketball front than the Pac-12 and that’s on top of the fact that there’s no comparison in terms of the necessity of football games in the Southern region during the fall. There will inevitably be carriage disputes because of the price being demanded, but the thought that they wouldn’t get carriage because of supposed weakness of SEC basketball is dubious. Even if it were that weak (and I don’t think that it is when it comes to fan support), the football support is so overwhelming that I don’t think that it would even matter. Not seeing SEC football games in many markets in the South would be like Packers games getting blacked out in the state of Wisconsin – that would simply be unacceptable and riots would ensue.
LikeLike
Baseball can be big in the SEC but people don’t watch college baseball on TV. I think it’s going to be a struggle when they are not in football season. I suppose they could have an SEC Live type show discussing recruiting or something to that affect but live events outside of football are going to be a struggle I think. Basketball pretty much drives the bus in terms of programming for the most extended timeline.
LikeLike
People in the south watch college baseball on TV.
LikeLike
Nothing that moves the needle.
LikeLike
I don’t care about needles. I just look forward to being able to watch more SEC baseball. I’ve enjoyed the expanding availability of PAC baseball on P12N.
LikeLike
I’ll tune in to BTN to watch some of the Olympic sports but I doubt they are raking in the ad dollars for those events.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Nothing that moves the needle.”
Really?
http://sebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1445220
SEC Media Relations Director for Baseball Chuck Dunlap mentioned on twitter that ESPN said “… SEC baseball has risen to men’s hoops-type ratings for them”.
The SEC and ESPN do not release comparative ratings but Dunlap indicated baseball games on ESPNU do compare favorably to the basketball games on the same network. The Thursday night telecasts are back with eight more games this season with other games expected to be televised on other days.
“Our Thursday night SEC on ESPN has exceeded both ours and ESPN’s expectations,” said SEC Consultant Larry Templeton. “We are pleased with the exposure it has not only given our conference but all of college baseball. Regular season college baseball television has developed a great viewership leading up to the NCAA post-season and ESPN’s broadcast of the College World Series.”
Another surprise came in a followup tweet stating, “40% of their college baseball audience nationally is in Southeast, with of course, B’ham leading the way”.
LikeLike
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/06/14/ratings-grow-for-espns-college-baseball-post-season/187472/
ESPN’s complete coverage of the NCAA Division I Baseball Championship continues to generate large audiences, reaching nearly 30,000,000 viewers through the Super Regionals across ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. Highlights of the Super Regionals:
* ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU combined to televise every game from the eight Super Regional sites, averaging 404,000 viewers over the 22 telecasts for a nine percent increase over last season (369,500 viewers).
* ESPN posted its most-viewed Super Regionals coverage since 2010, averaging 680,000 viewers.
* ESPNU averaged 279,000 viewers for six telecasts, marking the network’s most-viewed Super Regional coverage and a 41 percent increase over the first season it offered games (198,000 viewers in 2010).
New Orleans was the highest-rated metered market for both of ESPN and ESPN2’s Super Regional telecasts. Nine of ESPN’s top 10 markets were also among the top 10 markets for ESPN2: Louisville (2nd on ESPN & tied 6th on ESPN2), Greenville-Spartanburg (4th & 2nd), Greensboro (tied 4th & 3rd), Raleigh-Durham (6th & tied 4th), Charlotte (tied 7th & tied 8th), Birmingham (tied 7th & tied 4th) and Memphis (tied 9th & tied 10th).
Nashville (3rd) and Indianapolis (tied 9th) were in the ESPN top 10 and not ESPN2; Richmond (tied 6th), Tulsa (tied 8th) and Portland (tied 8th) were only among ESPN2’s top 10 markets.
LikeLike
Still don’t think Baseball helps carriage issues for the SECN. Let’s not forget that this network is primarily Tier 3. Long-term ESPN does not want to put the top baseball games on the SECN and crap on the U. ESPN has to be very careful not to cannibalize its programming on its main national channels.
40% of the viewership residing in the Southeast is not surprising. Considering that college baseball is really only significantly popular in 3 regions of the country. SE, SW and the West.
LikeLike
Not saying the SECN won’t get broad carriage in the footprint just implying that outside of Football this network will lack mass appeal in my opinion. WIll be interested to see if a lot of distributors are going to be offering on sports tiers outside the footprint.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Still don’t think Baseball helps carriage issues for the SECN.”
There are no carriage issues in most of the footprint. SEC FB will get it on at almost any price they demand. In places where it’s shaky (TX, and maybe parts of FL), baseball/softball in spring and hoops/gymnastics in winter will be more than enough to keep customers happy.
“Let’s not forget that this network is primarily Tier 3. Long-term ESPN does not want to put the top baseball games on the SECN and crap on the U. ESPN has to be very careful not to cannibalize its programming on its main national channels.”
Unless they opt not to do the ACCN, in which case ESPNU may get lots of ACC stuff while SEC stuff goes to the SECN. ESPNU already covers things like lacrosse and soccer that appeal to the ACC.
“40% of the viewership residing in the Southeast is not surprising. Considering that college baseball is really only significantly popular in 3 regions of the country. SE, SW and the West.”
Actually, they were spinning that 40% as a positive, expecting it to actually be higher based on how people talk about it being a regional sport.
LikeLike
In terms of TX, the tough part is getting carriage while featuring only one home-state team in a huge state with many loyalties. The LHN has all the sports that the SECN will have, but they’ve had trouble getting carriage.
LikeLike
Richard:
LHN has 1/14 the number of home teams from which to draw their inventory.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone in TX would consider UK, USC, UGa, UF, Mizzou, etc. as the home team.
LikeLike
Home. As in conference holds the media rights to events for home events, not location in home state. It will provide 14X the inventory for the SECN. Probably a selection of what may be interesting, or relevant to conference positioning for more than just a single fan base.
LikeLike
Richard – there are many alums of particularly LSU and Arkansas that live in Texas. There are more LSU alums in Texas than any other state, besides Louisiana.
LikeLike
Yes, but unless the majority of fans in a locale are fans of teams of that conference, getting carriage is a slog.
The Pac didn’t have these issues because they don’t share any states with another P5 conference. The areas of the B10 footprint where B10 fans dominated got the BTN relatively quickly, but I know that the BTN got on the basic tier in Philly only relatively recently, and in Pittsburgh and southern IN (the suburbs of Louisville), either only recently or possibly not even now, BTN isn’t on the basic tier.
Going by that model, the SECN will get on basic tier on all SEC states pretty quickly except for TX and FL. Unfortunately for the SEC, they’re also the most populous SEC states by far. In FL, I think that the SECN will get on basic in the area north of Tampa relatively quickly, while Tampa and and the Panhandle may be a slog. Given the indifference that Miamians seem to hold towards watching sports (and the fact that south Florida is composed for the most part of snowbirds, retirees, descendants of folks from the East Coast and Midwest, Cubans, and other Hispanics, I think it will take the SECN as long or longer to get on basic tier in SFla as the BTN took to get on basic tier in Philly & Pittsburgh. In TX, I don’t think SEC fans dominate anywhere other than maybe East Texas, the area around Bryan, and maybe Houston. The two big markets will be tough to penetrate anyway. Consider that the majority of Houston still doesn’t get Comcast Sportsnet Houston even though that’s the only way to see the vast majority of Rockets and Astros (and Dynamo) games.
LikeLike
@Richard – I honestly think that the state of Florida is as much in the bag for the SECN as Alabama or Georgia. I’ve spent more time throughout Florida than anywhere other than Chicago and the Gators have an extremely deep penetration across-the-board. On balance, they’re the #1 team (pro or college) in the state and college football is the #1 overall sport there. Even the Miami market is going to have more fervor for the Gators and the rest of the SEC than the Chicago market does for the Big Ten (and the BTN easily received carriage at the maximum rate in the state of Illinois). In fact, Miami is the only market where there is even plausibly any pushback. Orlando, Tampa, Fort Myers, Jacksonville and every other Florida market besides Tallahassee (which is still SEC country culturally) is extremely strong Gator territory.
I agree about the state of Texas, though, where that’s going to look a lot more like the BTN’s negotiations in Pennsylvania. The Texas natives like bullet could probably provide more background, but my guess is that they can get carriage at the maximum rate in the Houston market (similar to Pittsburgh for the BTN) while DFW, San Antonio and Austin will have lower carriage rates (similar to Philly for the BTN).
LikeLike
The SEC also is a pretty solid women’s basketball conference (Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M), probably a bit stronger than the Big Ten, so that may help slightly in the winter. However, the SEC (unlike the Big Ten) has no winter equivalent of hockey or even wrestling.
LikeLike
Ross,
Recruiting, baseball, softball and women’s gymnastics have very strong followings in the south. The SECN will do just fine in the winter, spring and summer.
LikeLike
@Ross – I’m going to agree with what everyone else here is saying. Just because the basketball league is down now, doesn’t mean fans won’t watch their teams. Also, College Baseball is huge in the SEC. There will be plenty of watchable content on the SECN.
LikeLike
People will kid me for this but one of the things I think the SEC should do with the SECN is to spend some of the resources from that network to out-recruit the ACC in women’s soccer. The South is pretty much fertile territory for girls soccer and the ACC has been the prime beneficiary of that because they take it more seriously than both the B1G and SEC. Yes, I know UCLA won last fall’s tournament but the ACC was close to having a final four from just that conference. That’s how good they are in that competition.
However, the SEC has considerably more resources than the ACC, with more coming in with the network. They could easily hire the best women’s soccer coaches out there. Florida is already pretty good and has won at least one championship. Imagine if Texas A&M, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mizzou and LSU put in even a tiny % increase into the women’s soccer programs. That league would blow up. Football will continue to be a T1/T2 deal for the most part, so that’s not that big of a deal going forward.
LikeLike
Except that they don’t care about women’s soccer in the SEC.
LikeLike
They would if there were some “looks requirements”
LikeLike
Looks may not be required, but they are encouraged. Tale LSU’s former All American goalie, homecoming queen, and wannabe place kicker Mo Isom as an example.
http://deadspin.com/5891229/lsu-football-gives-tryout-to-homecoming-queen-who-once-kicked-a-90+yard-goal-in-a-soccer-game
LikeLike
One name: Mia Hamm
LikeLike
The schools might do that for the prestige, but I don’t see it helping the network. There are really only a few non-football/basketball sports that are worth much to the networks I think. Hockey helps some for the Big Ten, baseball will help the SEC just as much. Beyond that, I think a lot of the rest is mostly filler from a monetary perspective for the network.
LikeLike
Filler counts. Isn’t that what a million basketball games on the dozens of ESPN and other sports networks are? Very few hold any importance. Some may impart seeding influence. Some may be important to reach the dance at all, but other than the particular schools fans who is riveted by that possibility? I’d much rather watch good ACC or PAC or whoever women’s soccer. I’ve even watched field hockey a bit, simply for the novelty. Decent filler is essential to a network. Ask the LHN. They have good product…but nowhere near enough for 24/7.
LikeLike
ccrider:
You’re not the average TV viewer, so you being interested in some sport is of zero significance. There’s a reason why, even though ESPN could fill up their TV lineup with women’s soccer games, they choose to broadcast MBB or even talking heads instead.
LikeLike
cc – filler does count for carriage, but not really for ratings. Last year, only six men’s regular season basketball games rated over a 2.0. All those games were on CBS or ESPN. Outside of the home markets of the teams actually participating, the ratings for any games on the SECN, BTN, P12N, or ESPNU are going to be miniscule, but that’s not going to stop Budweiser and Ford from buying ads
LikeLike
Alan:
Exactly right. Carriage, and low/modest viewership are the second and third leg the “stool” a network sits on. Not as flashy or easy to point at as high ratings, but also not subject to the sudden fluctuations that specific team/conference short term performance may cause to ratings. Ads are stlii sold and 50 college baseball games will capture a significant number of total viewers. If only high ratings mattered then very few reg season games would be broadcast-networks wouldn’t bid for entire conference’s seasons.
LikeLike
I guess my point with it being filler is that it won’t help with getting carried (no one is going to change a cable subscription because they don’t get most these sports) and likely isn’t going to be generating ratings much higher than reruns of football/basketball (maybe a bit higher, but not enough to significantly effect ad revenue).
Now the conference’s might like the non-revenue sports there as it gives them a leg up in recruiting them which is still a positive, but I don’t think they really effect the negociations between the cable companies and conferences.
LikeLike
“(no one is going to change a cable subscription because they don’t get most these sports)”
I was going to for the BTN until my carrier picked it up. I do pay for a higher package to get it, and it is for the non FB and BB primarily. I have no problem finding plenty of those on all the usual outlets. But perhaps Richard is right and my money doesn’t spend the same as others.
LikeLike
Sorry ccrider, I didn’t word that right. I don’t doubt there are several who really like and appreciate the non-football/basketball and would switch for it. I also like some of them myself (women’s basketball in particular).
I think in terms of total numbers though there just aren’t enough people willing to switch that it will be a factor between the cable companies/conferences beyond something like hockey in the Big Ten and baseball in the SEC (and even then, on a small scale). The way it benefits the conference in my mind has always been the other way around. They may not make a lot more money by showing the sports, but the exposure for those sports is priceless as it is often hard to get otherwise and is a great recruiting tool.
LikeLike
Eric:
I sort of agree, but I think you underestimate a little bit. Would I switch for a single non rev sport? No (well maybe, I’m a bit of a wrestling nut). But the combination of multiple sports will attract some viewers to each. No one is saying FB and BB aren’t driving the bus. But as I said there is no shortage of them on other platforms, and a bundling of a group of “other” sports fans could easily be worth a slate of mediocre BB games. As Brian pointed out ESPN has had unexpected (by them) viewership numbers for college baseball. (Gymnastics isn’t as TV friendly a season or event, but it is under utilized too.) After March Maddness do college fans just evaporate until FB starts? College baseball perfectly fills a gap and it very TV/advertiser friendly.
My theory about the casual FB/BB fan is that a fair number of them participated in quite a few other sports. How many athletes are there at tOSU (just as an example) that aren’t FB/BB?
LikeLike
ccrider:
There’s a difference between a sport that people will watch if their favorite team is playing and it’s on and a sport that people will drop/switch TV content providers for, and that is what drives carriage rates. Very few people will drop/switch for a sport other than football and basketball.
LikeLike
And ESPN isn’t going to leverage the FB? I’m not arguing the value of FB is not the highest, but that the combination of the “other” sports is undervalued. It’s too easy to say only “A”, and maybe “B” means anything and just discount the rest. It’s too much bother to figure out the others lower broadcast values even though they will be significant contributors to the inventory necessary to fill 8,760 hours/year, and sell ads for that time.
LikeLike
ccrider;
I’m not talking about inventory and ratings and ad revenue. I’m talking about what influences people to drop or switch carriers. If college baseball influences 10K people to drop or switch carriers in any state, I would be shocked.
LikeLike
Richard – I can think of at least four: Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Carolina.
LSU, Ole Miss, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Miss State are the top five schools in college baseball attendance most years.
LikeLike
But what if ESPN creates an ACC network and bundles the two together? Then they have SEC football (with a few ACC games) in the fall and ACC basketball (with a few SEC games) in the winter. As a package, that appeals to both the football and basketball fan, and allows ESPN to keep high viewership (and therefore revenues) over both seasons.
LikeLike
“…and allows ESPN to keep high viewership (and therefore revenues) over both seasons.”
But it’s divided over two channels. Slive ain’t subsidizing the ACCN.
LikeLike
This has been noted here earlier, but there are some intriguing potential ramifications from the NFL concussion case
_________________________________________________________
It has been widely reported that Judge Brody – without even waiting for the filing of objections or a “fairness hearing” – has rejected a proposed $765 million settlement between the National Football League [NFL] and retired players seeking compensation for concussion related injuries because of concerns that many of the players would receive little or no compensation.
But there may also be a ticking time bomb in the order she issued – one which could affect the entire sport itself, not just the money – says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has talked with players and attorneys, and predicted that over 2,000 players will reject the deal even if it’s ever approved.
Somewhat hidden in a footnote, the judge announced that “I have additional concerns including . . . the release of the NCAA and other amateur football organizations. These concerns will also have to be addressed.” The judge is referring to terms of the settlement requiring players “to dismiss pending and/or forebear from bringing litigation relating to cognitive injuries against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and any other collegiate, amateur, or youth football organizations and entities.”
But the reasons why the NFL would insist on protecting the NCAA are unclear, says Banzhaf, who notes that experts have predicted that the deal could affect the very future of all football. “Some of our favorite games will probably look different in the near future,” predicts Bloomberg News, and Huffington Post predicted that “Health Care Issues Could Mean Collapse of NCAA as We Know It.”
Also, in FRONTLINE’s report on the problem [“League of Denial”], an NFL representative warns: “If only ten percent of mothers might be convinced that their sons should not play football, that is the end of football.”
Another possibility being discussed is that the risks of football will finally become widely known, so that only “those poor or dumb enough to take the risk” will play. As a result, it will become “a ghettoized sport, not a mainstream American sport” – what some critics claim boxing has already become.
The NCAA has already been sued on behalf of former college football players, and many more such suits may be anticipated, especially if the NFL litigation provides insufficient compensation.
But, warns Banzhaf, if the NFL settlement is successful, and contains protection for the NCAA as well, young males thinking of playing football may never learn the full extent and magnitude of the concussion risks they are signing up for. Perhaps that exactly what those who profit from the game continuing to be so popular want, he says.
_________________________________________________________
“Ghettoized”? Possibly, if you consider the Southeast a ghetto. (BTW, Banzhaf is the same attorney who worked for many years against Big Tobacco.)
LikeLike
Maybe the NFL knows they’d be screwed down the road and that’s why they’re trying to squeeze every last dollar from the networks by inventing as many split packages as possible before the gravy train derails?
LikeLike
Meanwhile, NFL (and American) hero Roger Staubach stayed out of the lawsuit:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/cowboys/2013/08/29/roger-staubach-concussion-nfl/2730207/
He knew what he was getting into (same as serving in the U.S. Navy).
LikeLike
ESPN’s secret web weapon: ESPN3
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/22/espns-secret-web-weapon-espn3/
LikeLike
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/now-tv-vs-sky-tv-which-is-best-for-you–1217997
I’m sure this British experiment will be closely watched by cable and satellite companies in the states. Sky TV is offering a non contract service for limited channels, including a sports package.
LikeLike
@bullet – It’s instructive to see how much the sports package costs: 9.99 GBP (the equivalent of $16.50) for a day pass. Sky Sports is the primary broadcaster for the Premier League, so that would be the equivalent of a channel that showed the majority of NFL games here. Note that the NOW TV website actually doesn’t state that there’s a monthly sports package available (which is what the article claims) and there are complaints online confirming that, so that daily pass for sports is all that’s offered. So, as of now, it’s about $500 for an entire month of streaming access to sports channels there. This is why, if you’re a sports fan, you should be very careful for what you wish for when it comes to a la carte.
LikeLike
It’s bundled pay per view.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24418974/sun-belt-finishes-first-in-non-aq-revenue-in-last-year-of-bcs
A look at BCS revenue in 2013 and CFP revenue in 2014 for the non-AQs.
LikeLike
For Duffer and the other old-timers out there…..I’ve completed a ranking of the top 200 Big Ten basketball players from 1947 forward…..here’s a look at my ranking of OSU players;
1…..1. Jerry Lucas 6’8″ 1962; 2…..8 Gary Bradds 6’8″ 1964; 3….11 Jimmy Jackson 6’6″ 1992; 4…22 Robin Freeman 5’11” 1956; 5….30 Jared Sullinger 6’9″ 2012; 6…22 Dick Schnittker 6’5″ 1950; 7…35 Kelvin Ramsay 6’1″ 1980; 8…36 Evan Turner 6’7″ 2010; 9…39 Dennis Hopson 6’5″ 1987; 10…40 John Havlicek 6’5″ 1963; 11…46 Herb Williams 6’10” 1981; 12….61 Bill Hosket 6’7″ 1968; 13….65 Clark Kellogg 6’7″ 1982; 14…72 Terence Dials 6’9″ 2006; 15…74 Deshaun Thomas 6’7″ 2013; 16…90 Allen Hornyak 6’1″ 1973; 17….91 Larry Siegfried 6’4″ 1961; 18….99 Andre Risen 6’9″ 1946; 19…104 Paul Ebert 6’4″ 1954; 20…113 Scoonie Penn 5’11” 2000; 21…116 Dave Sorenson 6’8″ 1970; 22…117 Frank Howard 6’7″ 1958;23…118 Tony Campbell 6’7″ 1984; 24…129 Jim CDlemons 6’3″ 1971; 25…148 Brad Sellers 7’0″ 1986; 26…160 Michael Redd 6’6″ 2000; 27…164 Greg Oden 7’0″ 2007; 28…167 Mike Conley, Jr. 6’1″ 2007.
The first # listed in OSU ranking, the 2nd # the BT ranking…..It’s tricky ranking short-timers like Oden and Conley…if you’re looking at peak value only they’s be higher…..the year listed is the last year played.
Top 5 pre-’47: 1. Jimmy Hull 5’11” 1939; 2. Wes Fesler 6’0″0 1931; 3. Don Grate 6’2″ 1946; John Miner ? 1925; Tippy Dye ? 1937
LikeLike
Ranking based on what? Awards? Stats? A formula? Personal opinion? College only? Why is Havlicek so low (#10)? He’s one of 4 players to get his number retired, and you have the others as #1-3. Are current players eligible? Aaron Craft is OSU’s all-time leader in steals and assists, for example.
LikeLike
Hmmm…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/01/24/murdoch-buys-control-of-yes-network-for-3-9-billion/
LikeLike
To put that $3.9 billion valuation for YES in perspective, the New York Yankees franchise itself (not counting its ownership interest in YES) is worth $2.092 billion according to Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html
So, the TV network that shows Yankees games is worth almosst twice as much as the Yankees themselves. Is that something that’s sustainable? (I don’t know the answer to that.)
LikeLike
They have NYY games locked down through 2042. They have Nets games through 2032. That has a lot of value.
LikeLike
I know is kind of ridiculous, but Rutgers to the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Searching for clues?
If you look at a mirror image of Picasso’s Guernica painting, you can see the words “Paul is dead”. More clues from The Michigan Daily (October 14, 1969) and this source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090216141840/http://xoomer.virgilio.it/james_paul_mccartney/paul_is%20_dead_batman.html
LikeLike
Formula One to New Jersey??
LikeLike
From this link:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/formula_1_race_in_nj_stalls_ag.html
“… The race’s local sponsor is a consortium headed by former YES Network CEO and retired part-time racer Leo Hindery Jr. …”
This conspiracy is busted! Now if they can only move the sewage treatment plant …
LikeLike
This link has more intriguing news:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/wme-silver-lake-acquire-img-worldwide/
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. and MENLO PARK, Calif., Dec. 18, 2013 — William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (WME), one of the world’s leading talent, entertainment and media companies, and Silver Lake, a global leader in technology investing, today announced an agreement to acquire IMG Worldwide (IMG). The company is a market leader in college and professional sports, event management, client representation, fashion and multi-media rights management.
“IMG has incredible strategic value to WME. The brand’s global reach, outstanding management team and leadership across sports, fashion and media are a strong complement to our business,” said WME Co-CEOs Patrick Whitesell and Ariel Emanuel. “We are honored to build on the legacy of founder Mark McCormack and recent owner Ted Forstmann. Supported by Silver Lake’s continued partnership, WME and IMG together will deliver a broad range of opportunities and resources to the companies and talent we collectively represent.”
The combination of WME and IMG creates a unique global sports and entertainment platform, operating across North America, Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. WME and IMG together will have an unparalleled client roster; a broad relationship base with sponsors, brands and broadcasters; and marquee assets in sports, events, film and television, and fashion. Patrick Whitesell and Ariel Emanuel will serve as Co-CEOs of the combined company.
“IMG is well positioned in large and expanding end markets, with significant and untapped potential for growth. We look forward to building on IMG’s illustrious heritage by accelerating its existing growth plans and expanding the company’s digital platform,” said Egon Durban, Managing Partner of Silver Lake. “This investment extends our successful partnership with Ari, Patrick and the WME team as the company continues its transformation into an integrated player across the new media landscape.”
The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Mubadala Development Company will be a minority investor in the transaction.
Silver Lake and WME were advised and financed by J.P. Morgan, Barclays, RBC Capital Markets and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and advised by The Raine Group, Dean Bradley Osborne, Lazard, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Evercore and Morgan Stanley served as the financial advisors to Forstmann Little.
LikeLike
@Chet – Very interesting development. It looks like IMG/WME is aiming to be the biggest sports counterweight to Creative Arts Agency (which is the preeminent Hollywood talent agency that has also turned into the top sports agency). Ari Emmanuel is a titan in Hollywood – he’s the not-so-veiled inspiration for the Ari Gold character on Entourage and the brother of Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel.
LikeLike
Darren Rovell tweeted about this, and so did Andrew Brandt. The biggest change will be the reduced power and relevance of the traditional Leigh Steinberg-type sports agent. Brandt, a former agent, has repeatedly written about how tough the agent business is, and how the IMG/WME’s of the world are trying to deal with consolidation in Hollywood with expanding into new, similar businesses.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10323102/university-missouri-officials-did-not-pursue-rape-case-lines-investigation-finds
I present this link without comment.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10346534/tulane-green-wave-opts-four-game-series-georgia-tech-yellow-jackets
Tulane just dropped a 4 game series with GT, supposedly because their stadium might not be ready in time this year and they couldn’t find a date to reschedule. They paid a $300k penalty, but schools really need to stop breaking deals so late.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10349015/tulane-green-wave-georgia-tech-yellow-jackets-game-back-scheduled
And just like that, the series is uncancelled. They will play in New Orleans this year, not at Tulane.
LikeLike
Brian – the only other options would be the Superdome or Tad Gormley Stadium in City Park. Tad Gormley is a 1930s WPA project that has been well maintained. It seats 26,500. In the past, Tulane usually played its homecoming games at Tad Gormley, as it allowed for better tailgating than the Superdome.
Its a shame that Yulman Stadium may not be ready for the GA Tech game. That would have been great for the former SEC rivals to break in the new stadium. Instead, it looks like FCS Southeastern Louisiana the following week, or the AAC home opener sometime in October will have the honor. The AAC hasn’t released their conference schedule yet.
LikeLike
Does ESPN understand that Tulane is in New Orleans? Right in the Garden District.
LikeLike
I doubt it.
LikeLike
Another sad rape story by football players. The callousness of her swim coach, the school having her drop out and her athletic department advisor reminds me of Penn St.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10323102/university-missouri-officials-did-not-pursue-rape-case-lines-investigation-finds
LikeLike
The headline makes it sound like Montana, but it was not known by the school until some time later. They did things that deepened her depression and contributed to her suicide as well as failing to follow up when she did later tell their officials what happened.
LikeLike
The Montana stories, both involving athletes and not involving athletes, are truly sickening. Sickening.
LikeLike
We could on and on about this and other similar incidents. However, at some point people are going to have to start acknowledging a much deeper cultural problem than just some thuggish behavior at a given campus. Campus rapes (alleged or not) are just one symptom of this.
When you have standard corruption within the institutions, thugs slip through and take advantage of the openings created.
I wonder if there are going to be calls to drop co-ed habitation and start seeing more gender separation, even though there may be more costs involved. In some countries, there are already separate cars for males and females in public transportation, for example. It may or may not work but how are we supposed to know who would be more likely to attempt a rape or sexual assault. I don’t want to invite violation of people’s privacy through genetic testing. So separate campuses for men and women may be something to look at again. The irony is that political correctness (in the sense that discrimination against a segment of the population that may be predisposed to commit violence would invite backlash from certain activists) is going to put this subject back into conversation.
LikeLike
Well, many countries that separate the sexes also have high incidence of rape (and violence towards women in general).
LikeLike
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/road-saturday/201401/bill-obrien-penn-state-nittany-lions-football-university-dysfunction
As if any further evidence that PSU needs to cut the size of its BOT.
LikeLike
Greek tragedy? No, it’s too pathetic to be a Greek tragedy.
In fact, this is a textbook case of cronyism, which we see all the time now in our crony capitalist economy.
BTW, I’m not sure that the size of the board matters. It’s that too much of the board is not beholden to voters, either directly or indirectly though appointment by an elected official. Who is the board that “represents business and industry” anyway?
LikeLike
It’s not enough that business money influences schools decision, they have actual voting positions? How many other schools have dedicated business/industry positions?
LikeLike
One name: Thaksin Shinawatra
LikeLike
BTW, I’m not sure that the size of the board matters. It’s that too much of the board is not beholden to voters, either directly or indirectly though appointment by an elected official. Who is the board that “represents business and industry” anyway?
I agree to an extent, but the size (30 members) is still double the max number that a school like PSU should have.
If they reduced the size (and sure all members were elected/appointed in the same manner) then they wouldn’t have the need multiple committees and subcommittees and it would be easier to hold the members accountable for their mistakes.
The main reason Spanier and company were able to centralize so much power is because the boards makeup made it impossible for the BOT to actually make major decisions in a timely manner (which this article demonstrates) so the board members simply responded by passing off more and more authority to a handful of administrators who proceeded to rule of the university departments as their own little fiefdoms.
LikeLike
The bigger the size, the less people take responsibility. Its also harder to work together. This size board is usually just not for profits where some of the people are simply prominent people on there to help with fund-raising.
LikeLike
They’ve done studies on school (k-12) boards and determined that 5-7 works best. That’s smaller than any universities I know of, but 30 is the largest I’ve heard of.
LikeLike
of course, BOT’s being indirectly beholden to voters doesn’t always work great either. See Texas.
LikeLike
BTW, I do think that Franklin is a great recruiter, but it remains to be seen whether he is a program-destroyer like Bobby Petrino or program-builder like Charlie Strong.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10346582/2013-nfl-playoffs-super-bowl-ticket-prices-continue-plummet
Not even the Super Bowl is immune to the effects of travel and weather it appears.
LikeLike
I’d say it’s a “perfect storm”:
1) Many people don’t want the risk that they’re buying tickets to a blizzard or a deep freeze
2) This has been one of the harshest winters in years, which makes the “risk” seem riskier
3) NYC is a huge distance away from both teams’ home cities
4) Neither of the teams is from a big media center.
5) Seattle has very few fans outside of its home market. Denver isn’t a ‘king’ either, but at least they’ve had more years to build up a national fan base, and they have Peyton Manning. Still, if the NFL could ‘fix’ the games, this isn’t the match-up they wanted.
LikeLike
Denver fans worried about a freeze?
LikeLike
It’s a little different to drive to a game with your arctic gear than to fly across the country with it.
LikeLike
Future figures. Saw a discussion of Georgia Tech’s 2014 $66.9 million fiscal year budget in Atlanta paper today. They are projecting $23 million in distributions from the ACC. That’s up $5.5 million over previously projected estimates, partly due to the GOR and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1369220.html
A look at how the 2010 5-star recruits turned out.
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/gordon-gee-on-splintering-the-ncaa-i-would-vote-for-it/34229
E. Gordon Gee on the AQs getting their own division.
Mr. Gee, president of West Virginia University, who has spent his career entrenched in big-time sports, said in an interview with The Chronicle that he would back a plan to create a fourth NCAA division or “leave the NCAA altogether.” And he suggested that Mark Emmert, the association’s leader, whose work he has long admired, had lost his footing.
Mr. Gee wouldn’t say whether he favored a fourth division or a breakaway. But he said that leaving the NCAA would give the wealthiest institutions the chance to “really reinvent the whole nature of the governance structure.”
LikeLike
Designated pot stirrer, or continuing unchecked mouth disease?
LikeLike
Attention whore. But he’s president of WV, so his opinion matters somewhat.
LikeLike
Mike Slive’s next move to make the SEC empire even stronger
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/mike-slive-sec-expansion-virginia-north-carolina-012314
Does the writer know more than he’s letting on?
LikeLike
Both the B10 and SEC are eyeing NC and VA next. That hasn’t been a secret for a long time now.
For what it’s worth, I think the state of VA leans towards the B10 while the state of NC leans towards the SEC. However, what makes the problem intractable is that UVa, NCSU, and Duke all want to be tied to UNC (while VTech wants to be tied to UVa), but UNC is happiest in it’s own little fiefdom that is centered in NC and has the mix of academic cachet and southernness that it desires. It will be very very difficult to convince UNC to move anywhere as right now, they get to play 4 Carolina schools and all 3 of their must-play rivals annually (including the South’s Oldest Rivalry), recruiting access to GA and FL as well as frequent trips to visit alums in the Northeast.
LikeLike
The thing that keeps flashing in my mind was UNC’s rise in basketball was, in major part, due to their recruiting in the NYC area back in the 1950s and 1960s, right after a betting scandal took its toll on the CCNY program, which was then a power. Delany was went to HS in NJ before he was a guard in one of Dean Smith’s better teams. Certainly they would love the bi-yearly trips up to NY state and Boston to show up in front of future recruits.
But what happens if the B10’s move into the Northeast results in attracting a bunch more NYC-area and northeastern recruits into the B10 teams more than in the past? Theoretically, the population could support B10, ACC and BE in basketball. Yet, recruiting in basketball is just as fierce as it is in football. As the general population ages this may get even more crazy. We’ll know for sure in the years ahead. Recruiting in the south is more directed at football because that’s where the resources are mostly put towards.
I’m not saying that they would change conferences but if they do move it would have to be a factor in their decision-making.
LikeLike
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/state-recruiting-where-do-best-players-come
The article he referenced gives a more neutral look at things:
SEC footprint overachieves
… Would you like to know why Virginia and North Carolina are atop the Mike Slive’s wish list of states in which to expand? Because those two territories rank eighth and ninth respectively in producing talent AND are two of the 12 biggest states in the nation in terms of population. Let me be the first to welcome Virginia Tech and NC State to the SEC family.
The Big Ten has upside
… Having said that, the one league in America that has the natural recruiting base to potentially press the SEC is the Big Ten. Jim Delany’s league already makes the most money of any league in America based mostly on huge populations and cities. But while the Big 12 depends too much on the state of Texas for everything, the Big Ten, post expansion, can now claim six of the top 16 states in talent production. Ohio is fifth nationally with 47 top-200 recruits over the last five cycles while The Keystone State (30, 10th), Illinois (26, 11th), New Jersey (25, 12th), Michigan (24, 13th) and Maryland (21, 16th) each feed a Big Ten school. There is a reason Delany went after the Terrapins and Scarlet Knights and why he would be interested heavily in schools like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech or Miami for expansion. Which brings us to…
The battle for Virginia and North Carolina
As previously stated, both the SEC and Big Ten are looking hard at both North Carolina and Virginia for expansion for a reason. Not only are they two unique markets for both leagues as neither has a school in either state, but both are two of the more talent-rich areas in the nation. Virginia is eighth nationally with 36 top-200 signees over the last five years and The Tar Heel State is ninth with 32. The two states have combined to produce 13 five-star prospects and both states boast powerful athletic institutions: North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, NC State and Duke are all very attractive options for expansion. This is why John Swofford and the rest of the ACC are grasping tightly to its Grant of Rights agreement because they realize how valuable this real estate could be in the future landscape of college football.
LikeLike
Old Dominion and East Carolina to the SEC!
LikeLike
As I’d pointed out before, take away FL and TX and SEC recruiting grounds are only slightly more fertile than those in the B10 footprint. FL (and now TX) are gigantic advantages, though. Granted, the B12 still is the biggest player in TX, but FL provides a massive advantage even with the presence of the ACC there.
LikeLike
However, as I pointed out above, the 25-scholly limit has decreased the size of recruiting classes in the SEC and with more and more of the best juniors leaving early, that does level the playing field a bit for the B10.
LikeLike
No. Every three years a top prospect has an open scholarship available at schools with a number of 3 and done. They have a total 85 limit. Attrition and moving on is required in order to have 25 available to offer each year.
LikeLike
CCrider;
I don’t get what your “no” is about.
1. Recruiting class sizes have decreased in the SEC (at least among the power programs in the SEC West) since the 25-scholly limit was instituted. That’s a fact.
2. More elite juniors leaving early would also hurt the talent on SEC teams (as they tend to have more early declarers than any one else). That’s also a fact.
What exactly are you objecting to?
LikeLike
1: Didn’t several SEC teams (over)sign up into the thirties within the last few years?
2: I’m suggesting that if you have a constant stream of NFL ready players passing through your pipeline, assuming they do continue to recruit and land those level kids at the same rate, it is an advantage. Only 4 scholarships available due to early entry in the whole B1G? Yes, you do have a more veteran team. But wouldn’t you like a few more schollys available each year because a few of the players you’ve had for three or four years have performed at an exceptional level? Sure having an Andrew Luck (who still had another year left when he did go) or Marcus Mariota stay helps that year, but having several scholarships “extra” each year builds for future years and removes the signers from competitors pool of possibilities.
LikeLike
ccrider: “1: Didn’t several SEC teams (over)sign up into the thirties within the last few years?”
You obviously didn’t see my post above so I’ll copy it here:
“It’s too bad that the oversigning.com site hasn’t been updated,but top SEC West schools have been signing fewer recruits. For example, looking at 3 SEC West programs, Auburn signed 25 or more every year from 2006-2010, ‘Bama signed 25 or more every year from 2007-2010,and LSU signed 26 or more every year from 2006-2010. In 2011-2013, ‘Bama has signed over 25 once, LSU has signed over 23 once, and Auburn hasn’t had a signing class bigger than 24. Both times ‘Bama and LSU went over, they signed 26.
That brings them more in line with the B10 and SEC East powers (UF and UGa).
In 2009, ‘Bama, LSU, and Auburn lost 5 early entrants to the draft. In 2014, they will lose 15.
So take away 3 extra recruits a year and take away 3 extra seniors a year (1-2 more than B10 powers), and the B10, SEC East, and SEC West (as well as Texas, USC, and ND, who never oversigned) will actually be competing on a more level playing field.”
BTW, to add to this, UF and UGa never oversigned, so that’s all the SEC powers covered.
As for point #2, a somewhat fair point. Ultimately, it comes down to how fast even elite talent can contribute (very few true freshmen can contribute significantly right away) vs. whether the added experience & development of seniors and 5th-year seniors can make up for talent. Plus, juniors leaving does mean more turnover amongst your starters each year. For certain position groups (like O-Line & the secondary), that could be a big deal.
LikeLike
It is entirely possible that realignment is finished for a generation or more. Right now, all of the desirable (and some not desirable) schools are in one of the P5. So no movement is possible until the GOR’s expire in 2024 and 2026. An no ACC school will be available if Maryland loses the exit fee fight.
All the P5 conferences are too large geographically, and this leads to heavy travel costs and long travel times. Except for the Big 12, most have too many schools, which harms institutional relationships and traditional rivalries. Divisions help, but the trip from Maryland to Lincoln is a bear. And the big circuit from South Bend to Miami to Boston is appalling. And the divisions exist only for football, not basketball or soccer or volley ball or gymnastics etc.
There are other issues. Both Virginia and North Carolina are small by B1G standards, and even SEC standards. Only Northwestern is smaller than UNC, and it is much bigger than VA. Virginia is tiny.
Also, while Virginia has excellent undergraduate programs, its graduate and research programs are small. VA has no real sports traditions either. So VA loses on size, research/graduate programs and athletics.
North Carolina has a fine basketball tradition, but it has a weak football tradition. Then, it has what is currently the worst scandal among all US universities. The UNC scandal is worse than the PSU scandal because the PSU scandal was a crime by one man and did not affect either the school’s academic programs or athletic programs (sanctions hurt PSU sports, but Sandusky didn’t). UNC’s scandal cuts to the very heart of its academic programs and academic reputation. And moreover, the UNC administration is actively trying to cover up the scandal and punish the whistle-blower.
Finally, there is the cultural thing. Maryland and Rutgers fit the B1G mold of large, land-grant, state flagship schools. They are northern schools, Rutgers fully and Maryland mostly. Virginia and UNC are tidewater schools and not southern in the Mississippi/Alabama/Georgia et al sense. So I don’t see how either fits into either the B1G or the SEC. I also don’t see how the premier football conference, the SEC, benefits from bringing in two weak football programs, and two schools that really aren’t all that interested in football.
VA and UNC are exactly where they belong, and ND is a fitting member of the ACC, too.
LikeLike
“All the P5 conferences are too large geographically, and this leads to heavy travel costs and long travel times. Except for the Big 12, most have too many schools, which harms institutional relationships and traditional rivalries. Divisions help, but the trip from Maryland to Lincoln is a bear. And the big circuit from South Bend to Miami to Boston is appalling. And the divisions exist only for football, not basketball or soccer or volley ball or gymnastics etc.”
Bob, were you around from 1979-1995 when the WAC was quite stable and stretched from Wyoming to Hawaii? Or 1991-2004 when the Big East stretched from Boston to Miami?
LikeLike
How does traveling between Miami and Boston compare to travel between Seattle (or Pullman) and Los Angeles? Not all that much in terms of sheer mileage, and West Coast teams have been making such trips for decades.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“It is entirely possible that realignment is finished for a generation or more.”
It’s possible, but all the economic forces say further realignment is likely. There is still more money to be made by further AQ realignment. In addition, smaller schools will continue to want to move up.
“Right now, all of the desirable (and some not desirable) schools are in one of the P5.”
Except for some independents and maybe a few non-AQs. Not all P5s are equal, either.
“So no movement is possible until the GOR’s expire in 2024 and 2026.”
Well, a school could potentially leave a year or two early in theory. And a GoR might not hold up in court. But I generally agree that major realignment is on hold for a decade or so. That’s not a generation, though.
“An no ACC school will be available if Maryland loses the exit fee fight.”
Never say never. Besides, UMD won’t have to pay the full $52M. Neither side really wants discovery and a trial to happen.
“All the P5 conferences are too large geographically,”
That’s personal opinion, and the commissioners don’t seem to agree with you.
“Except for the Big 12, most have too many schools,”
Also your opinion, and not one supported by the bottom line.
“which harms institutional relationships and traditional rivalries.”
Some rivalries do suffer, but I’m not sure the relationships really do. Is having more friends worse than being a little less close to your old friends?
“Divisions help, but the trip from Maryland to Lincoln is a bear. And the big circuit from South Bend to Miami to Boston is appalling. And the divisions exist only for football, not basketball or soccer or volley ball or gymnastics etc.”
Conferences choose which sports to use divisions for. If coaches and players really thought it was better, more than football would use them. The money from realignment helps pay for flights for these teams instead of bus trips they used to take. How much is travel time actually increased?
“There are other issues. Both Virginia and North Carolina are small by B1G standards, and even SEC standards. Only Northwestern is smaller than UNC, and it is much bigger than VA. Virginia is tiny.
Also, while Virginia has excellent undergraduate programs, its graduate and research programs are small. VA has no real sports traditions either. So VA loses on size, research/graduate programs and athletics.
North Carolina has a fine basketball tradition, but it has a weak football tradition. Then, it has what is currently the worst scandal among all US universities. The UNC scandal is worse than the PSU scandal because the PSU scandal was a crime by one man and did not affect either the school’s academic programs or athletic programs (sanctions hurt PSU sports, but Sandusky didn’t). UNC’s scandal cuts to the very heart of its academic programs and academic reputation. And moreover, the UNC administration is actively trying to cover up the scandal and punish the whistle-blower.”
Those are all valid points, and I’m sure all sides consider those things when thinking about realignment. The B10 has made a point to say it wants to change from what it was (midwestern only) to something new (in two regions). They presumably realize that may well entail adding some slightly different types of schools. They’ve long been willing to add ND for example, and they clearly differ from the other 14 B10 schools.
“Finally, there is the cultural thing. Maryland and Rutgers fit the B1G mold of large, land-grant, state flagship schools. They are northern schools, Rutgers fully and Maryland mostly. Virginia and UNC are tidewater schools and not southern in the Mississippi/Alabama/Georgia et al sense. So I don’t see how either fits into either the B1G or the SEC.”
And that’s one reason the ACC still exists.
“I also don’t see how the premier football conference, the SEC, benefits from bringing in two weak football programs, and two schools that really aren’t all that interested in football.”
1. More recruiting grounds.
2. More TV eyeballs.
3. Adds hoops power.
4. Adds more baseball power.
5. More wins for the marquee SEC teams.
“VA and UNC are exactly where they belong, and ND is a fitting member of the ACC, too.”
You don’t get to complain about geographical size and then say ND is a good fit for the ACC.
LikeLike
Brian covered many of the key points, but I will add a few more:
An no ACC school will be available if Maryland loses the exit fee fight.
The income disparity between the two leagues is sufficient that, even if Maryland somehow had to pay it all, they would still be better off in the Big Ten. But practically everyone believes the issue will eventually be settled for something less than the whole exit fee.
All the P5 conferences are too large geographically, and this leads to heavy travel costs and long travel times. Except for the Big 12, most have too many schools, which harms institutional relationships and traditional rivalries. Divisions help, but the trip from Maryland to Lincoln is a bear. And the big circuit from South Bend to Miami to Boston is appalling.
You don’t seem to understand travel at all Actually, the trip from Miami to Boston is pretty reasonable, because both schools are not far from a major airport. The flight is about 2’45” in the air, almost exactly the same as the trip from the Arizona to Washington in the Pac-12.
There are other issues. Both Virginia and North Carolina are small by B1G standards, and even SEC standards. Only Northwestern is smaller than UNC, and it is much bigger than VA. Virginia is tiny.
Also, while Virginia has excellent undergraduate programs, its graduate and research programs are small. VA has no real sports traditions either. So VA loses on size, research/graduate programs and athletics.
Do you seriously doubt that if UVA wanted to move, both the Big Ten and the SEC would say no?
So the question is, if the income disparity remains as large as everyone projects, how long will the desirable schools be able to ignore the money?
North Carolina has a fine basketball tradition, but it has a weak football tradition. Then, it has what is currently the worst scandal among all US universities.
The key word is currently. It will almost certainly be in the rear-view mirror by the time the GORs expire.
ND is a fitting member of the ACC, too.
You seem to have forgotten your travel argument where it applies to the Irish.
LikeLike
On UVA and UNC it would be the reverse on their size. That would tend to discourage them from considering the Big 10 and its enormous state universities.
LikeLike
Here is just one observer’s personal thoughts on Virginia, the state, & how Virginia, the University of, would hypothetically fit into the Big Ten…
Setting aside hypothetical options to the west (Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas), I can definitely see why people would say UVA would be the next logical target in a Big Ten expansion, at least on the east coast.
Back 50 or 60 years ago, Maryland was a decidedly southern state. As time passed, it started looking more and more like the demographics of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, or even Connecticut. It still has traces of southern culture, such as on the eastern shore or in the very narrow panhandle that is western Maryland, near West Virginia, but the state seems to identify much more with its neighbors to the north than to the south.
The argument seems to be that Virginia is on the same trajectory as Maryland, in a transition from a southern state to a northeastern state. Heavily populated, urban/suburban northern Virginia, and even some in the Richmond area, is the main basis for this argument. One might say Virginia today looks like Maryland did in 1980 or so. And, let’s face it, Virginia has not been as thoroughly, deeply southern as, say, Alabama, Mississippi, or South Carolina in any of our lifetimes. So I understand the logic.
With that said, I think the state of Virginia is still a long, long way off from becoming the next Maryland. Virginia arguably takes its history more seriously and personally than any state in the union, and for good reason. The state has the colonial period covered with Williamsburg, Jamestown, and historic plantations (which, good or bad, are an inarguably southern characteristic). Virginia has the Revolutionary War covered with Yorktown and many other major battles, as well as the two most central figures of the Revolution in Washington and Jefferson. Shortly after the Revolution, Virginia native James Madison penned the Constitution.
Just as much as those early U.S. heroes are revered, Virginia also honors its heritage from the Civil War. Monument Avenue in Richmond, which is one of the most gorgeous streets I’ve ever visited, is filled with statues honoring Revolutionary War heroes as well as Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Civil War battlefields and historic plantations are all over eastern two-thirds of the state. It’s like the opposite of the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Indianapolis, which faces south in a symbolic defense of the Union.
Even as people move into northern Virginia from northeastern states, from other non-southern states, and from other nations, the deep pride in the state of Virginia for its southern heritage is not going anywhere. That, to me, is what makes Virginia very different from Maryland, which never had the same deep ties to its heritage as Virginia. Additionally, Maryland is an overwhelmingly urban state. The vast majority of the population lives in either the Baltimore area or the DC area. The remainder of the state includes few people and only a small amount of rural/small town land. By comparison, Virginia has massive amounts of rural land and small towns, which are very much southern in culture. The rural, southern population also still takes up a very substantial portion of the state. It’s going to take decade upon decade of continuous, massive amounts of immigration into Virginia from other states and countries for non-southerners to outnumber southerners at a similar ratio to what there is in Maryland.
As for UVA, sure, it’s not Alabama or Georgia or Ole Miss. Virginia is much more comfortable associating with other elite schools, whether they’re located to the south or to the north. But let’s not forget that this school, which, if you’ve ever visited, oozes with Thomas Jefferson’s influence everywhere you look, desires to associate with schools to its south. Maryland had gotten to the point where it was okay (or at least its president was okay) with affiliating exclusively with schools outside of the South. Virginia is a long, long way off from that, and I don’t think that even if Duke and UNC came along, that that would be enough. I don’t think UVA will, in my lifetime, ever want to be in a league where non-southern schools so overwhelmingly outnumber the southern schools. All bets are off, of course, if the ACC were to fall apart, and I do think UVA would choose the Big Ten’s truly elite academics over the SEC’s southern character but lesser academics if it had to.
LikeLike
SLU, Mizzou were realignment winners
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/tipsheet-slu-mizzou-were-realignment-winners/article_9fd761d2-92c5-5cd9-a29c-2b640e8eb27b.html
LikeLike
Wow, that is a horrible article. He is arguing that SLU is a winner in the realignment because they were not picked by a better league while many of their former conference mates were, thus they have an easier schedule. And that Mizzou is a winner because the SEC is an easier basketball conference than the Big 12. Way to set the bar high, man. Then he lists a few others as winners/losers based on very short term insights.
LikeLike
Interesting article on Georgia Tech’s decision to leave the SEC 50 years ago this week:
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/day-georgia-tech-sports-changed/ncz4t/
LikeLike
SEC ….cheating bastards then…cheating bastards now……
LikeLike
Googled why Tulane left the SEC in 1966. Best article was from AP
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19650101&id=kGIsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VM0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2671,80348
Basically, Tulane’s President spoke of wanting to play a more dispersed group of football schools including LSU, Stanford, UVA, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, UFl, UGa, Vandy, UIl, UND, Miami & Pitt. Four teams in the SEC and a lot of what are now ACC affiliated schools.
Nowadays schools don’t leave major conferences unless they have a better home already lined-up.
LikeLike
@Pablo:
Other articles I’ve read previously also talk about Tulane’s lack of success on the field as a reason. Tulane was regularly spanked by LSU in the 20-some odd years before leaving the SEC. Wanting to be more national was a part of it, but so was the lack of success.
Also, back then, conferences did not handle scheduling–the teams did. And in the 60’s few of those schools were any good in football. UF had a fleeting moment in the sun with Spurrier at QB, but didn’t win an SEC title until the 1980’s; Miami was terrible and almost dropped down to lower divisions in football in the late 70’s. Vandy was Vandy. The only school on that list that was a regular power was Notre Dame.
Bottom line: Had Tulane been any good, it would have stayed in the SEC.
LikeLike
They make the comments in the subscription part of the article that GT’s attendance is lower now than it was in 1964 and that Atlanta was a 50/50 Dawg/Bee town in those days. Now it is overwhelmingly a Bulldawg town.
Of course, Tech from 51-64 had a winning record against Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and .500 vs. Auburn and played all but Tennessee every year. And there were no Falcons or Braves. The people in the article thought leaving the SEC was a mistake. But some of the same may have happened if they stayed, much as smaller schools facing larger state schools, Rice, SMU and TCU declined after losing long-time coaches in the 60s and facing pro competition. Tech landed on their feet in the ACC. Its Tulane who clearly made the mistake.
LikeLike
bullet – I spent 99 cents to read the rest of the article. The most relevant paragraph to me was that since 1963, GA Tech’s enrollment has tripled, its living alums has doubled, the population of Atlanta has tripled, yet the Jackets have lower attendance now than they did 50 years ago.
LikeLike
AzSU was 16,818 in 1964. Current total enrollment of over 72,000. They are reducing stadium size.
LikeLike
cc – in 1964, Arizona State averaged 28,500 per game. Last season, the Sun Devils averaged 59,000. They have doubled attendance in 50 years. They are reducing capacity from 71,000 to 60,000.
GA Tech’s attendance is less than it was 50 years ago, and the stadium capacity at Bobby Dodd stadium is essentially the same as it was 50 years ago.
LikeLike
True. I was just thinking many other factors are probably involved in reducing attendance (GT) or not achieving what might seem a modest level (ASU). Near 3/4 of Arizona’s population is in the Phoenix metro area (4.5M), and until the ’08 depression trailed only Las Vegas nationally in growth rate.
LikeLike
I doubt they would do much better in the SEC at attendance other than traveling fans.
GT has lost the casual fans to the pros. Now, their fans don’t care as much about their division rivals (Clemson and FSU are in the other division). And those rivals don’t bring the 5-10,000 fans the SEC schools would bring. But Georgia Tech has won 3 division titles, more than anyone but VT and FSU (and FSU just passed them this year). I don’t think they would have that level of success in the SEC. GT’s enrollment growth is pretty recent. They were still a 10-12k school in the late 80s.
LikeLike
bullet – we’ll never know for sure, but since Miss State, with similar enrollment numbers to GA Tech outdraws the Jackets, I think its safe to say GA Tech would have had better attendance as a member of the SEC. And while StarkVega$ may be a thriving metropolis, its not quite Atlanta.
I think its safe to assume that GA Tech would have the on the field success if they had remained a member of the SEC.
LikeLike
“And while StarkVega$ may be a thriving metropolis, its not quite Atlanta.”
Well, that was Bullet’s point. Being a state U located in the boonies in a state with no major league pro teams is an advantage when it comes to attendance, not a disadvantage. Iowa (and also Nebraska) far outdraws Minny in football attendance not despite the fact that the Hawkeyes are located in the middle of cornfields instead of the middle of the Twin Cities, but because they are located in the middle of cornfields instead of the middle of the Twin Cities.
LikeLike
Bullet is exactly right.
This article could have been written about TCU and Rice, both far better programs with better attendance before the arrival of professional sports in the 1960’s. GT’s decline has more to do with the arrival of pro teams than conference affiliation.
And GT still has the same number of national championships as UGA since leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Here’s one for you. Just saw a bull rider wearing a helmet.
Doesn’t seem right without a cowboy hat.
LikeLike
They have to because a number of riders got their faces caved in by a bull bucking so the back of his head met the rider’s face coming forward/down. It also gives some protection if they get their head stepped on.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10354400/missouri-tigers-report-alleged-rape-sasha-menu-courey-columbia-police-lines
Apparently OTL touched a nerve as magically the university decided to report the crime to the local PD last night.
LikeLike
I just finished reading the book “The System: the glory and scandal of big-time college football” by Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian. One of the chapters was dedicated to a rape case involving a tutor and members of the football team at the University of Missouri.
What I got out of the chapter was the slowness, coldness and lack of sensitivity of administrative staff from the athletic department.
Seeing the interview in the OTL piece about Sasha Menu Courey, both the Swimming coach and the associate AD at Missouri come out as clueless bureaucrats with way too much legal coaching in their responses.
These rape cases aren’t unique to Missouri, but they have really badly handled the last two very public cases.
LikeLike
As for the book “The System”, read this and get back to me:
http://www.mutigers.com/genrel/091213aaa.html
LikeLike
Andy
I had read the Mizzou AD’s letter. My reaction is that it makes the Athletic Department seem small minded, defensive and reactive. They need to stop building straw-men that distract from serious discussions (these authors, or OTL talking heads, are not the issue).
The tutor was raped, but she felt too ashamed and humiliated to initially press charges. Her own roommate, and best friend, initially lied to the police to protect the football star and her reputation. The tutor feels safe reporting the incident once she dis enrolls from school and is a 1,000 miles away (4 years later she has no interest in returning). She reported the rape to the school and police, but refused to go public / press charges because of fears to her safety. The police and administrators were easily able to corroborate her story, but no corrective action occurred. She finally goes public, there’s a trial & football star is convicted.
The book asked what culture the tutoring program promoted. Maybe one case study shouldn’t ruin the reputation of a fine university. But none of the university’s actions in this case gave a positive response.
LikeLike
Pablo, re: “Seeing the interview in the OTL piece about Sasha Menu Courey, both the Swimming coach and the associate AD at Missouri come out as clueless bureaucrats with way too much legal coaching in their responses. ”
This is an ugly situation so there’s no good way to talk about it. But that OTL piece was so bizarre and inept that it begs rebuttal.
What we have is a woman with borderline personality disorder who had had that disorder since her mid teens. She had already been hospitalized for suicidal behavior a couple of times before ever reaching Mizzou. Then while at Mizzou she was allegedly raped, but she didn’t take these allegations to anyone other than 1) some nurses who were forbidden under HIPAA to report anything without her permission, 2) her best friend, who didn’t report anything, and 3) some national crisis chat hotline. A year after her death they found the chat record in her email, and that’s the first time the university found out about the rape allegation. But she didn’t name any names, didn’t say when or where it happened. Never mentioned that it was a football player. Now, her best friend had a lot more details, but he never came forward until ESPN talked to him, so Mizzou didn’t have any of that information. He never went to police either.
As for the swim coach and Mizzou’s administrators, here’s where they’re coming from. There’s a disturbed, mentally ill woman. She’s showing signs of instability. They encourage her to seek help. The coach decides to tie her ability to stay on the team that season to her compliance with going to therapy and getting her treatment. She did not comply so he asked her to leave the team until she got better. Was that too harsh? Maybe so. Who knows? But he really couldn’t do much else than encourage her to get treatment. He’s just a swim coach. So then later on she tries to slit her wrists. The police have to tase her and pepper spray her to stop her from slitting her wrists and killing herself. They then commit her to the psychiatric ward. She’s evidently really far gone. Now, ESPN is apparently taking issue with what Mizzou did next. To me, and a lot of other people, it seems what they did next was standard procedure and made a hell of a lot of sense, but to ESPN it’s somehow this horrible thing. Mizzou recommended to her that she withdraw from the semester, protect her grades and her transcript by taking the rest of the semester off to get better, instead of trying to take all of her finals while on suicide watch. And then releasing her into the custody of her parents so that they could find her appropriate treatment and recover and then come back if she chose to do so. So where’s the crime in that? I sure can’t see it. It seems totally bizarre to me that ESPN sees wrongdoing there.
So then her parents take her to a mental hospital in Boston, and then several months later, in Boston, at that treatment facility, that’s where she kills herself.
How is that Mizzou’s fault?
It isn’t.
It’s a sad story and a terrible situation but ESPN is pointing fingers in the wrong direction.
LikeLike
“How is that Mizzou’s fault?
It isn’t.”
I not sure anyone is saying the situation and outcome is directly their fault. It’s a tragedy. But the response seems inadequate.
As Brian noted yesterday:
“Apparently OTL touched a nerve as magically the university decided to report the crime to the local PD last night.”
Shouldn’t this have occurred long ago?
LikeLike
ccrider, again, if you actually look at the facts of the case instead of ESPN’s ridiculously slanted piece, you’ll see that Mizzou didn’t have any details on the allegations at all until this report came out.
All of the details about the rape come from her friend, Rolandis Woodland, former Missouri football player. For whatever reason he had the story of this rape but he never brought the details to Mizzou or to the police. But he DID come forward to ESPN for this story.
Mizzou asked ESPN for details from the investigation they’ve been working on for several months so that they could follow up themselves but ESPN refused to share them.
So tell me again, what was Mizzou supposed to do if all they had was a chat transcript withere the woman vaguely and ambiguously says that she was assaulted but did not include who assaulted her, where she was assaulted, when she was assaulted, or any details whatsoever about the assault. They had nothing to go on.
LikeLike
I’m looking at UM reporting it to the police almost imediately after the story ran. That was my only question. Why now, and not earlier? If it shouldn’t have been reported before, then why should it be now?
LikeLike
I already answered that question several times.
All that could be reported to police in 2011 was this:
“We have a chat transcript of a dead girl who says she was raped at some point in her life. No, no other details. Yeah, that’s all we’ve got. OK, good luck.”
Now this 16 month investigation by OTL is released with a bunch more details, most importantly, Rolandis Woodland’s account of the actual rape. None of that was available at all before this.
The real question is why didn’t ESPN report all of this to police months ago? They were the only ones with any useful information.
LikeLike
The swim coach’s claims that she quit going to therapy were contradicted by the records of the student health center. So he is lying or was misinformed. He also let her believe she was being kicked off the team. The one thing that mattered most to her.
Her friend said she told him about the alleged rape AND said he saw a video of it. She also told her athletic academic advisor in May 2011 who did nothing. Seems pretty doubtful it is a figment of her imagination.
The athletic department also did nothing after reading about the rape allegations in the newspaper in February 2012 (other than copying and filing the article).
And from the article, right after attempting suicide and while involuntarily confined to the hospital:
She was hospitalized again and placed on a 96-hour involuntary commitment. While in the hospital, Missouri athletic department staffer Meghan Anderson presented a University Withdrawal Form to Menu Courey, which Menu Courey signed despite a desire to continue with her schooling and the fact that she was legally incapacitated at the time. Rhodenbaugh said the withdrawal form was presented in order to preserve her grades and prospects of returning to Missouri. Yet one of Menu Courey’s professors told “Outside the Lines” she could have passed his two courses.
Its that callousness towards the victim that reminds me of Penn St. As said above, its mindless, thoughtless bureaucracy at its worst. Someone is in trouble so you take away her swim team and her school.
LikeLike
bullet, point by point
1) There was a record of her going to a therapy. That does not equate to proof of regular therapy attendance.
2) The woman had borderline personality disorder. Check out the book “I hate you, don’t leave me” and see if it’s plausible that the swim coach gave her every encouragement and assurance that she was not being permanently kicked off the team, and yet due to her mental illness she believed she was beign kicked off the team.
3) Her friend who claims to have seen the video says he “lost” it. How he could lose video evidence of his best friend being raped is bizarre. Also, he never turned the video in to authorities or reported any of this to Mizzou or police. The only people he’s talked to about this apparently is ESPN. Mizzou can hardly be faulted for not knowing about something that he never came forward and told them about.
4) “Seems pretty doubtful it is a figment of her imagination.” You’re referring to her writing in her diary that she told an MU official about the rape while she was locked up on suicide watch in the mental hospital. The MU official said the conversation never happened. Considering the swimmer’s mental illness it isn’t at all dificult to believe that the conversation was a figment of her imaginiation.
5) The newspaper article, which was the only info Mizzou had about the alleged rape until the ESPN story came out, was an article about how her heart was donated and saved a man’s life after she killed herself. Around 80% of the way down the articel it briefly mentions in one sentence that a chat transcript revealed that she had been sexually assaulted. Again, the chat transcript did not include who allegedly raped her, when she was raped, where she was raped, or any details whatsoever about the rape. That’s not a lot to go on. The action Mizzou chose to take, given the ambiguity of the statement, was to ask the parents if they wanted an investigation. They did not respond.
6) Recommending that students withdraw when they are hospitalized for psychiatric episodes is standard procedure. It does not mean that they have been kicked out of school, and it affects their transcript positively rather than negatively. She had a 4.0 GPA going in. Even if she did manage to pass all of her classes while on suicide watch (which is highly doubtful) her grades certainly would have suffered severely. ESPN is treating the withdrawal form as if it were some sort of unwarranted punitive measure taken by the university, when in fact the opposite is true. Also noteworthy is that the ESPN video seemed to imply that giving her the withdrawal form while she was in the hospital somehow pushed her over the edge and contributed to her suicide, when in fact she killed herself several months later after being moved to a psychiatric facility in Boston. She did not kill herself because they recommended to her that she needed to withdraw from school. They recommended that she withdraw from school so that she would be free to go into long term psychiatric care. Remember, the police had just tased her and pepper sprayed her to keep her from slitting her own wrists. The last thing she needed to do at that time was worry about taking finals.
LikeLike
1. She never stopped seeing counselors. That sounds regular by any definition.
2. I think you just proved my point about the callousness.
3. So her friend is a liar?
4. So the dead girl lied in her journal?
5. Irrelevant as I said when I posted the article.
6. Again, pretty callous given her condition.
Take away everything she has while she’s in trauma.
Missouri’s rebuttal was a pathetic attempt to justify their actions/inactions. No official at Penn St. tried to justify the inaction of their 3 stooges or tried to call the victims liars (PSU fans may or may not have-but no university official did). They would have been far better off saying nothing. They are just making themselves look worse just like UNC is in their academic scandal.
LikeLike
The Chancellor of the 4 school university system sounds like he’s taking the right steps (although words don’t guarantee action).
LikeLike
bullet
1. The issue wasn’t whether she stopped seeing counselors. It was that she was supposed to go to all of her regular appointments.
2. You seem to be vastly underestimating the implications of borderline personality disorder. It is completely possible if not likely that she was full on delusional about a great many things. She was mentally ill.
3. No idea, but his story sure is odd. And why didn’t he report it to police or other authorities? And why is Mizzou to blame for him not reporting it? Why are they responsible for not knowing what he didn’t tell them?
4. She wrote the journal while locked up on suicide watch in a mental hospital for severe mental illness. You think everything she writes in that journal should be taken as gospel truth?
5. What?
6. The entire point was to help ease her mind and her troubles and let her focus on getting better. She was in no way forced to agree. Her parents were in the room at the time and all of them agreed it was the right decision.
Of course the chancellor is calling for an independent investigation. If anything that indicates a confidence in a lack of wrongdoing. He’s saying, “sure, bring in some independent investigators to make sure we followed the proper protocols. We have nothing to hide.”
bullet, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just watched the misleading report and needed some clarification.
But it’s clear to me now that the truth doesn’t really interest you at all. Like ESPN you’re just interested in the thrill of the “gotcha”, facts be damned.
LikeLike
“The action Mizzou chose to take, given the ambiguity of the statement, was to ask the parents if they wanted an investigation.”
Really? The parents are in charge of compliance with the Cleary Act for the university?
LikeLike
ccrider, please provide the wording in the Cleary Act that says that Mizzou did less than required. I haven’t seen anyone anywhere other than you even bring up the idea that Mizzou violated the Cleary Act. It’s pretty obvious that they didn’t. But if you’re going to claim that they did then the burden is on you to show that they did.
LikeLike
Firstly, the rape occurred off campus and outside the jurisdiction of MU PD. That may or may not make it exempt from the Cleary Act right there.
Second, nobody ever reported a crime at any point, and still have not.
Third, the allegation, such as it was, was only found out about years after the fact and after the accuser was dead.
Fourth, the information that came out at that time was so vague and ambiguous as to not be very useful as far as determining whether a crime even occurred at all, let alone when and where it occurred or who the guilty parties were, or if it would even fall under the Cleary Act.
The odds of Mizzou being found in violation of the Cleary Act on this are slim to none.
LikeLike
To make matters more complicated, the alleged rape, when drawn out in all the dirty details as written by the accuser, sounded as much a drunken orgy as anything, with consensual oral sex on the accused rapist, but then when the accused rapist started having sex with her she says she said no, and then he stopped. This all took place in her boyfriend’s bed after she had consensual sex with him. That is the account of the alleged rape that she gave in writing. So, again, it’s not such a simple situation, and no names have been named. The accuser never reported a crime and she’s no longer alive.
LikeLike
Jeeesss Andy: “I haven’t seen anyone anywhere other than you even bring up the idea that Mizzou violated the Cleary Act.”
You don’t even remember responding to Cleary being brought up earlier today?
Bullet: “Obviously, they reported it now because they are concerned about whether they are in compliance with the Cleary Act.”
Andy: “I highly doubt this has any relationship to the Cleary act.”
So, why report it now, or at all? Mizzu is harmless in all this…a
ccording to you.
Again, all I’m saying is whether they may or may not have dealt right with a disturbed student isn’t the point. They certainly seem to have not reported a potential assault to those who should have been informed at the time they did in receive information of a possible assault. Even if absolute evidence it didn’t occur were to come out during investigation, there is still the responsibility to report (in order for the investigation to begin).
LikeLike
It was a plural “you”, as in tweedle dumb and tweedle dee, as in ccrider and bullet.
Nobody else in the wide world of internets and espn exposes has even brought up the Cleary Act with regards to this.
But facts be damned you want to point fingers, so you’re gonna point.
Mizzou has over 500 student athletes and over 34,000 students. They can’t be aware of every maybe rape that happens off campus within 10-15 miles of the school when it goes unreported.
They can’t monitor every anonymous crisis counseling hotline either.
And when students die and the parents request the email records and chat logs of the dead student, the university can’t singularly launch a major investigation over every vague reference to a years ago crime that was never reported on. Especially when names and details are completely withheld. Especially when the situation described was messy and very well might not have been rape at all. And especially if the parents didn’t agree to the investigation, and the victim herself seemed not to want one either, given that she never reported it.
You seem to have zero understanding of how any of this works. I’m still waiting for you to show me exactly how Mizzou violeted the Cleary Act.
You can’t and you won’t because all you’re doing is trolling me for kicks. You don’t give a fig about any of this.
LikeLike
And as for the “why report this now”, you asked that exact question 3 times already, and I gave you the super obvious answer already 3 times, and it completely answered the question the first three times, but you keep acting like you didn’t hear me and you keep asking because you’re trolling me.
They reported this now because now they have Rolandis Woodland’s account. That was the alleged victim’s best friend. For reasons unknown he never went to Mizzou or to the police, but he did go to ESPN. And for whatever reason, ESPN never turned his story over to Mizzou or to the Police, so that info didn’t even come out until the article was released this weekend. Pretty incredible, I know. Makes you wonder what the hell ESPN was thinking/doing. But what just happened was that MU PD formally notified Columbia PD of the existence of the ESPN piece and recommended that they follow up with Woodland. Now, Woodland could have come forward years ago but never did. Strange, huh? But that’s Woodland being shady, not Mizzou.
LikeLike
CNN just posted an article and video that basically says Mizzou did nothing wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/27/us/missouri-suicide-rape-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
LikeLike
FWIW the video includes a legal expert who says in his opinion Mizzou didn’t break the law and it doesn’t look like there was any coverup.
LikeLike
Here’s another in depth and basically fair article:
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/26/4778874/parents-say-the-system-failed.html
There are some criticisms in there but unlike the OTL story it’s all basically fair and true.
LikeLike
Here’s a national thread of very reasonable people discussing the story.
LikeLike
Another story. CNN legal expert: Missouri not at fault.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/01/27/exp-erin-intv-robbins-university-of-missouri-rape-case.cnn.html
LikeLike
There’s a reason Brian put it up without comment and I didn’t mention the schools name. I was afraid you would come on and give your delusional Missouri defenses. When it comes to Missouri you are totally incapable of telling the truth from total fiction as you have repeatedly demonstrated. Now you are a Cleary Act expert because of Tiger Droppings? Missouri didn’t necessarily violate it, but only the delusional would not realize there is a risk.
OTL is perfectly factual and there are two sides presented so the reader can make up his/her own mind. You just don’t want to believe it. You keep making up false “facts” about the assault and throwing out red herrings. The link below is from a British paper to correct some of the falsehoods you’ve thrown out:
“In the online chat transcript, Menu Courey describes how, after a night of drinking, she returned to the apartment of a male friend, whom ‘Outside the Lines’ identified as Gil Moye, and the pair had consensual sex.
Then the alleged rape happened, she explained.
‘[We] were falling asleep & then i heard the [door] open & some other guy walked in & locked the door & i couldnt really see who it was & i never saw a face the whole time…. but i remember just sitting upright in bed at the sound of someone walking in,’ the swimmer wrote to the counselor.
‘& i just remember feeling really scared thinking that the two guys had planned this or something. so my first thought was figure out who this other person was in case so that if i needed the information i would have it later… the guy told me his name & then he pulled down his pants & put on a condom & just knew i was screwed …’
Menu Courey went on to describe the assault in detail, and said she tried to call a friend and former boyfriend for help while it was happening.
‘… I started to panick & as i still on the phone trying to reach one of them tears start going down & the guy just lift up my dress & next thing i knew he inserts from behind. by that point tears were falling more but i wasnt loud & didnt anything. and then i just snapped and kind pushed him away & yelled no! and then he just left.’
Former Missouri football receiver Rolandis Woodland backed up her account and said he saw cell phone video of three of his teammates raping her in a dark room as she sobbed hysterically.
‘You could see her saying “No, no,” hysterically crying,’ Woodland told ‘Outside the Lines.’
‘She uses the name of [the player] when she tells him to get off of her, and he says, “It’s only me.” They dim the lights and you could see them switching her but you cannot see who was switching because the lights were dimmed. About three minutes into the tape, she pushed whoever was on her off of her and ran out of the room.’
He said the video was sent to him by Menu Courey before she killed herself in June 2011 but he said it was inadvertently misplaced by one of his family members.
Woodland, who previously dated Menu Courey and considered her his best friend, said he didn’t go to police because he didn’t think she would have wanted him to.
The swimmer’s emotional state declined rapidly after the incident, documents show.
By March 2011, she checked herself into the campus psychiatric center and told the nurse she had been raped by a football player.
Two doctors were also made aware of the alleged assault and variations of ‘raped/football player’ were written on multiple admission notes.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546353/Sasha-Menu-Courey-alleged-rape-University-Missouri-accused-failing-young-swimmer-killed-raped.html#ixzz2rhVr41rX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
LikeLike
Joe Paterno didn’t do anything legally wrong either.
He just callously looked away and didn’t concern himself with it. He knew at the end he was very morally wrong by doing nothing.
Missouri had several people do nothing and a swim coach and administrator help push an unstable person over the edge.
LikeLike
Actually the ESPN OTL article is filled with tons of falsehoods and misrepresentations. If you or anyone else have any interest in the facts you can read about them in this comprehensive Q&A:
http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2014/0128-statement-8/
LikeLike
There’s nothing in there that contradicts the OTL report except that it claims they didn’t know about the assault until late 2012, but later admit they read about it in early 2012. They don’t mention the Academic advisor in May 2011, although they basically call the victim a liar in their other press release.
LikeLike
Wow, if that’s what you got from reading that then I just don’t know what to say.
You’ve got tunnel vision or something.
LikeLike
I mean, just, wow. There are at least 20 or 30 major disagreements with the OTL story in that Q&A.
Like, seriously, what is wrong with you?
LikeLike
And here’s the uncut account from Sasha’s coach. Very very different from the way OTL edited it.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/blogs/tiger_tidings/mu-swimming-coach-greg-rhodenbaugh-responds-to-coverage-of-menu/article_a4d0dd06-87d5-11e3-87c6-001a4bcf6878.html
LikeLike
Basically, what this entire story is about is that we’re seeing what amounts to the downside of HIPAA.
Yes, HIPAA law forbids medical professionals/counselors from disclosing information about sexual assaults (the ESPN OTL article/tv program amazingly completely omits this fact and blames Mizzou anyway). And in some cases that means that a rape allegation never gets investigated.
But it’s federal law and Mizzou had to follow it.
If you don’t like it then work to change the federal law.
LikeLike
Andy, name the 20 differences. Other than that one item, the only differences are tone (or spin if you prefer-that applies both ways).
And ask yourself this, is it really more likely the disturbed girl makes up a detail journal entry or that the academic advisor either forgot or is doing CYA by claiming she doesn’t recall?
LikeLike
bullet, clearly you haven’t spent much time at all looking at this.
In the girl’s private diary she states that she called her academic advisor at Mizzou from her phone wile in Boston and locked up on suicide watch. She said that while having a conversation with the woman, she briefly mentioned that she was raped (and didn’t give any details), but then continued the conversation and changed the subject, and then she wrote that she was “relieved” that the advisor did not say anything about the rape. That’s all the evidence to suggest that any non-medical professional at Mizzou knew anything of a rape. And the woman says that no such phone call ever took place. I suppose if you’re bound and determined to blame the entire institution of Mizzou as somehow covering up rape because of that journal entry you’re free to do so. But considering the girl was extremely mentally ill then that journal entry isn’t worth spit in a court of law.
As for the contradictions between the Q&A and the OTL story:
1. Mizzou points out that they did not have access to any of the info from the medical personell due to HIPPA laws. These records were made available to Sasha’s family, but Sasha’s family did not share them with Mizzou. ESPN does not mention that Mizzou had this info and instead implies that it did have this information. ESPN also never mentions HIPAA law as a factor in any of this.
2. Mizzou points out that they also didn’t have access to Sasha’s journals. Her family did. Her family chose not to share any of the details from the journals with Mizzou or with police. Mizzou points out that they didn’t have any of this information until this week when ESPN released the story. They also mention that they requested the information from ESPN and ESPN declined. Of course ESPN’s story mentions none of this.
3. Mizzou also did not have access to Rolandis Woodland’s story. He also did not report his story to police. Why he would decline to report his story to Mizzou or police out of respect for Sasha’s desire to not have the story spread, but would then go on ESPN in front of millions of people and get into all the gory details is a mystery. Of course, the ESPN story never discusses the fact that they’ve had Rolandis’s story for months but never reported it to Mizzou or police, but then hypocritically condemns Mizzou for not agressively investigatign what miniscule amount of information they did have.
4. Mizzou goes over just how little they had to go on when they finally did learn something from the newspaper article in 2012. They correctly point out that for all they knew the rape occured back in Canada when the girl was visiting home. ESPN never mentions this.
5. Mizzou points out that they specifically asked the parents if they wanted them to investigate the alleged rape, from what little they knew about it. ESPN had access to the parents and yet never asked them about why they declined to agree to an investigation two years ago at Mizzou and yet are now claiming that they want one.
6. Mizzou gets into the details and language of title ix and describes exactly why what they did didn’t violate it. ESPN never gets into these details.
7. Mizzou points out that the reason they were able to file a report with Columbia PD now is because they now finally have access to the info that ESPN has had for many months, including Rolandis Woodland’s account, the aproximate location of the alleged assault, and some potential names involved. ESPN’s reporting would have you believe that Mizzou suddenly notified police because ESPN’s story put some heat on them, when in fact, poice would have been notified months ago had ESPN simply chosen to share their information.
8. Mizzou points out that Sasha was neither kicked off the swim team nor was she kicked out of school. In both cases she was kept on scholarship and kept in good standing academically and athletically. Coaches and academic staff were merely trying to steer her toward psychiatric care to protect her safety. She was repeatedly told that she could return to swimming and to school once she recovered, and that her scholarship had not been taken away. She was even registered for class in the fall on a swimming scholarship at the time of her death. ESPN would have you believe that Mizzou was trying to calously extract a high maintenance student from their scholarhsip rolls as punishment for her bad behavior. Mizzou denies this completely. ESPN did not report these denials, nor did they back up their claims.
9. Mizzou points out that both her alleged rape and her suicide did not occur at Mizzou. The rape occured at an apartment off campus under the jurisdiction fo Columbia Police Department, and the suicide happend months after she left Mizzou, thousands of miles away in a private mental hospital in Boston. ESPN’s story implies that somehow Mizzou “kicking her out of school” drove her to suicide, when in fact the suicide happened several months later, and her later concerns and writings were concentrated not on school but on her financial burden to her parents due to her hospitalization in the private psychiatric facility she was committed to.
10. Mizzou points out that the coaches and administrators had no idea as to the seriousness of her mental illness problems. This is because HIPAA law forbade healthcare professionasl from divulgign this information. At least the ESPN story acknowledged that she had attempted suicide in high school before ever attending Mizzou, but it never mentions that her family failed to notify Mizzou of those issues. I’ll repeat: her parent sent her from Canada to the University of Missouri knowing that their daughter was suicidal and mentally ill, but did not notify the coaches or school authorities.
11. Mizzou goes over what they actually do with regards to sexual assault allegations, which, as it happens, completely conforms to standard practice and federal law. And points out that none of these policies were broken in this instance. ESPN never covers this aspect of the story at all.
I didn’t get to 20 but I’m sure I could have broken this up into smaller pieces and I’m sure I coudl add more. I’ll quit now though because I think I’ve made my point.
LikeLike
“And ask yourself this, is it really more likely the disturbed girl makes up a detail journal entry or that the academic advisor either forgot or is doing CYA by claiming she doesn’t recall?”
I don’t know anything about this case and have no dog in the fight, but I have studied and also have direct experience with people who have Borderline Personality Disorder. *IF* the woman had BPD, then writing journal entries of made up, blaming stories (or even stories that just grossly misinterpret events) could be at least as likely as that the stories are true in any straightforward sense.
BPD has a strong identity disturbance and dissociative component to it, often (but not always) caused by childhood and/or sexual abuse. In this respect it is similar to Dissociative Identity Disorder, which used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder. And the suicide rate of those with BPD is high.
It is hard to overestimate the episodic detachment from reality and subsequent “crazy” behavior possible for someone who suffers from BPD. Most people who don’t have many years of experience with it, both direct and through study, have a very difficult time understanding the depth and counter-intuitive aspects of this disorder.
I don’t know what happened in this case, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that claims made by a person with BPD may be completely false, even if written in a journal. And if they were false, it would be a grossly unfair to blame others for suppositions based on understandings of normal behavior.
LikeLike
Read this article in its entirety and get back to me if you still think Mizzou did anything wrong.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/eye-on-the-tigers/um-president-seeks-investigation-of-rape-allegation/article_f9a4b446-ecee-54d2-8c74-183cf9576440.html
LikeLike
“MU first became aware of the alleged assault in late 2012”
Again, once a school knows or reasonably should know of possible sexual violence it must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what happened. Also, campus officials with responsibility for student or campus activities to report serious incidents of crime to police for investigation and possible inclusion in campus crime statistics.
Missouri thinks that someone did something wrong, because they have now reported the crime.
LikeLike
A Missouri official was told in May 2011 and the Athletic Department saw the newspaper article where her parents talked about the assault in February 2012. Late 2012 was when they got the transcripts of the crisis hotline call.
LikeLike
They were told that the swimmer contacted a national rape hotline and said that she was sexually assaulted.
The chat transcript did not include:
1) Who the alleged rapist(s) were
2) When the alleged rape occurred
3) Where the alleged rape occurred
4) Any details whatsoever about the rape
Mizzou then contacted the girl’s parents and asked them if they wanted an investigation. They did not respond.
Again, tell me where the wrongdoing is? What exactly were they supposed to investigate more than they did?
LikeLike
Perhaps involving the police and their investigators might have found the answers that a Bristol reporter was able to?
LikeLike
The Bristol reporter spent 16 months on this.
Nobody even filed a police report about this alleged rape. Pretty hard to get police action when you don’t even do that much.
But sure, the police did decline to investigate this. And they had access to the same newspaper article as Mizzou.
So how come Mizzou catches the heat and not the police department?
Fingers are pointing in the wrong direction.
LikeLike
They reported the crime now because they finally at least have some details thanks to the ESPN report. Before that they had nothing whatsoever.
LikeLike
The question is why they didn’t have/get more. It’s rare you start an investigation with most facts already known.
LikeLike
OK, try to follow:
They didn’t know who the alleged rapist is supposed to be.
They didn’t know when it happened. 2010? 2009? 2005?
They don’t know where it happened. At Mizzou? On campus? Off campus? Back in high school? At home? Was it a family member?
They knew no details. Who do you question? Do you go around to all of her former friends and teachers and ask them if they knew anything about her being raped?
They reached out to the parents, which is a sensible place to start I’d say. The parents didn’t respond.
So then what do you do?
LikeLike
Plus, consider this: Mizzou’s duty is not to investage alleged rapes (especially rapes that were never openly alleged). It is to educate students. A rape investigation is a job for the police department, not academic administrators.
LikeLike
One of the big problems for Penn St. is the Cleary Act. Universities and key administrators have a legal obligation to report these crimes. Penn St. could still face severe penalties from the federal government for failure to report. Missouri’s admin didn’t have information when it occurred, but they did learn about it some time later and didn’t report it until ESPN came out with this report. Obviously, they reported it now because they are concerned about whether they are in compliance with the Cleary Act.
LikeLike
That’s why contacting the police would likely have been the appropriate step. Let them decide whether or not to investigate. Only seems prudent (and ass covering) in the event something comes up later. See: PSU. And I’m not comparing anything but the seeming hesitance to make that report (which I just don’t get). Better safe than sorry.
LikeLike
They found out from a newspaper article 3+ years after the fact (and even then they didn’t know if it was even logner ago, 4 years? 5 years? 8 years?), and it had no details. The police had access to the same exact newspaper article. Turns out the rape didn’t even occur under Mizzou’s jurisdiction. It occurred off campus. To this day they still don’t even have the names of any suspects.
Nobody even reported it as a crime. All they had to go on was that 3 years prior the girl said on a national rape hotline chat that at some point she had been sexually assaulted. I highly doubt this has any relationship to the Cleary act.
LikeLike
Andy,
I think it is now expected that all universities hire psychics to help them to determine future and past crimes that occur in or around their student body. Joking aside, I find that Missouri did nothing wrong, in fact the university did a lot of things properly and ESPN is trying to create a story out of nothing. I hate to accuse ESPN of trying to create stories, but this was too far reaching and sadly I have lost what little respect i Have for ESPN based on this story.
If it helps I am a Arizona fan so no dog in this fight.
LikeLike
Thanks, Gailikk. I agree 100%.
LikeLike
FWIW, more details keep coming out:
http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/mike-alden-speaks-about-sasha-menu-courey-case/article_557b5d1c-8a4b-11e3-bdde-0017a43b2370.html
It looks like the athletic department didn’t pursue any rape investigations because it’s not really the job of the athletic department to investigate rape allegations (or, in this case, secret allegations discovered in chat logs after a student’s death).
They did, however, immediately turn over anything they had to MUPD and Student Affairs/Student Conduct. Those groups wanted to investigate but couldn’t due to lack of information and lack of cooperation by the parents.
So there you go.
Trumped up scandal over nothing.
LikeLike
I’m only responding because you seem incapable of reading comprehension and put out false information. From your article:
” I guess the first time it was suggested that someone in the athletic department knew about it was when Sasha supposedly told (academic advisor) Meghan Anderson in 2011. Have you talked to Meghan Anderson to find out whether that is what she was told? What can you tell us about that?
A: I think now that we’re involved in this process where it’s really a criminal case — MUPD has passed this over to the Columbia Police Department — I know they’re looking at all those types of things. For us, on those specific types details, I don’t know if it’s appropriate to comment right now, given that CPD is going through all that.”
***So they have no comment on whether they knew earlier***
” As far as any further information beyond that, when I learned of some of that was when I believe ESPN had been doing that sunshine request and she had had an online chat as part of her information. I believe that information was shared with the general counsel’s office because of the open-records thing. They informed people. They informed, I believe, MUPD, student affairs, student conduct, other areas on campus, athletics. That’s when I became aware of that from the sunshine request.”
***He “believes” they sent the info to the MUPD. Doesn’t say for certain they did. And it was when ESPN did the sunshine request, not when they saw the newspaper article in February 2012.***
” Overall, the ESPN report, what were your feelings on it? Did you feel like your department was portrayed fairly or unfairly? What was your reaction?
A: My first reaction to seeing that was I was just very sad. It’s a sad story, when you look at that and see a young lady has passed away. As a parent myself, Rockie and I as parents, those type of things hit home. I didn’t really approach it from a standpoint of, “Did it put the athletic program in a bad light or the institution in a bad light or whatever?” I’ve really got to tell you, I didn’t look at it that way. I did look at it as I don’t know if the full balance of the story was presented. Perhaps more of the information they had received could have been shared instead of some selectively not shared. But it’s not fair for me to judge whether it put athletics in a bad light. To me, the focus on all of that was we had a young lady who tragically took her own life and a sad situation. That was my take-away. It wasn’t about whether it made the department look bad. It may have. But if it did, that was something I was not focusing on.”
***Alden doesn’t seem as bent out of shape as you. And he never says there was anything false in the ESPN report.***
“On Wednesday, Wolfe answered questions from reporters, taking a more compassionate tone toward the Menu Courey family than was expressed in the weekend’s prepared statements.”
***And the crux of the issue. Missouri’s swim coach and academic advisor were insensitive. So was Wolfe in his earlier comments. He FINALLY realized what an defensive jerk he was sounding like and that he was making the school look bad and reinforcing the idea that the school didn’t care and was just a mindless bureaucracy. He basically called the girl a liar with saying she told Anderson. The AD now is saying the PD was investigating instead of accusing the girl of lying.***
LikeLike
wow, those are some loooooooong reaches, even for you, bullet.
What we have here is standard Alden-speak. He always, always, always speaks cautiously and vaguely about everything.
There is nothing even slightly amiss about the way he worded his answers. That’s just the way he talks.
And nothing he says contradicts the earlier statements put out by the university.
He’s just saying he’s not going to personally comment on them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10354735/us-dept-education-investigate-penn-state-nittany-lions
US DoE looking into PSU due to a huge spike in sexual assault reports.
LikeLike
Reminds me of what someone told me about the EPA. Chemical companies were reluctant to self-report because the ones who did got extraordinary scrutiny from the EPA. The ones who hid things got away with it.
LikeLike
The Dude has stuck his head out and apparently he sees his shadow because he has an expansion update coming, with ‘Gems’.
Developing…… (:
LikeLike
Great article on ESPN and their balancing act with cable and on-line. For the conference networks, mentioned at the end is that DirectTV’s renewal with ESPN comes up at the end of the year. So I imagine DirectTV skips the Pac 12 Network, Longhorn Network and SEC Network for next football season.
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-436550/
LikeLike
It’ll be fascinating to see if DirecTV tries to play hardball with ESPN like it currently is with The Weather Channel.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – That would be playing with some serious fire (and I say that as long-time DirecTV customer). From what I recall, ESPN is the #1 channel in terms of cable channel “loyalty” (defined as the channel that more people would drop their cable service entirely over if they didn’t carry it). DirecTV might end up talking a big game in public statements, but they know full well that they’d literally die without ESPN. It’s a non-starter for their subscriber base which is already much more sports-focused than other cable companies because of their NFL Sunday Ticket exclusivity. The Weather Channel is a totally different animal where all of the information that it’s providing is easily accessible by mobile apps (including The Weather Channel’s very own app that I use daily).
LikeLike
@Frank:
Totally agree. DTV may try, but it will lose.
TWC also has another issue: Comcast/NBC Universal apparently signed a consent decree with the USDOJ in order to get Comcast’s purchase approved that Comcast would not leverage other channels in carriage fights with other providers. TWC has to stand and fight alone. DTV should eventually win that one.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/football-still-really-freaking-popular-1509795727
Football is king. More like K-I-N-G.
Baseball be sinking. CFB trending upwards over the last 10 years, almost passing baseball (!), Pro basketball downwards. Hockey inched up, Auto Racing inched down. MBB downward trend continues, seems to stem from the early-mid 90’s when it began losing high school/early entries to the NBA.
Very interesting cross-tabs, too.
LikeLike
Baseball is pretty much in the same spot as it was in 1994, not sinking.
LikeLike
And -9 since 1985, -7 since 1992.
LikeLike
So its been in essentially the same spot for 20 years, and you call it sinking. ok.
LikeLike
Last strike 1994-95. After 7 from 1972-1990. 94-95 cancelled the World Series and really hurt baseball.
LikeLike
I define a 7 point drop in 22 years as sinking, relative to declines or rises in other sports. MLB isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and revenue is indeed up.
But the sports overall health longterm should be of some concern, since MLB playoff ratings are falling and the avg age of MLB playoff viewers is now in the mid 50s, up from the low 40s in the early 1990s. It won’t ever disappear, certainly not in the lifetime of my nowhere-close-to-being-born grandchildren, but its certainly up for debate whether the revenue increases are masking some lurking dangers not being addressed because of said increase (such as number of games, expense of games, pace of games, residue of steroid era cleansing the game/reducing offensive production/total disinterest among blacks/medium term rise of MLS as a formidable summertime threat).
LikeLike
“I define a 7 point drop in 22 years as sinking, relative to declines or rises in other sports. MLB isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and revenue is indeed up. ”
I define no change over 20 years as plateauing, not declining. Also, relative to other sports, none of CFB, NBA, CMBB, or auto sports have made any progress in closing the gap with MLB in the past decade or so. MLB has even closed the gap some with the NFL recently.
“But the sports overall health longterm should be of some concern, since MLB playoff ratings are falling and the avg age of MLB playoff viewers is now in the mid 50s, up from the low 40s in the early 1990s.”
Interest in MLB has definitely become more regionalized, but the demographics for CFB fandom are actually very close to the demographics for MLB fandom.
“total disinterest among blacks”
Actually, that’s more true for CFB: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%203%20-%20Favorite%20Sport_1.17.13.pdf
Poor people are uninterested in MLB, however (but well-off people are interested).
“medium term rise of MLS as a formidable summertime threat”
This is hilarious. I’m a soccer fan, but a league that draws ratings so low that TV channels consider it to have virtually zero value does not pose a “formidable summertime threat”. Especially to a league who’s teams have been inking some insanely lucrative local TV deals recently.
LikeLike
“Also, relative to other sports, none of CFB, NBA, CMBB, or auto sports have made any progress in closing the gap with MLB in the past decade or so. MLB has even closed the gap some with the NFL recently.”
CFB tied MLB in 2011. There was a 9 point gap in 1998.
““total disinterest among blacks”
Actually, that’s more true for CFB: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%203%20-%20Favorite%20Sport_1.17.13.pdf
Poor people are uninterested in MLB, however (but well-off people are interested).”
I said blacks, not poor people. Look at the crosstabs in the poll. 7% for MLB. This issue has been covered over the years due to the rapid decline in the percentage of MLB players who are black.
““medium term rise of MLS as a formidable summertime threat”
This is hilarious. I’m a soccer fan, but a league that draws ratings so low that TV channels consider it to have virtually zero value does not pose a “formidable summertime threat”. Especially to a league who’s teams have been inking some insanely lucrative local TV deals recently.'”
Apparently, you missed my use of medium-term to qualify that statement. MLS isn’t a threat now. But in 5-20 years, as I define medium term (as opposed to 20+ for long term and -5 as short term), it could very well be a factor, one of several I listed that may impact the sport negatively.
LikeLike
“CFB tied MLB in 2011. There was a 9 point gap in 1998.”
Then in 2012, it widened to 5 points again and was a 3 point gap in 2013. For the past decade, CFB has gotten close to MLB, but then fell back. There is no trend.
“I said blacks, not poor people. Look at the crosstabs in the poll. 7% for MLB. This issue has been covered over the years due to the rapid decline in the percentage of MLB players who are black. ”
Yet African-American interest in CFB is at an even lower level: 4%.
Also, poor people are among the groups that follow MLB the least.
“But in 5-20 years, as I define medium term (as opposed to 20+ for long term and -5 as short term), it could very well be a factor, one of several I listed that may impact the sport negatively.”
A sport isn’t going to jump from virtually no TV audience to threatening another sport that is getting some of the biggest local TV deals ever in 5-20 years. How much have TV audiences for MLS improved in the past 5-20 years? You don’t seem to understand that some MLB TV ratings are really high (compared to anything but the NFL): http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/fans-are-watching-tampa-bay-rays-on-tv-8212-a-popularity-that-could-pay/2135859
Almost 9 average rating for the Dodgers, 8 average rating for the Cardinals and Reds; close to 7 average for the Red Sox (and LA and Boston are both huge markets).
As a comparison, CFB on ESPN drew more than a 5 in only 1 city (relatively small Birmingham). Atlanta (the only major city in ESPN’s top 10) averaged a 3.2.
On the other hand, MLS often doesn’t have as many local viewers watching a game as they have fans in the stands.
LikeLike
Mind you, this is with a ton of baseball games on as well, so those high TV ratings mean gigantic amounts of ad dollars.
LikeLike
““CFB tied MLB in 2011. There was a 9 point gap in 1998.”
Then in 2012, it widened to 5 points again and was a 3 point gap in 2013. For the past decade, CFB has gotten close to MLB, but then fell back. There is no trend.”
Actually, going from 9 points behind to 1-3 points back would be an upward trend.
““I said blacks, not poor people. Look at the crosstabs in the poll. 7% for MLB. This issue has been covered over the years due to the rapid decline in the percentage of MLB players who are black. ”
Yet African-American interest in CFB is at an even lower level: 4%.
Also, poor people are among the groups that follow MLB the least.”
Several things:
1) Was talking about MLB’s decline and mentioned disinterest from blacks as one of many reasons for that. You respond by stating CFB has even less support, yet CFB has gained on MLB since the late 90’s. Not seeing the relevance of your argument
2) I do not see the words “poor people” in the Harris poll. Please clarify.
“A sport isn’t going to jump from virtually no TV audience to threatening another sport that is getting some of the biggest local TV deals ever in 5-20 years. How much have TV audiences for MLS improved in the past 5-20 years? You don’t seem to understand that some MLB TV ratings are really high (compared to anything but the NFL): http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/fans-are-watching-tampa-bay-rays-on-tv-8212-a-popularity-that-could-pay/2135859
Almost 9 average rating for the Dodgers, 8 average rating for the Cardinals and Reds; close to 7 average for the Red Sox (and LA and Boston are both huge markets).
As a comparison, CFB on ESPN drew more than a 5 in only 1 city (relatively small Birmingham). Atlanta (the only major city in ESPN’s top 10) averaged a 3.2.
On the other hand, MLS often doesn’t have as many local viewers watching a game as they have fans in the stands.”
Some good points, but the evidence is misleading and my arguments misunderstood.
1) I said MLS was but one of many potential factors. I never said it would threaten MLB. It has potential to siphon off some viewers, but will not by itself doom MLB.
2) That the Dodgers, Cardinals, Reds and Red Sox draw well locally is very nice. Those teams happened to do well this past year. Yankees ratings on YES plummeted this past year. Also, thanks for stating LA and Boston are huge markets. I had no idea. But proving this point with an article from August about how the Tampa Bay Rays, after about 6 years of consistent success, just might crack the top 3rd of local tv ratings does not do much to bolster your argument that MLS poses little threat to MLB. I never asserted the contrary. Also, this article has very different ratings numbers than what you state: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/09/30/Media/MLB-ratings.aspx
3) Its unclear if you referred to MLB TV as baseball games or as the MLB Network. If the latter, not certain why that matters. If the former, this paragraph does not apply.
4) MLB fans are more fickle than CFB fans. CFB fans are die hards who stay true thru thick and thin. Less national game still, but between football’s overall popularity and the increased exposure from conference tv networks, I’d go long CFB as a stock over the next 7 years. But I wouldn’t necessarily short MLB’s stock.
LikeLike
“Its unclear if you referred to MLB TV as baseball games or as the MLB Network. If the latter, not certain why that matters. If the former, this paragraph does not apply.”
I said MLB TV ratings, which would be TV ratings of MLB games. And doesn’t apply? Wut?
LikeLike
Wainscott: “I said MLS was but one of many potential factors. I never said it would threaten MLB.”
Stop lying (if I was Brian, I would just say “Bullshit”). You said MLS would become a “formidable summertime threat”.
If a “formidable threat” would not threaten, then what would?
Also, look at the I provided: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%203%20-%20Favorite%20Sport_1.17.13.pdf
I would say income of $34.9K or less is poor.
LikeLike
“You respond by stating CFB has even less support, yet CFB has gained on MLB since the late 90′s. Not seeing the relevance of your argument”
Yet CFB hasn’t gained on MLB in the past decade, so that’s the relevance.
LikeLike
@Richard:
Your trolling is tiresome.
“medium term rise of MLS as a formidable summertime threat).”
Was listed as one of many factors that can negatively impact MLB going forward.
““You respond by stating CFB has even less support, yet CFB has gained on MLB since the late 90′s. Not seeing the relevance of your argument”
Yet CFB hasn’t gained on MLB in the past decade, so that’s the relevance.”
Except when CFB and MLB were TIED in 2011. Which would symbolize gaining. Which was three years ago. Which is within the last decade. And the longer trend for the two indicate CFB is slowly ascendant and MLB is slowly descendant.
““Its unclear if you referred to MLB TV as baseball games or as the MLB Network. If the latter, not certain why that matters. If the former, this paragraph does not apply.”
I said MLB TV ratings, which would be TV ratings of MLB games. And doesn’t apply? Wut?”
From context, was unclear if you meant the tv ratings of MLB games of MLB TV networks. And I neglected to finish my thought. OMG SOMEONE MADE A TYPO–POUNCE!”
LikeLike
“Except when CFB and MLB were TIED in 2011. Which would symbolize gaining.”
Your statistical innumeracy is tiresome. There are going to be bounces up and down along a trendline for all polls, and the trendline over the past decade shows that CFB has not gained on MLB. After 2011, the gap between CFB and MLB has widened, which, using your logic, symbolizes that MLB has pulled away from CFB.
Your refusal to admit lying is also tiresome. You call someone a troll, yet you are the one who says MLS is a formidable summertime threat to MLB then said “I never said it would threaten MLB”. If that’s not trollish behavior, I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
All I stated initially is that CFB was trending upwards in the last 10 years. You were the one who compared the two sports. We can both interpret the stats to buttress our views.
And lets review what I actually wrote, because you apparently are unable to:
“But the sports overall health longterm should be of some concern, since MLB playoff ratings are falling and the avg age of MLB playoff viewers is now in the mid 50s, up from the low 40s in the early 1990s. It won’t ever disappear, certainly not in the lifetime of my nowhere-close-to-being-born grandchildren, but its certainly up for debate whether the revenue increases are masking some lurking dangers not being addressed because of said increase (such as number of games, expense of games, pace of games, residue of steroid era cleansing the game/reducing offensive production/total disinterest among blacks/medium term rise of MLS as a formidable summertime threat).”
Reading this paragraph, it should be apparent that I was referring to some lurking dangers facing MLB vis a vis its overall long term health. One of the many factors, and indeed the last one, mentions the medium term rise of MLS as a formidable summertime threat. Threat not to MLB’s existence, but to MLB’s health as it relates to its present status as the second major sport in America. Do I think that decreasing offensive production+pace+MLS+ other mentioned factors together can lead to future declines in MLB’s overall revenue and popularity? Yes. Will any one factor by itself do this? Absolutely not. Can MLS become a formidable summertime threat to MLB’s hammerlock on summertime media attention/fan dollar while not surpassing or even come close to MLB in raw dollars? I say Yes. Could that lead to a possible 5-7-10% decline by 2034 (the outer end of what I defined medium term as)? It very well could. That’s the threat. And this threat, with other factors, potentially poses dangers for MLB. I never said MLS will pass MLB or become its equal. if you implied otherwise, then that’s your own failings at reading comprehension.
LikeLike
Though, I will concede that in first linking to the poll, I did initially state that ” CFB trending upwards over the last 10 years, almost passing baseball (!)”. I meant that as an observation, not an empirical statement comparing the two. But its not that clear in the context, and I did rely on a quick look at 2003 and 2011 when making that statement. The numbers can be interpreted several ways, and what I wrote can be, too.
LikeLike
I would not call something that decreases MLB popularity by 5-10% “formidable”. In terms of the poll, it would be statistical noise. You exaggerate too much.
Also, CFB popularity from 2004-2013 is pretty much unchanged. 11% both those years.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I’ve always hated that survey since it asks for your #1 favorite sport and then nothing else. Personally, I’d end up saying football is my favorite sport, as well, but that would belie my concurrent heavy interest in basketball (pro and college) and baseball. TV ratings metrics, for instance, show that interest in the NBA is up quite significantly over the past decade compared to other sports besides football, yet the Harris poll doesn’t accurately capture that in its all or nothing questioning (i.e. there’s no objective sports business valuation person on Earth that would say that the NBA is trending downwards).
LikeLike
Certainly the poll has an element of attention seeking about it, but I do think its a useful snapshot of overall fan interest. Football is also my #1, and this poll would not reflect my interest in CFB, baseball, and hockey. But at the end of the designating something as a favorite has a meaning, and that more are selecting football than other sports, or that less select NBA basketball does have meaning.
TV ratings are a bit misleading in that regard. Remember Mark Cuban ranting when the NFL moved the 1st round of the draft to Thursday night against NBA playoff games (and I believe, trumped the NBA in the ratings). NBA is very personality and matchup driven, and as such, the NBA lacks a sustained pull for fans, something with this poll does show. TV ratings will rise and fall with the stars. The NBA needs the Heat to be in the finals to draw ratings, something not as critical in other sports (NHL ratings are lower because Gary Bettman was sent by David Stern to destroy the sport with work stoppages, and ratings are climbing now in spite of him).
Certainly, the NBA is not trending downwards, but I don’t think its as strong as its ratings suggest.
See: http://extramustard.si.com/2014/01/08/nhl-versus-nba-attendance/ (and also click on the Hyperlink about tv ratings).
LikeLike
BTW, by revenue, MLB is within striking distance of the NFL:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/01/news/companies/nfl-money-super-bowl/
With no other sport being close. In 2013, MLB pulled in slightly more than 8B in revenue.
LikeLike
More on MLB vs. the NFL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/10/sorry-nfl-baseball-is-still-americas-pastime/280985/
Interest in the NFL is more national and there’s more interest from fans that don’t have a hometown team. However, considering that the revenue gap isn’t that big, either MLB has as many die-hard fans or richer fans than the NFL.
LikeLike
IMO, its definitely a wealth thing. Also, the, ahem, silver lining for MLB’s increasing average age of tv viewer is that folks in their 50’s and up will generally have more discretionary income to spend going to a game than younger folks.
As to the regional aspect, that’s true of all sports. The author’s evidence as to that point is less than scientific. (His point- when teams win, they have more fans interested. Which is groundbreaking analysis by The Atlantic).
LikeLike
This has been mentioned a bunch.
Honest question: Is it accurate to compare the raw revenue of MLB and NFL when MLB plays 146 more regular season games per team than the NFL does (16 vs. 162) (with 30 MLB teams vs. 32 NFL teams)?. Does anyone have links to analysis that analyses revenue while adjusting for the number of games?
LikeLike
But why should the number of games matter? The NFL has roughly 1/10th the games, but then the games should be 10 times as important, no?
The NBA and NHL have 5 times the number of games as the NFL, yet they draw far less revenue than the NFL.
But fine, if you want to use a metric that isn’t tied to the number of games played, then let’s go off of merchandise sales. In 2006, the NFL has 3.2B in merchandise sales. In 2005, MLB had 3B in merchandise sales (over half generated by the Yankees and Red Sox(!): http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html
LikeLike
However, this research report says that for the last 4 years up to and including 2010, MLB actually beat the NFL in merchandise sales:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37692194
LikeLike
Dude, cool the attitude, Its an honest, reasonable question.
“But why should the number of games matter? The NFL has roughly 1/10th the games, but then the games should be 10 times as important, no?”
You’re the only one talking about relative importance of games.
“NBA and NHL have 5 times the number of games as the NFL, yet they draw far less revenue than the NFL.”
Considering I asked about revenue between MLB and NFL, this isn’t relevant information.
“But fine, if you want to use a metric that isn’t tied to the number of games played,”
I personally don’t care what metrics are used. I asked if it was accurate to compare raw revenue when baseball plays almost 10x the number of regular season games. Is this somehow an offensive question? Wouldn’t a “yes” or “no”, followed by an explanation be more on point?
“In 2006, the NFL has 3.2B in merchandise sales. In 2005, MLB had 3B in merchandise sales (over half generated by the Yankees and Red Sox(!): http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html”
Any more recent data available? Has the new NFL CBA and switch to Nike led to an increase in this number? Has MLB’s increasing use of throwbacks and batting practice jerseys let to a similar spike?
LikeLike
Seems that I need to repost:
“However, this research report says that for the last 4 years up to and including 2010, MLB actually beat the NFL in merchandise sales:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37692194
“
LikeLike
Evidently, my reply was posted after you posted your cnbc link, but before I saw it.
The trend continued in 2011:
http://www.epmcom.com/public/Sports_On_The_Rebound_Retail_Sales_Of_Licensed_Merchandise_Based_On_Sports_Properties_Rises_53_in_2011.cfm
Very interesting, especially since MLB has less teams and fewer players than NFL rosters (and seemingly tries to monetize the jerseys of fewer players than NFL teams do).
LikeLike
Do you want to compare $/game, or $/year? They are two different questions. If we go $/century I think baseball wins hands down.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
“Do you want to compare $/game, or $/year? They are two different questions.”
Honestly, I never took stats and I don’t work in finance. I wouldn’t know which would yield a better figure for comparing the two.
Off the cuff, elements of total league revenue are more impacted by the number of games, such as all media/broadcast fees, concessions, and the like; whereas merchandising is impacted to a degree by the number of games, but is obviously a year round phenomena not limited only to gameday at a particular location. Same applies to the NFL.
How one would devise a formula to value the various revenue streams and account for the number of games is beyond my pay grade.
LikeLike
This is really interesting stuff, but I’d be careful to interpret the results in terms of a zero sum game. In other words, just because a fan chooses the NFL as his/her favorite choice doesn’t mean they are not also a loyal fan of the NBA or MLB.
I found it interesting that swimming jumped into the fray in 2008 probably as result of Michael Phelps.
LikeLike
Brian—I’m going to reply to your ?s about my rankings for the OSU bb players down here, as I’ve been away.I looked at national honors (AA, Players of the Year et al), all-Big 10 teams; team awards (ie..MVP), stats. including avgs and shooting %s, relative to the era; team success, personal opinion, draft pick. I looked only at college productivity, not pros. I considered both career and peak value (ie..Steve Alford v. Isiah Thomas). With respect to Havlicek, his national and BT recognition were very similiar to D. Hopson and K. Ramsey. He averaged 14.6 pts and 8.6 rebs in an era of somewhat inflated stats(J. Lucas was at 24/17, Walt Bellamy at 21/16). The #s for Hopson and Ramsay were somewhat better. In ’87, Hopson avg. 29.0/game and was co-BT Player of the Year. Ramsay was ABT 3x and avg. 17.3/4.6 assists/3.7 rebs.All 3 were top 5 NBA draft picks. Havlicek was the 2nd best player on a truly great team, but Larry Siegfried was pretty darn good also.
LikeLike
In non-sports news, Frank check this link out, I’m sure you’ve read a story here and there about his proposal. It’s possible: Pullman Neighborhood a National Park.
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7055
LikeLike
@gfunk – Yes, it’s a fairly large historic district where the buildings are all largely preserved as they were over 100 years ago, which is a rarity in a major city. I hope that it gets done both for future preservation and that it would be a great shot in the arm for the South Side of Chicago. It looks like this needs to get passed while Obama is in office, although it helps that this is a rare matter where both Illinois-based Democrats and Republicans are on the same page.
LikeLike
Anybody following what’s going on at Rutgers with the football program?
They now have 10 decommits for this year’s recruiting class, and all the fans are ticked that Coach Fllod didn’t get fired.
I know Andy’s getting his “I told you so s” ready……but this doesn’t bode well for RU or the Big 10. A year or two ago I thought they’d be able to step in and compete right away. With a horrible QB, a horrible coach (according to the fans), and a crappy recruiting class……maybe not so much. That’s very important because there aren’t many sports RU IS ready to compete in….women’s bb and soccer are a couple…..RU will almost certainly be at or near the bottom of the league in football, basketball, wrestling W. volleyball……..all of which is going to cause a lot of Big 10 fans to question Delany’s judgment….also, RU fans are going to be taking a load of internet s### from fans of other Big 10 schools…..so their may be a lot of second guessing on the Big 10’s side and bruised egos on the RU side……..Now I know this is a “75 year decision” for the smart ones on this forum, but most other fans are not going to see the big picture…..so I see it getting ugly early.
LikeLike
To go into this a little more…..I thought football would provide some “cover” for RU while it improved it’s facilities and coaching in the ‘minor’ sports…….if you look at the Director’s Cup results RU is WAY behind the other Big 10 schools…….unfortunately, it now appears football will suck as well…….this won’t be easy going forward for Delany or for RU fans of all sports.
LikeLike
Can’t say that I’m surprised. Rutgers is gonna get stomped in the B1G. Perennial doormat.
Meanwhile Mizzou might have made the Rose Bowl last year.
LikeLike
1 year ago everybody, and I mean everybody, on the MO Tiger Board wanted the coach fired.
1 year ago Rutgers appeared to be going strong.
I S*** happens. In this instance, it happened to Rutgers, not MO. I agree with the post below that, in the long run, Rutgers football will be at least as successful as Mo football. But I think the next few years will be rough for RU in all sports.
LikeLike
Actually, that was just a noisy minority. They’re quite noisy though.
Pinkel’s win totals over the last 12 years: 5, 8, 5 7, 8, 12, 10, 8, 10, 8, 5, 12. Now that’s worse than Ohio State but better than Nebraska. Plenty of Mizzou fans realized that that was plenty good enough not to fire Gary Pinkel. Especially considering the amazing number of injuries Mizzou suffered in 2012.
LikeLike
We ALL should understand that the ONLY reason “the State University of New Jersey” was admitted to the B1G is MARKET location… Any other argument has NO merit.
Rutgers has no athletics history of any relevance… Academically they would be somewhere mid-tier in the B1G. Whoopee…
Rutgers/New Jersey has absolutely nothing in common culturally with any of the FOUNDING members/states of the B1G— heck, it really has little in common with it’s closest institutional neighbor (PSU)—other than relative proximity and maybe some poor institutional decision making…
What’s done is done… just gotta move on and accept what is…
Ski-U-Mah, Go Gophers!
LikeLike
Bingo! And market is defined broadly. Market for TV, cable, students, recruits, connections to alumni.
LikeLike
Being different was part of the attraction for the COP/C. They wanted to be in 2 regions, not just the midwest. The fans don’t like it, but the presidents do.
LikeLike
Market was a major reason, but Rutgers did need to meet a baseline academically. Rutgers actually has more in common with B1G schools outside of athletics than most assume. If Rutgers had UVW’s academic profile, the B1G would have most definitely looked elsewhere for a school to pair with UMD.
LikeLike
Rutgers will now be a top 25 research school in the country after their merger with the University of Medicine and. dentistry in New Jersey. It is also one of the richest states in the US. The athletics stink but everything thing else is thru the roof.
LikeLike
Psuhockey is spot on.
Man, if Rutgers would only make a Godfather offer to Tom Jurich to rebuild the entire athletic department. He could have the school printing money within ten years. And with the corporate fundraising opportunities that are exist in NJ (and to Jersey-bred finance folks or Rutgers alumni in NYC), he could create a real juggernaut with his evident talent for building and sustaining a top-shelf athletic program.
LikeLike
Possibly. But at some schools some sports just never catch on. At Rutgers none really do. They’ve been working at football for 145 years, longer than anyone but Princeton.
Players get impacted by the campus culture and other students. That can be changed but its hard.
My high school had only been to the playoffs in football once in its 10 years or so of existence and that was at a lower level. Most athletic endeavors had about the same level of competitiveness but mediocrity (but they were good at soccer for some reason-and very good at academic things). That one year, the team had started off 4-1 and had beaten a team ranked in the top 10 in the state. They were favorites in the next game. They had two players who would become all Southwest Conference and others who got scholarships. I heard a girl make a comment like, “We’ve won enough.” Just with the atmosphere in the school, I went home and said, “They’ll lose tonight.” And they did. They didn’t win again that season, going 4-4-2. The ties were against a school that was in its first year in the top division, going 0-9-1 and against the district champ who didn’t lose a game that season until the state championship.
Even in a university with 40,000 students, you still have the same dynamics. The players aren’t insulated from the rest of the university (unless you go to North Carolina and don’t have to go to class).
LikeLike
@Bullet:
I definitely agree with you about the culture. And mediocrity/ineptitude/losing has definitely permeated the culture of Rutgers athletics, despite Schiano’s valiant efforts to the contrary. That’s why I think that it would take someone with Jurich’s track record to begin to change all that. He’d have all the resources at his disposal in order to try to do that. Its definitely hard, and it takes a while, but as schools such as Kansas State, Miami (circa Schnellenberger), and NWU have shown, it can be done with the right mix of talent, effort, and luck.
LikeLike
I’d like to see Jurich in College Park. He could do a lot with Maryland’s (non-financial) resources.
LikeLike
Eh, depends on where those decommits are going. I’m sure that PSU, OSU, and UM would love to pull the cream of the crop in NJ every year.
The B10 East will be as brutal as the SEC East (or even more so) anyway, so there isn’t much need for another strong program there. For decades, Northwestern was a doormat in all sports, yet B10 schools still wanted to visit Chicagoland.
LikeLike
re: “The B10 East will be as brutal as the SEC East (or even more so) ”
Not so sure about that.
Florida and Ohio State are in the same ballpark I suppose.
Georgia and Michigan are in the same ballpark I guess.
South Carolina and Michigan State have been similar lately.
Mizzou is better than Penn State for the foreseeable future. Long term who knows.
Tennessee is a better program than Maryland.
Vanderbilt certainly isn’t any worse than Rutgers.
Kentucky and Indiana are pretty much the same.
It’s debatable I guess but I’d give the edge to the SEC East.
LikeLike
@Andy, you have to clarify this list. Is this for 2014 only, or the next few years, or as programs?
I mean, UF and OSU are in the same class as programs, but UF 2013 was a relative dumpster fire, and Muschamp is coaching for his job with a new OC. OSU, however, has 1 loss in 2 years. 2014 is likely going to be more of the same for both schools.
On the flip side, UGA is probably going to have a better year than the Fightin’ Hoke’s, but UGA is not in Michigan’s class as a program overall.
Please clarify.
LikeLike
Wainscott, I was thinking of that in terms of, say, 2005-2025. After that who knows?
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll focus more on 2012-2025 than 2005 to 2012, namely because I’m not about to start looking up records and such, and because the future’s more fun to debate.
OSU vs. UF
OSU will have a decided advantage over UF until Muschamp is Zook’d. Depending on the new coach, UF should become a consistent top 25 program. I’m hesitant to say any higher for UF because FSU and UM are both very ascendant, and UF under Spurrier and under Meyer did not have to contend with both programs being in the top 10-15 at the same time. Does Florida have enough talent to sustain three top 15 programs? I dunno. Whereas OSU with Meyer has a name brand coach and record of dominance in a relatively weaker B1G. He can sell easier access to championships/playoffs at a major program. Advantage: OSU
UGA vs. Michigan:
Richt is the unluckiest coach I can think of who has the same job for over a decade. Winning in critical years to stave off the axe, yet an unprecedented beat down by the injury gods in what could have been a championship season. Its fair once again to ask if he can get the team over the hump and keep recruiting strong with UM, FSU, Ala, Aub, Clem, USC all regular top 25 programs, with Tenn rapidly ascending to its former level, and UF still a force to be reckoned with on the trail, even with a hot seat coach. Michigan is probably a year away from another new coach, and will open the wallet to get the best name they can. But if that new coach has a different philosophy as Hoke, it could be another few years before UM is a Rose Bowl-er again. Then again, its Michigan, the winningest program in CFB, known to every recruit. The right coach, they are back in the top 10–and have an easier path than UGA. Advantage: EVEN.
USC vs MSU:
Spurrier is the first USC coach to do anything good on a consistent level. If Dantonio stays, he can win a national title. Will USC break through to win one before the Ol’ Ball Coach hawks Cialis during the Nightly News? Doubtful. Is USC a prime enough destination to attract a top level coach for Steve? Will Clemson’s continued success take some luster off of this job? I say yes. Advantage: MSU.
Mizzou vs. PSU:
Mizzou by default for the next few years. Post sanctions, we have a top-shelf program who had top 25 recruiting classes at friggin’ VANDERBILT who is now recruiting for a program with 100000+ fans on game day. Pinkel is good, but Mizzou simply does not have PSU’s resources. Ask the question this way: Would Pinkel have jumped to PSU if offered the job? I say yes. Short term Advantage: Mizzou. Long term Advantage: PSU.
Tennessee vs. UMD.
LOL. Huge Advantage: Tennessee
Vanderbilt vs. Rutgers:
Why compare these two? Vanderbilt venerates Jay Cutler solely by his initials based on a 7 win season. Rutgers once beat Louisville on Thursday night and had the Empire State Building. Advantage: Sellers of Fire-proof Dumpsters.
KY vs. IU.
Nobody cares about either in football. Advantage: Basketball fans.
By my math, I have OSU & MSU balancing out Tennessee, with UGA/UM and Mizzou/PSU cancelling each other out. Unnamed schools are without relevance here. Tennessee’s huge gap over UMD doesn’t equal it out in the end, because UMD can be a consistent 7-8 win school, and Tennessee’s still gotta fulfill its potential. Narrow Advantage: B!G East.
LikeLike
UF has been stronger than OSU over the past decade or so, but they do seem to be on a downward trajectory with Muschamp as their coach. A lot will depend on who replaces him after next year. Could really go either way.
As a UMich alum I’d like to say UMich is the stronger program compared to UGA, and historically that’s true, but UGA seems like they’re in better shape over the medium term.
USC I really don’t know what to think. They were a mediocre to poor program until very recently. Spurrier really has them winning, but is it sustainable? That’s an open question. Michigan State has a long history as a B to B+ type program. They’re surging lately. Again, is that sustainable? I really see these two programs as fairly similar.
Penn State is a king long term. But they’re going to be a prince for a while. They’ve just got a lot to overcome. Franklin’s a good coach but he’s not a miracle worker. As for Missouri, I’ve certainly said plenty about them. I’ll just sum it up as this: from 1890 to 1983 and from 2003-2013 Missouri has been a B+ level program. From 1984-2002 only two BCS programs won fewer games than Missouri: Duke and Vanderbilt. This was largely because of administrative/budgetary decisions that were since reversed. So Missouri is consistently underestimated by those who mistakenly think that the 1984-2002 period for Missouri is indicative of the “norm” for Missouri rather than a rather long and unfortunate anomoly. That said, a B+ program is not as good as an A- program. And Penn State is historically an A- program and I expect they’ll eventually get back there. I just think it’ll take close to 10 years to do it.
Tennessee is another A- program but they’ve had about a decade of B- results. Maryland is a B- program with occasional B+ results. Tennessee should be stronger, but I don’t know if they’d beat Maryland on the field next year.
You’re right, the rest don’t matter.
LikeLike
“Penn State is a king long term. But they’re going to be a prince for a while. ”
I think Franklin will have PSU back as a king before the decade is out assuming no more problems (like Franklin leaving or getting taken down by the Vandy rape affair). By 2020, there will be no effects from the sanctions with 4 full recruiting classes already. Heck, Orgeron had USC winning despite having no depth. Saban had ‘Bama in the top 10 (to stay) 3-4 years after scholarship reductions. Kings with coaches who can recruit just don’t stay down for long.
LikeLike
Could be, who knows? I’m still under the assumption that the Sandusky scandal was a major hit that will take 10 years to repair. But it’s only a guess.
LikeLike
“I’m hesitant to say any higher for UF because FSU and UM are both very ascendant, and UF under Spurrier and under Meyer did not have to contend with both programs being in the top 10-15 at the same time”
Erm, wut? In 2000, both Miami and FSU finished in the top 5 (Gators were 10th). In 1990, 1991, and 1992, Miami and FSU finished in the top 4 _each_year_. In 1994, they both finished in the top 6. BTW, Spurrier finished in the top 10 3 of those 4 years (13th in the other).
LikeLike
Andy:
I really can’t think of any episode of sanctions that brought a king-level football program down for a decade.
LikeLike
“I’m hesitant to say any higher for UF because FSU and UM are both very ascendant, and UF under Spurrier and under Meyer did not have to contend with both programs being in the top 10-15 at the same time”
Erm, wut? In 2000, both Miami and FSU finished in the top 5 (Gators were 10th). In 1990, 1991, and 1992, Miami and FSU finished in the top 4 _each_year_. In 1994, they both finished in the top 6. BTW, Spurrier finished in the top 10 3 of those 4 years (13th in the other).”
I enjoy when you copy things without regard to context. You see, in the next sentence, I wrote “Does Florida have enough talent to sustain three top 15 programs? I dunno.”
Now, you talk about 1990-1992 UF. On the surface a fair point. But those UF teams won more on Spurrier’s scheme (the then-novel Fun n Gun”) than with talent on par of either FSU or UM. This was the same scheme Spurrier used to turn Dave Brown into a winning QB at Duke. Dave Brown. UM & FSU were getting the elite recruits back then.
1994 and 2000 is the lone exceptions. But over the longer haul, history shows that what I wrote is largely correct. And, if I may elaborate further, its even more difficult now, with fewer scholarships per school per year, more Division 1 schools in Florida, and numerous other schools with regular recruiting pipelines in Florida competing for players. I do not think Florida’s big 3 schools can all sustain success for an extended period of time.
LikeLike
Richard, could be but Penn State isn’t the strongest of kings to begin with, and this is maybe the biggest scandal of all time.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
More schools have pipelines to FL than before, but FL also has grown and has more talent now than 20 years ago.
Also, I don’t think UF is afraid of ever losing a recruiting battle with UCF or USF.
LikeLike
Andy,
Please explain your comment that PSU is not the strongest of kings? Without the vacated wins, they are one of the top 10 teams in college football history by wins.
LikeLike
Also, Andy, please explain why sanctioned ravaged Penn State mired in barely a .500 season in a bad conference had more nationally broadcast games on television either thru ABC and ESPN/ESPN2 than Missouri did during one of their best seasons ever in the top conference in college football.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
LikeLike
psuhockey, I’d say the strongest of kings are Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and formerly Nebraska although I’d say they’ve been demoted. Penn State does not make that list. They’re one of the lesser kings alongside Miami, Florida State, Georgia, Auburn, etc.
Why was PSU on TV more? Two reasons: 1) Mizzou had a 5-7 season in 2012 so they were off the radar and the networks were slow to catch on to Mizzou’s successful 12-2 season. Penn State has tons of fans and gets good ratings so they’re on tv even when they suck.
LikeLike
So first you say PSU is a lesser king, then you say they have tons of fans. So what are you using a metric to say they are a lesser king? Certainly not fan support. Certainly not money. Certainly not wins (as PSUhockey pointed out). In terms of recruiting, they’re no worse off than Michgan, ND, or OU (or Tennessee). So what other criteria is there?
LikeLike
Lesser king is still a king. Who, of the kings I mentioned, do you think Penn State deserves to be ranked ahead of?
LikeLike
Not ahead of, but I would put them on the same tier as ND, Michigan, and OU.
LikeLike
Michigan is the winningest program of all time. Notre Dame is the second winningest program of all time. Penn State isn’t even top 5.
LikeLike
“Not even top 5”.
Neither are Florida, USC, or ‘Bama by either measure (wins or winning percentage), which you list as equal to ND and UM.
LikeLike
USC and Bama have had a lot more high level success than Penn State.
Florida is debatably on par with Penn State but certainly in the modern era they’ve been quite a bit stronger.
LikeLike
Long-term:
UF=OSU
UGa=UM (UGa may have it a little better due to recruiting grounds)
Tenn=PSU (at the very least; I think Franklin will have PSU at it’s natural level soon)
USC=MSU
You won’t like this, but long-term, I expect RU to be at least equal to Mizzou.
UMD, IU, Vandy, and UK are all about the same.
LikeLike
Richard, that’s pure speculation on your part and I have to say I don’t see much merit in it.
LikeLike
Nope, not pure speculation. I believe that sustained success (that is not due to merely a superb coach) is built on 3 legs: Money, brand, and fertile local recruiting grounds.
UF, UGa, OSU, UM, PSU, and Tenn have Mizzou beat on all 3 (TN doesn’t have much talent, but, unlike Mizzou, the Vols are situated close to several talent-rich states).
USC and MSU have Mizzou beat on money (and are a little better off when it comes to local talent as well). RU (and, for that matter, UMD & Vandy) are closer to talent-rich areas as well.
LikeLike
On sustained success Missouri’s numbers are skewed by the reign of one Babs Wilcock, former Chancellor of the University of Missouri. She made the choice to defund the football program. A program that had B+ level success from 1890 to 1983 then suddenly fell into an absolute morasse of futility. From 1984-2002 only two BCS schools won fewer games than Missouri: Duke and Vanderbilt. Mizzou’s leadership started to refund the football program in the late 90s and they finally became competitive in the early 2000s. They’re now back to their pre-1984 winning levels, with 4 of the last 7 seasons resulting in double digit wins and division crowns. Gary Pinkel is an excellent coach, but Missouri has had several, including Don Faurot, Frank Broyles, Dan Devine, and Al Onofrio. They can hire more.
As far as money, Missouri’s ranking in money dropped a good 15 spots this year because the Big 12 witheld around $14M in TV money. That’s an anomoly. In previous years Missouri typically ranked in the mid-to-low 30s. That’s not great but with the addition of SEC money and SEC Network money soon to come, Missouri should see its revenue ranking rise into the mid to low 20s, and that’s taking in to consideration the increased revenue that SEC and B1G schools should also soon be seeing. But Missouri’s jump will be relatively larger compared to their previous revenue stream. Ranking in the mid-to-low 20s should be sufficient to be competitive at a high level in football, considering Missouri has already been plenty competitive while ranked in the mid-to-low 30s.
Recruiting, as I said, according to the recruiting rankings Mizzou just does an awful job at recruiting. They should have finished 4-8 each of the last dozen years or so. But obviously they’ve done quite a bit better than that so I’ve learned not to put too much stock in recruiting rankings.
LikeLike
So in terms of football revenue, Mizzou, even with your optimistic projections, would trail MSU (18th) and SCarolina (20th) as well as OSU, UM, PSU, UF, UGa, and Tennessee.
All those schools also are closer to slightly better to much better recruiting grounds.
Finally, as for tradition, even if you exclude the recent past before Pinkel, while Don Faurot and Dan Devine were winning Big 8 titles every so often, Biggie Munn and Duffy Daugherty were winning national titles. Needless to say, all 6 kings have also won national titles.
LikeLike
I never said Mizzou was any more than a B+ program. That is to say they’ll likely win around 9 games per year. Which is what they’ve averaged over the last decade. And if you go back to the old days, they were averaging around 7 or 8 wins per year, but they played fewer games per season back then.
LikeLike
I really, really doubt that MO will be better than PSU in the “forseeable future”. Have you seen their recruiting class lately?
Now, if you want to limit that assertion to next year, I’ll go along.
LikeLike
Mizzou’s recruiting classes haven’t ever been very good. The 10 year average is somewhere close to 40th in the country. And yet they’ve won division titles 4 times in the last 7 seasons.
LikeLike
So you’re saying Pinkel is a miracle-worker. However, he’s getting up there in age and guys like him (and Bill Snyder, who’s a better example of someone who can take meh recruiting classes and win with them) are rare.
LikeLike
No, not really. I was saying that the recruiting rankings tend to do a pretty poor job of evaluating Mizzou’s talent.
Mizzou has ranks tied for third alongside LSU for most players drafted in the 1st round of the NFL draft over the last 4 years among all programs nationally.
I’d say they’ve recruited pretty well.
LikeLike
Coaches who can coach up recruits or identify diamonds in the rough can do that, but there’s nothing intrinsic about Mizzou that has them consistently uncovering diamonds in the rough. That’s the coaching staff, and Pinkel isn’t a spring buck.
LikeLike
Maybe his replacement will be better at signing four and five star players instead of coaching up 2 and 3 stars.
LikeLike
“Maybe his replacement will be better at signing four and five star players instead of coaching up 2 and 3 stars.”
However, every program that signs a ton of 4 and 5 star players is either in a very fertile recruiting area or close to them and usually a king. Mizzou is none of those, so if the next coach manages to sign a bunch of 4 and 5 stars given those disadvantages, he’d be doing something that’s hasn’t been done since recruiting services started ranking players (other than Nebraska for a year blip or so, but they’re a king).
LikeLike
Missouri’s recruiting grounds aren’t any worse than Tennessee’s or Nebraska’s. Granted, both of those programs are struggling right now, but both have had their share of success as well. And it’s not as though the Missouri region is devoid of talent.
LikeLike
Not worse than Nebraska’s, but it’s not as if the Huskers have been pulling in boatloads of 4 and 5 stars lately.
Definitely worse than Tennessee, who don’t have a bunch of talent in-state but are surrounded by states in that VA-NC-GA-AL-MS loop that in aggregate add up to more talent that any one of TX, FL, or CA. In that respect, the Vols are in a similar situation to OU, who don’t have a lot of talent in-state, but sit right next to a goldmine of talent in TX.
LikeLike
Missouri borders Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, and Missouri itself has over 6M people. Between itself and border states, Missouri has 34M people to draw from. That’s plenty. Plus they regularly play teams in Florida, Georgia, and Texas so they can recruit those states too.
LikeLike
The talent in all those states that border MO still doesn’t compare to the talent in states that border TN and OK.
LikeLike
You only need 25 signees per year.
LikeLike
Also of note: Alabama is split among Alabama, Auburn, UAB, and South Alabama. Mississippi is split among Ole Miss, MSU, and Southern Miss. Louisiana is split among LSU, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Lousiana Lafayette, and Louisiana Monroe. Kentucky has Kentucky, Louisville, and Western Kentucky. Tennessee has Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Memphis, and Middle Tennessee State. Arkansas has Arkansas and Arkansas State. Texas has Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, North Texas, Rice, Houston, SMU, UTEP, UTSA, and probably more I’m forgetting. Oklahoma has Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Tulsa. Kansas has Kansas and Kansas State. Iowa has Iowa and Iowa State. Illinois has Illinois, Northwestern, and Northern Illinois. Michigan has Michigan, Michigan State, Eastern Michigan, Western Michigan, and Central Michigan. Ohio has Ohio State, Cincinatti, Toledo, Kent State, Bowling Green, Ohio, Miami OH, and Akron. Etc etc.
The state of Missouri has one and only one division one team: Mizzou.
So yes, Missouri doesn’t have quite as many recruits as some of the other states I listed, but they have more recruits per division one school, certainly.
LikeLike
Your point is still true to some degree, but EMU, CMU and WMU are totally irrelevant to Michigan and Michigan St. as far as recruiting. They might as well be Division III. Same for a lot of the schools you mentioned-USA, Troy and UAB are irrelevant to Auburn and Alabama. Missouri does have only one P5 school. I would say the 65 P5 schools + BYU would be the relevant population, with maybe a handful of exceptions where another school would be relevant (East Carolina is probably relevant to Wake and Duke for instance).
Now if you were talking about a MAC school, then the whole group would be relevant.
LikeLike
“You only need 25 signees per year.”
Yep, and you can get 25 recruits anywhere.
Elite recruits, as in 4/5-star recruits, is a different issue. You can’t get 10 or more of those anywhere; or rather, it’s much harder to do so if you’re located in some states than in others.
LikeLike
You don’t really need more than 10 high level recruits per year anyway.
LikeLike
I’ll take my shot at a Big 10 East SEC East Comparison. I’d say it comes out pretty even.
OSU > UF Ohio State has no real in state competition for recruits and Florida does
UGA = PSU Both have little real competition in high talent producing states
Tennessee = Michigan I see both as programs that can make a run at a national title once a decade or so but neither really have the recruiting base to be an annual contender
USC = MSU Both can win big with the right coach, but they have to have the right coach
Mizzou = Maryland Same as above
Rutgers = Vandy Both have strengths and weaknesses
Kentucky > Indiana If Louisville can have a top 10 team every once in awhile, I would think Kentucky is capable.
LikeLike
B10E is stronger at the top and weaker at the bottom as programs (not so the last 3 years when its been weaker at top and bottom).
OSU >= Florida for the same reason as Jeffrey-also longer history of success
PSU>= UGA UGA hasn’t had the same heights as PSU, but has been stronger recently. PSU will recover.
Michigan > Tennessee Michigan has more talent close by and greater consistency than TN
MSU=USC for same reason as Jeffrey
Mizzou>=Maryland Maryland has just been bad for quite a while since their Orange Bowl year and not really consistently strong in decades. Mizzou has had a good run under Pinkel after a good bit of mediocrity.
Kentucky>=Indiana UK actually won a couple of SEC titles in a row in the 70s and got into the top 10 briefly in 2007. IU hasn’t won since 67. UK also has vastly better fan support.
Vamdy >= Rutgers Vandy at least had some success about 100 years ago. Rutgers never has. Rutgers has more potential, but has always had potential.
LikeLike
Saying Maryland = Missouri is a joke. Missouri has 85 wins over the last 10 seasons. Maryland has 57.
LikeLike
Maryland has a better history than Missouri and has an MNC, so I wouldn’t say it is a joke. But of course, Minnesota has a better history than Missouri as well. Maryland’s good years are well back, so I don’t think they are as strong a program now.
LikeLike
Mizzou has an unclaimed national title in 1960. They didn’t win the AP or UPI but won one of the others. Alabama and Auburn claim those kinds of titles, as do some other schools.
To say that Maryland has a stronger history than Mizzou in football is false.
Taking away all of the minor bowls and including only the big 6 bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Peach, and Fiesta:
Maryland
Orange 3
Peach 2
Sugar 1
Coton 1
Total 7
Missouri
Orange 4
Cotton 3
Sugar 2
Fiesta 1
Total 10
Total bowls: Missouri 30, Maryland 25
Then there’s conference titles. Missouri has 15, Maryland 11
Division titles: Missouri has 4, Maryland 0
Consensus All-Americans: Missouri has 12, Maryland 11
I’m not even really sure how you could possibly justify the claim that Maryland has a stronger history than Missouri. But then you frequently make anti-Missouri claims that you can’t possibly justify.
LikeLike
I think they replaced both coordinators, so that probably cost them several recruits. Some of the new coaching hires probably took a few more.
LikeLike
I was hoping that our future brethren in the B1G weren’t paying attention to what’s been going on out east the past few months. Previously, my realistic opinion was that Rutgers would be a middle of the road Big Ten team that could make a surprise run once in a while. If you go back to October 10th, Rutgers was 4-2 with an overtime loss to an undefeated, ranked Fresno State team in overtime on the road, and a loss to a top-ten (at the time) Louisville team on the road. The recruiting class had a number of four-star commits, and was considered to be the third-best recruiting class behind Michigan and Ohio. (I’m also a UM alum)
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/10/rutgers_recruiting_frequently_asked_questions_where_does_rutgers_2014_recruiting_class_rank_among_bi.html
Since then, they have gone 2-5 and lost all of their four-star commits, and have had eleven decommits overall. I think that they fired the DC fifty days ago! They had the special teams coach as interim DC for the bowl game, but there has been no explanation as to why it takes two months to find a defensive coordinator. Then, the OC left to go to the Lions when they hired their new coach. That hasn’t been as long, but we are going on weeks now with no OC as well. There is also a third coaching vacancy that needs to be filled b/c the QB coach was fired as well. The last four-star just flipped to PSU yesterday and his coach mentioned in an interview that he thought not knowing who the OC was going to be was an issue.
On top of all of this there was the starting CB (our thinnest position) that quit the team in the middle of the season only to decide at the end of the semester that he wanted to rejoin the team again.
I have no explanation as to why the situation has come to this. I get that being demolished by Houston at home and losing to UConn hurt big time, and if the team can win on the field next year, things will improve recruiting-wise. However, eleven decommits and the length of time that the DC position has been open is alarming to me and suggests that there is something going on behind the scenes. I welcome any suggestions on a rational explanation that will put me at ease.
LikeLike
Quag–I understand Fllod was a staff guy when he was hired….did you have a good feeling about that hire when it happened?
One thing you didn’t mention is that RU’s new female AD “plays on the other team”, so to speak. Doesn’t RU’s president as well? Wjhen you start hiring the AD based on that criteria you’ve got issues.
LikeLike
After I wrote that I remembered that it’s an AD- Associate AD situation. The AD hired the AAD from UofL, and thje AAD now works directly underneath the AD…………
LikeLike
NBC is considered to be the favorite for the NFL TNF Package:
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/insiders-say-nbc-has-best-chance-getting-nfl-s-thursday-night-package-155206
And bonus info regarding the NFLN’s carriage fees. (Also: https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/27/Media/NFL-Network.aspx)
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwestern-wildcats-football-players-trying-join-labor-union
“Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association, filed a petition in Chicago on behalf of football players at Northwestern University, submitting the form at the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board.”
I didn’t see this coming.
LikeLike
Very interesting. Paging labor lawyers. Labor lawyers, please pick up the purple courtesy phone.
Also, did not know this history:
“Athletes playing for university-based teams are not currently considered employees by any legal body. They haven’t been since 1953, when the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a determination by the state Industrial Commission that a football player at the University of Denver was an “employee” within the context of the Colorado workers’ compensation statute.
As a result, the university was responsible to provide workers’ comp for his football injuries. The NCAA responded by coining the term “student-athlete” and mandating its use by universities. Use of that term, and other efforts to draw a enforce the idea that athletes cannot also be employees, ramped up as the NCAA a few years later introduced athletic scholarships, a form of compensation for services provided.
The distinction has held, though since then the courts have come to recognize other students who provide services to universities as employees. Graduate students who teach, for instance, are recognized as employees of universities under laws in many states. Academics such as Richard and Amy McCormick of Michigan State have argued that athletes are employees under the common law definition of the National Labor Relations Act.
The NLRA governs only private enterprises and does apply to public universities. As a private university, Northwestern University falls under its jurisdiction. Gerard said that based on labor law, any decision in favor of the players against Northwestern would apply to all private universities across the country in the FBS division. It would not apply to public universities, which are governed by state laws.”
LikeLike
The O’Bannon attorneys were trying to get collective bargaining rights.
The private university issue could really drive realignment. Would those schools really want to deal with that?
LikeLike
It would put the NCAA in a tough spot. If ND decides to pay its players a salary to comply with a union, that’s a huge recruiting edge. Would the NCAA let them compete with everyone else? On the other hand, the privates could easily have to pay a lot more than the publics in terms of expenses and that may eat up all of their budget. If ND couldn’t play football in I-A anymore, would the ACC drop them? What happens when this decision causes as school to clash with Title IX?
LikeLike
They are talking football and basketball only. That’s a Title IX issue.
LikeLike
Precisely. If they pay anyone, they have to pay everyone, and pay them the same amount. This will lead to the further elimination of yet more sports.
LikeLike
“Precisely. If they pay anyone, they have to pay everyone, and pay them the same amount. This will lead to the further elimination of yet more sports.”
OK, lawyer time: Do they have to pay the same amounts? Title IX only says that both genders need to have the same athletic opportunities.
LikeLike
Richard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_ix
With respect to athletic programs, the Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:[21]
1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
4. Travel and per diem allowance;
5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
10. Publicity.
Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
Three-part test
HEW’s 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the “three-part test” for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[23]
* “All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution’s athletic program.”
* “Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities” regarding facilities.
* “The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.”[11][24]
* “Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities.” Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[23]
1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are “substantially proportionate” to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.
If they look at things like per diem, then yes I think they would look at paying athletes. I read another article that agreed that Title IX would be an issue.
LikeLike
Between anti-discrimination and equal pay laws, I’d have to say yes.
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/01/28/northwestern-football-kain-colter-labor-union/
SI: One issue that always comes up in these situations is the effect of Title IX. How might Title IX impact a player’s efforts to unionize?
MM: Let’s say football players and men’s basketball players unionize, and they seek compensation for their labor. Title IX, as we know, demands gender equity in college sports. We could see Title IX lawsuits brought against unionization because of the impact it would have on women’s sports. The counterargument is that women’s athletes could unionize, as well, and that’s true. But the reality is male athletes would likely command a lot more money as a union than female athletes would. I think Title IX is a potential issue because the unionized male athletes are going to command money that would seem to tip the balance of gender equity in favor of men.
LikeLike
It also says there are three ways to be in compliance, but proportionality in expenditure, opportunity, etc has become the sole measure. And money is how its judged. There is even discouragement from cutting sports rather than adding to achieve the goal. But balancing the dollars has won that fight too, more important to be proportional now than to grow to proportionality.
LikeLike
Correct.
Prong 2 (making progress) can only be used temporarily, and lately prong 3 (meeting the interest level) has been given serious consideration in comparison to prong 1 (proportionality).
LikeLike
… has not been given …
LikeLike
The problem is prong 3 is very difficult to prove. The colleges want something they know they can safely avoid losing a lawsuit on.
You can only do prong 2 for so long.
Prong 1 is difficult with increasing women’s enrollment and football with its 85 scholarships.
Texas lost on Title IX in the 90s and had probably the best women’s program in the country. Noone wants to lose and be forced into doing things.
This is also why I don’t see any possibility that they expand the number of football scholarships.
LikeLike
“Prong 2 (making progress) can only be used temporarily, ”
Not if you actually are making progress. You’ll eventually reach proportionality. And isn’t that what was intended? Creating opportunity for the under represented? Not taking from others and saying “get off our back, you’re even now.”
LikeLike
Yes, you back up my point. #2 can only be used temporarily because you either switch to #1 or #2 stops being plausible.
LikeLike
Ok, I guess. The use of “only” I took to mean would only work for a time to avoid out of compliance issues, that another method is needed once it ends, not that it ends because it is no longer needed, it has achieved the goal. You see my confusion?
LikeLike
Actually, reading about this more, a unionization drive could affect some public schools more, as several states are more friendly to unionization than the NLRB.
LikeLike
I hope the schools and the NCAA crush this like a bug and cut any player who tries to unionize from the team. If they feel they are employees, then surely they shouldn’t be on a team that the school and the other players believe isn’t made up of employees.
LikeLike
At NU, almost every football player signed the union card.
LikeLike
So cut them all. I’m sure NW can find 85 other players that would like to be there.
LikeLike
Drastic, but I agree. If I want pro football I won’t be hanging around a college.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I understand the argument that a scholarship may arguably enough “compensation” to a student-athlete – I don’t really agree with that position considering how much college sports revenues have changed in the past couple of decades, but it’s at least a colorable argument. What’s tougher to wrap my head around, though, is the notion that people would instantly be turned off if college players were no longer characterized as amateurs or could be considered to be semi-pro or pro athletes. Maybe it’s because I’m as big of an NFL and NBA fan as a college sports fan or I’ve grown up in an age where it’s been pretty explicit that virtually everyone that is playing for a power conference school is aiming for the NFL/NBA (even if very few of them actually get there), but whether college athletes could be characterized as semi-pro or even full-on professionals is irrelevant to whether I want to watch Illinois or college sports in general. The fact that an Illinois player gets paid for football or basketball wouldn’t change the way I look at the school’s sports teams any more than the fact that other Illinois students are in work-study programs or that graduate students that have to teach classes receive payments beyond their scholarships. Plus, even if we want to continue to have these strict rules in place to not pay athletes, I hope that we aren’t naive enough that we don’t know that it’s virtually guaranteed that there are athletes at all of our favorite schools that are receiving compensation under-the-table in some form or fashion. These athletes are semi-professionals NOW and, in the case of college football, they’re playing games that have higher TV viewership numbers than any sport other than the NFL. There isn’t a magical sea change with how we would watch Ohio State vs. Michigan going forward in that regard if these players start getting a salary on top of their scholarships every season.
LikeLike
I know you like to live out your tinpot dictatorship fantasies, Brian, but you don’t run Northwestern.
Sorry.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I understand the argument that a scholarship may arguably enough “compensation” to a student-athlete – I don’t really agree with that position considering how much college sports revenues have changed in the past couple of decades, but it’s at least a colorable argument.”
Do the math on the actual full value of what they’re getting. They don’t get just a scholarship. What’s 20 hours a week of professional training from elite teachers (CFB coaches) worth? How about all that personal physical training from elite trainers? Free gym membership to a place with that level of equipment? Free tutoring? Free food, room and board? Apparel and merchandise? Swag? The value of a college degree ($1M over a lifetime)? Fame with a large group of potential future employers and customers? Now add in up to 6 years of college tuition ($50k per year some places).
In addition, how much of the revenue is due to them versus the brands they play for? What about comparing the value they earn versus what other teams in their conference earn? What expenses do you allow for the cost of making football games happen? In other words, how much actual profit is there to share? Do they only get paid if their school makes a profit on FB? Can they be fired if the school loses money, or do they just get the upside?
“What’s tougher to wrap my head around, though, is the notion that people would instantly be turned off if college players were no longer characterized as amateurs or could be considered to be semi-pro or pro athletes.”
I wouldn’t even consider watching a CFB game again if the players get paid. I don’t care if OSU is playing for a national title, that team would be dead to me the minute they took a penny.
“Maybe it’s because I’m as big of an NFL and NBA fan as a college sports fan”
That’s probably a large factor. The only pro sport I ever watch is the Stanley Cup playoffs and some auto racing, and that’s mostly because college hockey was never big and I like the technology in F1.
“Plus, even if we want to continue to have these strict rules in place to not pay athletes, I hope that we aren’t naive enough that we don’t know that it’s virtually guaranteed that there are athletes at all of our favorite schools that are receiving compensation under-the-table in some form or fashion.”
I accept that there are criminals in any group, but I would never knowingly root for a group made entirely of criminals.
“There isn’t a magical sea change with how we would watch Ohio State vs. Michigan going forward in that regard if these players start getting a salary on top of their scholarships every season.”
There is for me.
LikeLike
“I wouldn’t even consider watching a CFB game again if the players get paid. I don’t care if OSU is playing for a national title, that team would be dead to me the minute they took a penny.”
Yes, but I think it’s fairly well established that you’re . . . . different . . . . from other people, Brian.
Also, OSU players did take tattoos, money and stuff from people, remember?
BTW, isn’t OSU or the B10 already dead to you for some reason or another? I forget.
LikeLike
1. I made no claims of how anyone else would react.
2. A few players accepting gifts from fans isn’t everyone getting paid by the school. Even you ought to be able to see the difference.
3. No. Your lack of memory isn’t my problem.
LikeLike
Call me naive or what have you but I wish they never “went there.” I know I’m whistling in the dark when I say this but we’re no longer the society that was when college football was being developed. It’s not nice being that I love the pageantry involved with CFB but maybe it’s close to time the universities decide that the NFL should be in charge of player development and just offer D-III-level programs across to those who still desire the college experience.
LikeLike
Northwestern will fight this all the way. The NCAA may be more of a problem than Title IX. I do not see the NCAA membership allowing a pro Notre Dame (or any other) team to play against state schools that will not be unionized. I am sure somewhere in the B1G bylaws schools commit themselves to remain in good standing to compete. Therefore, the net effect of player’s unionizing will be to get the schools they play for expelled from their conferences. However, getting that far is a long shot. There are a lot of judges on federal benches that are more inclined to restrict the scope of labor laws versus expanding it.
The biggest winners if unions are allowed by the NCAA and IX will be Notre Dame, USC, and their players. Like the Yankees in baseball, these schools could buy a lot of the titles by fielding semi-pro teams.
LikeLike
Some interesting ACC news, via Georgia Tech:
http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/01/28/acc-and-espn-could-be-headed-for-nine-game-schedule/
“The GTAA projects it will receive $22.2 million from the ACC in the 2015 fiscal year. (That’s $5.5 million more than was previously projected. The increase is due in part to the league signing its grant of rights, which was worth about $1.1 million per school from ESPN.) That is largely ESPN cash. That number would increase if plans for an ACC network are realized.”
LikeLike
Makes sense that ESPN needs more content (a 9nth conference game) in order to proceed with an ACC Network.
This year FSU plays out-of-conference games against Oklahoma State, Notre Dame and Florida…while still having 7 home games. It’ll be really difficult to consistently match this year’s schedule for FSU fans with 9 conference games.
LikeLike
Speaking of players wanting to unionize:
http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2014/1/27/5349996/2014-roster-lookahead-the-number-crunch
A look at oversigning from an AL point of view.
How do our roster numbers look given the size of this class?
The short answer here? Not great. NCAA bylaw 15.5.6.1 sets the scholarship limit at 85. There is a small work-around here with walk on athletes, but at present, there’s really only one player that we know of that this applies to (Jai Miller). Let’s establish our baseline by noting that last March we showed that Bama was almost certainly using every available slot in the 85-man roster. So with 85 as our baseline, here are the numbers of players we lost since the season ended:
– 7 fifth year seniors
– 4 fourth year seniors with exhausted eligibility
– 5 guys that declared early for the draft
– 2 scholarship transfers (LaMichael Fanning and Alvin Kamara) (Luke Del Rio doesn’t count in this discussion, as he was a walk on)
That totals up to a total loss of 18 guys. We already have 24 commitments, and for the sake of this analysis, we’ll assume that Bama will end up signing the “full” class of 27 possible. That means if we signed all 27 today, the roster would be nine guys too big. Factor in Coker coming in in the fall, and that number jumps to ten too big. So where will those open slots come from?
Bama has two guys on roster that are not starters but have degrees in hand – Anthony Orr and Wilson Love. Given they have their degrees, I would expect their careers may be over. That leaves eight more slots, and this is where things get tough. We do have a glut at running back and quarterback, so I could see us losing one more at each spot possibly. Alec Morris at QB is probably the most likely of anyone on the roster to transfer at this point, I would think, and while I would guess Tyren Jones would be the most likely running back to transfer, it would surprise me for him to make that move.
So here’s the final tally – if we sign 27 (and they all qualify academically), Bama will basically have to cut eight guys that don’t have their degrees yet. I want to emphasize that there really isn’t any wiggle room here. No amount of backcounting/sleight of hand helps with these final numbers. Unless some of the 16 unenrolled current commits are going to take a greyshirt (and not sign on national signing day), those slots will have to come from the current roster.
I’m not really going to speculate further on who those eight players might be, as that doesn’t really seem fair to them, but I will pose the question to you all – what do you think about this? How does this sit with you all? I’ve been a vocal opponent of the oversigning.com crowd for a while, but to be honest, when the numbers start to get this loose, our position starts to creep towards being untenable.
Even some AL fans are struggling to justify what Saban does.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2014/01/32791/career-ending-injuries
To make it better, the writer made some math errors. He tweeted this later:
Josh Howard @SliceRBR
Slight update due to accidental double counting. Signing 27 would mean 11 spots would be needed.
LikeLike
Like the hand-wringing matters.
There’s really no good way to deal with this, except if . . .
1. After the Pac takes Texas, TTech, OU, OKSt. & Houston and the B10 & SEC divide UVa, VTech, UNC, NCSU, Duke, and GTech between them, a 4-team playoff structure is put in place where the B10 and Pac champs play in the Rose & the SEC faces the best-of-the-rest in the Sugar with the winner of those bowls meeting in the title game.
2. The B10 and Pac both agree to 4–year schollies for all players and adopt the B10’s strict oversigning rules.
Then there won’t be a competitive disadvantage, at least, until the title game for the B10 and Pac schools (including kings that never oversign anyway, like Texas and USC).
LikeLike
No way FSU is left twisting in the wind.
LikeLike
True, the B10 could possibly take FSU and Miami if their academics improve enough close to 10 years down the road.
The SEC might play defense and take FSU as well (though that just doesn’t seem that likely).
However, if FSU is left out in the cold, it’s FSU, ND, Clemson, and a bunch of peons battling for the right to face the SEC in the Sugar Bowl, so it would likely mean an easier path for FSU to the playoffs than if they joined either the SEC or B10.
LikeLike
There is a simple way to deal with this: 4 year scholarships. If the BIG, ACC, and PAC all offer 4 year scholarships, it will force the Big 12 and SEC to follow because that is a huge advantage in recruiting. The question is will those schools willfully do it.
LikeLike
PSUhockey:
Actually, that already happens. All B10 schools already offer 4-year scholarships while Saban only offers a 1-year one but Saban still pulls in a better recruiting class than any B10 school.
The sad fact is that many 18 year-olds as well as many of their parents don’t recognize the value of a 4-year scholarship.
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/We-take-an-early-look-at-the-2014-Big-Ten-Easten-Division-race-173944
Here’s a breakdown of the B10 East for 2014.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2014/01/32755/b1g-football-recruiting-rankings-126#more
Since we’re a week from NSD, here’s a look at B10 recruiting as of now.
The table at the bottom has all the good info, including ranking by average stars per recruit from all the major services. I’ll paste it below, but it’ll be much easier to read in the article.
No. School Commits Scout ★ AVG Rivals ★ AVG 247 ★ AVG ESPN ★ AVG Overall ★ Avg
1 Ohio State 22 3.82 (3) 3.77 (2) 3.77 (2) 3.77 (6) 3.78
2 Michigan 16 3.56 (23) 3.44 (27) 3.56 (15) 3.75 (12) 3.58
3 Penn State 23 3.09 (22) 3.18 (21) 3.18 (20) 3.27 (25) 3.18
4 Wisconsin 26 3.15 (18) 2.92 (28) 3.04 (30) 3.12 (31) 3.06
5 Mich. State 20 3.15 (30) 3.10 (29) 3.05 (34) 3.31 (39) 3.15
6 Nebraska 21 3.15 (34) 2.95 (33) 3.00 (36) 3.19 (40) 3.07
7 Northwestern 14 3.07 (52) 3.13 (50) 3.21 (42) 3.42 (34) 3.21
8 Indiana 22 2.86 (40) 2.90 (39) 2.95 (47) 3.05 (NR) 2.94
9 Iowa 21 2.95 (42) 2.74 (53) 2.94 (48) 3.12 (NR) 2.94
10 Maryland 16 2.92 (59) 3.07 (63) 3.00 (46) 3.21 (NR) 3.05
11 Rutgers 22 2.82 (50) 2.82 (45) 2.91 (50) 2.91 (NR) 2.87
12 Purdue 18 2.67 (61) 2.56 (61) 2.94 (63) 3.00 (NR) 2.79
13 Illinois 17 2.65 (64) 2.80 (64) 2.88 (62) 3.06 (NR) 2.85
14 Minnesota 14 2.77 (65) 2.77 (72) 2.92 (70) 3.00 (NR) 2.87
The number in parentheses are national rankings.
LikeLike
PSU should improve recruiting in the years to come. Nebraska is the one that surprises me. They will never have top 10 classes due to location but I would expect them to be between 15-25 every year. Pelini probably isn’t a great recruiter.
LikeLike
Don’t like to see anyone lose their job, but I think Nebraska should have dumped Pelini and rolled the dice with Narduzzi. He’s a franchise coach waiting to happen and will likely be off the board after next year. He epitomizes traditional Nebraska football, is one of the best development guys in CF and is a great recruiter. The reason I’m bearish on Michigan is their current staff’s short but abysmal track record at developing talent. That is so crucial.
LikeLike
He gave them his head on a platter, ala John the Baptist, but they refused to accept it………hard to understand why….however, he does seem to have the unqualified support of the players, which merans a lot…..hard to imagime him ever winning 11 games, but who knows………..
LikeLike
A couple of freak plays saved his job. Coming through a season of adversity on top (relatively speaking) could be a turning point in how he’s perceived by the faithful. Can’t underestimate the power of beating the SEC on a big stage. Then again.
LikeLike
This may add a little spice to the regular-season finale at Byrd Stadium Nov. 29: According to the Washington Post, former Maryland coach Ralph Friedgen will be hired as Rutgers’ offensive coordinator… http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2014/01/28/reports-former-maryland-head-coach-ralph-friedgen-to-become-rutgers-offensive-coordinator/
LikeLike
The Brendan Gibbons/Taylor Lewan issue has finally surfaced in a way that will gain national attention — as many on Mgoblog have warned for years. This will not end well. Read the article and the comments.
http://mgoblog.com/content/brendan-gibbons-expelled-untruths-rampant.
LikeLike
I’ve seen rumors that another former UMD head coach — Ron Vanderlinden — is the top candidate for the Rutgers DC position.
LikeLike
National Journal concerning unionization of players:
‘The athletes wouldn’t necessarily get paid, however. The goal behind this latest move is to seek better medical protections and guaranteed scholarships for the cost of college. Currently, scholarships are sometimes rescinded if a student athlete gets injured. By unionizing, the athletes also want to raise money to continue their university education, even after they’ve exhausted their NCAA eligibility.’
This does beg the question of whether their scholarships could then be taxed? That is no small sum. They would also presumably have to pay union dues.
LikeLike
Notre Dame expanding & renovating its stadium, price tag set at $400 million.
http://college-football.si.com/2014/01/29/notre-dame-stadium-expansion-upgrade/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
Interesting point from Stewart Mandel:
Stewart, why don’t the 14-team leagues (SEC, ACC, and Big Ten) petition the NCAA to allow them to ditch the division format and go with an eight-game conference schedule featuring three permanent opponents and five (out of the remaining 10) rotating foes? The end result is that teams would play all the other teams in their conference, home-and-home, twice every four years. The top two would go to the title game with several objective tiebreakers in place. Isn’t this much better than the current set-up, where games like Florida State-Virginia Tech occur twice every 12 years? In the current system, a 5-3 “division champ” can win its league.
— Brian, Ponte Vedra, Fla.
As a matter of fact, the ACC is already considering that very concept. Commissioner John Swofford told ESPN.com earlier this month that he wants the NCAA to give conferences more “autonomy” (a popular word in NCAA-speak these days) regarding championship game requirements. I’m told the league plans to formally propose legislation to that effect this spring, and if it passes, the conference would indeed consider letting the top two teams play for the title, rather than the division winners. Scheduling is a hot topic in the ACC right now, with Syracuse athletic director Daryl Gross leading the push for a nine-game schedule, due largely to the infrequency of most cross-division matchups. The two issues — scheduling and a possible title game format change — are intertwined.
It’s interesting, because when conference championship games first began, pitting the two division winners seemed a natural antidote to scheduling imbalances. There were many years during the Big Ten’s 11-team era when the two best squads never played. (In 2011, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Ohio State all finished 7-1, but the Spartans and Buckeyes didn’t play each other.) Having the two division champs play each other at the end prevents that scenario. However, now that we’re at 14 league members instead of 12, teams with eight-game schedules miss so many cross-division opponents that the imbalances remain vast, and schools that aren’t permanent foes might as well be in different conferences. It seems inevitable that the ACC and SEC will eventually move to nine-game league slates. (The Big Ten will do so in ’16.)
As for ending divisions altogether, be careful what you wish for. For one, the current formats are symmetrical and give the title race a natural, easy-to-understand flow. But secondly, a league could potentially sacrifice a playoff berth by ensuring that one of its two best teams takes an additional loss. Unless, of course, the opposite occurs, and the committee rewards both teams for their enhanced strength of schedule. In that case, a conference should absolutely do it.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140129/northwestern-players-union-mailbag/#ixzz2rozrkJGa
LikeLike
Mandel also makes a good point regarding the CFB National Game, and how Thursday night might be a better TV night than Monday night:
Stewart, what is the thinking behind playing the national championship game on a Monday every year? Captive audience? To avoid a conflict with the NFL, it seems like Friday night would be a natural choice and would garner greater interest in the game, because fewer people would have to get up for work the next morning. As its stands, it’s tough to stay up for the whole thing if you have to wake up at 5:30 a.m.
— Steve, Roswell, Ga.
Monday night has long been the strong preference of television executives. The game used to move around depending on the date, but it’s been set on a Monday night for the past eight years, and it’s already scheduled to remain there for the entire 12-year duration of ESPN’s new playoff contract. One reason is that football fans are already accustomed to Monday Night Football. Having to work the next morning hasn’t hurt ratings for that franchise, which averaged a three-year high of 13.7 million viewers last season. (Auburn-Florida State had 25.6 million.) By contrast, Friday is considered the worst TV night of the week, the one on which networks often bury low-performing programs shortly before cancelling them.
Personally, I think the best night would be Thursday. Not only is it a traditionally huge TV night and a regular college football night, but it would also allow a few days of buildup for the game. As things currently stand, the two days before the national title game are devoted entirely to the NFL playoffs. That will probably be the case even more going forward, given that the championship will often be a week later, after the divisional round. But that would cause its own logistical headaches, most pertinently that players at many schools would likely miss a full week of class. The plan now is for the teams in this year’s title game, which will be on Jan. 12, to arrive in Dallas/Arlington on Friday for a Monday game.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140129/northwestern-players-union-mailbag/#ixzz2rp0Fqwns
LikeLike
However, some of these kids are in school already. Leaving Friday for a Monday game doesn’t cut in to classes much. Thursday games do.
LikeLike
No doubt, and Mandel does note that a Thursday night title game would probably cause players to miss a full week of class. But it is food for thought from the TV perspective.
LikeLike
And fans might miss more work.
LikeLike
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/ncaa-should-be-begging-for-a-union.html
Not sure I agree with this, but it is an interesting perspective.
LikeLike
I failed to see any discussion of the current tax-exempt status these schools enjoy. If the players are employees, will donations to the AD still get a write off? If not, that’s a huge chunk of the budget (tens of millions for the biggest schools) likely gone for many schools. And if they become pro sports, how many fans are lost to the NFL?
LikeLike
Typically, donations are not to the AD but the school foundation or alumni association. If they declare university foundations to be taxable, this is a gigantic sea change to higher education that impacts thousands of institutions.
LikeLike
@greg – Just because players might get paid doesn’t inherently make your donations to the athletic department (or other unit that may send funds to the AD) taxable any more than the fact that the coaches are paid and aren’t volunteers (or that a priest/pastor/rabbi/cleric receives a salary from a church/synagogue/mosque). It’s a complete red herring.
What matters more is whether you’re actually receiving a benefit in return for your donation (i.e. ticket or seating priority). For most athletic departments, you can claim about 80% of your donation as tax-deductible (as opposed to 100%). That doesn’t change if athletes start getting paid.
At the same time, whether an athletic department itself loses its tax-exempt status has very little to do with whether its paying players (as once again, that AD is paying plenty of people salaries such as administrators, coaches and other staff) on the expense side. It’s the revenue side with all of TV, postseason and ticket money that’s going to draw that scrutiny (to the extent that anyone wants to go down that road).
LikeLike
I disagree. The tax exempt status is granted because the tie to the university provides a flimsy tie to the concept of it being related to the education of students. But if the players are paid, there’s even less reason for the government to continue to grant that status (and it has been looked at before, so the government has shown some willingness to remove that status).
I’m not saying it’s a given the status would be loss, but it is a serious concern.
LikeLike
It doesn’t impact the tax exempt status of the university. But at some point football could be viewed by the IRS in the category of UBTI-Unrelated Business Taxable Income-that is taxable to not for profits. Not necessarily, but it is a risk.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m only talking about the AD, not the entire university. But donations are a huge amount for major schools. For OSU, they’re approaching $30M per year and are 20-25% of total revenue. Losing tax-exempt status would be a significant concern.
LikeLike
Read up on how donations to college athletics became tax-exempt in the first place:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/got-college-football-tickets-take-a-tax-break.html
It’s all sorts of shady and is due to college athletics boosters and politicians being in cahoots.
However, unless boosters and politicians turn against the idea of paying athletes, that tax-exempt status isn’t going away, and I rather doubt that most boosters are much against the idea of paying players considering that many of them are already doing so under the table already. And considering that there are politicians actually trying to get players paid, I don’t think you’ll find much support for your position there either, Brian.
LikeLike
Ran across this detail Q&A on the SEC network:
http://www.ukathletics.com/blog/2014/01/sec-network-faq.html
LikeLike
No academic programming, even on their digital network.
LikeLike
At least 10 of the 24 players selected for this year’s McDAA Game come from the BIG footprint – only one signed to a BIG school – Blackmon (IU). Minnesota, alone, produced 3 players: Vaughn, Jones, and Reid. If Pitino had one more year to show off his system, at least 1 of these kids stays home. Vaughn still has Minny on his radar, but he’ll likely go elsewhere.
Well, at least Md and OSU grabbed two recruits from outside the footprint.
In all, 3 McDAA’s will go to the BIG. But Ky and Duke each have more signees then all of the BIG & UNC is tied @ 3.
The ACC, SEC, Pac12 all signed more McDAA’s, but only the ACC has a decisive edge in terms of numbers.
LikeLike
Oops! Here’s the roster:
http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1603538
LikeLike
Did tOSU leave the B1G?
LikeLike
Never mind, not in footprint…
LikeLike
I do think OSU should have gotten one more from it’s class in the game – Bate-Diop.
LikeLike
From the “borrow from the best” dept.: Maryland filled its v’ball vacancy by hiring a Penn State assistant, and most folks in Terrapin territory appear to like the move: http://www.testudotimes.com/2014/1/29/5356204/maryland-volleyball-coach-steve-aird-hired
LikeLike
Speaking of BIG Basketball, after Michigan, Michigan State and Iowa, I haven’t a clue – the depth and coaching in this league is truly special.
OSU is in deep shit – the chemistry is going south fast as Ross did virtually nothing to develop in the off-season & looks even skinnier & weaker than last year, Smith had 4 years to find his offense (hard to believe the type of play he provided during OSU’s 2012 FF run), same goes for Craft’s incompetent offense, though one of the best defender’s I’ve ever seen. OSU needs to bring in new blood fast. Their other highly rated recruits: Scott, Thompson & Williams = inconsistent. As for Wisky, they may need to go back to BORyaING ball because their d exposes lanes wide enough for a herd of elephants to walk thru.
The rise of NW, Michigan’s win streak (post-McGary, which doesn’t surprise me – his unpredictable status was actually a distraction), MSU staying the course without Dawson and Payne = surprising & great story lines. It appears Wisky may join OSU, soon to be unranked, and Illinois as teams that went from ranked-to-unranked due to conference depth.
LikeLike
Really good article on student-athlete unionization:
http://therotation.sportsonearthblog.com/can-college-athletes-unionize/
Something that caught my eye:
“The article also identifies 14 states as being particularly promising for a college athlete union, including Michigan, Florida, Nebraska and California. Under the state law of the latter, students who provide services for the universities they attend automatically qualify as employees when:
a) The services they provide to a school are “[un]related to their educational objectives”;
b) Their “educational objectives take a back seat to their service obligations.”
Would a UCLA or Stanford football player meet the above tests? I think it’s possible, even likely. As I’ve written before, consider abysmal graduation rates. Consider time away from class traveling for games and tournaments. Consider a survey that found the average men’s Division I basketball player spends about 39 hours a week playing his sport — almost double the maximum 20 hours a week college athletes are supposed to spend on sports, according to NCAA rules. Are football players spending any less time in the weight room and on film study?
Here’s a better question: Given the above, is there any way said football players wouldn’t be considered employees, and therefore allowed to unionize?”
LikeLike
““We’re already employees,” Colter told Sports on Earth. “We provide a service to the university separate from any academic service. In return for athletic service, we receive a scholarship, and that is based up on performance of that service. If we play badly or don’t perform to coaching standards, at a lot of programs have one-year renewable scholarships and they can terminate them, even if you are a 4.0 student.
“They say we play the game out of love and basically volunteer to play. We do love the game. But we’re not volunteering to play. We are being paid in the form of the scholarship and stipend check. If we decided to skip a game or practice to study, we wouldn’t have that scholarship. So to me, it’s a no-brainer that we’re working.””
LikeLike
That says to me a much bigger cultural issue than the NCAA. I’m afraid the athletic programs have put themselves in a position by not addressing the issue of study time much sooner. If there are some rules about travel time for student-athletes then it’s not being followed. The conference reshuffling also complicates this.
Is this the beginning of the end for Division I sports? The stubbornness of the NCAA is very telling. If those players win, then it blows a much bigger hole into the ideal of “student-athletes” in that the contradictions between those ideals and the “professionalization” of the athletic programs (iow, S-E-C) get more exposed. If the “fiction” can no longer be kept up, what happens to attendance and viewership? Potentially, we could see a fissure develop between universities who still believe in some sort of the “ideal” and those with programs who would prefer to go full bore into “professionalization”. This type of fissure may fall on regional lines but may also fall within the regions themselves. In the Big Ten and Pac-12, this could become very troublesome.
Maybe Delany may have to make good on the threat of taking the Big Ten into Division III, after all.
LikeLike
A lot of what Colter says also applies to JHS seniors playing sports. They must also attend practices and games, and are completely under the control of their coaches
He would say the “pay” is the scholoarship. However, HS is free to the student. College is not. Paying the cost of attendance for college would mean the college student is getting the same “deal” as the HS student-“free” education and the experience of playing on a sports team. I see it as a reimbursement of expense rather than as “pay”.
Going further…..if a college sch. is truly “pay”, wouldn’t that pay vary with performance and worth?. That is, Johnny Football would get 50x more than the 2nd string OT..
LikeLike
Except that if a JHS student refuses to practice and gets kicked off the team, he doesn’t lose that free education (if a public school).
You can make the argument that a private HS who offer renewable athletic scholarships are also paying students.
LikeLike
A college athlete who quits is in the same situation as non-athlete college students…finding another way to pay. A HS athlete who quits is in the same position as non-athlete HS students.
If there were no athletic schs there would still be tons of college students playing football…it would just take less of their time. I view ath. schs as alternatives to work–necessitated by the time commitment required for big-time football.
I don’t see that the huge benefits that go to the colleges is really “relevant” other than it looks so damn unfair….from the athlete’s perspective, the women’s volleyball player probably spends as much time doing her thing as the college football player….but no one wants to call her an employee.
LikeLike
Swimmers probably spend more time.
LikeLike
Well that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? A violinist may spend much more time and effort on her craft than a hedge fund trader on hers, yet the hedge fund trader makes orders of magnitude more money. By your socialist way of thinking, there’s no reason for the trader to make more money than the violinist, even though the trader makes tons more money for her boss than the violinist for her’s. Why should it matter if there is so much more money to be made in hedge fund trading than in classical music making?
LikeLike
To your other point:
However, if a college athlete doesn’t quit, he isn’t in the same situation as a non-athlete student, while a public HS athlete who doesn’t quit _is_ in the same situation as a public HS student.
Ergo the college scholarship athlete is paid something that the HS athlete is not.
And yes, tons of kids would still play football even without payment or scholarships. Question is, how many people will be paying to watch them? You think the UM-OSU game would still draw the same crowds and TV ratings if they played it with Ivy League-caliber athletes while the best football players of their age group played football elsewhere? Don’t kid yourself.
LikeLike
“You think the UM-OSU game would still draw the same crowds and TV ratings if they played it with Ivy League-caliber athletes while the best football players of their age group played football elsewhere?”
They do now. It’s just a matter of degree. The NFL is the pro’s, the best of the best. How many Wolverines, or Buckeyes out of 100+ are actually of that level and value? How badly was PSU’s following hurt by the Silas Redd/others transfer? I suggest any drop was due to the general situation, not the players. True college fans root for the school. We form voluntary associations to form the rules of intercollegiate competition. We ban payment, limit eligibility, set academic thresholds, limit to the hour how much time is allowed for practice. All of which work against accumulating the “best” football team. The PCAA broke up over pay for play. We don’t say let the market alone decide all things.
I really don’t think this will be a big deal. If I was conspiratorially inclined I’d think this is just the kind of push/threat that will facilitate the power conferences desired changes in full cost, stipend, etc. A number of schools have been investing in athletic health, injuries, research facilities. Things the NW group are interested in rather than pay for play, which the media plays up (pay talk makes it easier to stirr up a “controversy” that will drive clicks, attract viewers/listeners)
LikeLike
“They do now. It’s just a matter of degree.”
Wut. The UM-OSU game isn’t played by Ivy League-caliber players now. What are you talking about? The degree of difference matters.
“True college fans root for the school”
That’s nice, and if all schools start following the Ivy model, true college fans will be all you have left. You’ll see the interest in college football and basketball become similar to that in college baseball and hockey. You think the schools will see the TV money that they do now if true college fans were the only audience left?
“I really don’t think this will be a big deal. If I was conspiratorially inclined I’d think this is just the kind of push/threat that will facilitate the power conferences desired changes in full cost, stipend, etc.”
I actually don’t think the B10 is all that opposed to the efforts of these students. They’re pushing for a lot of the same things, and the B10 has traditionally taken student-athlete concerns in to more account than other leagues, so they’d probably like all other leagues to be like them (which would require a break away).
LikeLike
“The UM-OSU game isn’t played by Ivy League-caliber players now. What are you talking about? The degree of difference matters.”
Exactly. Where are they going to get paid? Can the schools be compelled to become professional teams/leagues? The only place they will get payed (of significant consequence) is in the NFL, or a pro minor league. Subtract those few players (some of whom we are already losing with a year or two of eligibility remaining) that they might want and you think the Horseshoe and Big House are suddenly going to be seeing 80% reductions in attendance?
If college FB actually was universally Ivy League level the competition would be even and interest might even be greater. A hundred more schools might feel that investing in FB would not be an absolute competitive waste. I imagine Harvard has a few alums that might pony up if they weren’t at a competitive disadvantage. And fans would return.
LikeLike
Colter sounds like a pos who will do well in Illinois politics or working for the Obama administration.
Interestingly, the IRS considers sch $ over and above tuition, books, fees et al to be taxable income…..that is, food plans , housing and misc payments are considered income. …I don’t know whether ath. schs are a special exception, but I doubt it. I wonder if Colter has been paying his taxes.
LikeLike
Imo, college athletes have 3 legit issues. The NCAA should have stepped up years ago on these issues…had they done so, they wouldn’t have this s@@@ to deal with.
Thje 3 issues are: 1. The overwhelming practice and game time demands that would preclude most legit student-athletes from even trying to be lawyers, doctors, or engineers; 2. Not paying the full cost of attendance when the time and energy demands preclude part-time employment; and 3. Some form of compensation for provable permanent impairment from athletic injuries.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – Well, that has been the problem with the NCAA. They’ve taken a very one-sided hardline approach regarding student-athlete compensation, and when you do that, then it’s a whole lot easier to challenge it as unfair/unjust. An extreme position will ultimately get an extreme reaction, particularly when college football and basketball have openly become huge businesses. I’m not a fan of unions as a general matter and, frankly, I don’t want anything to do with them in college sports, but the NCAA and colleges had this coming to them. The NCAA has been so worried about the supposed “unfairness” of the boosters of Alabama or Ohio State or USC or whoever you want to name providing recruiting advantages or agents providing advice that they’ve missed that, on the balance, it’s going to be increasingly perceived by a lot of people that it’s much more unfair to tell athletes that they get nothing at all based on some amorphous principle of amateurism (where such amateurism is now producing billions of dollars of revenue). I’ve seen it in plenty of places whenever there’s a discussion of athlete compensation, where they’re so worried about School A getting a recruiting advantage over School B if any rules are changed that they’re missing that completely closing off any compensation to athletes at all is the greater overall harm.
It would be nice if the NCAA would have actually been practical and headed off the cost of attendance and medical coverage issues from the get-go, but their leadership and the leaders of its member schools have continuously proven that they’re incapable of doing so.
LikeLike
Frank and Mushroom, you both make good points. The adults most involved with the situation–the coaches (at least at major programs–are willing to pay their players out of their own pocket if they were allowed to do so:
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-07-16/steve-spurrier-sec-media-days-paying-players-college-athletics-south-carolina
Spurrier and the other coaches can see the growing disparity in college football between what the players are getting and what everyone else connnected with college football is getting. I believe Spurrier has made the point that his players are being compensated the exact same as what he was compensated as a player in the ’60’s (possibly less; didn’t players get stipends in those days?) while he’s making something like 50 times more as a coach than his coach ever did.
LikeLike
@Richard
Keep in mind that it is really easy for guys like Spurrier to say that they would love to pay athletes out of their own pockets when they know their is no chance of that ever happening.
Also, it’s not entirely fair to say that the “players are being compensated the exact same as what he was compensated as a player in the ’60′s” since the value of a scholorship is much higher than it was in the 60’s. (Tuition costs have gone up about 300% faster than inflation since the early 80’s and I would suspect that is true of the 60’s and 70’s as well)
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Imo, college athletes have 3 legit issues. The NCAA should have stepped up years ago on these issues…had they done so, they wouldn’t have this s@@@ to deal with.
Thje 3 issues are: 1. The overwhelming practice and game time demands that would preclude most legit student-athletes from even trying to be lawyers, doctors, or engineers;”
Except that’s complete BS. Their practice time is explicitly limted and many CFB players do get degrees in engineering and other difficult majors. What holds most of them back is that they’re not that smart. They wouldn’t be at a top university without football.
As an easy example, consider OSU QB Craig Krenzel. He graduated with a 3.75 in molecular genetics including doing oncology research while also being the starting QB for a national title winning team. QBs spend as much time watching film as any position, and he had 14 games in 2002 plus started the following year as well. Or OSU WR Mike Lanese who became a Rhodes Scholar. These guys were smart, and thus they succeeded in college. Frankly, many players say sports make it easier to do well in school because they force you to budget your time.
Plenty of students work full time and go to school fulltime. How is that any worse than playing a sport, especially since it happens all year long?
LikeLike
“Except that’s complete BS. Their practice time is explicitly limted”
Ah, you idealist, you, Brian.
Yes, practice time is limited on paper.
Now how many schools actually stick hard and fast to that limit?
LikeLike
frug:
“Also, it’s not entirely fair to say that the “players are being compensated the exact same as what he was compensated as a player in the ’60′s” since the value of a scholorship is much higher than it was in the 60′s. (Tuition costs have gone up about 300% faster than inflation since the early 80′s and I would suspect that is true of the 60′s and 70′s as well)”
IMO, it’s fair. Think of it this way: if a piece of steak costs twice as much in real terms today as it did a decade ago, do you get twice as much value and enjoyment out of it, or do you get the same value and enjoyment? Nutritionally, you got the exact same amount of calories
I’d argue that a college education now benefits his players as much as a college education then benefited Spurrier and his team mates, but making 50 times (or so) more money now benefits Spurrier much more than making 1/50th of Spurrier’s salary did his old coach in the ’60’s. (Adjust for inflation, and maybe it’s 1/10th in real terms; whatever; the point stands).
LikeLike
IMO, it’s fair. Think of it this way: if a piece of steak costs twice as much in real terms today as it did a decade ago, do you get twice as much value and enjoyment out of it, or do you get the same value and enjoyment? Nutritionally, you got the exact same amount of calories
I don’t know. I mean a pound of gold is has the same number of ounces now as it did 15 years ago, but I think I would “enjoy” it more now then I would have then since the price of gold has more than quadrupled in real terms.
LikeLike
Actually, practice time is very strictly monitored at most/all schools and is why even a small error got MI in trouble.
What isn’t regulated is voluntary time put in for lifting and film review without a coach present. That’s the big time sink, but all the players find plenty of time to play video games and go online so they’re hardly being driven like slaves.
If it’s so bad for them, why do athletes get better grades than non-athletes?
LikeLike
“I don’t know. I mean a pound of gold is has the same number of ounces now as it did 15 years ago, but I think I would “enjoy” it more now then I would have then since the price of gold has more than quadrupled in real terms.”
However, you can sell that pound of gold. You can’t well sell the education you got or the steak you ate.
LikeLike
“If it’s so bad for them, why do athletes get better grades than non-athletes?”
Do athletes in revenue sports get better grades than non-athletes? After all, those are the only student-athletes that the schools are motivated to push to devote more time to their sport.
Does anyone care if the women’s crew squad practices enough or not enough or finishes last or first?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Do athletes in revenue sports get better grades than non-athletes?”
At many schools, yes. They graduate at a higher rate, too. This is especially true for African-American men at many state schools.
“After all, those are the only student-athletes that the schools are motivated to push to devote more time to their sport.”
The schools, maybe, but not their coaches and teammates. Non-revenue athletes are expected to work just as hard by their peers.
“Does anyone care if the women’s crew squad practices enough or not enough or finishes last or first?”
Their teammates and coaches do. The AD does.
LikeLike
“However, you can sell that pound of gold. You can’t well sell the education you got or the steak you ate.”
That educational history portion of resumes and job applications is there for strictly entertainment value?
LikeLike
ccrider55:
Unlike gold between 40 years ago and now, the value of a college education won’t have appreciated as much over the next 40 year span as a college education 40 years ago (over its 40 year span). Didn’t we just have this discussion above?
LikeLike
Yes. But about the fixed cost of school, not the future increased earning that education is worth over 40 years. Try getting one of those overpaid coaching or admin jobs without an advanced degree. Or any degree.
LikeLike
Don’t forget state and local income taxes, FICA, Medicare, a share of health insurance premiums and the state pension fund. All told, these taxes and contributions amount to some 40% of the gross. At Northwestern, that might be $20,000 to $25,000 per year or more.
Frankly, if the students succeed, Division I and II sports might disappear. Most athletic departments and some big time football programs already lose money. And it would spill over into the intramural facilities, too. All those faculty doing cardio in the olympic pool might have to pay full cost for the privilege once the swim teams are gone.
All in all, college sports might default to the Division III model: white and rich. Considering the shenanigans at UNC and other Division I schools, that might be a good idea. Where are you Chick Harley when we need you? Will Jim Thorpe be allowed to play?
LikeLike
“All told, these taxes and contributions amount to some 40% of the gross.”
This percentage depends heavily on your income level. Either you’ve never made as little as $50K a year or you didn’t look at your taxes when you did do so.
Also, note that scholarship to pay tuition is tax-exempt.
LikeLike
It is not clear to me that the scholarship would be tax exempt. Right now it is a gift to a matriculated student and tax exempt. But the athlete would be an employee and at least part of the scholarship might be construed as income. And even if it isn’t, the students are looking for substantial salaries much in excess of current stipends. And the board and room included in the athletic scholarship would certainly be counted as income. Only the part that is tuition might be exempt.
However, the 40% total is pretty close because at lot of the taxes and fees are regressive not progressive like the fed income tax. FICA is about 8-9% of gross up to some limit. (Some states are in Social Security even if they have a supplementary pension fund.) Medicare is smaller but also is a flat rate based on gross. Local income taxes are generally flat rates around 1-2% of gross. State income taxes often are progressive but amount to 5 to 10%. The pension contribution vary by state but 8-9% of gross is common and it is a flat rate. So right there you have at least 20% of gross without the federal income tax.
And there are other potential issues. Travel costs (room, board, transit) to away games would be considered a business expense and not taxable if reimbursed by the school (they would be). But what about the training table? Or staying at a hotel room the night before a home game rather than staying in the dorms. And what about off-season use of training facilities and strength coaches? Regular students pay fees to use similar facilities.
Tax lawyers and accountants are going to have muy fun, and lots of new income sources.
And the real students on campus are going to be angry, jealous and not the least bit sympathic re athlete issues.
LikeLike
“And even if it isn’t, the students are looking for substantial salaries much in excess of current stipends”
Actually, they’re not. Did you read what they want?
“The pension contribution vary by state but 8-9% of gross is common and it is a flat rate.”
Where the heck do you live? I’ve never heard of a state with a pension contribution that high.
Also, when’s the last time you made 50K? Did you calculate your effective tax rate (after deductions) then?
As for the other stuff, the IRS lays all this out in perfectly clear language. God, you people make me think that you all don’t do their own taxes or something.
“And the real students on campus are going to be angry, jealous and not the least bit sympathic re athlete issues.”
And that is the crux of the problem. People like socialism because they get jealous.
LikeLike
All in all, college sports might default to the Division III model: white and rich. Considering the shenanigans at UNC and other Division I schools, that might be a good idea.
Then I think of the furor that erupted over Prop 38 some years back. Would the NCAA risk alienating black players and coaches?
LikeLike
vp19:
Considering how many basic facts that Bob gets wrong, I’m not confident in his predictions about the future.
LikeLike
Mushroom:
incidentally, if student-athletes _were_ employees:
“•Meals and lodging for the convenience of your employer” are tax-exempt.
LikeLike
When anyone says it not about the money…its all about the money. If this ever occurs there will be strikes that delay / cancel the NCAA tournament, major football games, etc. Although pay may not be the initial demand, any decent union will get there in short order. The article assumes the states will roll over in the public sector. I doubt that many states want the added expense and will not agree that athletes are employees.
LikeLike
Unions don’t back anything unless they are getting a cut. Workers of the world unites is a nice catch phrase but is translates to fill our coffers with your money. Their is billion of dollars in college athletics and the unions want a cut and they think long term.
This will be interesting. Will the government hurt one of its own, higher education, by helping to unionize “amateur” athletes? What will the state governments do in right to works states in the south where college athletics is king? Not only will Delaney and Slive fight this but so would the NFL and NBA as it would kill their free developmental league.
These kids are just dumb. They were winning. They were about to get the things they want, four years scholarships, stipends, etc, in the very near future. Now they probably just kicked a hornets nest with very powerful allies.
LikeLike
Actually, this article argues that the NCAA is dumb:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/ncaa-should-be-begging-for-a-union.html
Granted, the NCAA does have very powerful political allies, so the anti-trust exemption may be safe (for now), but let’s be clear: the NCAA is an extremely anti-competitive cartel; if it was a regular business, it would have been busted up long ago.
FYI, some (grad) students are already unionized.
LikeLike
That article doesn’t mention any negatives like strikes for pay, opposition to drug testing, and trickle down effect to every other collegiate sport. Some grad students are unionized but the majority of universities aren’t losing money on their grad programs like schools are regarding their athletic departments.
Universities should push for a free market approach. Fans vote for the schools not the players. Right now the system benefits everyone. How many players who believe they have a shot at the pros realistically do? Less than 2% of both NCAA football and besketball players make it to the pros. College at least gives them a chance of having a secondary career if and when they inevitably fail. A free market would pay this 18 year old kids straight from high school like minor league baseball contracts making under $30,000. What happens in 2-3 years when they can’t hack it? Do you think they are investing that money? Is it worst to force them into a college setting and at least theoretically think about a long term future as opposed to be out in the real world? Yes the schools are making a boat of money but the players are benefiting too becuase the vast majority will not make it. So for every Manziel for whom the schools makes bank off of, there the 2 backup quarterbacks, 3rd string linemen, the other 60 plus players who are taking from the school. Unions will inevitability raise the cost of supporting these students and limit the opportunities for others.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
I guess where I disagree is that I feel the average value of the student to a major football program is worth a lot more than the scholarships. Seriously I’d put it at least double in most cases. Depth is important and if those positions are worth millions to the NFL, they are worth at least a fraction of that to high level college football (maybe well more).
By biggest problem with the system is that many of those students who will contribute mightily to their schools are not going to be NFL bound (or live their shortly). That means that for work that might have helped contribute to millions for a school, they will only ever be paid back with a a scholarship (and one hard to fully use with the athletic commitments).
I agree paying directly isn’t ideal though. Given the schools choice to monetize the sport though, I’d say prohibiting athletes from side deals needs to go in the same way it’s gone from the Olympics.
LikeLike
“limit the opportunities for others”
To play sports, sure. To get an education, no. Thanks to financial aid and very generous grant programs by the top 30 or so privates, there are essentially no Americans now, if they are smart enough and work hard enough, who can not go to college due to money. I would know. I was one of those poor kids once.
LikeLike
Richard,
The cost of education now is astronomical. It has more than doubled in less than 20 years. Many people are paying upwards of 6-7 hundred dollars a month on student loan payments not to mention personal loan needed to pay room and board. The fact is the cost of the free education is probably more than 90% of what those players would earn if they tried to market their athletic ability directly to the NHL, Canadian football league or where ever. Are you telling me the majority of players at northwestern could earn more the 60,000 + a year playing football today because that’s about the tuition to go to northwestern. That doesn’t even factor in the difference of lifetime earnings between someone with a college education and without. The cost of an education is almost an afterthought now and almost dismissed by every commentator. There is only a select few players that would earn more than the total cost of a scholarship.
The NFL and NBA are the real culprits in this situation. College football and college basketball would be just fine if a select number of athletes who didn’t value an education went into a developmental league, and in the case of basketball might be better off. Fans vote for the schools not the players in college sports. The Universities should tell the NBA and NFL that it is no longer its free developmental league and let kids have a choice to get paid thru sports or to earn a free education.
LikeLike
“The Universities should tell the NBA and NFL that it is no longer its free developmental league and let kids have a choice to get paid thru sports or to earn a free education.”
Frank had a post on this.
LikeLike
Eric—If any given football or basketball players feel that they are being victimized they have a very easy solution–don’t be a scholarship athlete…..It seems like there are thousands upon thousands of HS football players who do think its a good deal.or at l;east better than the alternatives of being real students or working.
LikeLike
mushroomgod:
That’s a good reason not to offer disability insurance to unskilled workers as well.
LikeLike
Andy Staples has a good take on the issue:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140129/northwestern-football-players-union-movement/
LikeLike
With regard to basketball, if what the NCAA schools offered wasn’t so valuable, more players would
a) go for the NBA out of high school;
b) go to Europe and play; or
c) play in one of the many US minor leagues.
Reality is the publicity and coaching of the colleges is worth it to them even if they don’t care about the education. Basketball players have plenty of realistic alternatives. And plenty of programs do well without having NBA prospects.
For the football players, the NFL won’t take them out of high school primarily because they aren’t physically ready. Now they don’t have the alternatives the basketball players do, but they are also more interchangeable. One basketball player makes more difference than one football player, even a Cam Newton or Vince Young.
LikeLike
“go for the NBA out of high school”
Actually, the NBA doesn’t allow them to these days.
LikeLike
@PSU Hockey. That 60k in tuition at Northwestern is after-tax costs for the average student. That’s now closer to 100k in pre-tax dollars. In some cases that is more than what the NFL pays their practice squad players. From my view it’s hard to argue that these players are worth more (on average) than the practice squad players for an NFL franchise. Keep in mind that many college athletes contribute very little to their programs until they are Juniors or Seniors.
I believe increasing the value of the scholarship to a lifetime education benefit (including cost of attendance for undergrads) more than adequately covers the value that the student-athletes provide to their universities.
The media focuses on the revenues generated but fails to acknowledge costs. A good portion of the revenue generated for the schools is through donations. it’s very difficult to draw a line as to where the value is generated.
LikeLike
Again, that’s why, if the players are going to demand being in a union, they need to tax their scholarships. That’ll put an end to this quick.
LikeLike
A tough one. On the one hand I despise unions (despite being a member of one; my grandpa’s business was destroyed by one). On the flip side, I can’t argue with the logic.
I don’t think it’s the case for most sports, but there is no doubt to me that at the top level, football and basketball players roles are as employees regardless of what they call or how they are treated. Consider:
1. A couple sports bring in the vast amount of athletic revenue (used to fund entire athletic departments) and bring tremendous amounts of attention to a school (an amount that would take an enormous advertising budget to equal).
2. Schools get a lot more notice (good for student applications) and a lot more revenue (from higher priced future ticket sales, merchandise revenue, donations,etc) when winning.
3. Winning is so highly valued that schools spend millions on coaches and just as much on facilities in the hopes of drawing in the best talent they can and in coaching it up.
4. If winning the recruiting wars is so big (not just at the top level, you need depth to be good) that they are spending that kind of money, it’s quite likely than many athletes are worth well more per year than their scholarships.
5. Students are prohibited from receiving further compensations even from outside sources, but can be let off team for under-performing, are stuck at school (unless willing to sit out) even if coaches who recruited them left, etc.
I’ve never been for directly paying athletes more than full cost of attendance, but I’d say let them get endorsement deals or over the top booster donations. Maybe most of it has to be set aside for after a student leaves, but if that’s the case so be it.
LikeLike
So the football and basketball player are employees, but the women’s rower isn’t?
LikeLike
Does the women’s rower bring in excess revenue to the university?
BTW, if varsity sports are classified as businesses, can we get around Ttile IX? After all, no business is told by the government that they have to employ a certain percentage of women or that they have to stay in business and keep losing money solely to keep women employed.
Schools can mandate the same number of spots per gender on intramural teams or something.
LikeLike
That’s what I was wondering about this “union” issue. If scholarships change to pay, how can the government regulate that? There aren’t gender quotas for other college employees like professors or administrators.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Does the women’s rower bring in excess revenue to the university?”
Since when does the success of the business determine your status as an employee? Do non-profits not have employees? Does a loss-leader division not have employees?
LikeLike
“Since when does the success of the business determine your status as an employee.”
Well, the success of a business has some determination on whether you exist as an employee. If college athletics is a business (or even a non-profit), does Title IX have to apply? The government doesn’t dictate to non-profits that half their jobs have to be filled by women, for instance. Then schools can cut money-losing women’s programs if they want to.
LikeLike
Title IX applies to government-funded entities. Schools claim their ADs are part of the school, thus it would still apply. They could separate the AD from the school, but then it would lose tax-exempt status (and possibly a lot of fans).
LikeLike
Yup. And T9 is not a sports specific law. But sports seem to be the only place it has been applied.
LikeLike
Title IX applies to what parts of government-funded entities?
It doesn’t say that the physics department has to hire an equal number of men and women, does it? So how could they say that the athletics department has to hire an equal number of men and women if players become employees?
LikeLike
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”
LikeLike
I see. So if athletics aren’t deemed an educational activity, Title IX doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
No, it would have to be 100% divorced from any educational institution that received fed money. The activity itself wouldn’t necessarily need to be educational. And that would be difficult:
“For the purposes of this title, the term “program or activity” and “program” mean all of the operations of —
(l)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributed such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;
(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section2854(a)(10) of this title, system of vocational education, or other school system;
(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship —
(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or
(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or…” Etc. etc.
LikeLike
OK, what I don’t get then, is why Title IX isn’t forcing physics departments to hire a proportional number of faculty and take in a proportional number of grad students by gender.
Do they force university book stores to employ a proportional number of employees by gender?
Any lawyers here want to explain?
LikeLike
Because nobody (some of the less enlightened refer to them as the femi-nazi’s) has brought action to force that as they have in college sports. And it’s beginning to infiltrate the HS level in a few states.
LikeLike
Hmm. I’m all for equal opportunity, but the way they force athletics to operate is ridiculous. Why don’t we just eliminate the gender division in sports? We don’t say male lawyers can only argue against other male lawyers or say that female salespeople can only compete against other female salespeople. I also think that women should fight along side men in the military if they meet the same standards. Likewise, we don’t have separate divisions of Asian-only football or Hispanic-only basketball. Why should gender be special?
If there are any women who can make a football team, that’s great. Just have one team in each sport for each university. One baseball team, one gymnastics team, one softball team, one football team, one hockey team, etc. Both genders may be recruited.
LikeLike
There is no getting around Title IX, not in the current grievance culture we live in today. Unionize football and basketball and inevitably it will be unionize all sports. But I doubt it will get that far. If football and basketball unionize, the cost will result in the elimination of non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
“The value of a full ride isn’t worth 10X the cost of attendance thirty years ago? Hasn’t the “necessity” of a college degree for even reasonable paying future employment greatly increased since the 60′s and 70′s?”
It has increased, though the differential in wages between having a college degree and not having one hasn’t increased by 10X as much.
If you think about it, though, those kids who got a degree in the ’70’s really got a good deal, relative to everyone else involved in colelge athletics at the time, as the value of a college degree has risen through their lifetimes. However, not everything goes in a straight line. If you read Peter Turchin (http://socialevolutionforum.com/), you’ll learn that these things go in giant cycles. So from 1920 to 1970, inequality decreased dramatically. Since 1970, inequality has increased dramatically, and thus, so has the value of a college degree. He’s forecasting that around 2020 will be the peak (or nadir), and the trend will head the other way after that (hopefully not after a violent period, though breaks in giant secular cycles are often socially disruptive). So student-athletes these days actually have a bad break in several ways. Relative to other folks involved in big time football, their compensation is less than 40 years ago, and even relative to players 40 years ago, their compensation (the education) would be worth less as their education likely will be worth relatively less through their lifetime going forward.
LikeLike
I get what you’re saying. I doubt how much college athletes are compensated will have much effect one way or the other on great secular cycles. If the athletes start attending and walking on at NAIA schools then there would be a reason to seriously question the cost/benefit of the current system. Until then it needs an adjustment or two. Nothing dramatic.
LikeLike
To me it comes down to this, is the free market monetary value of the services the athlete performs greater than the costs of the scholarships? In football and a lot of basketball, the answer is definitely yes. The schools are using those sports to make money and the value of each quality athlete is pretty high.
In most other sports, the answer is no. The schools don’t design most other sports as business activities, but instead still treat them like student sports. Sure they charge admission and such, but it’s to recover cost, not to fund other sports, get media attention, etc. The market value of those services by the students is probably well below the cost of the scholarship in most cases.
LikeLike
Is the scholarship even intended to be related to current market value? They have been offered for sports that have never made money since they were instituted. There is a more ambiguous educational value for the school to field semi successful athletic teams. There is future value in having hundreds of future alums competing for and developing a deeper association with their school. And in those following and supporting even if not competing.
These scholarships and “non revenue” sports are lifetime investments, not something that should be measured by quarterly or yearly bean counting. Example: what was the value to U of Oregon of fielding and supporting a money losing T & F team? (Hint – Phil Knight may have gone elsewhere)
LikeLike
ccrider55,
For most sports, you are right. I guess the key real difference to me in the college’s approach. The purpose of the major programs running football and often basketball teams is now very different than any other sport. Maybe the change has been gradual, but they now exist primarily to fund the athletic department and generate name brand recognition in the school (which is why so many want to be I-A even if they can’t compete).
While that change might have been gradual, it was the result of specific choices (expanded stadium size and required donations for tickets, conferences for TV value, more games to sell, altering timing rules for TV, CCG additions, etc). Since the colleges made the choice to turn the sport into what it is, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on against the athletes.
LikeLike
@Eric – I agree. The NCAA, conferences and colleges have very openly chosen to make college sports into a big business (much like the Olympics). If you act like a big business, then you’re making yourself an easy target if your “labor” isn’t getting compensation commensurate with a big business. You’ve made a good point that the Olympic model might be the best approach – keep athletes technically amateurs with respect to their teams, but allow them to receive ancillary revenue via endorsements, autographs, etc. This is also a stronger argument with respect to Title IX since that allows the free market outside of the university itself (which isn’t subject to Title IX) to step in and compensate the football and basketball players whose scholarships aren’t really a true reflection of what they’re worth on the market. Could that system be abused? Yes, I guess so, but there are plenty people that would argue (including me) that the greater abuse by comparison is closing our eyes and saying that no one should get anything at all.
LikeLike
“While that change might have been gradual, it was the result of specific choices”
I think the change has been forced on most public schools by reduced state support. In order to maintain what they had already chosen to support/offer efforts had to be made to recoup the lost funding. The did – and more support was withdrawn. The focus of the schools hasn’t changed, only the way to fund it (the whole athletic dept). And with T9 restrictions they have in fact been losing some of the offerings they formerly had.
LikeLike
FtT: “Could that system be abused? Yes, I guess so,…”
You guess? It is/has been explicatly cited as the reasonable logical and justifiable exercise of NCAA authority to ban such through court challenges by athletes in the past.
Other than wider coverage of the financial agreements schools/conferences make, and willingness of those who make far more (the providers) to bid the price up, what changes have the schools made that “openly chosen to make college sports into a big business”? I knew a college VP who in the ’70s almost resigned over the president selecting a retiring FB coach to be AD. He was apoplectic that he wasn’t qualified to run a big “business” – that most any business prof on campus would have been a better choice. Athletics have always involved big money. It’s just we see it now, and the sources have been changing.
PS: the VP was right, the dept was run into crushing debt that it took over two decades and several ADs to get under control.
LikeLike
I’m with cc. You “guess” it could be abused. That’s the ultimate in naivety. Of course they would get all those endorsements from boosters. It would have little to do with the free market.
LikeLike
ccrider:
“Athletics have always involved big money”
The scale of the “big money” has changed. Back in the early ’80’s, Bo Schlembechler made $60K a year. Good money at that time, but not something anybody could retire on. Most assistant coaches and non-revenue coaches could probably make more money doing something other than coaching. They were really in it for the love of the game. AD’s and conference commisioners didn’t make half a million a year. In that environment, a kid on scholarship didn’t see much reason why he should get more than a scholarship, as nobody was making enough money to retire off of his extracurricular activities anyway.
These days, most P5 coaches are making millions a year. Folks who he doesn’t see benefit him but rely on the game he plays to make good money (like AD’s and conference commisioners and non-revenue sport coaches) are pulling in half a million a year. In this environment, that kid is going to ask why everybody else is making at least 10 times more than their predecessors 30 years ago but he and his teammates are being compensated the exact same way as players 30 years ago.
LikeLike
@ FtT:
The remainder of your last sentence is also objectionable. You say: “Could that system [Olympic model of compensation] be abused? Yes, I guess so, but there are plenty people that would argue (including me) that the greater abuse by comparison is closing our eyes and saying that no one should get anything at all.”
The last few words are intellectually dishonest unless you actually believe the the tuition, stipends, etc., are “[no]thing at all.” Clearly the athletes are getting something. The issue is whether it is enough. I think they should get more, but within the bounds of the current system/restraints. I see no reason why Manziel needs to be a millionaire in college.
As for whether the Olympic model would be “abused,” I think that’s a loaded word. It would not be “abused” in the sense that rules would be broken, but an Olympic model would systemically cause vast amounts of money from fans and boosters to flow into CFB and MBB. In fact, in my view, an Olympic model would end up OVERcompensating the players and the recruits would really really just be in it for the $$$.
Countries do not compete for athletes in the same way that Universities do. The structure of competition between schools would inexorably cause groups of fans and boosters to essentially “complete” to “endorse” players. This is not “abuse;” it is just how the system would end up.
An Olympic model would be a disaster.
LikeLike
“The scale of the “big money” has changed. Back in the early ’80′s, Bo Schlembechler made $60K a year. Good money at that time, but not something anybody could retire on.”
A bit over 40 years ago my parents bought a house for 19K. It last was valued at 280K (post Bush recession).
I do think the sudden new media money is being spent/wasted to some extent on excessive coaches salaries. I’d much prefer the restoration or introduction of new programs. Address T9 through progress and growth. I athletic departments should be defined by programs, not (transient) personalities.
Maybe a salary cap for NCAA coaches? An increased number of sponsored sports required for D1 power division (big 5)? I know, that’s a different discussion.
LikeLike
“that kid is going to ask why everybody else is making at least 10 times more than their predecessors 30 years ago but he and his teammates are being compensated the exact same way as players 30 years ago.”
The value of a full ride isn’t worth 10X the cost of attendance thirty years ago? Hasn’t the “necessity” of a college degree for even reasonable paying future employment greatly increased since the 60’s and 70’s?
I’m not against increasing to meet actual cost of attendance (and long term medical coverage for catastrophic injuries, etc), but it is still college and not compulsory. The coaches and admins are working for a living, but the students are not yet. They are trying to improve their prospects for when they do.
LikeLike
Buckeye:
“It would not be “abused” in the sense that rules would be broken, but an Olympic model would systemically cause vast amounts of money from fans and boosters to flow into CFB and MBB.”
I fail to see how that would be different from the current system . . . . .
LikeLike
Also:
“In fact, in my view, an Olympic model would end up OVERcompensating the players and the recruits would really really just be in it for the $$$.”
I fail to see how that would be different from the current system . . . . .
Oh wait. Under the current system, some of them are also in it for the sex. Is that what you meant?
LikeLike
Lets just bring back SMU, TCU, etc. reform the SWC and say all that crap you’re doing – good job! Keep it up. As a matter of fact we’re going to make it a requirement in order to be competitive.
Great idea…
LikeLike
Posted in the wrong spot above.
ccrider:
“The value of a full ride isn’t worth 10X the cost of attendance thirty years ago? Hasn’t the “necessity” of a college degree for even reasonable paying future employment greatly increased since the 60′s and 70′s?”
It has increased, though the differential in wages between having a college degree and not having one hasn’t increased by 10X as much.
If you think about it, though, those kids who got a degree in the ’70′s really got a good deal, relative to everyone else involved in colelge athletics at the time, as the value of a college degree has risen through their lifetimes. However, not everything goes in a straight line. If you read Peter Turchin (http://socialevolutionforum.com/), you’ll learn that these things go in giant cycles. So from 1920 to 1970, inequality decreased dramatically. Since 1970, inequality has increased dramatically, and thus, so has the value of a college degree. He’s forecasting that around 2020 will be the peak (or nadir), and the trend will head the other way after that (hopefully not after a violent period, though breaks in giant secular cycles are often socially disruptive). So student-athletes these days actually have a bad break in several ways. Relative to other folks involved in big time football, their compensation is less than 40 years ago, and even relative to players 40 years ago, their compensation (the education) would be worth less as their education likely will be worth relatively less through their lifetime going forward.
LikeLike
Responded…also in the wrong spot. 🙂
I get what you’re saying. I doubt how much college athletes are compensated will have much effect one way or the other on great secular cycles. If the athletes start attending and walking on at NAIA schools then there would be a reason to seriously question the cost/benefit of the current system. Until then it needs an adjustment or two. Nothing dramatic.
LikeLike
“Lets just bring back SMU, TCU, etc. reform the SWC and say all that crap you’re doing – good job! Keep it up. As a matter of fact we’re going to make it a requirement in order to be competitive.
Great idea…”
Those were some pretty wild days.
“We called it the Trans A&M.” That _still_ cracks me up.
Heh.
I don’t think hookers and blow were involved, though. That would be more recent, under the current system, and the U didn’t seem to suffer much for it.
LikeLike
The U may not have suffered much, but it was anathema enough to destroy the conference. As did pay for play in the left coast conference in the ’50s.
LikeLike
Somewhere Craig James is cheering.
LikeLike
Richard,
“In this environment, that kid is going to ask why everybody else is making at least 10 times more than their predecessors 30 years ago but he and his teammates are being compensated the exact same way as players 30 years ago.”
Cost has increased significantly over those 30 years, at least for many state schools.
http://www.ohio.edu/instres/factbook/tuitroom.html
1983-1984: tuition $1782, room & board $2529 = $4311
2013-2014: tuition $10,380, room & board $10,230 = $20,610 (4.8 times more)
OR’s fees went from $969 to $7430 (7.7 times higher)
In addition, they are getting more ancillary benefits (more exposure, more tutoring, better training, preparation for a much more lucrative career, etc).
LikeLike
ccrider55:
I was referring to the Nevin Shapiro stuff. So far, the ACC hasn’t destructed yet.
LikeLike
Brian:
However, they’re still compensated with an education now, as they were then.
Also, state schools 30 years were heavily subsidized by the states (which meant that not only in-state but out-of-state kids were subsidized then; not so much now), so the value of their education was more than the listed price.
A truer measure of the cost of a college degree is private school tuition.
Northwestern tuition in 1987 was 11K. It’s 45K in 2013.
It’s gone up, but it hasn’t increased by 10+ times, in real or nominal terms.
LikeLike
Richard,
“However, they’re still compensated with an education now, as they were then.”
And the coaches are still compensated with a salary as they were then. You don’t get to talk about the increased value of one and ignore the change in value of the other.
“Also, state schools 30 years were heavily subsidized by the states (which meant that not only in-state but out-of-state kids were subsidized then; not so much now), so the value of their education was more than the listed price.”
Doesn’t matter. Players were given the tuition and fees at that time, just like they are now. Students get a lot more financial aid now than they used to back then, and I don’t see you factoring that in anywhere.
“A truer measure of the cost of a college degree is private school tuition.”
No, it isn’t any more true. We were discussing what the players got in compensation, and all they got were the value of tuition and fees.
LikeLike
“And the coaches are still compensated with a salary as they were then. You don’t get to talk about the increased value of one and ignore the change in value of the other.”
The salary coaches are getting can buy a heck of a lot more (in real terms) than they did 30 years ago. At least 10+ times more. What a college education can “buy”, in real terms, is nowhere near a 10+ multiple. Starting salaries for college grads are most definitely not 10+ times higher in real terms than they were 30 years ago.
“Doesn’t matter. Players were given the tuition and fees at that time, just like they are now. Students get a lot more financial aid now than they used to back then, and I don’t see you factoring that in anywhere.”
You know what that means, Brian? That means that the “true” cost of an education actually has not appreciated as much as the list price shows. Most football players who get athletic scholarships would qualify for much more financial aid now if they didn’t get the athletic scholarship than a similar football player 30 years ago. That means that the appreciation in the cost of the education they’re receiving is even less than the list prices show, and that is already far less than the appreciation in coaches’ salaries (or administrators’ salaries, etc.) In nominal terms, coaches salaries are something like 50 to 100 times what they were 30 years ago. Even using your timeseries (without taking in to account state support or financial aid), you can’t show more than a 5X appreciation (in nominal terms) in the value of a college education. That is a massive difference.
LikeLike
Today’s coaches salaries are dependent on the college degree they received, whether its 30 or 10 years ago. How much did not having the degree he claimed cost George O’Leary?
LikeLike
“Today’s coaches salaries are dependent on the college degree they received, whether its 30 or 10 years ago.”
Wut?
Please don’t tell me that you think that the reason that coaching salaries have gone up so much is because coaches now have college degrees. Here’s a hint: They pretty much all had college degrees 30 years ago as well.
BTW, O’Leary lost the ND job because he lied, not because he didn’t have some graduate degree. If he didn’t have that degree that he claimed but also didn’t say he had it, he would have remained ND coach.
Look ccrider, when you assume that people are idiots and make terrible arguments, you don’t fool anyone; you just make yourself look like a dolt.
LikeLike
“Please don’t tell me that you think that the reason that coaching salaries have gone up so much is because coaches now have college degrees.”
No. They had them in the past. But they are the ticket without which you do not get to coach. The level of salary, high or not as high, is unavailable to you if you don’t have the “golden ticket.”
LikeLike
That’s nice, ccrider, but it doesn’t explain the differential in the change in the compensation for college coaches so is fairly irrelevant to the discussion. You might as well point out that you need working eyes to be a college football coach (this is true; if you’re blind, you’re assuredly not going to make it as a coach).
LikeLike
Working eyes aren’t something a school can offer. An opportunity for an education/degree is. I agree some sports coaches are being excessively compensated. Solve that, don’t use it as a justification to excessively “compensate” in other areas while not reinstating lost or starting new opportunities.
LikeLike
O’Leary wouldn’t have had the job to lose, or the prior jobs that got him noticed, without claiming to have that degree.
LikeLike
Richard,
“You know what that means, Brian? That means that the “true” cost of an education actually has not appreciated as much as the list price shows.”
No, it means that people other than the students are paying a larger chunk of the cost of the education.
LikeLike
Brian:
No (or rather, not necessarily). A school could keep everything else the same but increase tuition by 10% with the extra income going solely to increased financial aid. When they do that, the list price increases by 10%, but the average actual cost paid by students stays the same (with money transferred from kids from richer families to kids from poorer families).
In fact, I’m quite sure that that’s what a lot of schools have done. The average actual cost of college paid by students has not increased anywhere as much as the listed price over the past decade or so:
in any case, increased financial aid decreases the value of a scholarship, since the value of a scholarship is the amount that you’d have to pay without a scholarship (after getting financial aid). For lower-middle class and poor kids, that amount is pretty small now, and may not even have increased in real terms (or if it did, not by much) over the past 3 decades or so.
LikeLike
About this:
“No, it means that people other than the students are paying a larger chunk of the cost of the education.”
What I said didn’t contradict what you said (but what you said also didn’t contradict what I had said originally; it’s quite possible for both other people to pay more of the costs of education and for the true cost of college, on average, to have not appreciated much for students), so the “no” was out of place.
LikeLike
The Longhorns to play in Mexico City?
http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/bevo-beat/2014/jan/29/breakfast-bevo-texas-man-plan/
LikeLike
A little off topic, but I thought this was interested. Some of the schools at the top really surprised me.
http://news.yahoo.com/national-universities-where-accepted-students-usually-enroll-153122306.html
LikeLike
The Mormons really like NYU and the Jews who apply there really like Yeshiva. I guess a lot of Alaskans don’t want to leave Alaska.
But yeah, GSU and UNLV are a surprise.
LikeLike
NYU=BYU?
LikeLike
Right. Meant Mormons and BYU.
LikeLike
UCF takes in 6K freshmen, but they have 51K undergrads.
LikeLike
The nine year plan?
LikeLike
How many of UCF’s undergrads come in with cc/juco credit? You will start seeing the non-name universities start becoming largely junior/senior driven as more people choose to do their first credits at the juco level due to cost. I have also heard the argument that a “good suburban high school diploma e.g. New Trier, Stevenson, others” should be regarded as a equal substitute for the 1st and 2nd year of a collegiate curriculum.
LikeLike
This is true, BTW. I felt that I got just as good a liberal arts education in my HS as any college/university out there.
LikeLike
Many HS’s offer college credit courses. I’ve coached a couple kids who started college with over a years worth of credit. However, none of my HS teachers were poet laurets of the state, or able to read Chaucer fluently in the Old English of his time, Olympic champions, or Nobel prize winners. There are more resources and opportunities available in college than at most HS.
LikeLike
ccrider:
That’s true, but how many poet laureates, Olympic champions, Nobel Prize winners, and professors who can read Chaucer in Middle English (Chaucer didn’t write Old English; that would be Beowulf) are actually great teachers?
In terms of a liberal arts education, the one I got in my HS was as good as any college’s.
LikeLike
Richard:
I agree, it’s great to have great teachers. But that isn’t the purpose of a research university. It is the students responsibility to learn. The school doesn’t hold their hand. The school tries to hire the best academics and researches they can in their field, and it is a happy coincidence when they also are great teachers.
LikeLike
UCF gets a lot of transfers from State Colleges. There are no longer any Community or Junior Colleges in Florida. A lot of their incoming students come in with college credit from high school too. Dual enrollment in particular is huge in Florida, as is AP and IB.
LikeLike
If the Rams move back to LA, I would think Mizzou football would stand to benefit.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/10381057/stan-kroenke-land-buy-mean-rams-move
LikeLike
I’d agree with you if UM was in Kirkwood or St.Charles rather than in Columbia.
LikeLike
And the soap opera continues…
LikeLike
Riddell thinks they have a better helmet:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/31/football-helmet-design-can-lower-concussion-risk-study-finds/?intcmp=latestnews
LikeLike
Another list that shows that whatever recruiting advantage that the SEC has over the B10 is due almost solely to FL (and now TX):
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2013-09-18/nfl-players-state-by-state-breakdown-california-florida-louisiana-texas-south-ca
Incidentally, the B10 has 26.8 NFL players per school from within its footprint while the Pac has 21.9 NFL players per schools from within its footprint.
Granted, the B10 has ND (and Pitt and ISU) within it’s footprint while the Pac doesn’t have any other P5 schools within it’s footprint (other than maybe BYU).
Still, playing the Pac rather than the SEC will be a bit more fair for the B10, and in the next bowl cycle, the B10 will play the Pac more (3 times vs. once now; SEC matchups stay at 3; 2 games vs. the B12 are swapped out for 2 games vs. the ACC).
LikeLike
ESPN poll about the importance of amateurism to fans.
http://espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=ncf&pollId=4163123
“How important is amateurism to your enjoyment of college athletics?
Very Important – 44%
Somewhat Important – 26%
Not Important – 30%”
LikeLike
Here’s the thing with polls like this:
What people say and how they act often aren’t very consistent at all when it comes to stuff like amateurism (actually, many aspects of life, come to think of it).
I read an article somewhere that pointed out that when the Olympics moved away from their strict “amateurs only” rules, 75% of Americans polled thought that the Olympics should maintain their strict amateurism rules, yet the Olympics moved from that to the current Olympic model and TV ratings for the Olympics have only gone up and up. If anything, TV ratings for the Olympics improved after they relaxed their rules on amateurism.
Given that data point, I’m going to be skeptical that people actually care about whether college athletes receive a stipend or can sell their autographs (though I’m quite aware that that would have a massive impact on recruiting in the revenue sports) despite what they may say until I see the TV ratings.
LikeLike
TV broadcast availability, technology, ubiquity is/has not been a static point that interest can be measured against. And with no competing broadcasts how can a contrast be made?
LikeLike
Plus, frankly, I don’t think it is well-known among casual sports fans/watchers that Olympic athletes are “paid.” The Olympic committee has not hid the fact, but it certainly is not trumpeted the fact either. Moreover, I think the Olympic committee still insists that they are NOT paid, merely “supported” or some such. That is, I think the Olympic committee maintains the facade of amateurism.
I bet if you took a poll of Americans, more than half would say that Olympic athletes were “not paid” and were “amateurs.”
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – Actually, I would think that it’s the exact opposite where casual watchers probably have no idea that there’s some type of amateurism component to the Olympics at this point and just assumes that these are pro athletes that happen to be performing on behalf of their respective countries (much like the World Cup). Michael Phelps is the most famous “pure” Olympian in recent memory and he’s a well-known highly-paid endorser, while people also are well aware that NBA and NHL players participate (who are obviously pros). To Richard’s point, I don’t think anyone cares about amateurism in the Olympics anymore (or at least those that do are vastly outweighed by the people that would much rather watch LeBron James and Sidney Crosby playing as evidenced by the TV ratings).
LikeLike
I agree. For decades we were aware many of our teams were basically competing against pros from other nations, mostly by our own choice. And most understand there isn’t a competitive situation where hundreds of “national” teams exist and compete to eliminate each other. And now we have the Olympic$, the biggest sports money grab of them all.
The “Olympic” model is in fact a professional model. It is inappropriate for the goal of collegiate athletics. Adopting it would be an inaccurate discription should it be allowed in college. It would be fundamentally substituting a professional model for the college student/athlete experience. My opinion is that would be a big mistake. NFL lite, NBA could abandon development leagues, money grabs would eliminate more sports, etc. Simply minor leagues…
LikeLike
Richard,
“Here’s the thing with polls like this:”
If they disagree with you, you’ll find an excuse to dismiss them as irrelevant while if they support you you’ll defend their validity. If you weren’t just trolling for an argument like always, you’d perhaps notice that nobody claimed this was important or deeply meaningful. It’s just data.
“What people say and how they act often aren’t very consistent at all when it comes to stuff like amateurism (actually, many aspects of life, come to think of it).”
The poll didn’t ask how they would act as a result, just how they felt. I didn’t make any claim about behavior either. You’re assuming a link between stated importance and behavior that isn’t present in the poll.
LikeLike
“If they disagree with you, you’ll find an excuse to dismiss them as irrelevant while if they support you you’ll defend their validity.”
Quite rich, coming from you, Brian, as I find that to be your basic modus operandi.
“If you weren’t just trolling for an argument like always”
Also too rich, coming from you, but then again, I suppose I should expect that you’d be unable to tell when someone is trolling and when someone is making a valid point. I won’t mention the A-word again (just make an oblique reference to it).
LikeLike
as a supplement to the Orig. Post and also to FtT’s comment, here are some poll results from 2004 re: amateurism in the Olympics.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+Attitudes+to+Olympics%3B+*+Half+of+Adult+Public+Would+Limit…-a0119962379
Of note: “… a new Harris Poll finds that half of the adults in the United States believe that participation in the Olympics should still be limited to amateurs,”
But more importantly, vast vast differences based on age. “Substantial majorities of
those over age 65 (68%) and of those aged 50 to 64 (62%) favor not
allowing professional athletes to participate, while most people under
age 40 think they should participate. Only 21% of people aged 18 to 24
favor not allowing professional athletes to compete.”
So, in theory, since younger fans are “ok” with a more professional model of compensation, CFB’s popularity would not suffer by a change in compensation model.
On the other hand, CFB is more popular with older fans and alumni (which we have discussed in other threads).
Hmm….
LikeLike
oh, btw, professionals have been allowed to be in the Olympics since the mid-1980s and all pro athletes were able to compete by the mid-1990s.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/the-olympics-show-why-college-sports-should-give-up-on-amateurism/260275/
LikeLike
Pros are allowed, but few of the athletes are paid for their Olympic participation. However, due to performance bonuses that most countries (including the USA) have, almost all medal winners get paid.
LikeLike
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/why-do-cold-weather-cities-always-have-open-air-stadiums
Why northern cities have open air stadiums.
LikeLike
“And designing for snow requires more steel (which means more cash), as the weight of a snowfall can double the load a stadium roof needs to support.”
Hmm. The Pontiac Silverdome, the Humpdome, the Carrier Dome, and the old RCA Dome (as well as the Tokyo Dome) are all air-supported domes, which are much cheaper to build than domes with real roofs. Why did that design fall out of favor?
LikeLike
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO81UQ2u1SeAIAZ2dx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTB1MDU2M2xpBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA01PVVMxMjhfMQ–?_adv_prop=image&fr=onesearch&va=silverdome+collapse+2013
LikeLike
Put in place a hot water system to melt the snow (as well as the current measure of warm air).
Tokyo also gets snow but I’ve never heard of problems with the Tokyo Dome.
LikeLike
Very funny. Lovin’ it.
Of course the point is cost vs. revenue. Will a domed stadium in Chicago generate enough additional revenue from winter events to pay for the additional steel and construction costs.
LikeLike
Well, they miss out on hosting a lot of major events at Soldier Field without one. Major sports events like the Final Four require one. The B10 CCG would be more likely to be there if it was domed. They can’t get winter tour dates of concerts. Events like supercross (season starts in January, ends before summer) might be available with a dome (Detroit and Indy have dates). Also monster trucks and other entertainment shows. Even events like car shows or boat shows would be a possibility.
Without a roof, Soldier Field is conceding many of these events to other local spots. Other things just bypass Chicago because there isn’t a suitable facility.
LikeLike
If Soldier Field were a 72,000 seat, domed stadium, it would have Super Bowls every 5-7 years, Final Fours, B1G Title Games, possibly semis in a CFB playoff, Neutral site CFB regular season games. Basically, it could be a northern version of AT&T Stadium/Jerry World.
That’s what Chicago is missing out on. Same for NYC (with the failed West Side Stadium), DC, Philly, and Boston. Now, would those benefits pay for the addition of a roof on existing facilities in those cities? That’s unclear based on how much the stadium itself would make from hosting those events. None of those localities are going to fit the bill. (Example: For MetLife Stadium, neither NY nor NJ are paying for a roof, when the benefits from those events are too spread out to make it worthwhile. Neither the Jets nor Giants will roof, because its unlikely they’d recoup the expense–the teams asked the NJSEA to pay for a roof; NJSEA laughed at the teams. Would have added about $300 mil to the cost of MetLife).
However, since Soldier Field’s capacity is already too low to host Super Bowls and CFB playoff games, I doubt the value is there to roof the present stadium (assuming it can even be done in the first place).
LikeLike
It is such a shame that the Final Four has to be played in a domed football stadium every year. Selfishly, I wish North Carolina (Charlotte in particular) would be a terrific host for the Final Four every now and then. The state is second only to Indiana (maybe third to Kansas, but NC is a much bigger state) in terms of how hoops-crazed it is. The Final Four would be a perfect event for Charlotte and the state of North Carolina.
But beyond my NC-centric hopes, the list of cities which can’t host the FF is ridiculous: New York, LA, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Miami… it’s a who’s-who list of America’s largest cities. Chicago and the northeastern cities, in particular, are far more crazy for college hoops than Texas cities or New Orleans are. Other smaller but fun-to-visit cities that can’t get the Final Four include Seattle, Denver, and San Diego. Then there’s one of the best college basketball cities in America: Kansas City. No Final Fours for Kansas City, ever again. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
“Neutral site CFB regular season games”
Not having a dome doesn’t force Chicago to miss out on those, considering that they almost all take place in the early fall. Chicago does miss out on a bunch of the other events, though.
Also, a domed stadium would have to be brand new, not a roofed-over Soldier Field.
LikeLike
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-05/sports/sp-12550_1_pontiac-silverdome
LikeLike
Also, both the Humpdome and the new Vikings stadium are domed. They missed that.
As Frank has said many times, the Chicago Park District definitely screwed up by not building a domed replacement for old Soldier Field. Unlike many cities, Chicago is a major convention hub, and a domed stadium would definitely have been filled almost all the time.
LikeLike
Technically they didn’t miss anything. The Vikings no longer play at the Hump Dome and the new stadium isn’t built yet. Their home field now is TCF Bank, an outdoor stadium.
I have a bigger issue with Indy being counted as southern. It’s just barely south of the M-D line (4.5 minutes, or less than 4 miles) and not considered southern in any normal circumstance. As we’ve discussed a lot, what’s considered southern has changed a lot since 1767.
I also think they missed out on the mindset of the fans. It’s a matter of pride for many northern fans to tough out cold weather. Southern fans feel no shame in admitting it gets too hot to enjoy sitting outside for 4 hours.
As for NY/NJ, they probably should have mentioned land prices as a factor.
Considering how much these stadiums cost anymore, the extra $100M or so for a fixed roof in the north seems like a wise choice. You get a lot more days of use from a stadium like that.
LikeLike
Of course, those northern cities/states are all heavily unionized. Costs of construction much higher than in some southern states as a result.
And in Chicago especially, not even God knows how much those construction costs would be inflated by graft/corruption.
LikeLike
Remembering that 20 below day in Anderson, just north of Indy, I will strongly disagree that Indianapolis is southern.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s extremely strange to characterize Indy as a Southern city. The only thing that I can think of is that the Colts are in the AFC South and the person didn’t bother looking at a map (considering that their NFL counterparts in Cincinnati and Baltimore are in the AFC North despite being in locations south of Indy).
LikeLike
I think it’s a typo.
There is only one closed stadium north of the Mason-Dixon line: Detroit’s Ford Field. The South also boasts only one retractable-roof stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Ind.
In the South, there are three domed stadiums (the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans, the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, and the Edward Jones Done in St. Louis). There are also three southern retractable-roof stadiums (Houston’s Reliant Stadium, Arizona’s University of Phoenix Stadium, and AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, which is home to the Dallas Cowboys).
I think they meant to North in the sentence about Indy.
LikeLike
No, they said early in the article that they would use the latitude of the Mason-Dixon line to split north from south. Indy is just barely south of that line.
LikeLike
They forgot the Astrodome! Of course, its not usuable right now and may not be up for long. But it still exists.
LikeLike
Well, in the article, they only discuss (current) NFL stadiums.
Otherwise, there’s the Carrier Dome in the north and Alamodome in the south.
They also confined themselves to only the US in North America. In Canada, the Rogers Centre, BC Place, and Olympic Stadium are also domed.
LikeLike
Speaking of the Astrodome, supporters of saving it may have received a minor boost:
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/astrodome-is-a-national-historic-place/article_f32c7812-6fdf-55ff-a328-93a3d8ab5f9f.html
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/02/02/smith-sees-progress-wants-more.html
Long interview with Gene Smith, AD at OSU. Mostly about OSU, but a few interesting comments about expansion.
Of particular note and relevant to FtT’s article: “Q: When you look at Rutgers and Maryland, … Do you still feel those are good additions?
A: I do. We could have gone a number of ways. I think it was great for the league and really good for Penn State. People haven’t focused on that enough. Penn State was sitting out there like an appendage. Anybody could have plucked them. The ACC could have plucked them.”
Interesting ….
Here is the full c&p relevant to this Board:
“Q: What do you think is the biggest issue facing the Big Ten?
A: I think our involvement with the NCAA governing structure and making sure that everybody stays engaged with the process to move it along. I think coming up with strategies to make sure each school has what they need to allow their football teams to be successful. I think we’ve done that. Last year in the spring we had good conversations about making sure people were investing the right way. I think that’s when Urban’s comments on recruiting came out. We were all talking about that. We just have to get better there. Transitioning Maryland and Rutgers into the league and making sure we have with that a presence on the East Coast.
Q: When you look at Rutgers and Maryland, they haven’t set the world afire and Rutgers has had its issues with coaches and its AD. Do you still feel those are good additions?
A: I do. We could have gone a number of ways. I think it was great for the league and really good for Penn State. People haven’t focused on that enough. Penn State was sitting out there like an appendage. Anybody could have plucked them. The ACC could have plucked them.
The other one was the lock up a little bit of the East Coast with television. We’re doing that. We’re going to Navy next year. We’re playing in the Ravens stadium.
Yes, we’re still happy with (having added them). Do we need to help Maryland and Rutgers get better? No doubt. In football, obviously. Their Olympic sports are phenomenal. We have to help them with football and basketball.”
LikeLike
Time for a big “I told you so”.
2 or 3 years ago I was telling everyone that PSU would end up in the ACC if the Big didn’t add another eastern team or two. Some people said no way because of the GOR or the BTN. I replied they were tired of being taken for granted and that there was tremendous feeling against the BIG…and that the ACC was a realistic alternative. Apparently guys like Alvaraz and Smith could also read the writing on the wall…………..
LikeLike
I don’t think Penn State leaving was an immediate threat. The Grant of Rights I think did secure them until its length was short enough that the cost would have dropped to something manageable (given there is no exit penalty, maybe 4 years?).
That said, there were comments when Rutgers and Maryland were invited about Penn State and I agree that’s exactly how it sounded. The ACC as it was was not going to get Penn State, but the 15 team ACC which now had virtually every major northeastern and Mid-Atlantic program vs. the Big Ten which had nothing besides Penn State was a definite risk.
In that way, the expansion will probably be a success no matter what. Penn State now has is actually almost toward the center of their division and has 3 border state schools instead of 1.
LikeLike
Wisconsin’s Barry Alvarez also commented that there was concern in the long term that PSU could consider leaving the B1G if other eastern schools were not added to the conference.
Nothing is ever guaranteed in college athletics, and if PSU ever felt it would make more money and be more at home in a different conference, it would have to consider leaving.
LikeLike
The money would greatly favor the B10 for the foreseeable future. PSU would have to choose to drop the CIC and lose money to feel more at home in the ACC. And despite the whining of fans, TPTB at PSU seem to love the B10. The academics are thrilled at how much PSU’s standing has improved since 1990. The AD is thrilled with how hard Delany has fought for them behind the scenes and for how much money he’s made for them.
Add to that the GOR, and deciding to leave the B10 would be very difficult for PSU right now. I think the additions of RU and UMD help ease any concerns in that regard, but I don’t think any departure was imminent. If it ever made financial sense to add Pitt, PSU would be locked in forever.
LikeLike
Adding MD and Rutgers was huge for PSU’s relationship with ther Big 10.
Now factors favoring PSU staying in the Big 10 include $, institutional fit, the CIC, the rivalry with OSU (which has the potential to get bigger over the years), and the fact that PSU’s best/most liked sports are football/hockey/wrestling/volleyball, all of which are stronger in the BIG than in the ACC. Maryland and Rutgers pretty much balancer out Pitt and SU in terms of rivalries……..
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Adding MD and Rutgers was huge for PSU’s relationship with ther Big 10.”
For whom? The BoT, the administration, the faculty, the alumni or the fans?
“the rivalry with OSU (which has the potential to get bigger over the years),”
No, it really doesn’t. PSU already hates OSU, and OSU will always have a much deeper rivalry with MI. It’s the one-sided nature of it that keeps it from growing bigger.
“Maryland and Rutgers pretty much balancer out Pitt and SU in terms of rivalries……..”
Do they? That’s not my understanding of PSU fans. Western PSU fans despise Pitt more than anyone while SU is a big deal to eastern fans. I’ve never heard any PSU fan mention RU or UMD as a rival. They might grow into minor rivals (PSU has been much better than them in FB historically), but nothing on the level of what PSU/Pitt was (and still is to a lesser extent).
LikeLike
Pitt’s in its own category, but I thought UMD was as big a rival as SU and PSU always loved to beat up on RU to impress Jersey recruits.
LikeLike
From everything I’ve heard from Presidents and academics, the idea of PSU being unhappy in the Big 10 seems ludicrous. They have made a big surge in their academic reputation while in the Big 10. They have credited it to being in the Big 10 as they felt compelled to use the Big 10 schools as a benchmark against themselves.
LikeLike
PSU was never leaving. Not in the foreseeable future anyway. Their fans may grumble, and a fair number of the rest of the B1G schools fans may grumble about MD/RU. Those that count weren’t. This just sounds like a mutual justification ploy to reduce the grumbling from both groups.
LikeLike
“Yes, we’re still happy with (having added them). Do we need to help Maryland and Rutgers get better? No doubt. In football, obviously. Their Olympic sports are phenomenal. We have to help them with football and basketball.”
Many of Maryland’s Olympic sports are phenomenal. Are Rutgers’? I know their women’s hoops program is one of the best programs, top ten over the long haul, I suppose.
Both need “help” with football, though I’m not sure the Big Ten will help with that. They’ll get more money, but more money doesn’t often translate into more wins.
Rutgers needs “help” with basketball. Certainly, if the Big Ten can help with that, it will be because of money, not because of a more prestigious hoops league. Remember: Rutgers was a member of the big, bad Big East for almost 20 years, and hoops never really took off.
I’m not sure Maryland needs help with basketball. They’re not what they were a little over a decade ago, but they’ve got a solid fanbase, rich history, a perfect location for recruiting, and a pretty good coach. And the Big Ten is essentially a lateral move, as far as quality of play, from the ACC. Again, is money supposed to be the magic elixir for better basketball? If that’s what he’s implying, I think Smith is wrong.
Money seems to have a worse rate of diminishing returns on basketball than it does on football. Wichita State, Creighton, Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler (not this year), and VCU have performed at top 15 levels in both the regular season and NCAA Tournament over the past five years without the benefit of major conference revenue (BU, XU, and CU only joining the Big East this year). Money doesn’t explain why the SEC, outside of Kentucky and Florida, have so few teams make it to the Elite 8 and Final Four, relative to the size and revenue of the league. It doesn’t explain why the Big East did so well up through last year despite being a distant number 6 in revenue.
LikeLike
Don’t let the lack of football revenue deceive you in to thinking that certain schools don’t have money to spend in basketball.
Here are the top 25 bball coaches salaries, for instance:
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-salaries-for-the-highest-paid-college-basketball-coaches-2013-12?op=1.
The old BE had 6 coaches in the top 25.
Creighton was #6 in the whole nation in average bball attendance last year.
Xavier and Wichita St. had better average attendance than Duke last year.
Money matters in bball just as in football.
LikeLike
Rutgers has done relatively little in women’s basketball since the start of the decade and probably will be a middle-of-the-pack team at best in the Big Ten, whereas Maryland is a Top 25 program and should contend for a conference title for at least the next few years.
LikeLike
Folks, just in general, culture is not static, albeit traditions of mediocrity can lead one to think such. New Jersey has great hs football, basketball, lacrosse, decent prep hockey & lots of people. I’m sure they have pretty good prep soccer as well. Rutgers has never been in a big-time conference for a sustained period of time.
Things, esp cultures can change. Patience. If you would have told people from Minnesota during the 30s to early 60s the Gopher football would bottom out & become very average in the distant future, the dismissive laughs would have been common.
Our mainstream culture is incredibly ephemeral – an example of static cultural practice. I don’t think such is fair to apply to university athletics. Oregon use to be a pretty average football program, Wisconsin as well. Both these states are behind Jersey in terms of prep football. And there was a time there when I thought Alabama would never come back to dominance, though I never lost sight of “very good” & “consistent”.
LikeLike
I agree. Given the amount of football talent in that state (6th most NFL players , after the big 5 of CA, TX, FL, GA, and OH, beating out the SEC schools like AL, SC, LA, and MS), RU is one of the best-poised non-prince schools to become a prince.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Congrats on your new university president. I think it’s a great step for the BIG and nice addition to your university.
AL
LikeLike
Thanks AL. I hope he succeeds. I am a tiny tiny bit worried that he’s making too big of a jump from UC Davis to Ohio State. But I am sure the Trustees factored that issue in. Hopefully, 10 years from now we’ll be calling it a “home run.”
LikeLike
UC Irvine, actually.
Pretty diverse set of experiences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Drake
Grants, admissions, and UC med school policy.
Also, it’s not like UCI is a small liberal arts college. With 28K students and academic staff of 2685, UCI is comparable in size to Iowa (with more academic staff, actually), which also makes UCI bigger than Nebraska.
It’s funny how sports skews how big people think schools actually are. UCSD, UCI, and UC-Davis are actually around the same size schools as UK, Tennessee, LSU, VTech, KU, & OU, a little bigger than Oregon, Auburn and Arkansas, and much bigger than Clemson, GTech, Ole Miss, & MSSt.
LikeLike
Thanks Richard, I was going to say the same….
LikeLike
And UC San Diego and UC Davis get mentioned when academics talk about top public schools. Both are generally viewed as top 15-20, ahead of any of those schools Richard mentioned.
LikeLike
UC Irvine. Thanks for the correction. (Who can keep all those UCs separate. 🙂 )
Also, thanks for the information on sizes. And you are correct about sports. And another important point is that tOSU’s BofTrustees did not hire him for sports reasons. He’s been hired to run the University which is about academics, etc., and then there is that sports thing we do.
LikeLike
His med school background was really important with OSU’s giant hospital and research complex.
LikeLike
From the same C-bus Dispatch article:
“Q: How closely have you followed the North Carolina academic scandal, and what safeguards do you have to ensure that can’t happen here?
A: Clustering is the term we use. You can’t have a lot of athletes clustered in one degree area. You find yourself throwing them into this degree area, which is not right. What are they interested in? What do they really want to do, as opposed to putting them somewhere just to stay eligible or because there’s “faculty friendliness” over there. Our deal is to make sure that we educate our faculty, which we do, and we also make sure our kids major in what they’re interested in majoring in. I’m not sure how that happened. If we have a whole bunch of athletes majoring in one field, what is that? Why are we doing that? We pay attention to that.”
Ouch!!
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/02/02/smith-sees-progress-wants-more.html
A tidbit on salaries, incentives and the student athlete:
“Q: But you understand why a critic would say the tennis player is not going to get the bonus for winning the national championship, so why should the athletic director?
A: It’s the way that athletics, over the years, have defended the base. They don’t put it in the base. They put it in the incentives. So when you look at the base you don’t go, “Oh my God, look at that base.” They put it in the incentives. One cynic looks at it one way and another cynic looks at it another. The compensation is consistent with the expectation and the responsibilities in the market. Everybody frames it differently.
Relative to the student-athlete, it’s unbelievable the resources we provide our student-athletes. It’s an unbelievable list. And we need to do more. So our student-athletes, when you look at it from an educational point of view, it’s phenomenal the services they get. You can put a dollar figure on it like that.”
LikeLike
Finally, Gene Smith’s thoughts on the Northwestern players’ efforts to unionize:
“Q: What did you think about the Northwestern football players forming the College Athletes Players Association and filing a petition with the Chicago regional office of the National Labor Relations Board to become a union?
A: My first response was, OK, what does this mean? Then I started reading about it. I read what (former Northwestern quarterback) Kain Colter said and I actually got like, this is cool. What you’re trying to do is teach your young people that they have rights, too. You want to teach them to be leaders. He’s taking a leadership position. Then I began to obviously move to what does it really mean for intercollegiate athletics? While I do not agree that student-athletes are employees, while I do not agree that unionizing is the appropriate way to go about solving these issues, I still got to applaud them because they’re taking a stance. All the other students have an opportunity to do that. Why shouldn’t they? I looked at it from that viewpoint.
And the points that they raised, which gave me comfort, are the issues we’re trying to solve. So it’s not like there’s something new there we didn’t think was in place. It would have been great if in 2010 we had changed the governing structure that we’re working on now. We would have already solved some of those issues. They’re ahead of our transition. I think our new governing structure will be in place by August 2014 and then you’ll see new legislation emerge and then they’ll be voted on in 2015 and then some of the issues they’re bringing up, some of them will be resolved. They won’t be resolved to the point of pay-for-play and it won’t be resolved for all 351 (Division I) schools because some schools won’t be able to afford what we’re going to be able to do. What that group is asking for, there’s a reality to what they’re asking for. While Northwestern student-athletes, and SEC, and Big Ten and Big 12 student-athletes, we’ll be able to solve some of the problems they’re raising, but I don’t see it at all 351 schools, the FCS schools that have football. Their problems are the same. Their issues are the same.”
Kudos to Rabinowitz and Jones for an excellent interview; nice job by AD Smith too.
LikeLike
Yeah, unlike some vehemently anti-union folks, I believe that the NU players went ahead with this with the implicit blessing of the NU administration and B10 (the players had informed Fitz beforehand, and he almost certainly had informed the AD, who very likely had informed the B10). It’s another way for the B10 to apply pressure on the rest of the NCAA to change the rules to how the B10 wants them to be: allow a post-playing career academic fund; allow a basic stipend, etc.). In fact, Smith is pretty much asking football players elsewhere (in other conferences) to start a union drive as well by praising the NU players’ leadership.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how player unionization efforts go over in places where the state governments and most of the fans are more anti-union, such as in the SEC.
LikeLike
In comes down to state laws for public schools. There was an article I linked to earlier which listed FL as one of 15 states where it would be easier for students to unionize. They are probably the only SEC state where that is true.
LikeLike
They’re friendlies. Essentially exhibition matches. They’d put them on in a parking lot if they thought that would make money.
LikeLike
But in any event, the minimum regulation pitch for a club match is 50yds by 100yds, so 65yd x 100yd would be fine. Its only internationals that have an issue with having to spill outside of a standard American football field, and even there, its only 5 yards wider than a football field, plus room for the substitutes/coaches benches on one side.
LikeLike
It won’t be made official until Tuesday but word is that Michigan Stadium may be used to host a football game in early August…association football that is.
http://worldsoccertalk.com/2014/01/31/exclusive-real-madrid-manchester-united-liverpool-and-5-other-top-teams-heading-to-united-states-in-july/
I’m curious how that could be done, being that the field width looks too narrow.
LikeLike
Replied above.
LikeLike
There actually is a fair amount of leeway (minimum 70 yds) in terms of minimum widths of soccer pitches in international play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football_pitch), with some allowances for 45 yds. This actually should have been done at ND or another stadium that would be undergoing renovations (e.g. removal / replacement of lower sideline seating).
LikeLike
Going back to the Gene Smith interview posted by BuckeyeBeau, this is interesting re: MBB scheduling:
“Q: Dayton and Xavier also would.
A: We’re not going to play those guys that much. We’re happy with what we’re doing. No one’s ever going to be satisfied on that one.”
Any of the OSU folks on here have insight into this? Why wouldn’t OSU play Dayton/Xavier?
Also, that part of the interview mentions other Ohio schools, and Smith says Akron would draw better than Kent/OU. Why would Akron draw more?
LikeLike
Xavier and Dayton draw so well at home that they’re not going to give a one-and-done to OSU, and OSU isn’t going to do a HaH with an OH school.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – If I was running OSU, I certainly wouldn’t schedule Dayton or Xavier. The approach to scheduling if you’re in the power position is that you should only play a school home-and-home if you’re getting as much or more benefit from the matchup as the other school. That would clearly be the problem here – Xavier and Dayton would be getting lot more out of a giant-killing opportunity than OSU playing in an area where they already have little troubling recruiting or getting exposure for their fans. OSU should only be scheduling schools from completely different regions for national exposure (like they have with Florida) or elite blue bloods (i.e. if Kentucky was willing to play them).
I get asked the same thing all of the time about why Illinois doesn’t ever schedule DePaul. The issue is that almost all of the upside is for DePaul, so there’s little point for Illinois in agreeing to schedule that game. Virtually every “logical” regional matchup doesn’t ever get played because it’s simply much more beneficial for one school (generally the weaker upstart program) than the other (the one with more power and/or money). The only one that I can think of where there would seem to be a relatively even matchup on paper in terms of scheduling power would be Georgetown vs. Maryland – the refusal to play that game seems to be much more personal than based on an imbalance of power.
LikeLike
@Frank:
All very good points, but I think that’s more of a football based view. In the interview, Smith talks about filling the 9 game OOC schedule and states that he wants a few top team opponents, but that having 6-7 games against top teams “is just not going to happen.” In that context, without those top opponents, you run the risk of lower attendance, which does matter for athletic departments. Filling seats as a result does mean having more local opponents who have fans who will travel. Obviously, OSU hosting Akron won’t fill the arena with OSU fans entirely, but having some Akron fans means they buy tickets/concessions. As for playing the Daytons/Xaviers/Cincy schools, I agree that nothing is gained by Home and Homes with them (or with almost anyone), and if those are the requirements for those schools, then its a nonstarter. But I don’t think the risks are as severe for OSU to schedule those schools as one off home opponents–OSU is the undisputed top school in the state, and losing occasionally to Xavier/Dayton/Cincy wont by itself change that. OSU would need many down years combined with Xavier/Dayton/Cincy national titles to risk losing its primacy in Ohio. Louisville becoming Kentucky’s almost equal has less to do with their annual matchup as it does Louisville’s sustained success and national title under Pitino.
As for Illinois/DePaul, I think its a situation is different because Illinois has really nothing to gain by playing DePaul. it already has at least one game in Chicagoland vs. NWU. It has deeply forged recruiting ties in the city. DePaul is bad enough that illinois’ RPI could he hurt by merely scheduling them. A loss to DePaul would be no more embarrassing than a loss to any other OOC filler game, and wouldn’t really hurt Illinois in marketing/recruiting unless and until DePaul actually becomes a decent/great program again. Its more the lack of upside than any real downside.
Its interesting because Syracuse under Jim Boeheim takes the complete opposite view and schedules multiple NYS teams in the non-conference (outside of invitational tournaments or conference challenges). One year, Boeheim scheduled both Cornell AND Columbia. ‘Cuse does this to draw some local fans to fill the Carrier Dome, and more folks from, say, Cansius or St. Bonaventure will attend than will folks from, say, Memphis.
LikeLike
Xavier/Dayton/Cincy aren’t going to give one-and-dones to OSU considering that they pretty much only do HaH’s or buy games home games themselves.
You probably have to go back years if not decades to find those schools giving one-and-dones to anybody.
LikeLike
The corporate seats near the floor in the Schott are frequently empty. And the Schott loses money as it is. Scheduling weak teams only aggravates these problems.
LikeLike
Empty but almost always already paid for, and thus not a big concern for Gene Smith.
Losing hurts attendance at least as much as playing weaker teams. Helping your competition also hurts the program.
LikeLike
OSU is in the top 10 in bball revenue:
I rather doubt that they lose money on MBB.
Don’t know where you got your information from.
LikeLike
Well, The Lantern has some doubts about the Schott’s ability to generate enough revenue to cover all operation costs and service the debt:
http://thelantern.com/2000/10/schottenstein-center-where-is-the-profit/
Here are some older data on attendance:
http://blog.cleveland.com/buckeye-banter/2010/01/was_building_the_schottenstein.html
Columbus has two arenas, the Schott and Nationwide, that compete for business. Neither appears to be profitable. In fact, the Nationwide signed an agreement with OSU that has OSU manage it.
LikeLike
Here’s another article backing up what Bob said:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/11/17/arena_anniv.ART_ART_11-17-08_A1_KOBTM3E.html?sid=101
and an passing reference here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/nyregion/29arenas.html
The interesting thing is that most article look at the situation from the Nationwide/Blue Jackets perspective, focusing on that arena without really analyzing the Schottenstein Center’s performance.
LikeLike
Part of that is accounting games. MBB makes a large profit, but the Schott doesn’t get credit for any of the TV or radio money, or for donations. On the other hand, they are counting the full cost of servicing the debt against the ticket sales and concessions.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Any of the OSU folks on here have insight into this? Why wouldn’t OSU play Dayton/Xavier?”
Risk vs reward. They are both really good mid-majors. OSU has more to lose than to gain by playing them. Besides, OSU can already recruit in OH so why play a road game in state?
“Also, that part of the interview mentions other Ohio schools, and Smith says Akron would draw better than Kent/OU. Why would Akron draw more?”
Akron’s been better than Kent and Ohio lately (7 straight years in MAC title game). OSU just played Ohio and didn’t get a bump so Smith may be assuming Akron would do better.
LikeLike
@Brian-
Thanks for the info. But I have to ask, and you seem as if you would know, does a school like OSU really risk that much playing Xavier/Dayton/Cincy in basketball, assuming those three would agree to a one-off in Columbus? (I get that OSU’s ego would want to prevent the appearance of equality that a Home and Home would imply). I would think OSU’s primacy in Ohio in all sports would be pretty well established that the occasional game would not in reality change the the hierarchy–even if OSU were to lose.
I mean, in North Carolina, would UNC or Duke be risking all that much hosting, say, Davidson, a mid major with some recent success? They are two of the 5 or so undisputed basketball Kings; and hosting a successful mid major would not alter that. (Granted that OSU does not have UNC/Duke basketball tradition, but OSU does have an unchallenged claim on being the King of Ohio.)
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“But I have to ask, and you seem as if you would know, does a school like OSU really risk that much playing Xavier/Dayton/Cincy in basketball, assuming those three would agree to a one-off in Columbus?”
They would never agree to a one-off in Columbus. Maybe neutral site, but not at OSU. That’s the issue. And yes, those schools are prominent enough that losing to them could have an impact on local recruiting. Losing to them wouldn’t be shameful, but it might hurt the program a little.
There is also bad blood between OSU and UC in hoops for historical reasons, so OSU probably wouldn’t play them even if they would come to Columbus.
“I would think OSU’s primacy in Ohio in all sports would be pretty well established that the occasional game would not in reality change the the hierarchy–even if OSU were to lose.”
OSU’s primacy is less solid in SW Ohio than elsewhere, and not the same level in hoops as in football.
“I mean, in North Carolina, would UNC or Duke be risking all that much hosting, say, Davidson, a mid major with some recent success? They are two of the 5 or so undisputed basketball Kings; and hosting a successful mid major would not alter that. (Granted that OSU does not have UNC/Duke basketball tradition, but OSU does have an unchallenged claim on being the King of Ohio.)”
OSU is less than Duke or UNC and Xavier/Dayton are bigger programs than Davidson.
LikeLike
To quote Brady Hoke, “they’re chicken.”
LikeLike
@Frank:
Saw your tweet last night about the s**tshow that was NJ Transit at the Superbowl. Having gone to non-Super Bowl football games at MetLife Stadium, I can confidently say that the mob scene was representative of the general situation taking the train there, but that SB48 also had about double-2.5x times the number of folks taking the train than your average NYJ/NYG football game.
At a regular football game, they will gather everyone up inside a roped off area and let a set number of folks board a train before closing the gates until the next train is available. This repeats until the last train runs and everyone is out of the stadium. There is only that one entrance area to the train platforms. Its a woefully-insufficient system but it is better than nothing.
The funny thing is had the stadium been build next to CitiField, between the LIRR and 7 train (and major highways nearby), the flow of people after the game would have been much smoother (the 7 train platform are extra wide, though the LIRR has a similar roped off waiting system).
Had the parking lots been open as they normally are, it would have been more manageable.
LikeLike
I attend about 75% of the Giant home games each year and my brother takes the train from Hoboken and meets us to tailgate. I agree with Wainscott’s comments and will add that New Jersey Transit had to have known that they would be unable to handle “the mass transit Super Bowl” efficiently because its not that quick for a normal game. For a normal game when you have the entire parking lot open as well as the ability for people to be dropped-off and walk onto the stadium grounds, the train is still a long process.
For the Super Bowl, a large number of parking spaces were lost to whatever they had setup in the parking lot, and they changed all of the parking lot rules. No one could walk onto stadium grounds. Everyone who did not have a parking pass had to come by train. Buses were not allowed to come in and out like in a normal game. Once the bus entered the lot, it had to stay for the entire game. If you were in town from Seattle staying with family in, for example, Rutherford right next to the stadium but had no parking pass, your family couldn’t drop you off at the stadium. Instead they would have had to drive you in a different direction than the stadium to get to the Secaucus train station and then wait in a mob of people to get packed into a train to get into the game.
I agree that if there was normal parking rules and grounds access, it would have been more manageable. Knowing that wasn’t the case, the least that they could have done was let the people know that it was going to be a mess.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/5_questions_about_northwestern.html
A quick look at the CFB union issue from an AL writer.
LikeLike
Big Ten very represented on this list:
http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/college-footballs-most-expensive-stadiums/
LikeLike
A slideshow? Couldn’t you at least list them for us?
1. MN – $330M
2. UTSA – $301M
3. UW – $287M
4. MI – $238M
5. OSU – $212M
6. UL – $193M
7. RU – $166M
8. TN – $137M
9. TT – $115M
10. PSU – $105M
LikeLike
Story going around about how Alabama needs to “cut” 8 scholarship players to get within NCAA limits…..don’t get why the Big 10. ACC, and PAC 12 let the SEC get away with this crap. I don’t think schs should be folr 4 years, because we all know 1/3 to1/4 of the kids would just “coast”, but why can’t the NCAA reduce the #s allowed in any one year to 20…..tjhen schools coud not “afford” to cut so many players………..
LikeLike
I’ve read that the rules have changed and non qualifiers continue to count. This should help discourage over signing and taking a gamble on several academically questionable as they can’t be substituted for when/if they aren’t admitted. Once they are signed they are part of the 25 whether they show or not. Am I misunderstanding?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’ve read that the rules have changed and non qualifiers continue to count. This should help discourage over signing and taking a gamble on several academically questionable as they can’t be substituted for when/if they aren’t admitted. Once they are signed they are part of the 25 whether they show or not. Am I misunderstanding?”
They count against the 28 limit for the signing day – 5/31 period, but not against the 25 total that can enroll. They also don’t count against the 85 total or for the 25 when back-counting. And remember, early enrollees can count against the previous class’s limit of 25.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/01/24/oversigning/
Wikipedia also has an article explaining it.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Story going around about how Alabama needs to “cut” 8 scholarship players to get within NCAA limits…”
Yes. We discussed it here a week ago.
http://frankthetank.me/2014/01/15/lawyers-guns-and-antitrust-counterclaims-maryland-says-acc-tried-to-recruit-big-ten-schools/#comment-181387
“..don’t get why the Big 10. ACC, and PAC 12 let the SEC get away with this crap.”
Because AL didn’t break any rules. Scholarships are for one year, so they can choose not to renew them whenever they want. Just recently they got the rules changed so scholarships can be for 4 years again (they used to be 1-4 years 40+ years ago, then got dropped to 1 year in 1973), but most schools aren’t doing that.
“I don’t think schs should be folr 4 years, because we all know 1/3 to1/4 of the kids would just “coast”,”
Except a 4-year scholarship is still allowed to be revoked for violations of policy and such. You just can’t lose it for not being good enough.
“but why can’t the NCAA reduce the #s allowed in any one year to 20…”
Because with 85 total, it wouldn’t work. There is more attrition than that at many schools in many years. Almost everyone would have to redshirt and then stick around for 4 more years, and even then injuries, transfers, academic issues, arrests, etc would leave many teams well below 85 players. You also have to allow for some classes being larger than others.
“..tjhen schools coud not “afford” to cut so many players………..”
AL will only have to cut a bunch if everyone signs their LOI, they all qualify academically and nobody leaves AL voluntarily. Almost never does an entire AL recruiting class qualify academically, and almost never is there no attrition. You just said they shouldn’t get 4 year deals, so why do you object to a coach not renewing a player for his 4th or 5th season?
LikeLike
A lot of the “attrition” youi discuss is schools flat running off players, esp. in the South. I see a lot more of that than schools legitimately being short on #s. That generally happens in coaching turnover or scandel situations.
LikeLike
OSU had plenty of attrition under Tressel, and OSU was generally several scholarships under the 85 limit every year before giving them to walk-ons for the year. Good teams lose people early to the pros or have players transfer due to lack of PT. They also recruit nationally and then lose some players to homesickness or ill relatives. Almost every school also deals with a few players that get in legal or academic trouble. To top it off, players suffer legitimate career-ending injuries.
Is some attrition manufactured? Sure, like AL having more players lost to career-ending injuries than the rest of the SEC combined under Saban. But you advocate for a 1-year scholarship and then complain about players not getting it renewed. You can’t have it both ways. Either coaches can cut a kid for any reason, or the scholarship has to be multiyear. Pick one.
LikeLike
Well, he’s for the first but also limiting the signing classes to a bare-bones number so that it would be painful (or at least not sensible) for a coach to cut a player unless that kid was actually a negative influence on the team rather than just unproductive.
His reasoning actually has some logic to it, IMO.
It would also make coaches put more thought in to who they recruit rather than just getting the best athletes available and see who manages to stick.
LikeLike
Well the “obvious” fix is to actually have four year schollies, but you’re against that one (because apparently it’s really bad if unpaid players would “coast”). Of course, the actual rule changes now allow (but NOT mandate) schools to offer four year instead of one year schollies (and even that one barely passed).
You can make a case for cutting the # allowed in a given year from 25 to some lower number, but that would have other negative consequences (one likely outcome being Bama and others en masse farming their freshman to jucos in year one, then only taking the ones that pan out at that point). Basically, in any system with massively skewed power dynamics (management having huge power, labor having nearly zero in this case, though it’s not like really strong labor leads to good outcomes either) you’ll see screwed up outcomes.
LikeLike
Lets go beyond merely “coasting” and ask what about players with genuinely bad attitudes……if your sch is automatically for 4 years, that would also be an issue.
If the most you could recruit in a given year was 20 or 21, there would be a disincentive to run players off because, if nothing else, you would need bodies for practice. But you could still drop a kid if he was hopelessly out-matched or had a bad attitude.
LikeLike
Good point. 22 a year gets you enough for 85 if everyone stays 4 years and you don’t redshirt anyone. Some kids do redshirt, though, so it should be more than enough.
LikeLike
Unless you made rules that allowed coaches to make exception for behavior issues. Which they already have, as it turns out. And they also have appeals panels written into the rules so a player can challenge the loss of his scholarship.
Your lower cap still doesn’t account for legitimate attrition. That’s bad for the athletes.
LikeLike
“Your lower cap still doesn’t account for legitimate attrition. That’s bad for the athletes.”
Why is that bad for the athletes? Someone’s getting that scholarship for the year, even if it’s a walk-on.
LikeLike
Here’s a piece of the “Olympic” model (that some promote for schools). If you can’t almost guarantee a possible medal, you’re out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/basketball/10617091/British-Basketball-stripped-of-all-Olympic-funding-by-UK-Sport-a-year-after-winning-it-back.html
LikeLike
Interesting article on TCU slipping into the Big 12.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24429641/tcu-has-texas-venerable-ad-to-thank-for-being-in-big-12
Shows how important relationships are in the realignment game. Of course, much can be said about any business.
LikeLike
Northwestern raising football ticket prices:
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/25382832-419/northwestern-football-to-increase-ticket-prices-source.html
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67420292/big-ten-has-quarterback-geography-and-recruiting-problems
A look at the B10’s biggest problem in football recently – the lack of great QBs.
LikeLike
Hmm, by the data they show, the B10 is pretty much in the pack with the ACC and B12, with the Pac slightly ahead and the SEC in front of everyone. Which isn’t all that different from the overall talent picture, where the B10, ACC, & Pac are all in a pack with the B12 very slightly behind and the SEC distinctly ahead of everyone else.
Granted, no 1st rounders in a decade, but that could be considered a flukish circumstance. Certainly, NFL talent evaluators aren’t perfect.*
The B10 footprint certainly has the talent: 41 4/5-star QB recruits and 32 draft picks vs. 45 4/5-star QB recruits and 31 draft picks for the Pac (comparing the 2 conferences that don’t share big chunks of their footprint).
*Here are the rounds of the top 10 NFL QB’s according to Football Outsiders
(http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb):
1
1
2
1
3
6
UN
2
3
1
LikeLike
Well the data/school is the SEC around 4.1, Pac 3.3, Big 12 2.8, Big 10 2.5, ACC 2.1. Not really any packs, everyone strung along. But the SEC’s advantage is ALL in the last two years if you look at the chart. They may be 4th if you took the last two years out. And that has been reflected on the field. Prior to last year, the SEC had several years with just terrible QB play. LSU won the conference with Jefferson starting.
So the article is misleading and doesn’t tell you anything. The SEC has had no QB advantage on the field. They may get one looking at the last two years. But then you can only play one at a time. UGA had LSU and Auburn’s starting QBs this year on their roster with Aaron Murray a few years back.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Well the data/school is the SEC around 4.1, Pac 3.3, Big 12 2.8, Big 10 2.5, ACC 2.1. Not really any packs, everyone strung along.”
And those numbers are debatable, too. Is it really fair to include 10 years of RU and UMD in the B10’s total? Supposing RU and UMD got none of the 34 (not saying that’s true, just supposing), the B10 would jump to 2.8 per school. Surely RU will do better recruiting in the B10 than in the BE. Should the SEC get credit for the recruiting of TAMU and MO in a more pass-happy league?
“But the SEC’s advantage is ALL in the last two years if you look at the chart.”
Not quite. They lead the P12 by 18, but only by 6 in the last 2 years. Years like 2011 and 2009 really helped them, plus they been more consistent than anyone else.
“And that has been reflected on the field. Prior to last year, the SEC had several years with just terrible QB play. LSU won the conference with Jefferson starting.”
They did, but so has the B10. Lots of people have commented on it over the years.
“So the article is misleading and doesn’t tell you anything. The SEC has had no QB advantage on the field.”
The NFL draft numbers disagree with you. The SEC leads the B10 23-14, and 9-0 in first round picks. OSU has been the B10’s most talented team in general (or at least tied) for the past decade, and they have produced Tyrrelle Pryor (3rd – Supp.), Troy Smith (5th) and Craig Krenzel (5th) over that period. They also started Joe Bauserman, Todd Boeckman, Justin Zwick and Braxton Miller (ignoring injury starts). Miller will presumably get drafted, but those others sure didn’t. OSU’s only 1st round QB was Art Schlichter in 1982.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Granted, no 1st rounders in a decade, but that could be considered a flukish circumstance.”
You think so? I think 10 years for 14 teams is well beyond fluke status. That’s probably at least 60 starting QBs, and 28 QBs went in the 1st round over that period. As one of the major 5 conferences, the B10 should have gotten at least a handful of those 28.
As the article points out, the B10 had 6 1st rounders in the 80s. They just didn’t keep up as the game changed elsewhere.
LikeLike
Eh, no first rounders for the Big Ten. But a young man named Russell Wilson was drafted out of Wisconsin in 2012. It was the NFL’s mistake, not Wilson’s nor Wisconsin’s nor the Big Ten’s, that his talent was so wildly underestimated.
On the other hand, even with Wilson, the Big Ten should only get maybe half-credit for Wilson, and that’s being generous. Wilson tore it up in the ACC for three years at NC State before transferring.
LikeLike
Totally agree that the NFL Draft is a total crapshoot.
Three of the best QB’s in the NFL are Big Ten products, but none were 1st round picks (Brees: Purdue, 2nd Round; Brady: Michigan, 6th Round; R. Wilson: Wisconsin, 3rd Round).
And Kirk Cousins (Michigan St. 4th Rd.) has flashed some potential as a decent/good NFL starter one day. Same with Matt McGloin (Penn State, UFA).
That none of them went in the 1st Round doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on the conference.
LikeLike
Totally agree that the NFL Draft is a total crapshoot.
No, it’s not a total crapshoot. There is a strong correlation between getting taken early in the draft, and having a successful NFL career. It is not totally random. First-rounders succeed at a higher rate than 7th-rounders.
Three of the best QB’s in the NFL are Big Ten products, but none were 1st round picks (Brees: Purdue, 2nd Round; Brady: Michigan, 6th Round; R. Wilson: Wisconsin, 3rd Round).
The article that Brian quoted was about the Big Ten’s recent struggles. Brady and Brees are not recent, and Russell Wilson played in the league for only one year.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
Maybe not a total crapshoot, but its more luck than skill. While a 1st rounder is more likely than a 7th rounder to have a successful NFL career, 1st rounders are not guaranteed to be any good at all. By way of example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NFL_Draft , I see 6 pro bowlers from all 1st round draft picks (should be 7, with Stafford an alternate in 2011– which is a hit rate of under 25%. Not exactly an exact science.
(I defined successful as having at least 1 pro bowl appearance merely for its simplicity–its definitely an imperfect standard to use. Also, the 2010 draft has 17 pro bowlers, and 2008 has 11). Even in a great year like 2010, that still means that around half of all first rounders will not be successful.
The rate of success, combined with the well-documented randomness that comes into play when projecting future human performance, does allow me to declare the draft to be a crapshoot. Maybe not a total crapshoot, but certainly a partial one at least.
See Also: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2013/04/cade-massey-on-flipping-coins-and-nfl.html
LikeLike
If it’s a crapshoot, it makes even less sense for the B10 to not have any 1st rounders over that period. Why does it always work against the B10 if it’s a crapshoot?
LikeLike
Maybe not a total crapshoot, but its more luck than skill. While a 1st rounder is more likely than a 7th rounder to have a successful NFL career, 1st rounders are not guaranteed to be any good at all.
I know it’s tough to be innumerate, but you’ve just demonstrated the opposite of what you’re trying to say. If 1st rounders are generally more successful than 7th-rounders, then it means there IS a skill to choosing draft picks. The fact that they sometimes fail doesn’t mean it’s mostly luck.
LikeLike
” If 1st rounders are generally more successful than 7th-rounders, then it means there IS a skill to choosing draft picks.”
Actually, the two are not related. 1st rounders are generally more successful than 7th rounders just means that 1st rounders tend to be more successful because better players tend to be drafted in the 1st round. As a whole.
Its mostly luck to identify which 1st rounders will be successful relative to the other first rounders. Luck take the form of bad scouting, injuries, off the field distractions, etc…The list of variables are numerous.
People want to think that there is more skill than luck in NFL drafting, especially NFL personnel types, but it doesn’t actually mean its the case. Even if you look back at some of the supposed greatest drafts, like the 1974 Steelers taking 4 future hall of famers–that’s out of 17 rounds. Not exactly a high hit rate, especially since the other 13 Steeler picks that year have a combined 0 pro bowls. Was it skill that Swann, Stallworth, Webster, and Lambert all became hall of famers, or luck/steroids? Maybe some skill, but mixed in with a whole lotta luck.
See: http://deadspin.com/study-nfl-teams-have-no-idea-what-theyre-doing-in-the-1378701238 and http://eaglesrewind.com/2013/02/22/luck-vs-skill-in-the-nfl-draft/ & http://eaglesrewind.com/2013/02/26/round-2-luck-vs-skill-in-the-nfl-draft/ )
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Actually, the two are not related. 1st rounders are generally more successful than 7th rounders just means that 1st rounders tend to be more successful because better players tend to be drafted in the 1st round.”
You say no, but you keep proving his point. If the top picks generally outperform the later picks, then that’s the definition of there being skill to drafting.
“People want to think that there is more skill than luck in NFL drafting, especially NFL personnel types, but it doesn’t actually mean its the case. Even if you look back at some of the supposed greatest drafts, like the 1974 Steelers taking 4 future hall of famers–that’s out of 17 rounds. Not exactly a high hit rate, especially since the other 13 Steeler picks that year have a combined 0 pro bowls.”
Almost 25% of their draft class made the HoF and you think that’s a poor success rate? That’s a huge success rate. The Falcons (around since the 60s) have had 5 HoF players ever, and 3 of those only played 1 or 2 years in Atlanta. The Bengals have had 2.
LikeLike
NFL Hall of Fame is pretty tough to get into. I thought Kenny Anderson from the Bengals would be in there at least. Just Charlie Joiner (who made his name with the Oilers) and Anthony Munoz.
LikeLike
“Almost 25% of their draft class made the HoF and you think that’s a poor success rate? That’s a huge success rate. The Falcons (around since the 60s) have had 5 HoF players ever, and 3 of those only played 1 or 2 years in Atlanta. The Bengals have had 2.”
My point is that its celebrated as being among the best draft classes because 4 of 17 picks turned into hall of famers, and 13 other picks did little/nothing.
“You say no, but you keep proving his point. If the top picks generally outperform the later picks, then that’s the definition of there being skill to drafting.”
No, because any schmuck can read Mel Kiper’s report and know who are considered to be the top players in a draft. Its luck overall picking among those the ones who actually make it in the NFL. Any schmuck knew Peyton Manning would be good. But its largely luck picking between players and which ones work out.
if there were more skill involved, then there would not be steals to be had in later rounds. Colin Kaepernick would not have been a 2nd round pick behind Blaine Gabbert if it were mostly skill.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“My point is that its celebrated as being among the best draft classes because 4 of 17 picks turned into hall of famers, and 13 other picks did little/nothing.”
Yes, and our point is that 4 of 17 players made the HoF. That’s a ridiculous success rate and of course it’s one of the greatest draft classes of all time. You seem to have no idea how hard it is to draft 4 HoF players.
“No, because any schmuck can read Mel Kiper’s report and know who are considered to be the top players in a draft.”
That doesn’t make it luck, you’re just transferring the skill to Mel Kiper. It is a skill to recognize which players are the best. If they drew names out of a hat, they wouldn’t do nearly as well.
“Its luck overall picking among those the ones who actually make it in the NFL. Any schmuck knew Peyton Manning would be good. But its largely luck picking between players and which ones work out.”
There is some luck, sure. But lots of analysts got it right about taking Manning over Ryan Leaf. That wasn’t luck. But you’re including things no GM should be expected to predict (injuries, arrests, etc) as proof there is no skill involved.
“if there were more skill involved, then there would not be steals to be had in later rounds.”
No, that would be true if there was ONLY skill involved. Nobody has claimed that.
“Colin Kaepernick would not have been a 2nd round pick behind Blaine Gabbert if it were mostly skill.”
Prove that. What happens if those 2 switch teams?
LikeLike
@Brian:
Read the links I posted to where folks establish the ratio of luck to skill.
“Yes, and our point is that 4 of 17 players made the HoF. That’s a ridiculous success rate and of course it’s one of the greatest draft classes of all time. You seem to have no idea how hard it is to draft 4 HoF players.”
Its very hard–its also never happened again. Skill or one off luck? Does anyone celebrate the 1975 steelers class? If its skill, why didnt the Steelers brain trust nail the draft like that year in, year out? Because its mostly luck that they his 4 great players in one draft. If it were true skill, they would have been able to replicate those results to a large degree year in, year out.
Bill Polian is considered one of the best drafters of the past 25 years, yet looking at his last few Colts classes, they are riddled with busts. And he’s the guy who built several winning teams.
“There is some luck, sure. But lots of analysts got it right about taking Manning over Ryan Leaf. That wasn’t luck.”
That was a closer call at the time than most folks recall. Manning was considered to have a crappy arm compared to Leaf. These were the same folks a year later touting Tim Couch and Akili Smith as great QB’s. And Cade McNown!.
As for Mel Kiper, I recall he’s had more than his fair share of bad calls. Calling out the Colts for passing on Trent Dilfer is hilarious, also because Dilfer was nowhere near the pro he was projected to me. His top lists from every draft contains more busts than hits.
The Draft is a giant gamble. There is some skill to separate out the players relative to others in the draft pool, but to pick the better ones relative to one another (Kaepernick or Gabbert) is in the end, luck. Yes, folks will spin stories after the fact that they targeted specific players and couldn’t get them, but that’s after the fact justification.
“Colin Kaepernick would not have been a 2nd round pick behind Blaine Gabbert if it were mostly skill.”
Prove that. What happens if those 2 switch teams?”
What happens? I have no idea. What happens if the Saints draft LT over George Rogers, or if the Niners took Jake Plummer over Jim Druckenmiller. Or if any of the 31 other franchises took Tom Brady in rounds 1-5. All I can say is if it were mostly skill, then Kaepernick and Russel Wilson would not have gone in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, respectively, because the skill would be identifying they were better players than Gabbert. That Gabbert is a bust shows the luck involved, combined with the bad coaching and awful offence in Jax.
LikeLike
@Brian:
I leave you with article by Chase Stuart, founder of pro-football-reference.com and footballperspective,com, who wrote about this:
“Some of the low value provided by the ’73 and ’75 classes were no doubt in part because the Steelers were so talented that roster spots weren’t plentiful. Admittedly that’s a small problem, and I don’t know what you can do about that. In general, though, there appears to be almost no relationship between draft years. I looked at the top 50 draft classes from 1970 to 2007. On average, those classes produced 133 points of marginal AV against 56 points of marginal AV, meaning those teams outproduced expectation by 77 points. In the following year, those 50 teams, on average, outproduced expectations by only 4 points of AV. In the prior year, they outproduced by just 3 points of AV.
In retrospect, there are good and bad drafting teams. But in retrospect, there are people who make lots of money picking the stock market and flipping houses, and there are people who lose just as much money on the same endeavors. The true question of whether something is skill or luck is if it is repeatable. I’m not saying the door is closed on the issue, but there appears to be no real evidence that picking winners in the draft is a repeatable skill. If you have any other suggestions for how to measure whether “picking winners” in the draft is a skill, I have the data, so leave a note in the comments. (I’ll also note that I’ve conflated the issues of “drafting well” and “developing players” here, although I don’t know if there’s any way to untangle them.)”
(also read his answers to folks in the comments on his page).
http://www.footballperspective.com/are-certain-teams-better-at-drafting-than-others/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/93459/acc-votes-to-send-title-game-legislation
The ACC has voted to send their new CCG proposal to the NCAA.
“I’ve had conversations with my colleagues at the other conferences, and I think there’s a reasonable amount of support for that,” Swofford said, “but you never know until it gets to the board and is voted on.”
Swofford said the NCAA could reach a decision as early as April but that any changes wouldn’t be in effect for the 2014 season, should there be any changes at all.
LikeLike
While I could understand why some would look favorably to it, there could be some unintended consequences down the road. Inter-conference politics have to be taken into consideration here as well. Of course, presidents are going to be diplomatic and look over the proposal but athletic directors should be giving input on this as any proposal that would allow certain programs to play certain other programs more means that a different set of programs would play those first programs less. Then there’s the ESpin factor…
My personal opinion but I’m not in favor of it.
LikeLike
Yep. One unintended consequence is that the ACC just made it easier for themselves to be raided.
LikeLike
“Yep. One unintended consequence is that the ACC just made it easier for themselves to be raided.”
No it didn’t. I think you make are taking a big leap there (and forgetting about the GoR).
It will hinge on the implementation. If the ACC uses it to set a firm round-robin, guaranteeing all schools play each other every X number of years, then it should work out fine. If they do it poorly, or if the X = something absurd like 10 years, then it could upset some schools. But the elimination of arbitrary divisions for a round robin should, in theory, make most ACC folks happier.. If the ACC screws it up, then they could face some issues in 10-12 years, when the GoR is close to expiration.
But if it generates more money overall, all schools will be happy.
LikeLike
Wainscott nailed it. Obviously, the ACC thinks they can put together a more attractive schedule this way. If that schedule makes schools happier and earns more money, then they are less likely to be raided.
Of course, they might screw up, but I don’t see it as the NCAA’s role to prevent leagues from mismanaging themselves. If they have the opportunity and blow it, the market place will punish them, which is how it ought to work.
LikeLike
Only one comment on this, then I’ll let it play out.
…”but I don’t see it as the NCAA’s role to prevent leagues from mismanaging themselves.”
No, but it is their role to set rules (permitted number of games) and having decided there is a compelling reason (conference too large to fairly decide a champ through the usual RR) to create an exception to the rule (13th game as CCG) that addresses the problem (too large for RR? Divide and RR, then play RR winners in a CCG).
If they want to no division RR without divisions and fairly/competitively/consistently pick the top teams, more power to them. Do it within the 12 allowed games. To alow this would be to say the 13th as a CCG need was false from the start. I see no more than perhaps allowing for missing one in division team for conferences of 14 or more.
I’m done.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
As a point of history, you assume the rule requiring two divisions to have a championship game was the product of much debate and thought. In fact, it was to allow a conference in Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference) starting in 1960 to have a championship game because it was a larger conference with minimal travel resources, and divisional play would make it easier and cheaper on the teams in the conference.
In the late 80’s Roy Kramer had his and the NCAA lawyers look at that rule and they determined that it was never restricted to apply only to that conference, even though that was the clear intent, and that as a result, any conference in any division could have a title game. BOOM!, says Roy, and nabs him some tasty Razorback meat and some tender, juicy Gamecock poultry, and laughs all the way to the bank. Other conferences eventually copy the SEC.
(I had sources for this once, and might have even posted it on a past thread. But I’d have to track my browser history and such and I’m not in the mood to do that. It consists of an SI article from I think 1991 or so, and some Google News archives from the 1960.s. See: http://psacsports.org/custompages/football/Year%20by%20Year%20PSAC%20Champions.pdf )
LikeLike
Yes, I’m fully aware of its history. Including the multiple inquiries made by multiple conferences about amending it. Was the dividing and RR an off the cuff requirement that had little serious impact on the justification for allowing an extra game? The PAC and B1G were told it was important enough they didn’t go beyond inquiries. I’m not even sure exactly what the ACC is looking for. I’m pretty sure it isn’t anarchy, so that would leave some kind of amendment to the rule but not its complete elimination (as that would eliminate all CCG’s as a 13th game).
Damn it! You got me to post again. We’ll see, I guess.
LikeLike
The difference between @ccrider55 and me, is that he thinks the NCAA legislates wisely and benificently for the good of all, where as I think they’re a bunch of mostly corrupt idiots who should get out of the business because anything they touch, they screw up.
LikeLike
So, dump the possibility of a conference championship game!
Or get rid of the # of games limit.
LikeLike
Wainscott;
You missed the rationale for my thinking (and I’m completely aware of the GOR; I don’t see any movement any time soon; I’m talking about a decade or so down the road).
This would allow the B10 to grab a big chunk of the ACC schools yet still have almost all the original B10 schools play at least one of UM/OSU/UNL annually, have the western schools play UNL annually, have the eastern schools play PSU annually, have the southern ACC schools play each other annually (so they would play almost half of their conference games in the south and would be venturing in to colder climes only a little often than they do now in the ACC), and also schedule 6 annual king-king matchups.
Say in a decade, FSU manages to be acceptable academically (and also Miami).
then suppose the B10 grabs UVa, UNC, Duke, GTech, FSU, and Miami (SEC takes VTech and NCSU).
Then have 4 protected rivals and a 9 game schedule (so 5 games for the other 15 schools, which would allow you to still play each school at least once within any 4 year span, about the same as now). Have each king matched up with 2 other kings as protected rivalries:
UM: OSU, Miami, MSU, Minny
OSU: UM, PSU, Illinois, IU
MSU: UM, IU, Northwestern, WIsconsin
IU: OSU, PU, MSU, Minny
PU: Miami, IU, Illinois, RU
Northwestern: Duke, Illinois, MSU, Iowa
Illinois: OSU, Northwestern, PU, RU
Wisconsin: UNL, Iowa, Minny, MSU
Iowa: UNL, Wisconsin, Minny, Northwestern
Minny: UM, Iowa, WIsconsin, IU
UNL: PSU, FSU, Wisconsin, Iowa
PSU: OSU, UNL, RU, UMD
RU: PSU, UMD, Illinois, PU
UMD: PSU, UVa, RU, Duke
UVa: Miami, UNC, UMD, GTech
UNC: FSU, UVa, Duke, GTech
Duke: Northwestern, UNC, GTech, UMD
GTech: FSU, UNC, Duke, UVa
FSU: Miami, UNL, GTech, UNC
Miami: FSU, UM, UVa, PU
Everyone gets to play the schools they currently most want to play now (assuming UNC-NCSU and UVa-VTech can continue OOC).
Everybody gets an annual series with a king (except the 2 small private schools of NU and Duke). Tons of TV-friendly king vs. king games (MSU-Wisconsin also set up for TV).
LikeLike
Marc thinks the NCAA is an autonomous group ruling over another group creating arbitrary rules for their…what…amusement?. I think it is a voluntary association of diverse educational institutions that create rules to govern sports competitions between them. I’m not suggesting they are wise, but they certainly are trying to find rules beneficial, or at least acceptable to enough to be adopted. And that those rules wouldn’t come to be unless there was an issue that needs to be addressed, not created out of thin air.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
The funny thing is about the division and round robin requirement is that at the time PSAC sought the rule, it had 14 teams, but the NCAA regulation said 12. I have not yet found a reason for the 12 team rule (maybe PSAC was concerned 2 teams might drop football?). The round-robin within a division seems simple enough, to require the purpose of creating divisions (for PSAC, ease of playing schools closer) was actually adhered to. Kind of like creating two mini-conferences within one conference (though, in 1960, most conferences had yet to adopt round-robin schedules.)
I do vaguely recall reading that some felt the rule’s application to Division I was a result of a transcription error when Division I was split apart in the late 1970’s. (PSAC is Division II),
I’m sure that over time, nobody wanted to change a rule on the books, even if the reason for the rule was largely forgotten. Standard legislative/bureaucratic inertia.
LikeLike
I’ve seen it reported that Swofford has floated the idea of matching the two highest ranked teams in the championship game. Is this the ACC proposal?
LikeLike
No, their proposal is just to remove the restrictions on how the two teams are chosen. Each conference could then use their own method. That may be the status quo, or divisions without a full round robin, or no divisions and take the top 2, or take the top 2 in the AP poll, or any other method.
LikeLike
If the B10 doesn’t expand, the proposal would work out pretty well. Right now, teams in one division might not see a team from the other division for six years. That doesn’t feel like even being in the same conference. If the rule is changed, everyone currently in the conference can preserve three rivalries (if they have that many) and play a home and home with every other team every four years.
UM – OSU, MSU, MN
OSU – UM, ILL, PSU
PSU – OSU, RU, MD (sorry Land Grant trophy, but no one cares)
MSU – UM, NW, IN
RU – PSU, MD, IN
MD – PSU, RU, PU
IN – PU, MSU, RU
PU – IN, ILL, MD
NW – ILL, MSU, NE
ILL – OSU, NW, PU
MN – WI, IA, UM
WI – NE, IA, MN
NE – WI, IA, NW
IA – NE, WI, MN
I think this is an upgrade over the current setup.
LikeLike
Totally agree. A 14 team B1G with no divisions allows for much better and more frequent scheduling between all teams, especially with a 10 game conference slate (which is coming one day). Plus, you get the added bonus of having the two best teams facing off in the title game. Total win-win for the schools, fans, and conference.
LikeLike
With a 9 game slate, you can get everyone home and away over 6 years and still have 4 games left over to play two other schools 4 times or 1 all 6 years.
LikeLike
I agree that dispensing with divisions would be an B1G upgrade, expansion or not. (For the ACC, too.) Its also something that would allow for expansion to an odd number of schools (or one at a time rather than in pairs).
Providing for selection of the two top ranked teams (however its done) to the CCG obviates the need for schools in a conference to play an equal number of conference games.
LikeLike
Scarlet:
Actually, currently, every B10 school will play all the other B10 schools at least once over any 4 year span.
LikeLike
Richard – I wasn’t sure about the six year thing, but you’re right. Based on the leaked schedule grid, it looks like the least amount that you will see a team from the other division is a home and home over the course of six years. I see that Rutgers enters the league in 2014, and they first play the Gophers in 2016 in MN, and then have them at home in NJ in 2019.
However, I still think its better for every player who plays four years to experience every other stadium in the conference during the course of their college career. Imagine going to a B1G school to play football and never setting foot in the Big House. Depending on red shirt years, the kids who commit to Iowa this year and next will never set foot in the Big House as a visiting player.
LikeLike
Thursday Night Football will be on CBS- 8 early season games (as I predicted above):
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000323845/article/nfl-partners-with-cbs-on-thursday-night-football-in-2014
Interesting that CBS will produce all games, using Nantz/Simms to make them feel bigger (I assume). I wonder if they’ll also announce on Sundays.
LikeLike
Some additional info: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/02/05/Media/NFL-Thursday.aspx
Bids came it at around $200m/year, but no word yet on how much CBS paid.
NFL has option to extend the agreement for 2015.
LikeLike
Also, as I predicted, CBS prime time shows to start November 1st, the first day of sweeps. See: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/sports/football/cbs-to-carry-8-thursday-night-nfl-games-next-season.html?ref=sports&_r=0&referrer=
LikeLike
A Wilner piece that puts recruiting “ranking” a bit lower in importance.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/02/05/pac-12-football-national-signing-day-perspective-you-can-thank-me-later/
LikeLike
And his opening lines:
Here’s the Hotline’s latest annual attempt to keep signing day in perspective.
Make no mistake: It matters — it matters a lot.
People constantly try to minimize the value of recruiting rankings, but every analysis of them shows they have value. There are not even close to perfect, obviously. But players that rank higher tend to perform better and have a better shot at the NFL. Schools that rank higher tend to have better future results.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about when the rankings were wrong, but people conveniently forget how often they’re right. There are some biases, and you have to remember they are guessing at the future development of growing bodies and minds. They don’t rank based on character or academics, so players that fail out or get arrested aren’t proof they are wrong. They also have no way to predict the injuries which derail many careers, nor do they account for coaching or coaching changes.
I will also point out that the impact of class size isn’t as large as people often claim. The major sites limit how many players they consider and/or give diminishing returns for more players. Also, the latest rule changes have limited the size of the biggest classes for the most part. Besides, you can sort the lists by average stars per player to eliminate the issue entirely, but the rankings don’t change much when you do that.
I analyzed Scout’s top 25 classes from 2009-2013. Below is the average class rank by school (I gave teams a 35th place ranking if they didn’t make the top 25). Only 37 schools got a top 25 class in those 5 years.
Top 25:
Alabama – 3.8
Ohio State – 6.2
LSU – 6.6
Texas – 7.4
Auburn – 9.2
Georgia – 10.2
Oklahoma – 10.4
Florida State – 11
USC – 11.4
UCLA – 12.6
Michigan – 13.4
Florida – 13.8
Notre Dame – 14.2
Tennessee – 18.2
Oregon
South Carolina
Mississippi
Clemson
Texas A&M
Miami
Stanford
Washington – 20.8
Oklahoma State – 24
Arkansas – 25.2
Penn State – 25.2
The schools are closely spaced from TN onwards, so I dropped the average.
That’s a decent list of the teams with the highest expectations going into 2013, allowing for coaching changes and attrition. The teams on there that didn’t do well tend to have coaches on the hot seat for 2014 or a new coach.
2013 AP Pre-Season Top 25:
AL, OSU, OR, Stanford, UGA, SC, TAMU, Clemson, UL, UF, FSU, LSU, OkSU, ND, UT, OU, MI, NE, BSU, TCU, UCLA, NW, WI, USC, OrSU
LikeLike
However, there’s a subset of schools that the recruiting services don’t get right.
On the list of the 5 schools that have overachieved their recruiting the most, 3 of them are 3 of the 4 Ivy-equivalents who play in P5 conferences (NU, Vandy, and Stanford):
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/10332171/top-5-recruiting-overachievers-college-football
That can’t be a coincidence.
Not coincidentally, they all tend to have small recruiting classes and lose/kick out fewer players than the average program.
I strongly suspect that the recruiting services (Rivals is most egregious in this regard, IMO) make class size too important. The top of the rankings wouldn’t change much, but average stars (or average player rating) probably correlate better with on-field success than the recruiting rankings.
BTW, the top 2 were KSU (Snyder is a a miracle worker) and Baylor (Briles is a really good college coach).
LikeLike
Richard,
“However, there’s a subset of schools that the recruiting services don’t get right.”
Yes, there are. That’s why I stated that there are biases. Programs that develop players really well rather than bringing in big names suffer. Programs that redshirt almost everyone have smaller classes and also suffer. However, as I mentioned below, sorting by average stars per recruit doesn’t change the order very much for most schools. Coaching changes have a significant impact as the team suffers more attrition and therefore signs larger classes. The same applies to teams coming off of sanctions and for schools that oversign.
“I strongly suspect that the recruiting services (Rivals is most egregious in this regard, IMO) make class size too important. The top of the rankings wouldn’t change much, but average stars (or average player rating) probably correlate better with on-field success than the recruiting rankings.”
I covered this last post.
Rivals – only counts the top 20, but they also give bonuses for the top 250 recruits
Scout – counts the top 25 and they give bonus points to the top 100 recruits at each position
247 – diminishing returns for every additional player after #1 (uses Gaussian weighting)
In Rivals, Stanford is #14 either way. Vandy would drop 3 to #53. NW would benefit greatly, though, moving up 37 spots to #32. MI (31 -> 15) and UMD (54 -> 28) would also gain tremendously.
What really happens is that the top players are probably weighted too highly by all the systems. And certainly talent in doesn’t equal product out.
LikeLike
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20140204/NJSPORTS0210/302040028/Rutgers-reaches-tentative-agreement-exit-American-Athletic-Conference?nclick_check=1
RU has reached a deal with the AAC.
LikeLike
http://www.jconline.com/article/20140204/SPORTS020101/302040022/Purdue-football-Boilermakers-Morgan-Burke
Purdue’s AD weighs in on a player union.
LikeLike
With only two members of the Rivals top 100 unsigned, I don’t expect the recruiting rankings to change much this afternoon. The top 10 includes seven SEC schools, along with Ohio State, Florida State, and Notre Dame.
But rather than break down the recruiting rankings, I think the more interesting story is how the realignment teams did in their new conference territories.
A&M signed a 5* from LA, a 4* from MS, and a 3* from LA.
Mizzou signed 7 kids from Florida, 3 each from TN & GA, 2 from TX, and 1 each from MS and AL.
Nebraska signed 3 from NE, 2 from the B1G footprint, and 14 from the SEC footprint.
Maryland signed 7 from MD/DC and 6 from the B1G footprint.
Rutgers signed 11 from NY/NJ, 8 from the SEC footprint, and 2 from the B1G footprint.
Pitt signed 8 from the ACC footprint.
Louisville signed 8 from the ACC footprint.
Regarding the SEC success in the state of Texas, 19 recruits signed with 11 SEC schools other than A&M, including a 5* to Bama, and 2 4* to LSU. LSU also flipped 2 UTx commits today.
Mizzou appears to be taking advantage of its placement in the SEC East with 13 commits from FL, GA, and TN.
LikeLike
Here’s a quick summary/analysis.
Scout:
1. AL
2. LSU
3. FSU
4. TN
5. OSU
6. ND
7. TAMU
8. Auburn
9. UF
10. Miami
Rivals:
1. AL
2. LSU
3. OSU
4. FSU
5. TN
6. TAMU
7. UGA
8. UF
9. Auburn
10. ND
24/7:
1. AL
2. OSU
3. FSU
4. LSU
5. Auburn
6. TAMU
7. TN
8. UGA
9. UF
10. ND
ESPN
1. AL
2. LSU
3. FSU
4. TAMU
5. TN
6. UF
7. OSU
8. Auburn
9. Miami
10. UGA
ESPN was the only one to rank TAMU or UF above OSU, or OSU out of the top 5. Only one other service had UF within 5 places of OSU.
By conference (average stars per recruit, average # of recruits) per Scout:
1. SEC – 3.38, 24.5
2. P12 – 3.07, 21.7
3. ACC – 2.98, 23.3
4. B12 – 2.97, 24.7
5. B10 – 2.95, 21.6
The B10 essentially tied the ACC and B12 for quality, which is pretty good considering they have FL or TX in their footprints. Only the P12 matches the B10 for lowest quantity, though, and the P12 got slightly better players (CA). Considering the B10 took several more ST players than any other conference (12 vs a max of 7 for anyone else), which hurts the quality ranking, and MI had a very small class (16), I think the B10 did pretty well on average.
The problem is at the top, where only OSU had an elite class. By Scout, only OSU made the top 20 with MSU at 21 and PSU at 25 (the other services had similar results). OSU topped MSU by 0.51 star per player (I know MSU tends to rely on coaching up players). MI was closer on average, trailing by only 0.22 star per player but had such a small class they didn’t rank highly.
If you sort by average stars per recruit (easiest on Rivals), the B10 was:
3. OSU, 15. MI, 20. MSU, 24. PSU, 28. UMD, 32. NW, 39. NE, 43. WI, 47. IN, 51. IA, 55. IL, 57. MN, 66. RU and 67. PU.
Lowest SEC – 50. MO, 52. MSU, 54. Vandy
Lowest P12 – 59. CO, 62. OrSU, 65. Utah
Lowest B12 – 60. KU, 64. TCU, 69. ISU
Lowest ACC – 52. UL, 56. SU, 72. WF
Largest classes:
31 – TN, NCSU
29 – FSU
28 – UK, VT, AZ, MO, USF, OrSU, WMU
27 – OkSU, WF, Temple, WKU
26 – 15 schools
25 – 7 schools
24 – 9 schools
23 – 11 schools
22 – 11 schools
21 – 9 schools
20 – 7 schools
<20 – 40 schools (many will sign more over the next few days/weeks)
LikeLike
Averaging all four recruiting services’ rankings, here’s the consensus top 10.
1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. Florida State
4. Ohio State
5. Tennessee
6. Texas A&M
7. Auburn
8. Florida
9 (tie) Georgia
9 (tie) Notre Dame
LikeLike
They were pretty consistent. 8 schools were in all 4, UGA and ND in 3 and Miami in 2.
LikeLike
“The problem is at the top, where only OSU had an elite class.”
This isn’t a problem unique to the B10. The B12 and Pac have zero schools ranked in the top 10 by any service. The ACC is tied on that measure with the B10 in half the polls and edges ahead because Miami barely sneaks in to the top 10 in 2 others.
As I’ve noted in some of my posts about talent and recruiting above, the SEC is well ahead of every other conference now while the B10, Pac, B12, and ACC are scrunched together.
That’s why I still stand by my conclusion that the SEC will win roughly half the national titles going in the future with the other 4 P5 conferences splitting the rest.
I’ve pointed out in the past that the Pac and B12 footprints really aren’t more fertile than the B10 footprint (hard to compare with the ACC since it shares its footprint with the SEC and only has 2 states where it is indisputably dominant). Yes, they have gold mines of talent in CA & TX, but that’s really all they have. Every Pac school has to hit CA hard and every B12 school has to hit TX hard because the Pac and B12 schools outside CA and TX don’t have much in-state talent. OH, PA, NJ, MI, and IL added together have more talent than each of those 2 states.
BTW, what are “ST players”?
LikeLike
Special team?
LikeLike
I see.
It’s silly that they are all rated as 2 stars.
An elite kicker or punter can have as big an impact as an elite WR or LB.
LikeLike
Richard,
“This isn’t a problem unique to the B10. The B12 and Pac have zero schools ranked in the top 10 by any service.”
Well, since I wrote this Rivals and Scout both updated and USC moved up to #10. USC was also #11 in 247. But that wasn’t really what I meant. I was thinking about the large gap to the #2 B10 class. No other conference had that sort of gap. It’s less of a problem if you sort by average stars since MI had a good class that way but it was small. I was just trying to point out that it’s probably bad for the B10 to have such a large talent gap in recruiting.
“As I’ve noted in some of my posts about talent and recruiting above, the SEC is well ahead of every other conference now while the B10, Pac, B12, and ACC are scrunched together.”
And part of that is the way talent is evaluated (7 on 7 camps and combine-style events favor players with spring football). B10 teams consistently show up as the teams that coach up their players the best because the northern kids are lower on the learning curve so they can move up it more rapidly.
“BTW, what are “ST players”?”
Special teams players (kickers, punters and long snappers). They almost always get 2 stars because the standard evaluation scheme doesn’t really work with them, plus they participate in so few plays per game. I think the services would be better off not counting them in the point totals and average stars, just mentioning them on the list of recruits for that team.
LikeLike
One of those two who switched to LSU was a 2015 commit who was the brother of the 2014 commit. They’ve been expected to switch to LSU for about a week. 2014 was a 3 star, but his brother is currently a 5 star.
LikeLike
bullet – two former 2014 Texas commits flipped to LSU. The one your are referring to is Sione Teuhema. He’s a 3* DE who was the #50 overall recruit in Texas.
The other that flipped in this signing class is Trey Lealaimatafao. He’s a 4* (ESPN) DT who was the #43 overall recruit in Texas.
The 2015 LSU commit is Maea Teuhema who is a 5* (Rivals) OT and the #1 overall recruit in Texas for next year. Maea was also a 2015 Texas commit
I think the Teuhema brothers also have a cousin that is highly recruited as well. LSU is developing a significant Tongan caucus.
LikeLike
I’ve heard about the cousin as well and I think there is a 4th relative or friend. Forgot about the other guy. That was probably 3 weeks ago, right after or before Strong was announced. The brothers were more recent.
LikeLike
The new DL coach came from Alabama and was probably the most highly regarded of our new asst. coaches. But we lost all Mack’s DL recruits while holding on to nearly everyone else.
We ended up traded DL coaches with Alabama. Our’s went to USC as soon as Mack left, we got Alabama’s when Strong arrived and then our old one filled the Alabama position.
LikeLike
And as a bonus Ala got the genius known as Lame Kitten. 😉
LikeLike
Well, MO and TX are now part of the SEC footprint. They pulled 6 kids in total from those 2 states, but Nebraska as recruited both of those states hard for a while now. Only before, they weren’t part of the SEC footprint.
5 years ago, they pulled 8 kids total from those states (all from TX).
LikeLike
Not seeing any “SEC effect” in Texas on the top players. I compared the Rivals top 100 for this year to a 2008 Houston Chronicle top 100 I had. First is the 2014, second is the 2008. I have pulled A&M out of the Big 12 and SEC figures and listed them separately.
Big 12 51-49
A&M 13-15
(Big 12 + A&M in 2014 and 2008 were the same)
SEC 10-8
Pac 12 11-8
Big 10 4-9
Notre Dame 3-1
ACC 1-3
Other TX 2-4
Other 1-2
Undecided 4-1
On a team by team basis:
Texas 15-17
A&M 13-15
Okie St. 8-6
Baylor 8-5
Tech 6-2
TCU 6-1
OU 5-9
LSU 5-4
ND 3-1
UCLA 3-1
(others with 3 in either year)
Oregon 2-3
Michigan 0-3
Minnesota 1-3
LikeLike
Missed Nebraska 0-4
Only a handful of others had more than 1
Rice 0-2
Florida 0-2
Kansas 2-1
Stanford 2-2
LikeLike
Tulane named Penn’s law school dean as its next president.
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2014/02/penns_law_dean_debuts_as_tulan.html
Looks like a home run hire.
LikeLike
If you wanted to know how the Big Ten did in recruiting today, you had to either tune in to BTN or follow your favorite recruiting site.
LikeLike
247 has 4 B10 schools in the top 25 (ACC has 3, B12 has 2, Pac has 5).
Scout has 3 B10 schools in the top 25 (ACC has 2, B12 has 4, Pac has 5). Only difference if you go by average stars is that the ACC has 3 instead of 2.
Rival has 3 B10 schools in the top 25 (ACC has 5, B12 has 2, Pac has 3). If you go by average stars, the B10 has 4 in the top 25, ACC has 4, B12 has 2, Pac has 4.
So in terms of depth of teams, the B10 seems to be doing just as well as any other non-SEC conference. Maybe a tad worse than the Pac, but just a tad.
If you look at the gap, that’s due mostly to UM’s small class size (which hammered them in Scout and Rivals). By 247’s average player scores & Scout’s average stars, the B10’s #2 was better than the #2 of all 3 of the Pac, ACC, and B12 (as well as the B12’s #1). By Rival’s average stars, that’s all true except for the part about the Pac.
So it depends on whether you think class size is really that big of a deal when you’re talking about the 17th-22nd best recruits in a class. And yes, more 3 stars would have dropped down UM’s average, but I think that the analysis of the top 25 shows that the B10 is doing about as well as any other non-SEC conference in terms of depth.
LikeLike
Class size does matter in recruiting. You need a certain number of bodies at each position. 1 great player can’t fill 3 spots.
LikeLike
Thinking about this, I think at fans should have certain expectations for where their schools should be in the recruiting rankings.
Tier 1:
Texas, UF, USC, FSU, ‘Bama, LSU, UGa, OSU.
These schools have all 3 of fertile recruiting grounds, brand, and money (USC and FSU actually trail the other 6 in that area, but they have enough and are the top brand name king in their respective conferences). They should be expected to finish in the top 10 every year.
One reason why the SEC dominated the top 10 this year (instead of, say, taking only half the top 10) is because USC and Texas were in turmoil, so let go their traditional seats at the table (though USC made a late push) and Tennessee had a second-year coach.
Tier 2:
ND, Michigan, PSU, Tennessee, OU, TAMU, Auburn, Miami.
5 old money kings who are close to fertile recruiting grounds (but still have to pull a lot of players from out of state in order to compete), 2 princes that have the money and recruiting grounds that a top tier king has but just don’t have the brand, and Miami, which has the brand and insane local recruiting grounds but seemingly has the money of a G5 program. They should be expected to finish in the top 20 every year and realistically should range from 5-20.
Tier 3:
UNL & UCLA
A king that is far away from any sort of fertile recruiting ground and a prince that is in the middle of a ton of talent but doesn’t have the money or brand of a king. they should be expected to finish in the top 25 every year (ranging from 10-25).
Tier 4:
SC, Arkansas, Clemson, VTech, UNC, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa, Washington, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, OKSU
Princes (+ Oregon and OKSU who are here mostly because of their respective sugar daddy). I believe Stanford has made the jump to prince.
They should be in the top 40 every year.
LikeLike
So which conferences beat or underperformed my expectations? Beating would be in the tier above where I had a school; so TAMU beat my expectations by being in the top 10 instead of 11-20.
Using 247’s rankings:
By conference:
SEC: 4 beat, 5 met, and 0 failed expectations. Very impressive.
B10: 1 beat, 3 met, and 3 failed expectations (but PSU was still under sanctions and had a coaching change).
Pac: 3 beat and 2 failed expectations.
ACC: 1 beat and 4 met expectations.
B12: 2 met and 1 failed expectations.
With 2nd year coaches, I expect USC and Texas to be firmly entrenched in the top 10 & PSU to challenge for the top 10 next year. Also Tennessee to drop out of the top 10.
LikeLike
While it is true that nobody involved wants to go to court, I think Maryland would be OK (and several ACC public schools capable of switching in the future)if it does as they are poised to walk away from the ACC with a clean slate if they did. In short, the big loser would be the ACC. There buy out will go away and that will open the door to getting rid of the ridiculous grant of rights policy that is even more questionable legally than the buy out and that is saying a lot.
LikeLike
Jamie’s wins Heisman! 🏈
Noles go undefeated, dominating opponents and stun Auburn with a magical drive on the final minute ⏰ to win the BCS National Championship! 😃
Maryland – pay up and stop the nonsense!
LikeLike