As we recover from an ‘80s/’90s-style Super Bowl blowout, here are some random thoughts:
“It’s Not Business. It’s Personal.” – Considering how much time that this blog has analyzed objective measures for conference realignment (including the Big 12 Expansion Index late last year), it’s always fun to see how expansion decisions aren’t necessarily always performed using financial analysts and lawyers poring over reams of data and documents. Dennis Dodd told the tale this week of how TCU ended up in the Big 12 during the chaotic realignment days of Fall 2011:
[TCU AD Chris] Del Conte admitted, “the pressure of the entire institution was on my shoulders” to join the Big 12. He worked the phones, calling every Big 12 contact he knew. Support within the Big 12 was growing, including at Oklahoma where good friend Joe Castiglione had been encouraging. But Del Conte knew if he didn’t have Texas, he didn’t have a chance.
“I’ve got one shot,” he recounted, “to go see DeLoss.”
It was a quite a visit. Del Conte grabbed a car, a driver and a bunch of reference material, binders, extolling the advantages of TCU and Fort Worth.
“I get up at 8 o’clock in the morning and drive to Darrell K. Royal Stadium. I get to [Dodds’] office. Nine comes around, 10 comes around. I’ve got a GA [graduate assistant] outside waiting for me, by the way. I tell him, ‘Just wait 10 minutes I’ll be back.’ Pretty soon it’s 3:30.
“[DeLoss] comes out and says, ‘Who are you?’ Chris Del Conte, Texas Christian U. He doesn’t hear ‘Chris.’ he hears ‘Del’. ‘Del, let’s go get ourselves a drink and discuss it.’
“We went to a restaurant and had a little libation at 3:30. By the time 8:30 rolls around, we were [into it] pretty good but we got ourselves in a situation. I kept trying to give him my [binders]. He said, ‘I’ve heard enough, Del’ and just walked away.”
The Big 12 ADs had a conference call the next day.
“The next morning I got up. Joe [Castiglione] goes, ‘I don’t know what you did but it worked.’ We got the vote. The Frogs are in,’ Del Conte said.
I can’t imagine what it must feel like for a Cincinnati or UConn fan whose programs are twisting in the wind when it appears that all it took to get Deloss Dodds to throw the support of the almighty University of Texas behind you was getting him liquored up on tequila shots. Granted, TCU’s addition to the Big 12 wasn’t that simplistic (at least I think so… right?) as it was coming off multiple BCS bowl appearances and a Rose Bowl victory. I had been a champion of TCU long before that when they were still dreaming of just an invite to a then-BCS-level Big East (much less the Big 12). Regardless, it goes to show you that personal relationships still matter beyond the quantitative analysis behind conference realignment. Oliver Luck of West Virginia and Tom Jurich of Louisville were tireless advocates for their respective schools and built up incredible networks of connections that they tapped into when the old Big East was collapsing. Former Rutgers AD Tim Pernetti was critical in getting the school into the Big Ten when the conference was looking for a partner with Maryland. When Creighton got the call to go to the new basketball-focused Big East as opposed to more geographically-friendly and larger market schools like St. Louis and Dayton, it could point to the fact that Creighton’s president happened to be on the Marquette Board of Trustees.
So, it looks like the lesson for any school still trying to get out of the Group of Five ranks is to send booze over to its power conference counterparts early and often on top of all the binders and PowerPoint presentations.
Conference Championship Games the Way We Want Them – John Swofford and the ACC sent the NCAA over a proposal to give leagues more flexibility in determining who can participate in conference championship games. The ACC wants the ability to remove the requirement to have divisions in order to hold a conference championship and let conferences determine how the participants are chosen by any criteria that they’d like, such as simply taking the top two teams with the best conference records and having them face off. Personally, I am all for it and hope that Jim Delany and the Big Ten hop aboard in support of the measure. As much as conference realignment fascinates me and believe that power leagues such as the Big Ten need to constantly be on the lookout for expansion opportunities, the obvious drawback as a fan is witnessing the games and rivalries that I actually care about get reduced. No amount of exposure in New York City or Washington, DC for Illinois is going to replace the excitement of playing Michigan or Ohio State. At the same time, if a school is only playing teams in the other division once out of every 6 years (as the SEC is set up now outside of cross-division rivals), that’s more akin to a non-conference scheduling arrangement as opposed to an actual unified conference. Therefore, if there’s a way to continue to hold conference championship games while eliminating divisions (or at least modifying the rules where teams don’t have to play round-robin schedules within their divisions), that provides a lot more ability for expanded conferences to adopt scheduling policies to play everyone within a league more frequently.
If I was running the Big Ten, I’d use the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) strategy of assigning every school 3 permanent rivals that it will play annually based on geography. That would then leave 6 other games to fill on the 9-game schedule every year. This setup allows each school to play everyone else in the conference 6 times every 10 years (a cycle of 2 years on, 2 years off, 4 years on, 2 years off), which keeps conference unity strong while still integrating the benefits of geographic expansion. Here’s how I’d assign the Big Ten rivalries:
| SCHOOL | RIVAL #1 | RIVAL #2 | RIVAL #3 |
| Illinois | Northwestern | Indiana | Purdue |
| Indiana | Purdue | Illinois | Northwestern |
| Iowa | Nebraska | Wisconsin | Minnesota |
| Maryland | Michigan State | Rutgers | Penn State |
| Michigan | Ohio State | Michigan State | Rutgers |
| Michigan State | Maryland | Michigan | Ohio State |
| Minnesota | Wisconsin | Nebraska | Iowa |
| Nebraska | Iowa | Minnesota | Wisconsin |
| Northwestern | Illinois | Purdue | Indiana |
| Ohio State | Michigan | Penn State | Michigan State |
| Penn State | Rutgers | Ohio State | Maryland |
| Purdue | Indiana | Northwestern | Illinois |
| Rutgers | Penn State | Maryland | Michigan |
| Wisconsin | Minnesota | Iowa | Nebraska |
The top two schools would then advance to the Big Ten Championship Game. Let’s get this done ASAP.
NFL Thursday Night Games – The NFL agreeing to simulcast a portion of its NFL Network Thursday night package on over-the-air CBS has some major implications both in terms of the entertainment industry in general and college football. First, the fact that CBS ended up winning the package despite already having the top-rated Thursday night lineup led by The Big Bang Theory just goes to show you the power of the NFL compared to everything else on television. Initially, I thought that CBS was going to be the least likely to end up with the NFL package as a result of its monster lineup, but it makes a bit more sense as a defensive move. Note that Disney pushed back on the NFL’s request to move Sunday Night Football games from ESPN to ABC back in 2004 because of an extremely strong prime time lineup featuring Desperate Housewives. That SNF package ended up on NBC, which now has such high ratings that it has turned Sunday night from the place where networks would always put their very best shows (as it has historically been the night when the most people will watch TV) to a scheduling triage unit for half of the year until football season is over. CBS likely noted the history of ABC and moved to protect its Thursday night lineup. Now, CBS can show NFL games on Thursday nights for the first 8 weeks of the season (thereby weakening the strong ratings competition of Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal on ABC in the process) and then debut The Big Bang Theory just in time for November sweeps month. This move could have a radical change to how networks schedule on Thursday night (which had turned into the new evening where networks all placed their best shows after SNF ravaged its Sunday night competition).
College football will certainly be affected further as this will draw further exposure away from ESPN’s Thursday night games. Over the past 6 or 7 years, Thursday night had developed into an acceptable time slot for power conference schools to move games to away from Saturday, but that enticement might be eradicated with much stronger over-the-air NFL competition (and it was already getting that way with the NFL Network’s full season Thursday night schedule over the past 2 years). As a result, Thursday night might end up being the purview of non-power conferences again. Also, Friday nights aren’t as attractive to top schools because of conflicts with high school football in many states and lower TV ratings on that evening in general.
At the same time, the NFL’s willingness to move games off of its own network (which has the highest subscriber fees of any national cable network outside of ESPN) shows the tension between maximizing revenue (which would point to maximizing the value of their cable network) and maximizing exposure (going to over-the-air channels or ESPN). The Big Ten should take note as it heads into a period where it may end up renegotiating its TV deals sooner rather than later (as John Ourand of Sports Business Journal has predicted will happen this year). I often get asked about how many more games that the Big Ten will retain for the BTN in its next TV deal and my response is, “Not as many as you think.” As much as the BTN is filling up the Big Ten’s coffers, Jim Delany is smart enough to know that there still needs to be a balance of exposure on entities such as ESPN and over-the-air networks to keep the product viable in the long-term. The BTN is still intended to be a supplement to the widespread coverage as opposed to a replacement – we’re not going to be seeing Michigan-Ohio State on BTN anytime soon. If anything, look for broader distribution for Big Ten games on ABC, ESPN and possibly Fox whenever the conference signs its new TV deals.
Semi-off-topic: City Branding in Columbus – One of my random interests is studying urban development plans and how metro areas can attract investment and transplants, so Urbanophile is one of my favorite blogs to follow these days. Much of the blog’s focus is on Midwestern and Rust Belt cities, so there’s’ a lot of quantitative and qualitative analysis about the economic growth prospects (or in some cases, the lack thereof) of the Big Ten footprint. A recent post dealt with whether Columbus needs better branding in order to attract attention on par with other media-hyped college town/state capital combos such as Austin and Madison or if better job and population growth in and of itself is enough. You’ll see a fairly vigorous discussion in that post, including several comments from me. Anyway, I thought that would be of particular interest to the Ohio State fans reading here and it’s a great place to discuss how many of the other Big Ten markets are doing (which, in turn, impacts the strength of the Big Ten itself will be in the future).
Finally… if there’s a silver lining to the authoritarian, anti-free speech, homophobic and dog killing regime of Vladamir Putin, it’s that it’s going to be really easy to root against Russia in the Olympics again. No one else has really stepped in to fill the U.S. rival role since the Soviet Union fell. (Granted, I’m half-Chinese, so it’s a bit more difficult for me to demonize China as the enemy.) This is as much of a throwback to the 1980s as terrible Super Bowl matchups, so that will certainly add some flavor to the Olympics.
Enjoy the weekend!
(Image from Third City)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Big Red
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
Franklin!
LikeLike
All the P5 will probably support the ACC proposal for one reason or another.
LikeLike
They haven’t in the past, at least not publicly.
LikeLike
now there’s more of an incentive. SEC and B1G getting more flexibility would be a big win, as both leagues have plenty of “annual rivalry” games that no one actually cares about other historical rivalry games that have gotten short shrift. It’d be interesting to see how the Pac-12 comes down on it, since the NW schools would get more LA access and the AZ/CO/UT schools less. I suspect the league would be ultimately neutral on it for the time being, but I definitely could be wrong.
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“now there’s more of an incentive. SEC and B1G getting more flexibility would be a big win, as both leagues have plenty of “annual rivalry” games that no one actually cares about other historical rivalry games that have gotten short shrift.”
I don’t see it that way from the B10’s POV. The current plan is almost ideal from the B10 HQ POV. They kept almost every major rivalry. They get plenty of king/king games. They get a bunch of games with eastern kings playing at the newbies to help in NJ/NYC and DC. A decade from now, maybe the B10 sees less of a need for all the king games at the newbies. Then and only then would they see this change as a potential improvement.
It’s harder to predict what the SEC would want. They have a history of not playing each other very much, but at 14 with an 8 game schedule even they are starting want more frequent games against some other teams. They’d certainly have to lock at least 3 games to keep rivalries going. Maybe Alan or someone can flesh out a plan.
“It’d be interesting to see how the Pac-12 comes down on it, since the NW schools would get more LA access and the AZ/CO/UT schools less. I suspect the league would be ultimately neutral on it for the time being, but I definitely could be wrong.”
They could easily be split close to equally on it.
Would the B12 schools vote for it if it doesn’t also eliminate the 12 team limit?
LikeLike
Mathew Smith:
“It’d be interesting to see how the Pac-12 comes down on it, since the NW schools would get more LA access and the AZ/CO/UT schools less.”
In order for that the LA schools would need to want to play the NW more and CO/UU/UA/ASU less. And the NW currently play 6 CA games every 2 years, are in CA 3 times every 2 years, and in LA every other. You aren’t breaking up the 4 CA yearly games. They aren’t going back to 8 conf games. I cant see more than four votes max to change (barring further expansion).
Brian tried to explain it to me, but perhaps I’m dense.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“In order for that the LA schools would need to want to play the NW more and CO/UU/UA/ASU less.”
OR and UW are by far the 2 biggest P12 brands outside of CA. The NW teams were all part of the P8, unlike the SW teams that are the newbies and the previous newbies. I’d say the LA schools definitely would prefer to play the NW schools at least as much if not more than the SW schools. So yes, they might well approve it. That’s 6 of 12 teams.
“And the NW currently play 6 CA games every 2 years, are in CA 3 times every 2 years, and in LA every other.”
Without divisions, they could play 3 NW games, 3 CA games and 3 SW games every year. That’s in CA 3 times every 2 years and in LA 3 times in 4 years. In other words, no real change except for the CCG.
“You aren’t breaking up the 4 CA yearly games.”
You don’t need to. You can use 3 pods of 4 for scheduling (the equivalent of locking 3 rivals).
“They aren’t going back to 8 conf games.”
That’s a separate discussion from whether or not they’d support the ACC’s plan.
LikeLike
Ok. That was a plan they looked at when creating divisions, but rejected because of likely confusion for fans. It doesn’t violate the division rule because there isn’t a rule against changing the makeup of the divisions frequently-even yearly. This highlights that the need for scheduling isn’t the reason to abandon the division champs to the CCG rule. It is to decide/select the participants at the end rather than setting the path before the season. We don’t reseed march madness after each round, weekend, or at the final four. Bracket is drawn and you play it out.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Ok. That was a plan they looked at when creating divisions, but rejected because of likely confusion for fans. It doesn’t violate the division rule because there isn’t a rule against changing the makeup of the divisions frequently-even yearly.”
These pods would be for scheduling only and not allow for divisions. It would be just like the way the B10 scheduled for 11 teams, but with 3 locked rivals and 9 games instead of 2 and 8. The pods are the locked rivals (geography works perfectly for the P12 to do this).
Sample year:
CA1 – CA2, CA3, CA4, NW2, NW3, NW4, SW2, SW3, SW4
CA2 – CA1, CA3, CA4, NW1, NW3, NW4, SW1, SW3, SW4
CA3 – CA1, CA2, CA4, NW1, NW2, NW4, SW1, SW2, SW4
CA4 – CA1, CA2, CA3, NW1, NW2, NW2, SW1, SW2, SW3
NW1 – NW2, NW3, NW4, CA2, CA3, CA4, SW2, SW3, SW4
NW2 – NW1, NW3, NW4, CA1, CA3, CA4, SW1, SW3, SW4
NW3 – NW1, NW2, NW4, CA1, CA2, CA4, SW1, SW2, SW4
NW4 – NW1, NW2, NW3, CA1, CA2, CA3, SW1, SW2, SW3
SW1 – SW2, SW3, SW4, CA2, CA3, CA4, NW2, NW3, NW4
SW2 – SW1, SW3, SW4, CA1, CA3, CA4, NW1, NW3, NW4
SW3 – SW1, SW2, SW4, CA1, CA2, CA4, NW1, NW2, NW4
SW4 – SW1, SW2, SW3, CA1, CA2, CA3, NW1, NW2, NW3
Under the current rules they couldn’t play a CCG with this setup, but under the ACC’s plan they could. So they made divisions and then came as close to this scheduling as they could, with geographical divisions and locking all the intra-CA games.
“This highlights that the need for scheduling isn’t the reason to abandon the division champs to the CCG rule.”
How so?
“We don’t reseed march madness after each round, weekend, or at the final four.”
But some pro sports do, not that I see how reseeding is relevant here.
LikeLike
Would missing one in division opponent be enough to make that work? (Which is something I could see being an amendment to the current rules that could be seen as justifiable for super conferences.)
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Would missing one in division opponent be enough to make that work?”
They play 9 games and only have 12 teams, which means they only miss 2 teams. If they want to make 1 of those a division team, what’s the point of having divisions for them? Besides, the 3 pods need to play their neighbors (only the SW pod doesn’t have close ties amongst all the teams).
My system has them playing their 3 locked rivals annually and everyone else 75% of the time (9 = 3*100% + 8*75%). That’s equal LA access for all non-CA schools unlike the current plan.
To try to match my plan with divisions, the teams would still have their local pod locked and then miss 1 division team. But then the NW schools would give up a SF team each year and play the SW schools even more. In addition, even if the schedules could match they’d still be stuck playing divisional champs in the CCG versus the 2 best teams.
“(Which is something I could see being an amendment to the current rules that could be seen as justifiable for super conferences.)”
Again, what’s the point of having divisions if they don’t all play each other? Why wouldn’t they prefer to just eliminate divisions at that point?
LikeLike
FWIW I’d guess that the LA schools don’t really care majorly about how many games are vs NW compared to AZ/CO/UT. I SUSPECT they slightly prefer the latter group because historically they really haven’t liked going to Corvallis/Pullman (though UO/UW are very big brands currently), but again I really don’t know. I’d presume that the CA schools would demand that they keep the annual games between themselves in any arrangement, with or without divisions, 8 or 9 games. I don’t know if they’d get their way in an 8 game structure, but I’d presume that without divisions, in a 9 game structure, it’d go to pod scheduling (4 NW, 4 CA, 4 Other; play all in your pod and 3/4 of each other pod in any given year) pretty easily.
Of course, in the instance of the ACC plan and pod scheduling, the Pac-12 would presumably just get rid of divisions altogether and go to straight up “two best teams” (or possibly that with a “you can’t play a podmate in CCG” edit). There really isn’t any inherent confusion in that structure. Trying to juggle a true pod schedule structure with a two division look would turn into a big mess in almost any way. The current arrangement is as much as they can reasonably try to balance the two (it basically is a pod schedule structure, except the NW locks into 2 Bay Area and 1 LA opponents each year, and AZ/CO/UT gets the opposite), and I think that’s as much as you CAN balance it in a 2-div structure. Otherwise you have to rotate divisions (dumb) or not play everyone in your division every year (ditto).
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“FWIW I’d guess that the LA schools don’t really care majorly about how many games are vs NW compared to AZ/CO/UT. I SUSPECT they slightly prefer the latter group because historically they really haven’t liked going to Corvallis/Pullman (though UO/UW are very big brands currently), but again I really don’t know.”
Yeah, it’s hard to know for sure. There does seem to be some Pac-8 bias, but on the other hand AZ is good for recruiting. WSU/OrSU versus CO/Utah may be a wash as far as the CA schools are concerned. That’s why I think they might lean towards playing UW and OR as the only other major brands in the conference.
“I’d presume that the CA schools would demand that they keep the annual games between themselves in any arrangement, with or without divisions, 8 or 9 games.”
That’s a given, yes.
“I don’t know if they’d get their way in an 8 game structure, but I’d presume that without divisions, in a 9 game structure, it’d go to pod scheduling (4 NW, 4 CA, 4 Other; play all in your pod and 3/4 of each other pod in any given year) pretty easily.”
Agreed.
“Of course, in the instance of the ACC plan and pod scheduling, the Pac-12 would presumably just get rid of divisions altogether and go to straight up “two best teams” (or possibly that with a “you can’t play a podmate in CCG” edit). There really isn’t any inherent confusion in that structure.”
I agree. There’d be no point to keeping divisions. Just lock 3 games (the pod).
“Trying to juggle a true pod schedule structure with a two division look would turn into a big mess in almost any way. The current arrangement is as much as they can reasonably try to balance the two (it basically is a pod schedule structure, except the NW locks into 2 Bay Area and 1 LA opponents each year, and AZ/CO/UT gets the opposite), and I think that’s as much as you CAN balance it in a 2-div structure. Otherwise you have to rotate divisions (dumb) or not play everyone in your division every year (ditto).”
Agreed, any talk of pod scheduling assumes they are dropping divisions.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
Coincidence that Illinois has three of the weakest schools by football tradition as rivals according to the Tank Plan? I think not. What’s interesting is that this year’s B1G conference sheds are the converse of this: Nebraska plays Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota only once in men’s play. Stupid.
LikeLike
Frank, your rivalries: Ugh.
You don’t protect the LBJ or Illibuck and tie UM to RU for some reason. You also don’t protect the IU-MSU trophy game.
My permanents:
Illinois: Northwestern OSU Purdue
Indiana: Purdue Maryland MSU
Iowa: Nebraska Wisconsin Minnesota
Maryland: Rutgers Penn State Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State Michigan State Minnesota
MSU: Michigan Northwestern Indiana
Minnesota: Wisconsin Michigan Iowa
Nebraska: Iowa Wisconsin Northwestern
Northwestern: Illinois MSU Nebraska
Ohio State: Michigan Penn State Illinois
Penn State: Rutgers Ohio State Maryland
Purdue: Indiana Illinois Rutgers
Rutgers: Penn State Maryland Purdue
Wisconsin: Minnesota Iowa Nebraska
MSU wants to visit Chicagoland often. I preserve the LBJ and Illibuck rivalries as well as the budding NU-NU rivalry. UNL wants to visit Chicago often as well, I’m sure.
LikeLike
Also, this way, the maximum number of 8 non-kings get 1 annual series with a king. The IN schools get to advertise their school to prospective students on the East Coast.
LikeLike
I think it would probably be preferable to have a 3-5-5 setup. 3 teams every year, 5 8 out of 10 and 5 4 out of 10. You see everyone, while keeping a lot of familiarity with 8 of the 13 other teams. That also allows you to make sure everyone gets enough of the 4 kings. Everyone would get at least 2 of the 4 kings 8 out of 10 years. They end up with a king from 24-28 times out of 10 years (for example in Frank’s 3 rivals grouping-Rutgers and Michigan St. would be at 28 getting 2 every year and the others 4 out of 10), so they all get one on the home schedule every year.
Not as “fair” as spreading it evenly, but it serves scheduling purposes better.
LikeLike
To me, the demarcations are at 100%, 50% of a time (visit a school once in 4 years), and 25% (play a school once in 4 years). Maybe 2/3rds of the time as well (the least often you can play a series and still consider it a real rivalry series.
There’s not much difference between playing a school 60% of the time and 50% of the time, but a big difference between playing a school 50% of the time and 40% of the time.
LikeLike
So you could go 3-2-4 to get kings on everyone’s schedule, or you could just go 4-5.
LikeLike
You could do 3 every year, 5 7 out of 10 and 5 5 out of 10. Everyone can get 26 or 27 games in 10 years against the kings if you don’t give MSU and Rutgers two every year series. Only Ohio St. would get two kings every year.
LikeLike
Can you run this in a hypothetical 10-game conference schedule?
Do you do 4-6, or keep 3 protected rivalries and rotate the 7 in some manner?
LikeLike
You could do 3 10 times, 10 7 times out of 10.
Or 3 10, 5 8 and 5 6.
Or 4 10 3 8 and 6 6
Or you could simply do divisions and play 6 every year and the rest 4 out of 7 years.
If you go to 10 conference games, the issue mostly goes away.
LikeLike
MSU wants to visit Chicagoland often.
MSU wants to visit Chicago for the same reason everybody does. There is no reason to give MSU greater access to the Northwestern market that most of the the other teams don’t get.
LikeLike
MSU has NU as their second-most important series.
From what I understand, no other school besides Illinois has NU as their most or second-most important series.
LikeLike
MSU has NU as their second-most important series.
From what I understand, no other school besides Illinois has NU as their most or second-most important series.
NU is MSU’s fourth most-played rivalry in the Big Ten, behind Michigan, Purdue and Indiana. But the difference between #4 and #8 on the list is very slight. Basically, there’s a cluster of schools that MSU has played with roughly equal frequency, and NU is one of those schools.
MSU is NU’s ninth most frequently-played series, behind all of the league’s original programs. They have no unique history with MSU whatsoever. The two schools had only three meetings in football, before MSU joined the Big Ten and started playing everybody more-or-less equally (other than Michigan, of course).
What makes MSU unusual, is that other than Michigan they have no specific rivalries, other than the totally fabricated PSU rivalry. So if the Big Ten decides to lock multiple games, they’ll selfishly raise their hands, and say, “We’ll take Chicago.” But the importance to them is the same as the importance to everyone: to recruit that market.
The only difference is that the other schools have other rivalries that they want to accommodate, and MSU doesn’t. It’s more about what MSU lacks (another natural rival besides Michigan), not what they have (any actual rivalry with NU).
LikeLike
Indeed, Marc, but the B10 gives each school’s ordered priorities the same weight. UM’s 2nd most important series is the same import as MSU’s 2nd most important series.
LikeLike
Indeed, Marc, but the B10 gives each school’s ordered priorities the same weight.
There’s no precedent for locking three rivalries per school, and when they locked two, MSU-NU was not one of them.
I strongly suspect they’d go to an unequal number of locked rivalries per team (as they have done now with IU-PU), rather than an equal number that creates contrived imbalances.
LikeLike
My other point, is that while playing NU annually is highly valued by the Spartans, that interest is not reciprocated. This is unlike the usual rivalry, where both schools want the match-up.
LikeLike
“There’s no precedent for locking three rivalries per school”
There was no precedent for a championship game . . .until it happened.
There was no precedent for expanding to 14 . . .until it happened.
“I strongly suspect they’d go to an unequal number of locked rivalries per team (as they have done now with IU-PU), rather than an equal number that creates contrived imbalances.”
I highly doubt that. Back in the 11-school era, the B10 set up the contrived rivalry of NU-PU despite that not being considered a rivalry for either school and didn’t lock the LBJ and Illibuck games despite those being rivalry games simply so that each school had 2 locked foes.
IU-PU gets a special arrangement this time around because there was simply no way to split the B10 between East and West without splitting up either IU-PU or UM-MSU, and those series obviously have to be annual.
LikeLike
Actually like these rivalries. But NU and Purdue seem to be linked (they were permanent rivals when the B1G was 11 teams.
LikeLike
That was for consistency. All schools had to have 2 annual series then, and Northwestern and PU linked with each other because all the other schools had already been taken up.
There is no rivalry between NU and PU.
LikeLike
I didn’t know the reasons for it, and I never said they were actually rivals, only that the PTB had linked them.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Northwestern requested a protected game vs. Rutgers to gain annual exposure to the NYC area (which, using your rivalry list, would merely be a swap between NU and Purdue, Purdue getting MSU, NU getting Rutgers).
LikeLike
I like this better than Frank’s. I served on the OSU faculty for 35 years. The Illibuck is important. Keep it. Michigan and Penn State are musts.
I did my graduate work at Purdue. Indiana is a must, and I like Rutgers very much. I interviewed for a job there.
LikeLike
Illinois – Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana – Purdue, Sparty, Northwestern
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Maryland – PSU, Rutgers, Purdue
TSUN – Ohio State, Sparty, Minnesota
Sparty – TSUN, Indiana, Rutgers
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, TSUN
Nebraska – Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska
Ohio State – TSUN, Illinois, PSU
PSU – Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Maryland
Rutgers – PSU, Maryland, Sparty
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
Trophy games protected:
Land of Lincoln (IL-NW), Illibuck (IL-OSU), Purdue Cannon (IL-PU), Old Brass Spittoon (IN-MI), Old Oaken Bucket (IN-PU), Floyd of Rosedale (IA-MN), Heroes Trophy (IA-UNL), Heartland Trophy (IA-WI), Paul Bunyan Trophy (MI-MSU), Little Brown Jug (MI-MN), Paul Bunyan’s Axe (MN-WI) plus The Game (no trophy)
Trophy games lost:
Land Grant (MSU-PSU), Governor’s Victory Bell (MN-PSU)
Ironically I really wanted to make the Ohio State-PSU game go away but
but it was hard to do without disrupting other rivalries.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“Illinois – Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana – Purdue, Sparty, Northwestern
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Maryland – PSU, Rutgers, Purdue
TSUN – Ohio State, Sparty, Minnesota
Sparty – TSUN, Indiana, Rutgers
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, TSUN
Nebraska – Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska
Ohio State – TSUN, Illinois, PSU
PSU – Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Maryland
Rutgers – PSU, Maryland, Sparty
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska”
I just don’t see that happening. Traditionalists love to preserve the LBJ, but I think NE/MN is more important in today’s world. I think the B10 would go with the quadrangle of hate out west. Beyond that, your plan doesn’t focus on bringing the big brands to NYC and DC which the B10 has said is a priority. There are also some really odd games locked in there.
My guess:
NE – WI, IA, MN
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – NE, WI, IA
IL – NW, PU, IN
NW – IL, MSU, PU
IN – PU, MSU, IL
PU – IN, IL, NW
OSU – MI, PSU, UMD
MI – OSU, MSU, RU
MSU – MI, NW, IN
PSU – UMD, RU, OSU
UMD – PSU, RU, OSU
RU – PSU, UMD, MI
My personal preference:
NE – WI, IA, PSU
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – WI, IA, MI
IL – NW, OSU, PU
NW – IL, MSU, RU
IN – PU, MSU, OSU
PU – IN, IL, UMD
OSU – MI, IL, IN
MI – OSU, MSU, MN
MSU – MI, NW, IN
PSU – UMD, RU, NE
UMD – PSU, RU, PU
RU – PSU, UMD, NW
“Ironically I really wanted to make the Ohio State-PSU game go away but
but it was hard to do without disrupting other rivalries.”
Not at all.
LikeLike
I based it entirely on preserving traditional rivalries & most played series. Interestingly enough Sparty is the Big Ten team (not counting PSU) that both Maryland & Rutgers have played the most.
As much as I despise the vile pit of evil that resides in Happy Valley but also like the symmetry of a UNL-PSU pairing I just can’t see singling out two schools to be the only ones forced to be locked into playing an opponent on the far side of the conference.
I give exactly two squats about the league plan to spin off Ohio State & TSUN to the east coast.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“I based it entirely on preserving traditional rivalries & most played series.”
That doesn’t explain OSU/PSU. It’s not traditional or often played.
“Interestingly enough Sparty is the Big Ten team (not counting PSU) that both Maryland & Rutgers have played the most.”
Well, MSU isn’t near the top of the list for anyone else in the B10. Besides, they aren’t a big enough brand to accomplish the B10’s goals in NYC and DC.
“As much as I despise the vile pit of evil that resides in Happy Valley but also like the symmetry of a UNL-PSU pairing I just can’t see singling out two schools to be the only ones forced to be locked into playing an opponent on the far side of the conference.”
Both fan bases have indicated interest in that game. But please note, that was only in my personal preference set and not in the set I predicted the B10 would choose.
“I give exactly two squats about the league plan to spin off Ohio State & TSUN to the east coast.”
I dislike their plan as much as anyone, but I’m forced to accept that it shows their priorities.
LikeLike
“That doesn’t explain OSU/PSU. It’s not traditional or often played.”
Sure it does. Ohio State has played PSU more than any other current B1G member. The series is also #1 in importance to Nit fans.
“Well, MSU isn’t near the top of the list for anyone else in the B10. Besides, they aren’t a big enough brand to accomplish the B10′s goals in NYC and DC.”
It was just an interesting aside and as noted I don’t care about said goal.
“Both fan bases have indicated interest in that game.”
It’s also far down on the list of priorities for either. Both groups have expressed a greater interest in playing teams located in their respective regions.
“But please note, that was only in my personal preference set and not in the set I predicted the B10 would choose.”
When did it become an exercise in predicting what the B1G would choose?
Brian you don’t need to work so hard at being argumentative. The only substantive difference in your list is trading Ohio State for Nebraska as a locked rival for PSU. Otherwise you’re mostly just splitting hairs.
LikeLike
As an Illini fan, I really did wish that the Big Ten cared about the Illibuck, but my strong feeling is that it’s a very low priority compared to the conference’s goals on the East Coast. Same thing with the Little Brown Jug. On the other hand, I think a lot of Big Ten fans *grossly* underestimate how much importance the conference leadership places upon preserving the Ohio State-Penn State game. Buckeye fans might be perplexed by it, but I’m dead serious that they’ll nix every single rivalry outside of Michigan-Ohio State before they’d stop OSU-PSU. In a setup with 3 locked rivalries, PSU would be OSU’s 1 locked Eastern rival and then they’d play Michigan and one other Midwestern team. Maybe the Big Ten would be willing to protect the Illibuck instead of giving OSU a permanent game against MSU (maybe make a swap where IL-OSU and Indiana-MSU are protected instead, but the main thug is the OSU-PSU is non-negotiable.
Also, Michigan is the Big Ten school with the largest number of fans on the East Coast and, in particular, the NYC area, which means that they are arguably the single most important brand that the Big Ten has to leverage in that region. Since OSU and MSU are obvious locked rivals for Michigan, that means that the 3rd locked rival *needs* to be one of the Eastern newbies. I picked Rutgers for that slot because of the Michigan alumni presence in (and student population from) the NYC market. That is simply much more critical for the Big Ten’s entire approach to expansion than the Little Brown Jug or any other game that Michigan plays.
That means *someone* has to play Maryland beyond Rutgers and Penn State, and that admittedly feels pretty random. Michigan State is basically the last school on the list, it kinda/sorta makes geographic sense, and they don’t really have rivalries besides the Michigan game that scream for any need to be protected. I know that MSU would like to play Northwestern and go into the Chicago market, but that’s honestly something everyone in the Big Ten wants to do. Their case for that isn’t any more compelling for any other school in the Big Ten that isn’t a direct Northwestern rival (which basically consists of Illinois). That makes MSU the most malleable of any Big Ten school in terms of assigning a random rivalry (see the 11-team setup when they had PSU locked and then the 12-team setup with Indiana).
The western “pod” of NE/WI/MN/IA is too logical for me to mess with it – those 4 schools need to be playing each other. IL/NW/IN/PUR is another logical pod to me, although I could see maybe the Illibuck getting protected instead of OSU/MSU (and then would result in MSU/IN getting protected) instead.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“Sure it does. Ohio State has played PSU more than any other current B1G member. The series is also #1 in importance to Nit fans.”
UMD took over the designation of most frequent opponent once the 2013 season ended. OSU/PSU hasn’t even been played 30 times in history. It is not a traditional rivalry nor a most played series anymore. I agree it’s the most valued by the PSU fans, but you didn’t list that as a criterion.
“It’s also far down on the list of priorities for either. Both groups have expressed a greater interest in playing teams located in their respective regions.”
It depends on the fan. Excluding Pitt, I’ve seen some PSU fans choose NE as their #1 choice since they could develop a true primary rivalry rather than always being #2 to OSU/MI for OSU. Many NE fans weren’t excited about IA or MN when they joined the B10, pointing at PSU as the one team they really had history with.
“When did it become an exercise in predicting what the B1G would choose?”
That seemed to be what at least most of the others were doing, but I was mostly pointing out a clear distinction between my two options I listed in that comment. I know the B10 wouldn’t make the same choices as me, so I provided a more realistic set as well.
“The only substantive difference in your list is trading Ohio State for Nebraska as a locked rival for PSU.”
I disagree. I didn’t have any of OSU/PSU, OSU/IL, MI/MN, NE/NW, IN/NW, UMD/PU or MSU/RU on my probable list. I consider not keeping the Illibuck and LBJ as substantive differences. On my personal list, I didn’t have OSU/PSU, IN/NW, MSU/RU or NE/NW. I consider MSU going to Chicago instead of NYC substantive, too, since it was a choice and not forced by the other changes.
LikeLike
It would definitely make sense to spread the kings around and create a little more geographic diversity for the kings. So Ohio St.-Illinois and Michigan St.-IU or PU would be preferable.
But I can’t see Penn St. not getting Ohio St. every year. Its PSU’s biggest game and a big game for TV.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“As an Illini fan, I really did wish that the Big Ten cared about the Illibuck, but my strong feeling is that it’s a very low priority compared to the conference’s goals on the East Coast. Same thing with the Little Brown Jug.”
I agree. Those are games they keep when it’s convenient, but they don’t plan around them. Both have become lopsided and don’t mean nearly as much as they used to mean to either fan base. I’d still keep them, but I know the B10 wouldn’t.
“On the other hand, I think a lot of Big Ten fans *grossly* underestimate how much importance the conference leadership places upon preserving the Ohio State-Penn State game. Buckeye fans might be perplexed by it, but I’m dead serious that they’ll nix every single rivalry outside of Michigan-Ohio State before they’d stop OSU-PSU.”
We aren’t perplexed by it (we were their closest neighbor and both are kings, unlike UMD and RU), we just know how one-sided the feelings are and aren’t attached to the game. Many PSU fans seem angry and/or surprised by that. I know the B10 will keep it for financial reasons and to appease PSU, but that doesn’t mean it will ever make my list of personal preferences for games to lock (I have no duty to get a maximum TV deal). There’s also the unfairness of only OSU getting 2 locked kings that irks many Buckeyes.
I do think you overstate how highly the B10 values that game, though. OSU/MI is on a tier of its own, but PSU/OSU, PSU/MI and PSU/NE are all equal below it. Other factors happen to make OSU/PSU the game that is convenient to lock. If something else came up to make OSU unavailable, either of those other two games would work as well for the B10. I promise the B10 puts PSU/RU and PSU/UMD ahead of PSU/OSU, though. If PSU doesn’t play in those markets, those additions are DOA in terms of value.
I think it’s apples and oranges to compare OSU/PSU to the other local rivalries (MI/MSU, NW/IL, PU/IN, WI/MN, IA/MN, etc). The B10 values them all and works hard to preserve them.
“In a setup with 3 locked rivalries, PSU would be OSU’s 1 locked Eastern rival and then they’d play Michigan and one other Midwestern team.”
Most likely, yes. But they need to get OSU and MI in NYC and/or DC more often to make those additions prosper (or so they claim), and that could conceivably mean locking MI/RU and OSU/UMD while PSU plays NE.
“Maybe the Big Ten would be willing to protect the Illibuck instead of giving OSU a permanent game against MSU (maybe make a swap where IL-OSU and Indiana-MSU are protected instead,”
OSU has no real history with MSU. There is no old B10 member OSU has played less often since 1953 when MSU joined. We’ve played IL 20 more times in the regular season over that span.
“but the main thug is the OSU-PSU is non-negotiable.”
I don’t think it’s quite at that level, but you do need a good reason to not have it.
“Also, Michigan is the Big Ten school with the largest number of fans on the East Coast and, in particular, the NYC area, which means that they are arguably the single most important brand that the Big Ten has to leverage in that region.”
I assume you mean out of the midwestern schools. Clearly PSU has more east coast and NYC fans, and RU likely does too. UMD has more east coast fans, too.
“Since OSU and MSU are obvious locked rivals for Michigan, that means that the 3rd locked rival *needs* to be one of the Eastern newbies.”
How convenient that MI *needs* to play RU while OSU *needs* to play PSU.
“That means *someone* has to play Maryland beyond Rutgers and Penn State, and that admittedly feels pretty random. Michigan State is basically the last school on the list, it kinda/sorta makes geographic sense,”
Not really. MSU is a plane flight away, and at that point every school is about the same range.
“I know that MSU would like to play Northwestern and go into the Chicago market, but that’s honestly something everyone in the Big Ten wants to do.”
But MSU has been 10 times more vocal about its importance than anyone else. It’s much like PSU’s desire to play OSU. Everyone would like to play OSU, PSU just wants it a lot more than most.
“That makes MSU the most malleable of any Big Ten school in terms of assigning a random rivalry (see the 11-team setup when they had PSU locked and then the 12-team setup with Indiana).”
I’d say PU is equally malleable (IN and nobody else important).
“IL/NW/IN/PUR is another logical pod to me, although I could see maybe the Illibuck getting protected instead of OSU/MSU (and then would result in MSU/IN getting protected) instead.”
The one downside to this is that these schools get much easier locked schedules than their peers (MN, RU, UMD).
LikeLike
Frank:
“As an Illini fan, I really did wish that the Big Ten cared about the Illibuck, but my strong feeling is that it’s a very low priority compared to the conference’s goals on the East Coast.”
That’s why you have 5 locked games. Increase king exposure on the East Coast as well as preserve ancient trophy games. Still play each school at least 50% of the time (allowing all players to visit each B10 stadium in 4 years). Voila.
“Their case for that isn’t any more compelling for any other school in the Big Ten that isn’t a direct Northwestern rival (which basically consists of Illinois).”
Not to Northwestern. To NU, Iowa is as big a rival as Illinois. In fact, ask the players, coaches, as well as the students and younger alums, and they’ll tell you that the Iowa game is a bigger rivalry game than the Illinois game.
“IL/NW/IN/PUR is another logical pod to me”
Maybe to an Illini fan. Not to Northwestern (or IU and PU when it comes to NU). NU has zero sense of rivalry with either IU or PU and IU and PU have zero sense of rivalry with NU.
The whole point of having locked games is that you don’t have to force-fit schools in to ill-fitting pods.
LikeLike
Richard,
“That’s why you have 5 locked games. Increase king exposure on the East Coast as well as preserve ancient trophy games. Still play each school at least 50% of the time (allowing all players to visit each B10 stadium in 4 years). Voila.”
You only need to do that for the eastern 6, though. You’re also forcing a 9th game to get the 50% play while 8 games would do it for 3 locked rivals.
“The whole point of having locked games is that you don’t have to force-fit schools in to ill-fitting pods.”
Says the man proposing 5 locked rivals for everybody, which is essentially ill-fitting personal pods for almost everyone just to satisfy NW.
LikeLike
Brian:
“You only need to do that for the eastern 6, though.”
Nope. Wisconsin, Northwestern, IU, and PU all both draw students from and send a lot of alums to the East Coast now.
“Says the man proposing 5 locked rivals for everybody, which is essentially ill-fitting personal pods for almost everyone just to satisfy NW.”
Nonsense. With 5 instead of 3, Iowa gets to have annual games with Illinois and Northwestern.
UNL gets to have annual games for UM (which the B10 office would want) and PSU (which both the B10 office and UNL would want.
PSU gets UNL as an annual game.
LBJ and Illibuck are preserved, which I’m sure all 4 schools (though especially Minny) would rather have annual than not while still sending the kings out east.
MSU gets to visit Chicagoland.
Minny gets to visit Chicagoland.
Pretty much everyone gets more of the games they want.
LikeLike
“You’re also forcing a 9th game to get the 50% play while 8 games would do it for 3 locked rivals.”
BTW, there is zero indication that TPTB in the B10 are anywhere as interested in going back to 8 conference games as you are, Brian. If TPTB have to choose 2 of
1. Preserving rivalries.
2. Maximizing East Coast exposure.
3. Going back to 8 games.
I’m quite certain what they would prioritize, and it would not be #3.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Nope. Wisconsin, Northwestern, IU, and PU all both draw students from and send a lot of alums to the East Coast now.”
Which has absolutely nothing to do with more king access to the east coast or preserving ancient rivalries, which is what you were talking about when you denied that only the eastern 6 need to be locked to achieve those goals.
“Nonsense. With 5 instead of 3, Iowa gets to have annual games with Illinois and Northwestern.”
I haven’t seen lots of IA fans clamoring to lock those games. They’d be nice, but nobody needs their 4th and 5th biggest rivalries locked versus played regularly.
“UNL gets to have annual games for UM (which the B10 office would want) and PSU (which both the B10 office and UNL would want.”
The B10 office wants them so much that they didn’t even try to lock either one this time around, even with 9 games.
“LBJ and Illibuck are preserved, which I’m sure all 4 schools (though especially Minny) would rather have annual than not while still sending the kings out east.”
Thanks for telling us fans of those schools what we and our schools want. Neither side cares about Illibuck enough to justify locking it, and fans on both sides have told you this. The same is true for MI and the LBJ. Maybe MN cares, but that’s not what I hear from the few of their fans I’ve talked with.
“MSU gets to visit Chicagoland.
Minny gets to visit Chicagoland.”
Everyone wants to visit Chicago, right? So why should more schools get an advantage over everyone else with that access?
“Pretty much everyone gets more of the games they want.”
These are mostly games they want only slightly more than average, and you ignored all the other locked games that would come with it. Are there really 5 schools that want locked games with MN, MSU, IN, PU and IL rather than an equal rotation through more teams? UMD and RU?
LikeLike
Richard,
“BTW, there is zero indication that TPTB in the B10 are anywhere as interested in going back to 8 conference games as you are, Brian.”
Actually there is, since I like playing 9 games. The ADs fought it, but I didn’t. But if they can accomplish their goals with 8 games, it leaves them room to reconsider something like the B10/P12 alliance which they did show considerable interest in. The P12 wasn’t interested when they also played 9 P12 games, but this rule change could let them drop to 8 as well as I’ve pointed out. Maybe both sides would consider 8 games plus the alliance instead of keeping the 9th game. I’m simply showing that they get that option this way.
Or maybe the ADs back away from the 9th game after a while because of the 4/5 imbalance. Without divisions, that’s a huge advantage for the teams with 5 home games.
” If TPTB have to choose 2 of
1. Preserving rivalries.
2. Maximizing East Coast exposure.
3. Going back to 8 games.
I’m quite certain what they would prioritize, and it would not be #3.”
But they don’t have to choose just 2. What the B10 wanted was PSU, MI and OSU playing in NYC and DC a lot to build those markets and help integrate the newbies. Schools like WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, IN, PU and MSU are much less valuable for that purpose. The B10 wants everyone to play there regularly, and several of those other schools have interest in the east coast, but the B10’s main concern was getting the eastern kings there.
Again you neglect to see any advantage that dropping to 8 might offer and only see the downsides. Everything in scheduling is a tradeoff. The B10 values equal rotation more than minor rivalries. That’s why they’ve let Illibuck and LBJ lapse. The B10 could see East and West Coast access as better than just a little more East Coast access. The ADs may see scheduling flexibility with 4 OOC games as more important than some of these games, too.
I never said they would drop to 8, just that they might consider it. Especially if the P12 also considers it.
LikeLike
I agree that after all the other dominoes fall, that it makes a certain amount of sense having Michigan and Michigan State playing Maryland and Rutgers, in some order. As a UM alum and season ticket holder, I can go either way. But I will mention that while UM certainly has more alums in NYC than MSU, I get the feeling from my Spartan family members that MSU has more association with New Jersey as far as students and perhaps recruiting (although, yes, I know Michigan has struck gold recruiting Jersey this year). I also know that UM has a lot of students and alums in DC, and again, I believe moreso than MSU.
So my best guess is that if they had a choice, MSU would prefer Rutgers over Maryland. I don’t know how Michigan looks at it… if they view Rutgers=NYC, they likely prefer Rutgers to Maryland. But if they view it more as Rutgers = New Jersey, than I could easily see Michigan preferring the synergy with Maryland/DC (and being near Hopkins, too). Or, at least, being accepting of either Rutgers or Maryland as an annual protected rivalry, and then, by default, getting Maryland.
LikeLike
Posting in new thread:
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 tells you how much contribution you are getting in this particular year.
If you are on probation like USC, a small class size hurts.
If you are consistently over-signing, a large class size is a benefit as it allows you more “misses.”
But normally, it simply means you will get more in a later year or if you have a large class size, less in a later year.
LikeLike
Posting in new thread:
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
As for B10 TV deals, I agree. I believe that the B10 will reup with ESPN soon on a deal that comfortablely keeps them #1 in TV money but reserves a game-of-the-week package for bidding in 2016.
$35-45M in TV money coming soon to each B10 school.
LikeLike
Delany is smart. ESPN can’t afford to lose the BIG but, they will.
They put all there chips on the SEC.
The BIG’s move east has more to do with Fox.
BTN is growing and has its own identity now. You’ll have another tier.
Plus Why do you think Fox Sports 1 and 2 were launched this past year.
You’ll have a 16 to 20 team conference by the time the new BIG tv deal is made.
Teams from both the ACC and B12. Screw ESPN.
LikeLike
This “screw ESPN” sentiment is hilarious.
Get back to me once you’ve found a collegiate football conference who’s managed to get the exposure that they desire without any games on ESPN/ABC.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
Concerning Michigan’s third locked rival (besides Ohio State and Michigan State):
From this link:
http://mup.asu.edu/research.html
In Year 2011, Michigan ranked third in Federal research money, and this Federal research money accounted for about 65% of Michigan’s total research money. Consequently, I suspect that Michigan’s academics may prefer Maryland as the third locked rival, rather than Rutgers. In this case, Rutgers could be the third locked rival of Michigan State (call it the “Rodney Dangerfield” rivalry).
LikeLike
Considering that there are zero synergies between football and research, research expenditures will have absolutely no bearing on locking series.
Also, isn’t Wisconsin higher than bother RU and UMD in research money?
LikeLike
True, although the Washington Post covers Maryland sports. But then many (more?) influential Federal politicians also read the New York Times. Anyway, it also depends if and who Penn State wants to fix as its year-end rival.
LikeLike
Or the Tire Iron Trophy/Paulie Walnuts game.
LikeLike
If the choice is between Rutgers and Maryland for Michigan’s third rival, I think the # of alumni and amount of $ from the NY/NJ area is going to win out.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/where-u-m-alumni-live/
Assuming that the “Washington” on the donor list is referring to Washington D.C. and not the home of the Huskies and the Cougars, New Jersey donors send double the amount of $ over Washington donors and New York donors send over six times as much.
LikeLike
No way the LBJ game gets sacrified for either RU or UMD.
LikeLike
The point of my opening post is that the academics at Michigan may prefer to have its iconic football team playing every other year in the shadow of the Federal government. US$ 730 million of Federal research money (for that one year only) is nothing to sneeze at.
Consider that Maryland’s proximity to the nation’s capital has resulted in strong research partnerships with the Federal government for the Terrapins. Many members of the faculty receive research funding and institutional support from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
As another example, the Goddard Space Flight Center (GFC) is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of Washington, D.C. in Greenbelt, Maryland. GFC has a workforce of over 3,000 civil servant employees, 60% of which are engineers and scientists. There are approximately 7,000 supporting contractors on site every day. It is one of the largest concentrations of the world’s premiere space scientists and engineers.
From the link of my opening post, John Hopkins ranked first in Federal research money at US$ 1.73 billion for that one year only. That is more than 2.4 times than Michigan’s Federal research money respectively. I suspect that John Hopkins’ close proximity to the Federal government is not just another random coincidence.
LikeLike
Except that where UM’s football team plays has absolutely zero impact on how much funding UM’s academics get.
Clemson has played UMD in football for 62 straight years now. Has Clemson’s research funding been helped by that?
LikeLike
Ergo, the academics at UM could care less where the Wolverines play football.
LikeLike
Concerning another potential scheduling scheme for Big Ten football without divisions:
From this link:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/pod-scheduling-alignment-big-ten
Its potential as a scheduling scheme refers to the fact that is quite similar to the future East / West Division structure and thus would not differ greatly from scheduling principles already decided. Furthermore, without divisions there is no need to maintain divisional rivalries, and thus the schools of each pod could be arranged to achieve scheduling balance according to whatever expectations.
The following (arbitrary) example arranges schools so that each pod has its year-end rival in the other cross-over pod:
Pod A1 : Ohio State, Mich State, Maryland
Pod A2 : Michigan, Rutgers, Penn State
Pod B1 : Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Pod B2 : Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana
For this scheduling scheme, pods A1 and A2 are locked cross-overs for scheduling purpose. The first two schools of Pods B1 and B2 are also locked cross-overs , as are the last two schools of each pod. Each of the first two schools B1 and B2 also rotate with one of the remaining schools in the other cross-over pod.
Pods then rotate once every two years, home/away, so that every school plays all other schools at least twice every four years. Using the above pod arrangements, example schedules are provided as follows:
Years 1&2 − Pods A1&B1, Pods A2&B2:
Michigan : Ohio State, Mich State, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana
Nebraska : Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State, Mich State, Maryland, Illinois
Years 3&4 − Pods A1&B2, Pods A2&B1:
Michigan : Ohio State, Mich State, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Nebraska : Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan, Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana
In this example, the schedule of Michigan in Years 1&2 is similar with its future schedules, with the six schools of the future East Division plus three future cross-overs of the future West Division.
Ditto for the schedule of Nebraska in Years 1&2 with five of the six schools of the future West Division plus four future cross-overs of the future East Division.
In other words, such schedules are quite similar to the future East Division minus Indiana and the future West Division plus Indiana. This would not differ greatly from scheduling principles already decided. Plus it would satisfy the KISS principle rather well, with every school playing every other school at least two times every four years.
LikeLike
Without divisions, there are no need for pods.
LikeLike
These are not pods for determining “temporary divisions” (although the associated schedules would function in similar manner, particularly for establishing head-to-head games for tie-breaking purpose). These are only pods for scheduling purpose.
LikeLike
Chet,
We’ve discussed pod scheduling on here before in many ways.
“http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/pod-scheduling-alignment-big-ten”
His first proposal is the Inner vs Outer plan that the B10 mentioned and then rejected (and he’s wrong to say it isn’t geographical). I still think it was the best plan if the B10 was going to stay at 8 games.
If we’re talking scheduling pods but not divisions, it opens up a few options. I’d stick to geography for my pods so fans get short road trips.
N – OSU, MI, MSU
E – PSU, UMD, RU
S – IN, PU, IL, NW
W – NE, IA, WI, MN
The simple schedule is to play everyone in your pod annually and rotate through the others equally. However, I’d consider adding an extra locked game between the N and E pods every year. This would help the B10 achieve its goal of getting the big brands in NYC and DC more often.
N & E – 2*100% + 8*55% + 3*88%
That’s so close to locked that you might as well do it, so go to 3 pods:
E – OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, UMD, RU
C – IN, PU, IL, NW
W – NE, IA, WI, MN
E – 5*100% (in pod) + 8*50% (2 from C and 2 from W each)
C & W – 3*100% (in pod) + 4*75% (other small pod) + 6*50% (1 each from OSU/PSU, MI/MSU and RU/UMD)
It wouldn’t lock OSU/IL or MI/IL, but time has hurt those rivalries anyway. Younger fans don’t care about them.
LikeLike
Brian,
For Frank’s proposal, my personal preference is to unlock as many schools as possible, although it would be nice to have some kind of balanced (symmetrical) scheduling.
An advantage of Frank’s proposal is that it may provide flexibility (for example) to schedule Nebraska to play either Ohio State & Penn State or Ohio State & Michigan or Penn State & Michigan every year. That would boost the Cornhusker brand and benefit the Big Ten as well.
Another personal preference of mine is not to have rematches in the Conference Championship Game. But that is not my decision to make.
LikeLike
Chet,
“For Frank’s proposal, my personal preference is to unlock as many schools as possible, although it would be nice to have some kind of balanced (symmetrical) scheduling.”
There aren’t many of those games that don’t need to be kept for various reasons. Of those that are extra, most are between the Central pod teams and they’d all be playing each other more anyway since almost everyone else needs the 3 locked games.
“An advantage of Frank’s proposal is that it may provide flexibility (for example) to schedule Nebraska to play either Ohio State & Penn State or Ohio State & Michigan or Penn State & Michigan every year. That would boost the Cornhusker brand and benefit the Big Ten as well.”
I promise you they won’t get OSU every year unkess there are major scheduling changes. OSU already has to play MI and PSU annually. The B10 isn’t going to lock 3 kings for OSU unless all 4 kings play each other annually.
I would’ve tried to lock NE/PSU, but everyone complained about travel when discussing Inner vs Outer. Besides, the 3 other western teams need a king to play and NE is right there.
What would really help NE’s brand is winning more games.
“Another personal preference of mine is not to have rematches in the Conference Championship Game. But that is not my decision to make.”
I discussed that later.
LikeLike
Brian,
That’s why I had Wisconsin and Iowa in the same pod for the example in my original post of this thread. In this way, Michigan plays those two teams for those two years when Ohio State plays Nebraska. But this arrangement expects that Wisconsin continues – and Iowa returns – to its winning ways. And I suppose that Penn State and Michigan State could swap places in Pods A1 and A2, although the original purpose was to keep the two Michigan schools separate for the schools in Pods B1 and B2.
LikeLike
Geography doesn’t change. NE is the local king for the western teams. That’s who they should play every year.
LikeLike
Allow me to restate my original post to improve its clarity.
Each school has 5 locked rivals and rotates 4 other schools every other year:
Locked Rivals (example):
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois: Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa, Wisconsin
Rotating Schools (Years 1&2) (example):
Nebraska: Ohio State, Michigan State, Maryland, Illinois
Illinois: Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rotating Schools (Years 3&4) (example):
Nebraska: Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana
Illinois: Ohio State, Michigan State, Maryland, Minnesota
This is not much different than your scheme for home/away every other year.
For example (for Nebraska):
Years 1&2 =>
C&W = 3*100% = Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
+ 4*75% = 3 = Indiana, Purdue, Illinois
+ 6*50% = 3 = Ohio State, Michigan, Rutgers
Years 3&4 =>
C&W = 3*100% = Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
+ 4*75% = 3 = Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
+ 6*50% = 3 = Penn State, Michigan State, Maryland
In comparison: I prefer your scheme, because the combination of Indiana, Purdue, Illinois and Northwestern changes every rotation, whereas my example scheme locks 2 schools and flips between the other 2 schools.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
@ FtT. Nice article (as
Here’s my thoughts on “no divisions/locked rivals.”
To begin, I don’t think it will happen. The new divisions are largely unobjectionable; mostly, the teams are playing who they really want to play; there is no motivated fan base (or subgroup) who hates “East” and “West.” Inertia is vastly underrated. Plus, Delany and the B1G are stubborn. The Earth had to move for the B1G to dump “Leaders” and “Legends.”
But, assuming the B1G considered the idea, I think Frank’s proposed locked rivals are about as good as you are going to get.
Having 3 locked rivals is easy for the western group and for the middle group. Neb, Wiscy, Minny, Iowa … then IL, IN, Pur, & Northwestern.
But that leaves the six teams in the east with two made-up “rivalries.”
OSU with MI, MSU & PSU makes sense.
PSU with Rut, MD & OSU makes sense.
MSU with OSU and MI makes sense. That leaves either Rutgers or MD. I agree with Frank’s choice.
That leaves MI with MSU, OSU and Maryland.
MSU-Rutgers and MI-Maryland are “conference imposed rivalries.” Everyone will have a good time making jokes. But, really, what are better options assuming only three locked rivals?
One option might be to lock only 2 rivals in the eastern group (which might or might not allow more scheduling flexibility).
That gives you two groups of 3: MSU/MI/OSU get locked together and PSU/MD/Rut.
FWIW, four locked rivals doesn’t seem to help.
LikeLike
Better options? Look at my reply.
LikeLike
4 locked rivals does allow every school to lock with at least one king. It also allows for Iowa-Northwestern (big rivalry game to NU) as well as the TV-friendly UNL-PSU rivalry yet still let’s each school play all other schools at least 50% of the time.
LikeLike
The ACC proposal will pass, because all of the power conferences realize that they might want to do this at some point. The non-power conferences either have the same viewpoint, or realize that if they want to stand in the way of reform, this is a poor issue upon which to do so.
But I don’t think the Big Ten will be in any hurry to change its scheduling format. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers required an immediate response. The ACC rule change does not. It’s merely an option, which they can exercise at their leisure. They’ll take at least a couple of years to study it.
LikeLike
I really like Frank’s plan and hope it will happen. While the geographic split is certainly the best way to go at present, as an IU fan that East division is a problem….Neb and Wis have it too easy out west.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“The new divisions are largely unobjectionable;”
No, they aren’t. Lots of people have had objections. It was just considered the least objectionable option by most people. Least objectionable and unobjectionable are very different.
“mostly, the teams are playing who they really want to play;”
And several teams they don’t want to, especially in the east.
“there is no motivated fan base (or subgroup) who hates “East” and “West.””
MSU actively campaigned to be in the West instead of the East. Lots of OSU fans have objected to playing RU and UMD instead of IL annually.
LikeLike
There really is no understating the awesomeness of the DeLoss story.
LikeLike
“Former Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn takes over at Cincinnati with one overriding priority: Get the Bearcats into a different conference.”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cincinnati-hires-former-colorado-ad-mike-bohn
LikeLike
@Frank:
“This move could have a radical change to how networks schedule on Thursday night (which had turned into the new evening where networks all placed their best shows after SNF ravaged its Sunday night competition)”
This is not accurate. Networks did not move shows off of Sunday night because of SNF–they moved their best shows to Thursday night because its the most lucrative night for tv ad dollars.
ABC moved Greys to Thursdays from Sundays to try to topple CSI on CBS, which CBS had moved a few years prior when it saw that NBC’s Must See TV was fading.
LikeLike
And might CBS temporarily move its hit Thursday sitcoms to Monday while NFL games have that slot? As a fan of “Mom” (Anna Faris and Allison Janney have terrific chemistry), I certainly hope not.
LikeLike
No chance.
They’ll start November 1st. Win for fans–same number of episodes (22), less reruns between the start of the season and May.
LikeLike
If you had said, he met DeLoss while he was gardening or listening to his opera music, it MAY have been believable. Going to a bar and drinking…….and in particular tequila shots……..laughable!
Ding, thanks for playing.
LikeLike
On the personal note, Oliver Luck went to law school at UT and worked in Houston many years. So he knew all the movers and shakers.
I thought it was interesting the UT president met with the UGA president, who he had been an asst. professor with, when the SEC approached UT in 1989. The Dude claims Oliver Luck met with a former WVU professor at FSU (whom he named) when the Big 12 was talking to FSU. I believe the Dude isn’t making that up, just overstating the significance of those discussions. Maryland’s president had been at Iowa. Louisville had support in the Big 12 from OU as KY Senator McConnell had been in the Senate with OU’s president Boren.
LikeLike
The dude was almost certainly making up that story. The professor he was talking about just would not come into contact with Barron barring some kind of off campus relationship that was made in a year and half that Barron was in Tallahassee. They where never in the same location before. They where in different fields. I am confident that the Dude just went though the FSU factuality directory looking for a WVU connection. This is the same cat that claimed it was Jimbo Fisher that was leaking information to him.
LikeLike
I refuse to believe the dude could make anything up! HE HAS SOURCES!!
LikeLike
Those of us who have been in business know how important relationships are. Especially in hiring decisions. You see that in assistant coach hirings. You usually see some connection where the head coach worked with that guy before (as much as assistants move there are lots of connections).
LikeLike
“By the time 8:30 rolls around, we were [into it] pretty good but we got ourselves in a situation. ”
I’m not sure what a “situation” is. Terminology for a serious buzz? Getting approached by reporters? Getting approached by hookers? That line from the article has puzzled me.
LikeLike
I read the situation being that the TCU AD felt he hadn’t made his full pitch by giving Dodds the binders and materials on TCU while the time flew by.
LikeLike
Article on the IU rivals site linking an Omaha newspaper article about BT recruiting in NJ and Maryland…..quoted a prominant NJ HS coach who said all BT schools are more attractive now because parents can see their kids play at games at RU, PSU, and MD. Article said 13 BT recruits out of NJ this year, as many as from FL. 8 out of MD. 100 total D1 recruits out of NJ this year.
Actually, looking at Rivals top 40 in NJ…..last 9 went to non-BT schools. Of the first 31, 17 went to BT schools as follows: PSU 4; RU 4; UM 2; OSU 2; NW 2; MD, Iowa, and MSU 1. Now this is somewhat out of whack, as RU would have had 8-9 had their team not fallen apart half way through the season. Hopefully, they’ll get their shit together soon.But this is a significant factor favoring RU in the Big 10 that the RU detractors (hi Andy) don’t much acknowledge.
MD’s FB recruiting base is pretty good as well, although not on the scale of NJ’s. MD IS huge for PSU and for basketball recruiting…..NJ’s pretty decent for BB recruiting as well…….
LikeLike
“NJ’s pretty decent for BB recruiting as well…….’
And RU’s proximity to NYC will only help B1G recruiting in NYC proper. A visiting assistant coach can go see NYC recruits play in the same trip when visiting RU.
LikeLike
I woulsd think PSU would be trying very hard to get into that BB recruiting market….that program needs a base….Chambers is doing better in Philly but he needs a second base….
LikeLike
Problem for PSU is that you already have multiple bball powers recruiting each of the East Coast urban bball hotbeds hard.
G’town and UMD in DC.
‘Nova and Temple in Philly.
‘Cuse, Pitino, and everybdy in NYC.
Actually, that’s true for all of the major East Coast metros. Probably 30 schools with a much better basketball pedigree than PSU recruit the East Coast hotbeds hard.
LikeLike
I believe the “situation” was from the viewpoint of Deloss; ‘I don’t know who this guy is or what the hell we’re doing here, but I like him! I want him in the country club!’
LikeLike
Pingback: TCU got into Big 12 by getting DeLoss Dodds liquored up
Blue!
LikeLike
As to Frank’s backing of TCU over Cincy for the Big 12……..I thought Cincy was a much better choice then, and even more so now that TCU football has come back down to Earth. Bigger, public school, better bball, , and something of a rival for WVU, which is now isolated……..It will probably happen anyway, but Cincy should have gotten the nod.
LikeLike
The rest of the B12 wanted as many trips down to TX as possible for recruiting purposes.
LikeLike
Cincinnati should be low on the list. They simply don’t have the fan support despite being a big state school that was in a BCS conference (IS until July 1). Their ceiling seems to be pretty low.
LikeLike
Not that I think TCU was a good long range choice. WVU should have replaced A&M and Louisville been next on the list.
Buts its possible having a 4th Texas team and one in DFW is a good bulwark against incursions from the SEC and a good choice for schools like Oklahoma St., Kansas and Kansas St.
LikeLike
This, plus an extra Texas school is another excuse for out of state schools to come and see Texas recruits (as was noted, I think, by you, in the thread of another FtT post).
I tend to agree about Cincy, but if 12 is needed in the short term due to CFB playoff issues/selection committee preferences, Cincy’s a very good pick (plus, its a geographic bone to WVU to give them at least one conference rival nearby).
LikeLike
I would add Memphis as the 12th with Cincy, unless BYU makes a play. Memphis is another stop on the bridge from Texas to West Virginia and it provides a recruiting conduit into metro Memphis, north Alabama, the Mississipi delta and possibly into the St. Louis metro (although I wonder if Mizzou is already stealing St. Louis area talent from the B16 west schools (Iowa, Mn, Wiscy, IL, Nebraska – that UNL shorthand makes me think of a potential mid-21st century Big 12 addition, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterey…and yes they field an American-style football team) . I dont see the Pac going all out for BYU – instead they will either stand pat or add schools from the MWC (of course if Texas/OK go all in with the Pac, it wont matter).
LikeLike
Problem with Memphis is that expansion is driven by football first, second, and third, and to put it most charitably, Memphis is a terrible, terrible football program.
If Memphis were a better football program, then possibly.
LikeLike
“I dont see the Pac going all out for BYU…”
I doubt the PAC would admit BYU even if it was a permanent requirement and guarantee that UT would come too.
LikeLike
Central Florida or South Florida would be a good partner for Cincinnati in a Big 12 expansion. Florida is an underrated recruiting target for conference schools; of this year’s Iowa State recruiting class, 8 are from Texas, 4 are from Florida.
LikeLike
To university presidents, playoff qualification is secondary issue to revenues. The Big XII won’t expand to lose money. They will stand pat unless the next two schools at least maintain the Big XII’s existing per-school payouts. That could be a difficult proposition. Although Cincy and USF/UCF would probably be the best options available, I’m not sure they’re financially better than the default option of doing nothing.
They also need the ACC’s CCG proposal to succeed. Without a rule change, it is difficult to come up with divisions that make sense. This was one of the biggest structural drawbacks of the Big XII from the beginning, and they had an extra king back then.
With or without divisions, the Texas schools are probably going to want to keep playing each other every year. The non-Texas schools will ask: “Am I better off substituting a game in Texas for a game in Cincinnati?” WV might be the only school who says yes to that, unless expansion is extremely compelling financially.
LikeLike
If not for recruiting, Louisville would have been a better choice for the B12.
A bball king, close to WVU, and not too far from the rest of the B12.
LikeLike
Yeah, because Rutgers, Miami, Maryland, Syracuse, Pitt and Boston College were all brought in for attendance and fan support.
LikeLike
Exactly. Short term thinking on the Big 12’s part. If they wanted TCU so badly they should have just added WVU, TCU, Louisville and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
The proposed new rule for conference championship games is about 5 or 10 years too late for the Big 12. Divisions were such a hindrance. Not that Dan Beebe or even Fake Dan Beebe wanted to rock the boat much but think of the moves they could have made to preserve the conference…
*Re-instate the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry.
*Add Arkansas without them having to go to the North.
*Add Louisville as an 11th school AND include a CCG.
*Search western options for Colorado.
*Add eastern schools for West Virginia without those schools being in a division with Iowa St. (FSU and Clemson?)
LikeLike
Arkansas was never in the B12; it left the SWC effective 1992. Also, why would Arkansas leave the stability and wealth of the SEC for the instability of the B12?
LikeLike
If the ACC dissolves divisions, I’d want 3 locked rivals for each team. 5 of the remaining 10 would be played for two years, then the other 5 would be played for two years. Locked rivals would be the following:
Boston College: Louisville, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Duke: UNC, Virginia, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech
Louisville: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Miami: Florida State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech
UNC: Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State: Clemson, UNC, Wake Forest
Pittsburgh: Louisville, Miami, Syracuse
Syracuse: Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh
Virginia: Duke, UNC, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia
Wake Forest: Boston College, Duke, NC State
It’s tricky, with either the Big Ten or ACC, to choose 3 rivals for 14 teams. For Penn State (Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland) or UNC (NC State, Duke, Virginia), the three seem rather obvious which are most important to lock. For others like Purdue (Indiana) or Boston College (Syracuse), there may be only one team that’s an absolute must to have on the schedule every year.
LikeLike
That is a tough set for Louisville, Pitt, and Cuse. They basically just get each other. You’d assume the newcomers would want accuse to some old school ACC teams / recruiting grounds.
LikeLike
How the Vols nailed a great recruiting class:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140206/tennessee-volunteers-national-signing-day/?eref=sihp#all
LikeLike
As an RU fan living in NJ, IMHO Frank’s recommendations for RU’s permanent rivals make a lot of sense, based on geography (Md and PSU) and ratings potential. There are an enormous amount of Michigan fans in the NYC metro area who would attend/tune in to games. Provided of course RU doesn’t crap the bed, manages to field a semblance of a offense and defense, and is competetive.
Based on the talent level on the team, coupled with now experienced DBs and a better OC, none of those “rivalry” games are unsinkable next year. IMO.
LikeLike
Unwinnable, not “unsinkable”. Damn auto-correct!
LikeLike
Frank,
I enjoyed the Urbanophile link you posted and your comments on it.
I’ve only been to Columbus once. My wife and I went to a wedding there in 2009, I think. We stayed overnight from Indy and drove in early to explore a little. We like doing that sort of thing. It was summer, so there were relatively few students, but we explored Ohio State’s campus, High Street, and downtown.
Based on the article’s prompt (Quick: what do you think of when you hear “Columbus?”), my answer is “Ohio State.” The college is absolutely massive. Everything in the town is about the Buckeyes. That’s not news to anyone, but Ohio State does seem to define its city more so than many other universities do for their respective towns. Columbia, SC, for instance, is home to the U. of S. Carolina, but it’s not as overwhelmingly Gamecock-centric, in part because there’s another school in the state of only slightly smaller size and a similar sized fanbase. I think most people know Columbus is driven, in a good way, by Ohio State because its population is going to be more educated than the average town. It has a medical school and good hospitals. It’s also the state capital.
Honestly, the other way I would describe Columbus, based on my very limited experience there, is that it was somewhat of an Indianapolis-lite. It’s maybe 75% of the size, with no major pro sports (NHL doesn’t compare with NFL, NBA, or MLB), but it does have one of the most prominent collegiate athletics programs in America. The downtown had a similar layout, and even has a river of similar size with a similar park and greenway. Downtown did seem a little less vibrant, though. You or others may have described Columbus as having more in common with northeastern cities than with Midwestern ones, but it reminded me much more of Indy, which is not like the northeast at all.
I think it will always be hard for Columbus to stand out because it is sort of a third wheel in its own state. Unlike Texas or California, which are so much more vast, with cities are 3-5 hours apart, Columbus is just kind of caught in the middle, not too far between Cleveland and Cincinnati, its more established counterparts. Indy, by contrast, is the undisputed general for the state of Indiana. Now, I know many such as Richard Florida may say that which state a city is in doesn’t matter, but the general public perceives things differently.
While on the topic of urban growth/marketing, I’ll have to make some to notes about Raleigh, since it, like Columbus, is also a growing capital city with a large university in town. Now, I do have to hand it to the city (and the Triangle area in general) for many, many things that do matter a lot. It has three great universities within 30 minutes of each other. There’s a very good college sports scene (thought football could use some more work, given that there are THREE colleges who rarely finish in the top 25). It’s a fairly pretty area. It has a very well-educated population with a much lower unemployment area than most places. There are a ton of great jobs here, especially in RTP. It’s extremely family-friendly. Housing costs are much greater than most places in the South, but much lower than many places in the Northeast and Midwest. Schools are generally good. It has good southern charm but plenty of transplants to keep it from being at all like the rebel-flag waving backasswards place in counties not too far from here. People are friendly. All those things drew us to the area. I’m glad we moved here, and I’d be really sad if we ever have to leave.
With that said, Raleigh lacks much excitement where there’s not a game going on. Depending on the measure (growth since 2000), Raleigh is the fastest-growing city in the nation. The metro area, including Durham, Chapel Hill, and Cary, makes it not that much smaller than Nashville, Indy, or Charlotte, and maybe about the same size as Columbus, but there are not many must-see places here. Yes, there are museums and there are some cool restaurants here and there, but downtown is just… okay. My much smaller hometown of Greenville, SC packs in more people and is busier almost every weekend of the year than Raleigh. Nashville blows everyone away in music and nightlife. Indy has an extremely walkable downtown with stores, restaurants, museums, theaters, etc. all very accessible. (There’s a reason it got to host a Super Bowl and did a great job doing it.) Even compared to Columbus, it doesn’t have a real identity. Raleigh as a whole is barely more pro-NC State than it is pro-UNC, while Columbus has a generally unifying pro-Buckeyes theme. The city, and the region overall, is strikingly suburban. Downtown is very small for the size of its metro area. I think it’s this way because the city is a very late-bloomer. Older cities have larger downtowns because people needed to be close to work. Even in the early 20th centuries, people wouldn’t live any farther than the streetcars would take them. Raleigh’s growth, on the other hand, has come primarily in the past 30-40 years, and nearly all of it has been suburban. RTP, in particular, is suburban, about 5 miles from DT Durham and 10 miles from DT Raleigh. So, aside from the ACC sports scene, there’s not a particularly defining quality about this area, even though it has all the important things (good schools, relatively affordable living, good jobs, plus a better climate than the northeast/midwest) I listed above that draw people to the area.
LikeLike
@ MiR.
Great post. A lot of good stuff.
I too went over and read the blog post/comments on branding/re-branding C-bus. It was interesting and is interesting to ponder how smaller cities can differentiate themselves from other cities of similar size/regional appeal.
I was a bit puzzled at the insistence that “branding” is not “marketing.” But … not important I guess.
I grew up in C-bus and, other than tOSU, there really is NOT anything … well … memorable about the place.
If I would in charge of the branding, I would hire some well known artist/designer/builder to create a sculpture, building, tower, monument, whatever. Something odd but unforgettable. Say …. a 20 foot tall purple cow rearing like a horse with a yellow orangutan rider. Add a new War Animal every few years. A 25 foot red bear falconer. Then build some sort of tech/skater theme something around it. Get Apple to license or make six foot high iPods with 100 nodes to check out music. Have 100 of them; Wifi everywhere, etc etc.
Whatever the idea, you build it, then the branding goes from there.
LikeLike
Actually not having anything memorable is what makes Columbus unique. Its why marketers often use Columbus as a test market. Its not quirky or different.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Although it is a fine line, there is a difference between branding and marketing. Think of branding as elements used to create associations with something (logos, colors, names, imagery, etc.). Marketing becomes how you leverage those elements for economic gain. The two should be closely linked, but they are different, which makes things incredibly complicated for some brands and businesses… That’s another conversation for another day.
I hope that helps…
LikeLike
I have to correct you on Columbus being 75% of the size of Indianapolis — that is false. They are virtually the same size.
City Population:
13. Indianapolis – 834,852
15. Columbus – 809,798
Metropolitan Area Population (including the suburbs and surrounding areas):
32. Columbus – 1,944,002
33. Indianapolis – 1,928,982
Source: Wikipedia
LikeLike
@Frank:
As was noted earlier on this thread, I think you should revise your protected rival list to adhere to the B1G’s stated preference to protect as many rivalry/trophy games as well, with geography as a secondary consideration.
LikeLike
@Frank:
As a Buckeye fan, I like the 3 rivalry games Frank has for us. No offense but the Illibuck trophy means nothing to me.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“As was noted earlier on this thread, I think you should revise your protected rival list to adhere to the B1G’s stated preference to protect as many rivalry/trophy games as well, with geography as a secondary consideration.”
Except that is no longer what the B10 has said are the priorities. They put geography #1 this time and didn’t try to preserve crossover rivalries beyond IN/PU. They made money #2 (parity-based scheduling). They could have made IL one of the teams OSU would play more often (and MN for MI), but they didn’t.
LikeLike
That’s in a world where you have to have 2 divisions.
The priorities change when the rules change.
LikeLike
Feel free to provide the evidence of when the B10 has said their current priority is to preserve rivalries with geography as a secondary concern. Because that’s what he claimed and I refuted. He didn’t speculate about what the future priorities would be.
That said, go back to the pre-NE days. The B10 didn’t lock OSU/IL or MI/MN in the days of 11 teams, either. But they did lock OSU/PSU (and PSU/MI for 10 years). That was geography and sending the big brands to the newbie more often over rivalries.
LikeLike
“Feel free to provide the evidence of when the B10 has said their current priority is to preserve rivalries with geography as a secondary concern.”
You must not have paid attention, Brian (though I suspect it’s selective amnesia). When Legends/Leaders were made, the B10 touted the fact that virtually all trophy games except for Iowa-Wisconsin (and the made-up Minny-PSU one) were preserved while violating all concept of geography.
LikeLike
OK, I just noticed the word “current”. However, the fact that the B10 went from geography being something like a tertiary concern to a primary one after a change of circumstances shows that another change of circumstances will very likely change the priorities again.
LikeLike
Richard,
“OK, I just noticed the word “current”.”
And that word was the whole subject under discussion before you jumped in, so it’s kind of important.
“However, the fact that the B10 went from geography being something like a tertiary concern to a primary one after a change of circumstances shows that another change of circumstances will very likely change the priorities again.”
I never disputed that the B10 had said it before or that it might say it again.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten ADs suddenly discovered they care about geography, having placed it dead last when they re-organized for 12 teams. What they discovered is that comprehensible divisions make a lot more marketing sense. “Legends” and “Leaders” debuted to widespread derision, and they were eager not to see that happen again.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t think the Big Ten ADs suddenly discovered they care about geography, having placed it dead last when they re-organized for 12 teams.”
Or you could say they made it the third most important thing while knowing that the second thing (rivalries) was closely linked to geography (other than LBJ and Illibuck).
“What they discovered is that comprehensible divisions make a lot more marketing sense.”
And that the fans of WI (and MI and MSU to a much lesser extent) complained about the road trips. WI was also upset to lose WI/IA.
““Legends” and “Leaders” debuted to widespread derision, and they were eager not to see that happen again.”
The derision was for the names. They were the southeast and northwest divisions, with WI and NW swapped (and those 2 are only 150 miles apart).
LikeLike
@Frank:
As a Buckeye fan, I like the 3 rivalry games Frank has for us. No offense but the Illibuck trophy means nothing to me.
LikeLike
Sources: ACC eyes more SEC games:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10419715/acc-eyes-schedule-includes-one-sec-game-every-year
LikeLike
Not a great idea, especially if the expectation is for all 14 teams to face an SEC school.
Really, I would just want to see ACC schools, and schools of all Power 5 leagues, for that matter, mandated by their leagues to play 1 other P5 school in their non-conference schedules, at bare minimum. Two would be preferable, especially for the leagues who are staying at 8 conference games. But schools should have the freedom to choose opponents that make the most sense for them, whether it’s SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac-12.
In particular, Boston College, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh would make way more sense playing a Big Ten school than they would an SEC school. Louisville and Virginia could go either way. Miami tends to cast its net nationally for non-conference opponents. I can recall some Florida and Tennessee games for the Canes, sure, but also Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Penn State (if you go back far enough). Virginia Tech has scheduled a bunch of Big Ten games. Duke & Wake Forest like to go for games against the service academies and against other similarly elite private schools, regardless of conference affiliation: Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Rice.
Likewise, I don’t see why the SEC would want its non-conference schedule so heavily towards the SEC. LSU and Tennessee, like Miami, cast their non-league schedules pretty wide. I could see Tennessee aiming for some games against ACC schools, but no more so than some Big Ten or Big 12 games. LSU would probably prefer Big 12 games or games from wherever. Arkansas, Kentucky, the Mississippi schools–what would they want out of ACC games any more than they would anyone else.
LikeLike
To me, it’s an admission from the ACC that adding a ninth conference game within the conference isn’t all that attractive from either a ratings or attendance perspective (only Clemson, Florida State and to a lesser extent Virginia Tech travel well) and that it needs the SEC as a crutch. One senses that both ESPN and Notre Dame, each pulling their 800-pound gorilla weight behind the scenes, have something to do with this scheme. Oh, and I hope Syracuse, Boston College and Pittsburgh enjoy trips to Starkville, Oxford and Auburn. More and more, I’m glad Maryland is fleeing this joke of a league in favor of a real conference.
LikeLike
It’s a great idea and could generate more interest & revenue. (Somehow the B1G versus PAC proposal was mainly hailed as a breakthrough arrangement; the ACC v B1G basketball challenge has worked for 15 years).
An opening weekend slate of 5 games…some at neutral sites such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Bristol, Tampa or Jacksonville…and some HaH would be perfect.
For that matter, ACC v B1G with a 5 game annual challenge would also be sweet. Annual HaH for UVa/UMd, Syr/Rutg and Pitt/PSU, mixed in with a couple of attractive one-time HaH (VT/OSU, BC/NW, Miami/UNL, Louis/Pur, etc).
LikeLike
“An SEC source told ESPN.com that the ACC’s idea of an “8+1 model” was merely a concept that had been discussed only once and was a long way from being a reality. It was so premature, he said, that most athletic directors in the SEC hadn’t even been briefed on it.”
LikeLike
They’d both rather lock an OC game than add a ninth conf game?
At least Stanford and USC (who claimed not to have opposed) were at nine CGs plus ND yearly when the B1G/PAC alliance fell apart.
LikeLike
This is a reason to not change the CCG rules. Planing OOC matchups may be important, but its unrelated to deciding a conference championship. “We want our cake, and eat it too.”
LikeLike
So very tragic:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10419721/ted-agu-defensive-lineman-california-golden-bears-dies
From the article:
“Details on what happened remain unclear, but according to the Bay Area News Group, Agu’s death appears to be related to a team conditioning session Friday morning.”
LikeLike
I really like how everyone leaves one word comments. It’s great because then they email notices or something and it adds to the number of comments that the blog receives. This is all great for me because I love nothing more in this world than one word comments and an author who allows them for the purposes of having a higher comment count.
Also, probably my favorite thing of reading “Go Bucks” or “Hook Em” is that I get none of the discussion that most comment boards promote. I never really wanted that in a comment board anyway. To me, the best feature of a comment board is that other people can junk it up for laziness reasons. Remember when myspace.com was nothing more than GIF.posting and spam? That was like heaven for me.
Also, I love that fact that expansion is clearly not happening yet this blog continues to “report” on it. Want to report something? Report on something exciting like reading the same comments regardless of article. I think you (as blauthor) should promote just signing with a decimal point so as to prefect junk to its essence. That way, whenever people want to read “Go Bucks” for the 90th time they can instead just imagine it.
Kind of like how you to actually have to be in a medieval castle to pretend you are. Wait what? Hold on here..
What I’m saying is that I live for viewing “Go Bucks” “Hook ’em” ect. That is the only reason I come. But like that medieval castle, I don’t actually have to view “Hook ’em” to imagine it. Which is why, I could just get by on people typing decimal points for the purposes of getting email updates/inflating post counts.
Thank you chefs,
DJ Angelo Rigimortys IIIV
LikeLike
Go Bucks!
And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
LikeLike
Pfffttttt…
LikeLike
We train young men to drop fire on people. But their moderators won’t allow them to write F**K on their blogs because it’s obscene! Hit the road, Jack! on this:
LikeLike
Go cougars!
LikeLike
This is the problem when you add two shitty teams like Rutgers and Maryland. Somebody has to play them now. Ohio State was developing a great rivalry with Wisconsin, but since we’ll only play them about twice a decade, you can kiss that good-bye. As far as Nebraska, I’m not a fan of their’s, but then assigned rivals are less than overwhelming. If Nebraska is considered a King, then they have to play Kings. Penn State is the only choice for them so I would drop one of PSU’s games with Maryland or Rutgers and add Nebraska.
LikeLike
“I would drop one of PSU’s games with MD or RU and add Nebraska.”
YGTBK!
LikeLike
“Ohio State was developing a great rivalry with Wisconsin, but since we’ll only play them about twice a decade, you can kiss that good-bye.”
Um, wut?
Under the current scheduling system, you’ll play Wisconsin twice in 6 years. The next 6 year cycle, you may very well play UW every year for 6 years.
LikeLike
And some of you think the Big 12 should add 2 teams lower on the totem pole than Maryland.
LikeLike
Final 2013 CFB attendance numbers.
Click to access 2013.pdf
Over 100,000
1. Michigan
2. Ohio State
3. Alabama
Over 90,000
4. Texas
5. Penn State
6. Tennessee
7. Georgia
8. LSU
9. Nebraska
Over 80,000
10. Florida
11. Texas A&M
12. Auburn
13. Oklahoma
14. South Carolina
15. Clemson
16. Notre Dame
Over 70,000
17. Wisconsin
18. Florida State
19. USC
20. Michigan State
21. UCLA
Over 60,000
22. Washington
23. Iowa
24. Virginia Tech
25. Mizzou
26. Arizona State
27. Arkansas
28. BYU
Honorable mention (over 59,000)
29. Kentucky
30. Ole Miss
LikeLike
Doak Campbell seats over 80K yet the ‘Noles don’t go over an 80K average in a national title season.
LikeLike
FSU home attendance in 2013:
65k – Idaho
73k-75k – NV, Bethune-Cookman, UMD, Syracuse
80k – NCSU
84k – Miami
Capacity = 82k
LikeLike
Still rather disappointing for a king.
Kyle Field seats about the same and A&M easily broke 80K.
Owen Field, Death Valley, Notre Dame Stadium, and Camp Randall all seat less than Doak Campbell, yet OU, Clemson, ND, and Wisconsin all drew more than FSU despite A&M, Clemson, & UW not being kings and none of them having the season that FSU had.
LikeLike
I wasn’t arguing, just supplying the data. FSU basically can only sell out for a rivalry. This is one reason they wish GT and VT were in their division. None of the northern teams fill the place.
The fans should definitely do better, but FSU should also stop scheduling a I-AA plus Idaho (worse than many I-AAs) plus NV (solid, but so far away few fans will travel).
LikeLike
FSU should absolutely do better, no question about it. But last year’s schedule was really, really unappealing. Bethune-Cookman, Idaho, AND Nevada? Come on. Next year will be a really good home schedule featuring Florida, Clemson, and Notre Dame.
Additionally, FSU is a long way away from most of its alumni and fans. Jacksonville is almost 2 and half hours away. Orlando is almost 3 hours 45 minutes. Tampa, a little further. Those are long distances to drive to go watch… the Idaho game.
FSU also doesn’t have the deep, deep history of Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, etc. I wasn’t around in the 60’s or 70’s, but I imagine they barely were on the map until Bowden arrived. Then they became a very solid program for Bowden’s first 12 years or so, and then they went on that great 14-year run of top five finishes. Demand for tickets went up and up, so the school expanded the stadium to meet the demand. Problem is that the stadium’s capacity met the demand for year-after-year top five teams, not for a bunch of down years and a weak home schedule. Really, the stadium should probably be about 76-78K, but, at one time, it could have sold 88,000/game (if the seats were there to sell. I think FSU wanted its football stadium to be in the same class as Florida, Georgia, Auburn, etc.
At some point, though, excuses need to go away. Penn State is as isolated a campus for a football program of its caliber as any in the nation, and it still draws over 90,000 even in sanctions years. FSU ought to be able to sell out every game, especially this coming year after a national title and with an attractive schedule.
LikeLike
They might have been able to if they joined the SEC in 1989. FSU really doesn’t fit geographically very well in the ACC. They are right in the E/W middle of the SEC.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh:
“FSU also doesn’t have the deep, deep history of Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, etc. I wasn’t around in the 60′s or 70′s, but I imagine they barely were on the map until Bowden arrived.”
FSU was an all girls school until after WWII. Absolutely no football success pre-Bowden, and that includes the Burt Reynolds/Lee Corso teams int he 50’s. Bowden got the job after getting run out of Morgantown (UVW)–he was not a hot coaching property. But he got to FSU right as Florida was exploding as a football state and while UF was down in the dumps and had a few years before Miami became good. Timing is everything.
LikeLike
A few corrections to this part of thread regarding FSU:
1. FSU is the oldest school and only campus that existed prior/during Civil War in Fla. UF actually didn’t actually exist (in any tangible way) until 1905.
2. FSU was all male/coed for first ~50 years of its existence.
3. FSU had a terrible -perhaps it’s worst n decades – schedule this year.
4. FSU attracts a ton of eyeballs on TV…but hopefully will average 80k plus in ’14
5. UF was very lacking in tradition prior to the 1990s. Both FSU and Miami reached the national stage earlier due to guys like Bowden, Shellenberger and Johnson. UF simply blew any advantages it should have had and the rest is history.
Just wanted to clear some minor points up…
LikeLike
@Tom:
Re: FSU’s history:
Thanks for the historical background on FSU. However, FSU, as we now know it, was a women’s college from 1905-1947. FSU’s own history states they did not begin playing football until 1947. (See: http://www.seminoles.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/fsu-m-footbl-archive.html , click on FSU Year-by-Year).
Also, FSU’s OOC schedule is entirely of its own making. If should try to schedule better going forward.
Also, how UF never won an SEC football title until the 1990’s (unless you are a UF partisan and count 1984), is truly a mystery to me. FSU was the first to make it to the national stage, even if Miami got to greater heights faster.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
That’s an interesting way of putting it for the rise of Florida’s Big Three.
I do think, though, Florida stood out ahead of the other two for most of its history. Its team has been around the longest. It had a Heisman winner in the 60’s, an accomplishment on the national stage that Miami and FSU would not achieve for another 20 or 30 years. And, sure, it was somewhat of an also-ran in the SEC for a long, long time, but it was still an SEC program. Yes, I know that conference affiliation didn’t have the financial implications back then that it does today. Prior to 1984, conferences didn’t even offer the television exposure advantage. But UF was playing literally in the same league with Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss. Meanwhile, Miami had to scrape together whatever games it could, often against modern day CUSA, AAC, and FCS teams. FSU did the same thing. Both started to ramp up schedules in the 70’s and especially the 80’s, but Florida was playing with the “big boys” for decades. UF also appeared in major bowl games before FSU or Miami did.
No question about it, Florida was established well before Miami or FSU. But you are correcg: the latter two did ascend greater heights sooner.
LikeLike
@Michael:
Yes, UF had more fleeting moments of success than either UM or FSU before the early 80,s (Including Suprrier’s heisman). However, UF never sustained it. Looking at UF’s yearly records, before Charley Pell, its a few good years mixed in with mediocre years and some absolutely bad years.
As for its playing in the SEC, the SEC was not a prime conference until the 1990’s. Certainly nowhere near what it is today. Georgia pre-1990 owned Florida. Alabama and UF were not annual rivals. UF- Tennessee was not what it is now. And the better teams would beat up on UF when they played.
UF was the best in the state for most of the pre-1978 period, but largely by default. FSU began its rise in the late 70’s, shortly before UM started to get it together. However, UM rose faster and dominated the 80’s (by virtue of 4 national titles in 9 years), even though FSU started its 14 year run of consecutive top 5 AP finishes in 1987. Suprrier took UF to historic heights starting in the early 90’s, but UF was the last of the big 3 to win a national title.
LikeLike
Wainscot, FSU is in the process of looking at better recognizing those old teams (~1899-1905) that had been somewhat lost in history (due, in large part, to FSU’s rather interesting history). 1947 also just made it easy to keep it continuous.
LikeLike
Michael, there is almost nothing noteworthy on a national level prior to the 90s with UF. Save Spurrier’s (cough Griese’s) Heisman. They didn’t win a SEC title until they’d been in the conference for nearly 60 years!
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m spending this much time defending Florida. Yuck.
I think the SEC was a prime conference prior to the 90’s. It wasn’t what it is today, but it was pretty darn solid. Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn are all in the top 13 all-time in wins. The 80’s were a little light on national titles, but it was never just Alabama and 9 dwarves. It hasn’t always been THE best, but in any given year, it was one of the best.
Tom,
Yes, you’re right that Florida was a massive underachiever through most of its history. You don’t have to convince me of that. Miami was basically the equivalent of an AAC or C-USA program, if not lesser than that, until the Schnellenburger arrived. FSU had to claw its way up the ranks, stumbling quite a bit in the early/mid-70’s, and had to do it the independent route. UCF didn’t have a football program until the late 70’s, and wasn’t FBS until the late 90’s. USF started its football program in the late 90’s. Florida, meanwhile, had the cache of being in the SEC, the league that FSU tried to join in the 50’s AND the 60’s AND the 70’s but was unable to do so. It gave Florida a huge leg up, regardless of its inability to leverage its old-guard status into success.
You just can’t underestimate how significant Florida’s advantage over the other schools in Florida was. Florida State had to go to the state legislature to put pressure on Florida to play them, and the first six games of the series were played in Gainesville. They won 16 of their first 19.
This is what makes it so cool about what Bowden was able to do. Not only was Florida State well behind the in-state rival, it had fallen really hard, really fast. My parents were there in the falls of ’73, ’74, and ’75. Before they got there, FSU had actually had some pretty decent seasons under Bill Petersen with some bowl appearances, but they completely fell apart. My dad told me once they were so bad that there were rumors (granted, just rumors) that the football program would be shut down. Then Bowden comes in, quickly gets it out of the doldrums, brings it to and beyond the late 60’s, early 70’s level of success, and eventually turns it into a power at the national level. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, I bet it would have been really fun to be a Seminoles fan in Florida (or a Canes fan, I guess) enjoying success UF had never tasted before, especially considering the way Gators viewed FSU as a little brother for a long time. (They even started acting that way in the 2000’s again when FSU was down and UF was doing great at hoops and football. Some said, “We consider LSU and Alabama more important rivals than FSU.” How quickly they forget.)
Anyway, I wasn’t familiar with UF and FSU’s histories as institutions. I knew they both point to 1851 as the date of their founding, which resulted from a legislative mandate for two new state schools of higher education, one east of the Sewanee and one west. I didn’t know UF hadn’t always been in Gainesville.
LikeLike
Money solves everything-DISH and Disney are about to kiss, make up and add the SEC Network (not that the latter is mentioned in the article-but it has been mentioned previously).
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dish-network-disney-come-terms-auto-hop/
LikeLike
It appears to be official. Alabama and Tennessee are joining the Big 12.
http://articles.dailypress.com/2014-01-31/sports/dp-spt-college-multi-local-roundup-20140131_1_kirby-burkholder-odu-chris-mecate
LikeLike
And so is Old Dominion.
In women’s rowing.
LikeLike
Frank, please get enlightened. Swoffie wants to change the current NCAA rule because it mandates that NCAA conferences must have equal divisions. He wants to invite UConn for the 15th ACC spot because they provide a TV market that he desperately needs if he has any hope of launching an ACC Network. He then will “save” the 16th spot for Notre Dame.
Now, we both know that the ACC Network is dead in the water and that ND has no intention of joining a conference in football. But Swoffie lives in a fairy tale world where both of those absurd fantasies will come true, much like Santa Claus and the Land of Oz.
LikeLike
The MAC has already gotten a waiver to have 13 teams, so having 15 wouldn’t be an issue.
LikeLike
But would they waive it for someone who isn’t inconsequential and who did 13 by choice, not by failure to find a 14th or a loss of the 14th?
LikeLike
I think so. With the precedent set, they’d need a good reason not to say yes. It would have been easier to say no to the MAC than to the P12.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is anything to them wanting UConn. What the ACC wants is a set-up where they can have 8 conference games and be playing almost half the conference twice in 12 years.
LikeLike
Frank,
“Conference Championship Games the Way We Want Them
…
Personally, I am all for it and hope that Jim Delany and the Big Ten hop aboard in support of the measure.”
I think it helps others more than the B10, so he should consider being against it out of gamesmanship. That said, I wouldn’t be upset with this change as long as they keep a limit on the minimum size needed to have a CCG. I just don’t see a need for a 10 team conference to play an extra game to determine their champion.
“Therefore, if there’s a way to continue to hold conference championship games while eliminating divisions (or at least modifying the rules where teams don’t have to play round-robin schedules within their divisions), that provides a lot more ability for expanded conferences to adopt scheduling policies to play everyone within a league more frequently.”
I have to disagree with your side comment. If a conference has divisions, those divisions should have to play a complete round robin. Otherwise, the division is meaningless. Just lock a few games and rotate the rest, or have more than 2 divisions.
They also need to make it clear that the CCG must decide the champion, not just be a good game. Otherwise a conference could choose to have #2 play #3 to help #2 make the playoff while #1 gets a bye to prevent them getting upset.
“If I was running the Big Ten, I’d use the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) strategy of assigning every school 3 permanent rivals that it will play annually based on geography.”
Above I gave a fairly simple pod plan that achieves some other goals of the B10 (getting OSU and MI in NYC and DC more) while keeping geography in mind since that seems to be the current priority.
Boiled down:
E = OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, RU, UMD
C = PU, IN, IL, NW
W = NE, WI, IA, MN
E = 5*100% (pod) + 8*50% (2 from C – 1 of IN/PU, IL/NW and 2 from W – 1 of NE/IA, WI/MN)
+ 6*50% (E – 1 of OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, RU/UMD)
C = 3*100% (pod) + 4*75%
W = 3*100% (pod) + 4*75% (C) + 6*50% (E – 1 of OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, RU/UMD)
This gets you 50% against everyone at a minimum while keeping almost every important game annual (no LBJ or Illibuck locked).
That’s not to knock your plan, just a related sidebar.
“That would then leave 6 other games to fill on the 9-game schedule every year. This setup allows each school to play everyone else in the conference 6 times every 10 years (a cycle of 2 years on, 2 years off, 4 years on, 2 years off), which keeps conference unity strong while still integrating the benefits of geographic expansion.”
I think the B10 might seriously consider dropping back to 8 games if this rule passed. A lot of ADs were concerned about the 5/4 imbalance. With no divisions, you can play 8 games and see everyone 50% of the time at least. The P12 would likely jump on board, and they may drop to 8 games, too. Then the B10/P12 challenge might return instead of the 9th conference game.
“Here’s how I’d assign the Big Ten rivalries:
SCHOOL RIVAL #1 RIVAL #2 RIVAL #3
Illinois Northwestern Indiana Purdue
Indiana Purdue Illinois Northwestern
Iowa Nebraska Wisconsin Minnesota
Maryland Michigan State Rutgers Penn State
Michigan Ohio State Michigan State Rutgers
Michigan State Maryland Michigan Ohio State
Minnesota Wisconsin Nebraska Iowa
Nebraska Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin
Northwestern Illinois Purdue Indiana
Ohio State Michigan Penn State Michigan State
Penn State Rutgers Ohio State Maryland
Purdue Indiana Northwestern Illinois
Rutgers Penn State Maryland Michigan
Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa Nebraska”
I pretty much agree with your choices here.
You made my West pod appear, so I can’t argue with that.
NE – IA, WI, MN
IA – NE, MN, WI
MN – WI, IA, NE
WI – MN, IA, NE
You also made my Central pod, which is OK by me but the most controversial part.
IL – NW, PU, IN
NW – IL, PU, IN
IN – PU, NW, IL
PU – IN, NW, IL
That left you with my Eastern superpod, which you did this with:
“Maryland Michigan State Rutgers Penn State
Michigan Ohio State Michigan State Rutgers
Michigan State Maryland Michigan Ohio State
Ohio State Michigan Penn State Michigan State
Penn State Rutgers Ohio State Maryland
Rutgers Penn State Maryland Michigan”
Clearly PSU is correct, and the rest of that eastern triangle will play each other. Add in the known OSU and MI rivalries and it fills itself out. The only choice is whether to go MI/RU and MSU/UMD or MI/UMD and MSU/RU, and I agree with you.
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
UMD – PSU, RU, MSU
RU – PSU, UMD, MI
OSU – MI, PSU, MSU
MI – OSU, MSU, RU
MSU – MI, OSU, UMD
However, this doesn’t get the big brands in NYC and DC as often as the B10 seems to want. Going to my pod plan would. It would also make things more fair for OSU (only team with 2 kings locked, plus they get a prince).
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD, MI, MSU
UMD – PSU, RU, MSU, OSU, MI
RU – PSU, UMD, MI, OSU, MSU
OSU – MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD
MI – OSU, MSU, RU, PSU, UMD
MSU – MI, OSU, UMD, PSU, RU
The real problem with your plan is the lack of OSU/IL and MI/MN. The B10 could potentially also lock those 2 games, but I don’t think they would. History has diminished both rivalries (young fans don’t care at all), and they’ve already shown no inclination to lock them in the current alignment. On the surface balance looks like an issue since the Central pod teams missed all the kings and princes, but the math shows otherwise. They’d play NE, WI and IA 75% of the time each plus 2 of OSU, MI, PSU and MSU.
“The top two schools would then advance to the Big Ten Championship Game.”
With the caveat of #1 not having to face a rematch against a team they already beat, I’m OK with that. If #2 beat #1 during the season, I’m fine with the rematch (If #2 goes 2-0, they win the conference after proving they’re the better team. If #1 goes 1-1 and had the better rest of the season, they win it all as they should).
LikeLike
The Pac 12 wants to play each other 9 games. Or at least they want to play 9 games so they get lots against the California schools. I don’t see them dropping California schools to play Iowa, let alone Indiana, Purdue and Rutgers.
LikeLike
There have been grumblings from the P12 about them being the only ones playing 9 plus a CCG. They only did it so they could play in CA enough. I’m thinking they might try this:
N = UW, WSU, OR, OrSU
C = Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
S = AZ, ASU, CO, Utah
Round robin in pod, 2 games against each of the other pods (1 from each zipper location, ideally), plus 1 purely rotating game.
The CA schools keep their rivalries, plus everyone plays in CA at least once a year.
LikeLike
That’s 7 games though.
LikeLike
Nevermind… read the rest of it. I like the format a lot too.
LikeLike
NW schools now play three in CA every two years, and giving up yearly to LA was/is a huge sacrifice. The southern division the same but is yearly in SoCal. The only schools that would go for it are the Cali schools, and they have nothing (CA access wise) to gain. They already bargained for and got 100% yearly.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“NW schools now play three in CA every two years, and giving up yearly to LA was/is a huge sacrifice. The southern division the same but is yearly in SoCal. The only schools that would go for it are the Cali schools, and they have nothing (CA access wise) to gain. They already bargained for and got 100% yearly.”
Check the math:
N = 3*100% (N pod) + 4*50% (S pod) + 4*50% (C pod) + 8*12.5% (S and C pods)
That’s 2.5 games against CA teams every year, or 2.5 in CA in 2 years. More importantly, it’s the exact same LA access as the S pod gets. Plus they free up an OOC game that can also be used to play a CA team (SDSU, Fresno, SJSU, etc) if they want. They also get the benefit of only having 4 road games in conference play every year. All those benefits versus losing 1 game in CA every 4 years is a tradeoff worth considering.
LikeLike
The North (4 non Bay Area schools) are in the Bay Area every year, in LA every other year swapping H&H with USC and UCLA, and rotating misses against Zona’s and Mtn’s two years at a time over eight years. That’s in CA three times every two years with the every other year LA trip included. And they play six CA teams (home and away combined) every two years currently.
2.5<3
Perhaps I'm not understanding your math. What I do know is the non CA north looks at the reduced LA access they currently have as barely tolerable. There is more than a little P8 inertia and history still pervading. Many still call the AZs the newbies, and it'll be a long time before CO/UT completely own that label.
Picture the B12 adding two northern or NEish schools. Now ask the non texas schools (including OU) to only play once (rotating) in Texas and only host one of the other three Texas schools per year.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“The North (4 non Bay Area schools) are in the Bay Area every year, in LA every other year swapping H&H with USC and UCLA, and rotating misses against Zona’s and Mtn’s two years at a time over eight years. That’s in CA three times every two years with the every other year LA trip included. And they play six CA teams (home and away combined) every two years currently.”
Yes. None of that is in dispute. My plan gets them in LA and SF equally (SF or LA guaranteed every year, sometimes both) and almost as many total games in CA while giving them a spare game to play with and eliminating the chance of 5 P12 road games. It also takes away the LA access advantage of the AZ/Mtn schools.
“Perhaps I’m not understanding your math.”
Obviously not. I’m pointing out my plan gets them almost as much CA access while giving them multiple benefits. You’re so focused on the CA access that you ignore the rest of the picture.
“What I do know is the non CA north looks at the reduced LA access they currently have as barely tolerable.”
In part because the AZ/Mtn schools have annual access. My plan changes that.
“There is more than a little P8 inertia and history still pervading. Many still call the AZs the newbies, and it’ll be a long time before CO/UT completely own that label.”
And yet those 4 schools also have an equal say.
LikeLike
“And yet those 4 schools also have an equal say.”
CU and Utah didn’t (officially) when divisions were created. And as I understand it what makes this more acceptable to the NW is that it hurts the Mtn and desert schools even more than the NW? Still seems to be eight against and four ambivalent.
LikeLike
“With the caveat of #1 not having to face a rematch against a team they already beat, I’m OK with that. If #2 beat #1 during the season, I’m fine with the rematch (If #2 goes 2-0, they win the conference after proving they’re the better team. If #1 goes 1-1 and had the better rest of the season, they win it all as they should).”
From this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table
Such tie-breaker could be represented using a “logical biconditional” truth table:
(a) Best Record
(b) Head-to-Head win vs. Best Record
Team A : 8-1 => T : F => T
Team B : 7-2 => F : T => T
Team C : 7-2 => F : F => F
But I could be wrong (it’s not false that (b) for Team A, it’s absurd).
LikeLike
To clarify an earlier comment of mine: It would be dumb to forbid all rematches. Suppose in the above example that Team A had beat both Team B and Team C, but Team B had beat Team C, then the Conference Championship Game between would be a rematch between Team A and Team B.
LikeLike
No, don’t allow that rematch. Team A shouldn’t have to beat anyone twice to win the conference. Team B or Team C having to win twice to win the conference is OK with me because they had other losses that put them behind a team that they beat.
LikeLike
The truly worst case scenario would be if Team A (9-0) had beat Team B @ Team B and then Team B won the rematch @ the CCG neutral site.
Note that in Year 2009: Buffalo (5-3) beat Ball State (8-0) in the MAC Championship Game, even though Buffalo lost away to Central Michigan (6-2) and lost home to Western Michigan (6-2); whereas Ball State won away to Central Michigan and won home to Western Michigan; whereas Central Michigan won home to Western Michigan.
LikeLike
I think it helps others more than the B10, so he should consider being against it out of gamesmanship.
The Big Ten will vote yes because, although they don’t need it now, they might very well need it in the future if they expand again. And as you’ve noted, even with 14 teams, the proposed rule opens up possibilities that could be better than a rigid divisional structure.
“The top two schools would then advance to the Big Ten Championship Game.”
With the caveat of #1 not having to face a rematch against a team they already beat, I’m OK with that. If #2 beat #1 during the season, I’m fine with the rematch (If #2 goes 2-0, they win the conference after proving they’re the better team. If #1 goes 1-1 and had the better rest of the season, they win it all as they should).
I agree, but there has to be a limit to this principle. If #1 beat #2, 3, 4, and 5, you don’t want a CCG that features #1 vs. #6.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The Big Ten will vote yes because, although they don’t need it now, they might very well need it in the future if they expand again.”
That’s your opinion, not a fact. There is no evidence that the B10 supported it when others approached the NCAA about a change.
“I agree, but there has to be a limit to this principle. If #1 beat #2, 3, 4, and 5, you don’t want a CCG that features #1 vs. #6.”
Yes, I do. That’s better to me than a rematch any day. That’s the downside of a CCG. Some/many years, you really don’t need one to name the best team. There is never a good enough reason why the top seed should have to go 2-0 over an opponent.
If the rules didn’t require it be for the title, I’d suggest having #2 play #3 in this case and give the title to #1.
LikeLike
“Some/many years, you really don’t need one to name the best team.”
Precisely. If you aren’t doing an elimination (division champions) a CCG is unnecessary to do a BCS lite ranking and make a selection.
I agree that in the absence of divisions which may create one, a rematch should be avoided at all costs. A CCG doesn’t necessarily need the best possible matchup to decide the champion. It’s played to simply to decide the champ, and the second best may have already been beaten by the best.
LikeLike
While I agree with you, the realities are that no conference will voluntarily give up a CCG. The only reason the B12 does not have one is they do not yet feel pressure to expand just to expand, and no available team makes financial sense to do so.
LikeLike
There is evidence that the B1G wanted the CCG requirements changed before Nebraska was invited. The more teams a conference has the more restrictive the round robin requirement becomes to cross division scheduling, so support of the ACC proposal will keep options open for the B1G.
LikeLike
Can you link to the evidence?
LikeLike
Mack,
“There is evidence that the B1G wanted the CCG requirements changed before Nebraska was invited.”
Sure, when they had 11 teams and wanted to have a CCG. That would have been a free $25M/year for the B10. But they dropped the idea very quickly after some preliminary talks with the NCAA, IIRC. Just like the P12 dropped it and the B12 dropped it.
“The more teams a conference has the more restrictive the round robin requirement becomes to cross division scheduling,”
1. Nobody is forcing these conferences to expand.
2. Smart divisions make crossover scheduling less of an issue.
3. The price for expanding will always be playing old foes less often.
4. 6 division games is not restrictive to me. That’s only half of their schedule.
Nobody has gone past 14 and it seems unlikely in the near future (GoRs and such).
“so support of the ACC proposal will keep options open for the B1G.”
The B10 can always wait and support it later. They seem OK with the current arrangement, and saying yes would help a competitor significantly. If the B10 wants to take more ACC schools, helping the ACC make more money and become happier now isn’t wise. In addition, the changes might let the B12 add a CCG, too. That could cost the B10 some playoff spots.
Is the benefit to the B10 worth helping the ACC and B12 that much? It’s a question TPTB should consider.
LikeLike
“If the B10 wants to take more ACC schools, helping the ACC make more money and become happier now isn’t wise.”
I’ll leave the happiness question alone, but I really doubt that loosening the requirements for a title game would make the ACC more money than the current arrangement. You’ll have to provide evidence and/or reasoning for that assertion.
BTW, the loosened requirements would also make adding a bloc of ACC schools easier for both the bloc of ACC schools and original B10 schools to accept.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I’ll leave the happiness question alone, but I really doubt that loosening the requirements for a title game would make the ACC more money than the current arrangement. You’ll have to provide evidence and/or reasoning for that assertion.”
No round robin means they could play more of the prominent crossover games, which adds some value. No divisions means they could play more of the prominent games, which adds value. No divisions also means better CCGs, which adds value.
LikeLike
“The Big Ten will vote yes because, although they don’t need it now, they might very well need it in the future if they expand again.”
That’s your opinion, not a fact. There is no evidence that the B10 supported it when others approached the NCAA about a change.
Well…sure, almost everything posted at FTT is an opinion. (It does get tedious to insert “In my opinion” before sentences that anyone ought to be able to clearly see is an opinion.)
But two things are pretty obvious. 1) The Big Ten is probably not done expanding (many presidents and ADs have said so); 2) The more teams you have, the harder it is to comply with the existing rule, preserve the rivalries everyone wants, and meet other obvious scheduling aims (all-play-all with reasonable frequency, spreading the king games around, etc.).
It is therefore not a great logical leap to suggest that the Big Ten might very well want to take advantage of greater scheduling flexibility, if it were available. Beyond that, the NCAA legislative tone in recent years has leaned towards removing rules and obstacles, not preserving and erecting them.
So although I’ll grant you it is merely an opinion, there is logic to it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well…sure, almost everything posted at FTT is an opinion.”
But much of it is informed opinion rather than just guesses that happen to exactly match your personal opinion.
“But two things are pretty obvious. 1) The Big Ten is probably not done expanding (many presidents and ADs have said so);”
Actually, that’s not obvious at all. The B10 may not be done trying to expand, but that doesn’t mean there are acceptable candidates that reciprocate the interest. Besides, TPTB really haven’t said they will expand again. They’ve said they’ll keep looking and that maybe 16 is more desirable in some ways.
“2) The more teams you have, the harder it is to comply with the existing rule, preserve the rivalries everyone wants, and meet other obvious scheduling aims (all-play-all with reasonable frequency, spreading the king games around, etc.).”
Yes. That’s a known cost of expansion. Most of that is also true regardless of the CCG.
“It is therefore not a great logical leap to suggest that the Big Ten might very well want to take advantage of greater scheduling flexibility, if it were available.”
Actually, it is. The B10 hasn’t expressed any dismay with the current arrangement, especially with a 9th game coming. If your competitor is suffering from the current rule and you aren’t, it isn’t always wise to help them out. Letting those aggravations could help the B10 with their larger goal of expanding. Then they could worry about changing the rule if they felt it necessary. Other than perhaps the ACC, nobody else would have reason to change their mind according to you.
“Beyond that, the NCAA legislative tone in recent years has leaned towards removing rules and obstacles, not preserving and erecting them.”
You keep claiming that, but they have made very few changes to shrink the rule book. It depends how important the NCAA feels this rule is. Multiple conferences have looked into changing it over the years and nothing has happened yet.
LikeLike
“Well…sure, almost everything posted at FTT is an opinion.”
But much of it is informed opinion rather than just guesses that happen to exactly match your personal opinion.
“But two things are pretty obvious. 1) The Big Ten is probably not done expanding (many presidents and ADs have said so);”
Actually, that’s not obvious at all. . . .
While I do agree with you that they may fail to find appropriate candidates, the stated views of the PTB is quite a bit better than merely a “guess that happens to exactly match my personal opinion.”
“2) The more teams you have, the harder it is to comply with the existing rule, preserve the rivalries everyone wants, and meet other obvious scheduling aims (all-play-all with reasonable frequency, spreading the king games around, etc.).”
Yes. That’s a known cost of expansion. Most of that is also true regardless of the CCG.
But if you remove the current regulations around the scheduling of that game, it becomes easier to satisfy the other constraints that the league has always said it cares about.
“Beyond that, the NCAA legislative tone in recent years has leaned towards removing rules and obstacles, not preserving and erecting them.”
You keep claiming that, but they have made very few changes to shrink the rule book.
You cannot possibly be oblivious to all of the “Division 4” discussion and the reasons the P5 have for moving in that direction? This is not something I have just made up in the middle of the night.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“While I do agree with you that they may fail to find appropriate candidates, the stated views of the PTB is quite a bit better than merely a “guess that happens to exactly match my personal opinion.””
And all these stated views that the B10 “probably isn’t done expanding” are where? Not that they’d keep looking, or that 16 may be better than 14, but actual statements that the B10 probably isn’t done expanding.
“But if you remove the current regulations around the scheduling of that game, it becomes easier to satisfy the other constraints that the league has always said it cares about.”
You still have more teams to cram into the same number of games. The CCG has no impact on that.
“You cannot possibly be oblivious to all of the “Division 4″ discussion and the reasons the P5 have for moving in that direction? This is not something I have just made up in the middle of the night.”
Actually, it is. They want to change rules to let them have more power and to spend more money. That isn’t shrinking the rule book, it’s altering it. Cutting the recruiting manual down to a pamphlet would be shrinking the rulebook, but their recent workgroup didn’t even trim 10% from the rules.
LikeLike
“I agree, but there has to be a limit to this principle. If #1 beat #2, 3, 4, and 5, you don’t want a CCG that features #1 vs. #6.”
Yes, I do. That’s better to me than a rematch any day. That’s the downside of a CCG. Some/many years, you really don’t need one to name the best team. There is never a good enough reason why the top seed should have to go 2-0 over an opponent.
I’m trying to suggest a modification to your idea that has a shot at adoption. I can’t imagine a scenario where the CCG is canceled some years, if one team is so obviously dominant that the game is deemed unnecessary.
I also can’t imagine a scenario where they go down the list, without limit, to find a team (however terrible) that #1 hasn’t played yet, and then those two go to the CCG.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m trying to suggest a modification to your idea that has a shot at adoption.”
Your modification ruins the whole point of my idea while still not having a chance at being accepted (TPTB don’t care about rematches that much).
“I can’t imagine a scenario where the CCG is canceled some years, if one team is so obviously dominant that the game is deemed unnecessary.”
No, it’s a contractual obligation anyway.
“I also can’t imagine a scenario where they go down the list, without limit, to find a team (however terrible) that #1 hasn’t played yet, and then those two go to the CCG.”
Me neither, but it’s still the right thing to do.
Remember, you said *I* don’t want a #1 vs #6 CCG. I’m pointing out that you’re wrong because I’d be fine with it. The B10 definitely doesn’t want that game, though.
LikeLike
Ignoring the absurdity of a team beating itself (although that could also be considered as a contradiction and thus false), a “logical biconditional” truth table could also represent the case that three teams are tied for the best record. If Team B beat Team A in head-to-head competition, but Team B and Team C did not play, then:
(a) Best Record
(b) Head-to-Head loss vs. Best Record
Team A : 8-1 => T : T => F
Team B : 8-1 => T : F => T
Team C : 8-1 => T : F => T
However, if Team C beat Team B, and Team A beat Team C, then:
Team A : 8-1 => T : T => F
Team B : 8-1 => T : T => F
Team C : 8-1 => T : T => F
In this case, the winning record (or percentage) could be compared among common opponents, or among all conference opponents, or winning away games, or simply coin tosses, whatever is given as priority among decision-makers.
In any case, I doubt if such truth tables would be used as the tiebreaker rules, rather it would help the rule-makers to articulate coherent rules (which otherwise makes the head hurt thinking about them).
LikeLike
Really seems like we are headed in a direction that we will see less OOC matchups with the Power 5. Not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. The match-ups will obviously still occur in post season but might be limited in September. I wouldn’t mind seeing more consolidation of conferences and moving to a 10 game conference schedule with 2 warm-up games. The only OOC will be played in the post season.
LikeLike
The opposite is happening. Teams are starting to schedule more. TV and the playoffs are driving that.
LikeLike
Fewer AQ vs AQ OOC games is definitely bad. The playoff seems to be preventing that from happening, though.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
If there’s any silver lining to this latest NFL move, it is that (hopefully) it stems any further move by P5 conferences to have more games on Thursdays. I am pretty much a traditionalist when it comes to the day of the week to play college football. Saturdays and college football seem to go hand-in-hand. That’s one of things I’ve always admired about the B1G, which is their sticking to Saturdays for football. Yes, there are those Thanksgiving games but that’s an anomaly created by the calendar.
Thursdays are for MACtion like schools who really need the exposure since they can’t otherwise get it during a normal weekend.
I also think players need a two to three-month break after football season is over but I doubt that idea would fly with the major programs. I’m trying to find a way to explain Ted Agu’s passing.
LikeLike
Yeah, and Thursday night games can’t be good for students.
LikeLike
I actually like the Thursday night games. There is a build-up during the day, and you can discuss the game at work on Friday (assuming the local NFL team wasn’t playing on Thursday). By the time Monday rolls around, all anyone wants to talk about is the NFL. How did the local teams do, how their fantasy team did, how they did in their knockout pool, etc. The students in the stands also usually seem to be more into the Thursday night games more than the Saturday noon games.
LikeLike
You’re not studying for classes and tests any more.
Perhaps I should have said “Thursday night games can’t be good for the academics of the students”. You know, the main purported reason why they’re attending college.
LikeLike
Not as many Friday classes offered relative to Mondays – Thursdays. Most students can go 4 years having no more than 2 Friday classes. Professors don’t enjoy teaching them any more than hungover kids do attending them.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Not as many Friday classes offered relative to Mondays – Thursdays.”
Evidence? My classes were MWF or TTh.
“Most students can go 4 years having no more than 2 Friday classes.”
Per term? Maybe. But they can also say the same about M-Th in many terms.
“Professors don’t enjoy teaching them any more than hungover kids do attending them.”
Actually, many professors prefer MWF classes because they’re shorter. They have to be at work anyway, so teaching isn’t a big deal. Many of them seem to enjoy having things due on Friday to force students to attend class or turn work in early.
I think Richard’s point is also about the large number of classes missed on Thursday. Many schools cancel classes to avoid logistical issues that night, and plenty of students skip classes to drink that afternoon.
LikeLike
Most all of my classes were MW, T-Th with not many classes offered on Friday.
LikeLike
@Brian:
“Evidence? My classes were MWF or TTh.”
Sorry to hear that. I once pulled off only MTuW classes. As for my evidence:
“Actually, many professors prefer MWF classes because they’re shorter. They have to be at work anyway, so teaching isn’t a big deal. Many of them seem to enjoy having things due on Friday to force students to attend class or turn work in early.”
The same NYT article: “”It went like this: faculty need Fridays free to do research, have committee meetings, etc.,” says John N. Gardner, executive director of the Policy Center on the First Year of College in Brevard, N.C. “And many administrations did not dare remove what had become another entitlement for the faculty.”
See also: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/31/friday_goes_back_onto_the_calendar/?page=full : “Students and some faculty are grumbling about the take-back-Friday campaign.”
See also: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2011/05/01/20110501asu-friday-classes.html : “Over the years, lukewarm interest in Friday classes from students and faculty has caused many colleges to scale back their Friday offerings.”
” Many schools cancel classes to avoid logistical issues that night, and plenty of students skip classes to drink that afternoon.”
Evidence of this?
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“As for my evidence:”
A 9 year old article with anecdotal evidence? It’s something, but they make much bigger claims than they back up with evidence. They spend a lot of time talking about how schools are bringing back more Friday classes, too.
“The same NYT article: “”It went like this: faculty need Fridays free to do research, have committee meetings, etc.,” says John N. Gardner, executive director of the Policy Center on the First Year of College in Brevard, N.C. “And many administrations did not dare remove what had become another entitlement for the faculty.””
Like I said, at my schools they didn’t get Friday off. And from talking to many of them, they disliked TTH classes because they were 1.5 hours. Besides, most faculty don’t really do research so much as they supervise people doing research and beg for money from anyone and everyone.
Other schools may well be different. That’s why I asked.
“Evidence of this?”
A quick list of schools that have cancelled classes for Thursday night games from a Google search: WSU, Clemson, VT, MS St, FSU, UCF, AL
Those who didn’t from that same search: USC, SC
LikeLike
When I was at Northwestern in the mid-90’s, Fridays weren’t lighter in classes than any other weekday.
I don’t know if things have changed or what it’s like at other schools.
However, a weeknight game is almost by definition more disruptive towards academics than a Saturday game.
LikeLike
Another thing to consider, when there are more channels to show sports than before, not to mention the possible effects of streaming in the near future, how much of a factor does the need for exposure really be? For example: with BTN and then an over-the-air channel plus a cable channel like FS1, etc.. there should be enough outlets for fans to watch their teams play. ESpin wants you to think that only by your team being on their channel that their favorite team can get noticed. This is the game they play. Being a fan a team that had played in the old Big East I have experience of the consequences of this tactic being used. You see, the old B10 fans never had to deal with this problem on a major basis because you have a pretty good contract when it was originally signed and, thus, had leverage to force the Mouse to play correctly. Even then, they’ve managed to chop you down a size or two as they play up the SEC and whoever was the flavor of the month. In the old Big East and the mid-majors, the constant worry was always doing what’s most likely to get noticed and shown on the main channel. The fans of several BE teams spent a lot of time putting down other teams in the conference, more than critiquing their competition. This has contributed to the mistrust between the fan bases of the old BE. Too much poison to smooth over in the near future, IMO.
Then somebody brings up the idea of playing games on Thursdays and even Fridays or Wednesdays and everyone else wanted to play on those days, not thinking of the effects on studies…you know, the real reason to go to college. To me, it was like a caste system that was too eagerly accepted by myopic athletic programs, which I think contributed to the perception of the old BE as inferior.
But that’s all history now. Let the pros have Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays. They don’t have to worry about academics, Title 9 mandates or supporting Olympic sports. Saturdays are made for us to watch the teams do battle. If those yahoos in the southern states still want to take chances with moving the game days around, that’s their problem. B10 football is a Saturday tradition and should remain so.
LikeLike
An update on the previous blog story:
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5556712-74/acc-maryland-filed#ixzz2sicfHGF5
Pitt must turn over the records by the end of March. Failing to comply could result in a court order.
The subpoena was filed with the North Carolina Superior Court. The ACC is headquartered in Greensboro, N.C.
LikeLike
Blue!
LikeLike
Pingback: More on ACC Scheduling | The Confidential
This is going to be an issue for the SEC, and the SEC Network is only going to make matters worse.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/sec_asks_espn_for_help_with_co.html
LikeLike
Yet the B10 has had increased bball attendance for 4 straight years despite the BTN televising virtually every B10 bball game.
LikeLike
“Yet the B10 has had increased bball attendance for 4 straight years despite the BTN televising virtually every B10 bball game.”
So? The Big Ten has far better basketball teams with a deeper history than their SEC brethren. SEC fans who are already not showing up will have even less of an incentive to now. By contrast, Big Ten fans are turning out to support teams, even with the game on. People like to go and support good teams.
LikeLike
This is why the BTN is great for the B10 (maybe not for those who aren’t B10 fans, though). Just check what happened on NSD. If you wanted to know how the B10 programs did you had to either follow a recruiting website or watch BTN. ESPN only bothered to mention one or two B10 programs.
LikeLike
I wrote stories about Florida and Georgia hoops when I worked for a Macon newspaper in 1977, and the SEC still hasn’t developed a sustained basketball culture beyond Kentucky, to a lesser extent Vanderbilt and more lately Florida. (Before Andy pipes in, I will say having Missouri on board should help, but attendance there is down, too; the SEC is an obvious boon to attendance in football, but beyond Kentucky and Florida, there hardly are any great draws, unlike the Big 12 with Kansas, Texas, K-State and even Iowa State.).
LikeLike
I am really curious to see how successful the SEC Network will be. I know every sports reporter is gushing over it but they also were hailing the PAC network and its regional channels too and they have not yet turned profitable. The BIG as a conference has a few advantages that other conferences lack in that they not only have popular football but basketball as well. You couple that with the biggest enrollment of any conference with a huge alumni base, and the BIG has a natural fan base to watch nonrevenue sports on top the revenue giants.
The SEC has football and that’s about it plus a smaller alumni base. Some SEC fans will cite baseball but outside a couple of schools, I wonder how much fan interest there really is? Here is an article about college baseball. http://seamheads.com/2012/07/18/college-baseball-economics/. The most telling quote is this:
“In other words, football games and then those in men’s basketball, ice hockey, and lacrosse provided more money from ticket sales, their conferences, and other outside sources than did baseball.”
Now that is averaged and doesn’t take it too account specific school and regional interest but thought it interesting that as a revenue generator baseball was behind lacrosse of all things. So content wise, the SEC network is really all about selling a couple of football games. That should be enough in the gulf states but the question will be elsewhere in Florida, Texas, and Missouri.
The SEC network will be successful but I wonder about how much so.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – I really have little doubt that the SEC Network will do perfectly fine. The Pac-12 simply has *significantly* weaker fan bases than both the SEC and Big Ten by comparison. Also, the SEC Network is more than just a few football games – they’re moving the entire syndicated game-of-the-week package to that channel (just as the BTN took over the syndicated games that were previously on ESPN Plus) and the plans are that they will have at least 3 football games every week. As a result, not carrying that channel in the South is going to end up being a non-starter for cable companies – ESPN can ask for a massive price and they’ll likely get it even if the network won’t attract many viewers outside of football season. Speaking of which, I think a lot of us have been sandbagging the SEC’s interest in college basketball quite a bit. While they’re not at the ACC or Big Ten levels of basketball fandom, the SEC still has a monster basketball brand (Kentucky), a new school power in a massive market (Florida), and strong fan bases in solid markets (Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas). I honestly believe that Florida Gator basketball is a larger draw throughout the state of Florida than Illini basketball (or Big Ten basketball overall) is throughout the state of Illinois (the largest Big Ten state by population), and that alone is an indicator that the SEC Network will be just fine after football season is over.
The only open question for me is how much penetration the SEC Network will be able to obtain in its newest states (Texas and Missouri) and at what price point. I could see it being similar to how the BTN is provided at a lower price point in the Philadelphia market compared to the rest of the Big Ten footprint. The legacy SEC states, though, are effectively locks for SEC Network carriage and ESPN can essentially name its price.
LikeLike
The figure for the SEC Network within its footprint was reported at $1.30 per subscriber.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx
LikeLike
Also, an interesting breakdown on the BTN situation in New Jersey (from 2012, but still ver informative).
http://www.onthebanks.com/2012/12/6/3674206/project-big-ten-network
LikeLike
SEC basketball is essentially the equivalent of ACC football — one king brand (Kentucky/Florida State), one usually nationally prominent program (Florida/Clemson), one-time national powers that have seen better days (Louisiana State/Miami), and a bunch of schools that view the sport as something to pass the time but otherwise have little emotional interest. The analogy breaks down somewhat, to be sure, but on the whole it’s the same.
LikeLike
“…but they also were hailing the PAC network and its regional channels too and they have not yet turned profitable.”
Source? My recollection was it was guaranteed to be in the black before it even started or had sold a single ad. It had something like $100M in startup costs (representing the schools ownership equity) so there isn’t likely much distribution for a time. It is eighteen months old. Was the BTN raking it in at that time?
The SECN is completely ESPN owned. It’ll be as successful as ESPN chooses to make it.
LikeLike
The SECN programming model will be similar to the ESPN model, here is a random February day. They’ll have a better product than the BTN, and the channel will be run in general than the BTN, and ESPN has more leverage and power to make it successful. Per team yearly distributions will likely be similar for SECN and BTN, after a couple years of ramping up. BTN has a lot of dead time that will be outdone by Bristol.
6am to noon: SEC Tonight highlight show repeated
1pm – coaches show
2pm – coaches show
3pm – the 1985 Auburn football team in review
4pm – talking heads arguing about the best SEC recruiting
5pm – talking heads arguing about the best SEC team
6pm – some kind of live game
8pm – some kind of live game
10pm – SEC Tonight – SEC highlight show
11pm – Recruiting Today – recruiting and medical redshirt news
12pm – SEC Tonight repeat
2am – live sports repeat
4am – live sports repeat
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“I am really curious to see how successful the SEC Network will be.”
Spectacularly. It’ll outperform the BTN in a footprint vs footprint comparison.
“The SEC has football and that’s about it plus a smaller alumni base. Some SEC fans will cite baseball but outside a couple of schools, I wonder how much fan interest there really is?”
I’m not an SEC fan but I live in Atlanta. College baseball is all over the expanded basic package on cable every spring down here. The regional sports networks carry lots of it plus there some syndicated games. The ESPN family also carries it.
In terms of attendance, SEC teams were #1-5, 8, 11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 33 and 34 in 2013. That includes the only team over 10k, the only 4 over 7k and the only 5 over 6k. Only 1 non-SEC school topped 5k.
MBB also will be a serious draw. And don’t forget softball and women’s gymnastics. All of these are regularly televised down here already.
LikeLike
Over 4 times as many colleges field Div. I Baseball teams compared to Lacrosse or Hockey. The average revenue per team may be less but the total revenue and interest is higher in baseball and that is what is important for TV. However, all of these sports are filler with football and to a lesser extent basketball being the revenue generators for conference sports networks.
LikeLike
It really is hard to compare unless you tabulated school by school revenue for hockey in the BIG versus baseball in the SEC or lacrosse for the matter.
The current struggles of the LHN, and to a lesser degree the PACN, makes me question the overall profitability of the SECN, especially when you have idiots like Clay Travis predicting $70 mil a year per school by the end of the decade. The SEC strength of the football is not thru alumni as most a much smaller schools than the BIG, but thru t-shirt fans. Those t-shirt fans for the most part care only about football. So how much are a couple of football games worth to them and more importantly the how much the cable companys think they are worth to them. The LHN was charging I believe $0.34 a month in Texas with other popular sports like basketball and baseball and had trouble. The SECN is going for $1.34. Now they will get the gulf states no question but what about Texas, Florida, and Missouri, where a large percentage of the in footprint population resides.
Couple that with the current market for pay television, with many subscribers canceling their service and cable companies fighting to keep costs down, I just question how much money it really will make.
LikeLike
Really, the only state where the SECN will struggle for carriage at the full rate is probably TX. _Maybe_ the urban markets of KC and StL (where they will probably get on at a lower rate, like the BTN in Philly). In TX, the SECN almost certainly will have to settle for a lower rate if they want to get on any of the urban markets there.
LikeLike
I forgot to add:
However, that’s a big caveat. TX is a huge part of the SEC footprint.
Without TX, the SEC footprint lags behind the B10 footprint in population considerably.
LikeLike
Interesting study on the accuracy on recruiting rankings:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right
LikeLike
Note: Anyone wanting a nice visual of the rivalries between teams, look at this old post mgoblue (hurts to write that 🙂 ) http://mgoblog.com/content/hokepoints-wants-divisions-consensus
I like your list of 3 protected Frank, but I’d make a few alterations. I think if you lock 3, you have to do the Little Brown Jug (more important than Minnesota-Nebraska). While you are at that, you may as well keep the Illibuck and Michigan State-Indiana. With those 3 in, you have every rivalry/trophy game in besides Penn State vs. Michigan State, Penn State vs. Minnesota, and Wisconsin vs. Northwestern. The ones in parenthesis are the ones I think can very easily could go a different direction (basically I filled out the rest and went back for those).
Roughly from east to west
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Purdue)
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, (Nebraska)
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, (Northwestern)
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, (Northwestern)
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, (Maryland)
Illinois: Ohio State, Northwestern, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, (Michigan State), (Indiana)
Minnesota: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
Wisconsin: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Wisconsin, Iowa, (Maryland)
Logic on the choices in parenthesis.
1. Nebraska is the only king with an open spot and you want to get them in one of the large markets. Chicago would work, but you already have a lot more influence there thanks to so many programs/alumni closer by. I choose Nebraska vs. Rutgers because if you are ever going to hit the New York market, you need big names there often.
2. Michigan State is the next biggest of the programs you have left, but they aren’t at king level. I think their name is probably a lot more valuable in Chicago than in Washington D.C.
3. That leaves one spot each for Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and Maryland. Indiana and Purdue are already locked so one has to play Northwestern and the other Maryland. Pretty much picked this part at random.
LikeLike
FYI, if there is any B10 team that is a must-have annual game for Northwestern, it’s actually Iowa.
What makes it tough for Northwestern is that Iowa already has 3 locked-in rivals in UNL, Minny, and Bucky.
That’s why I don’t see anything wrong with 5 locked rivals (which would still allow everyone to play everyone else at least 50% of the time with a 9-game conference slate). That would also allow an annual game between Iowa-Illinois, 2 locked kings for each king (annual UNL-PSU and UNL-Michigan games, which would be great for TV) and still lock each non-king with at least one king.
LikeLike
FYI, if there is any B10 team that is a must-have annual game for Northwestern, it’s actually Iowa. . . .besides Illinois, that is, though for younger fans and students, the Iowa game is a bigger deal than the LOL trophy game.
LikeLike
“That’s why I don’t see anything wrong with 5 locked rivals (which would still allow everyone to play everyone else at least 50% of the time with a 9-game conference slate).”
What’s wrong is the large number of unnecessarily locked games.
LikeLike
I’d rather have that than not lock Northwestern-Iowa.
I’m fairly indifferent about the difference between Minny/Wisconsin/IU/PU/MSU/RU/UMD/PSU or the difference between UNL/UM/OSU, so if making Iowa an annual game means locking some of those and not locking others, so be it.
LikeLike
How many of the 14 schools do you honestly think would prefer 5 locked games to just 3?
LikeLike
Assuming that the 3 locks are the ones I had specified):
UNL (adds PSU . . and UM)
Iowa (adds Illinois and Northwestern)
PSU (adds UNL)
UM (adds UNL)
Illinois (can play all of NU, Iowa, PU, & IU now. Maybe Wisconsin as well)
Northwestern (adds Iowa)
Whatever schools want more East Coast access (which could be any/all of UM/OSU/MSU/PU/IU/Wisconsin) as they can have a locked game with either RU or UMD now.
If it’s off of Frank’s 3 locks, a whole bunch of them.
Take my list above and add
MSU (to lock with NU for the frequent visits to Chicagoland)
Minny (LBJ game)
Michigan (LBJ game)
Illinois (Illibuck)
OSU (Illibuck)
Furthermore, the B10 office would love to have the permanent king vs. king games of
OSU-PSU, UM-OSU, UM-UNL, & PSU-UNL.
If they want to send more kings east, that’s more easily accomplished with 5 locks rather than 3 locks as well.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Assuming that the 3 locks are the ones I had specified):
UNL (adds PSU . . and UM)”
I highly doubt they want to lock 2 kings plus 2 princes every year. Certainly Pelini doesn’t.
“Iowa (adds Illinois and Northwestern)”
IL is way down their list, and so is NW. They’d still play them regularly no matter what.
“PSU (adds UNL)
UM (adds UNL)”
As with NE, I doubt these schools want 2 locked kings either.
“Whatever schools want more East Coast access (which could be any/all of UM/OSU/MSU/PU/IU/Wisconsin) as they can have a locked game with either RU or UMD now.”
Yeah, I have yet to see any B10 school clamor for a locked game with either one. Regular access is enough for almost everyone.
If it’s off of Frank’s 3 locks, a whole bunch of them.
Take my list above and add
MSU (to lock with NU for the frequent visits to Chicagoland)
“Minny (LBJ game)
Michigan (LBJ game)
Illinois (Illibuck)
OSU (Illibuck)”
In general, these schools have lost interest in these games. The older almuni care, but that’s about it. They aren’t important enough for others to get fewer games against OSU and MI to preserve them.
“Furthermore, the B10 office would love to have the permanent king vs. king games of
OSU-PSU, UM-OSU, UM-UNL, & PSU-UNL.”
They could have had them but opted not to this time.
“If they want to send more kings east, that’s more easily accomplished with 5 locks rather than 3 locks as well.”
More free games also means more trips east, and to both equally.
LikeLike
“I highly doubt they want to lock 2 kings plus 2 princes every year. Certainly Pelini doesn’t.”
Pelini isn’t the one making these decisions, is he?
“IL is way down their list, and so is NW. They’d still play them regularly no matter what.”
Huge difference between 60% of the time and annually.
“As with NE, I doubt these schools want 2 locked kings either.”
The B10 office does. You’re not a very good barometer of what will happen, Brian, since, if it was up to you, you’d get rid of OSU-PSU and we know that there’s no way the B10 office would do that.
Also, Legends and Leaders was set up in a way so that each king would have 2 annual games against another king. If the B10 didn’t have to have divisions, I’m sure they’d try to do that again.
“Yeah, I have yet to see any B10 school clamor for a locked game with either one. Regular access is enough for almost everyone.”
I’m going off of Frank saying that the B10 thinks Eastern exposure is a priority.
“In general, these schools have lost interest in these games. The older almuni care, but that’s about it. They aren’t important enough for others to get fewer games against OSU and MI to preserve them.”
Almost no difference between playing a team 60% of the time and playing a team 50% of the time. Certainly not worth sacrificing the LBJ and Illibuck for.
“More free games also means more trips east, and to both equally.”
Not as many.
1 + .5 = 1.5 > .6 + .6 = 1.2 (I almost don’t count PSU because they are in the mountains and hard to reach from the cities on the East Coast).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Pelini isn’t the one making these decisions, is he?”
I haven’t heard any of the decision makers at NE claim they wanted those games either.
“Huge difference between 60% of the time and annually.”
About 40%.
“The B10 office does.”
Which isn’t what I asked you. I asked you what you thought the schools wanted.
“You’re not a very good barometer of what will happen, Brian, since, if it was up to you, you’d get rid of OSU-PSU and we know that there’s no way the B10 office would do that.”
Too bad I didn’t propose my personal preferences.
“Also, Legends and Leaders was set up in a way so that each king would have 2 annual games against another king.”
And E/W wasn’t. NE got none.
If the B10 didn’t have to have divisions, I’m sure they’d try to do that again.
“I’m going off of Frank saying that the B10 thinks Eastern exposure is a priority.”
Yes, but you claimed some schools would want locked games with RU/UMD. This wasn’t about what the B10 wanted.
“Almost no difference between playing a team 60% of the time and playing a team 50% of the time. Certainly not worth sacrificing the LBJ and Illibuck for.”
The other schools gain nothing from keeping them and none of the 4 schools involved care that much about keeping them. Why should IN cost themselves home games against OSU and MI to preserve Illibuck if OSU and IL don’t really care?
LikeLike
“I haven’t heard any of the decision makers at NE claim they wanted those games either.”
Somebody wanted them. Otherwise, why were PSU-UNL locked with L&L?
“Which isn’t what I asked you. I asked you what you thought the schools wanted.”
What the schools want will be to a fair extent what the B10 wants. In this conference, individual schools understand that subsuming individual goals for the greater good leads to a stronger league.
“The other schools gain nothing from keeping them and none of the 4 schools involved care that much about keeping them. Why should IN cost themselves home games against OSU and MI to preserve Illibuck if OSU and IL don’t really care?”
Actually, the beauty of 5 locked games is that everyone has at least one lock with a king. In my 5-lock setup, I have PU locked with OSU and IU locked with PSU (you can flip them if you like).
That’s better than both my and Frank’s 3-lock setups for the IN schools, where neither of those 2 schools lock with any king (and thus both schools would play kings in aggregate less often).
Also dropping from 60% of the time to 50% of the time is a difference of 1 home game every 20 years. 20 years from now, I say the odds are good that the scheduling philosophy would have been torn up at least once. Run the numbers, and you’ll see how silly it is to argue that it would cost schools more home games with kings.
LikeLike
“Huge difference between 60% of the time and annually.”
About 40%.
Indeed. The difference between maintaining a rivalry atmosphere and letting a rivalry lapse. Ask UNL and OU fans if their series felt like a rivalry any more after they started playing each other only half the time.
LikeLike
@Richard:
One point:
“Somebody wanted them. Otherwise, why were PSU-UNL locked with L&L?”
They were locked because the Big Ten wanted two Kings locked in order to kick off a rivalry, because ESPN/ABC wanted that game, and because they were then the two most recent additions to the conference (with the resulting lack of established conference rival).
See: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/38101/nebraska-penn-state-revisit-shared-history (“So there is some interesting history here, and the Big Ten is hoping this series becomes a rivalry by making Penn State and Nebraska into a protected annual cross-division matchup. Both programs are also the most recent additions to the league, with the Nittany Lions joining in 1990 and the Huskers now competing in their first year of Big Ten play. “)
LikeLike
Richard,
“What the schools want will be to a fair extent what the B10 wants. In this conference, individual schools understand that subsuming individual goals for the greater good leads to a stronger league.”
Schools have individual desires. They are willing to compromise for the greater good, but that doesn’t change what they’d prefer. I asked you what they’d prefer on an individual level.
“Actually, the beauty of 5 locked games is that everyone has at least one lock with a king.”
The beauty to you, anyway.
LikeLike
The main issue that I see with 5 locked games in a non-divisional setup is that we’re just one game away from the 6 locked games that we have for divisions (7 locked games in the cases of Indiana and Purdue). As a result, if you have that many locked games, you might as well just keep the divisions at that point. The main intent that I had with the 3 locked rivals setup was to preserve the most critical games and then allow for a more frequent rotation of opponents throughout the rest of the conference. Flexibility is a bigger deal to me in a non-divisional setup than the preservation of the lower-tier rivalries. If we have lots of locked games, then keeping the divisions and its K.I.S.S. geographic split is preferable.
Regardless of what the Big Ten would choose, though, I believe that all conferences should at least have the option to not have divisions and still hold a conference championship game. Even if the Big Ten chose to keep divisions in a 14-school conference, they would (and should) want to keep all options open if it ever went to 16 schools.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“The main issue that I see with 5 locked games in a non-divisional setup is that we’re just one game away from the 6 locked games that we have for divisions (7 locked games in the cases of Indiana and Purdue). As a result, if you have that many locked games, you might as well just keep the divisions at that point. The main intent that I had with the 3 locked rivals setup was to preserve the most critical games and then allow for a more frequent rotation of opponents throughout the rest of the conference. Flexibility is a bigger deal to me in a non-divisional setup than the preservation of the lower-tier rivalries. If we have lots of locked games, then keeping the divisions and its K.I.S.S. geographic split is preferable.
I’m with you on that. Locking 5 games defeats the purpose of dropping divisions.
My pod arrangement above was a compromise between your plan and Richard’s (locks 5 in the E to keep the kings in NYC and DC a lot but only 3 in the West and Central), but I realize it has little to no chance of being implemented.
“Regardless of what the Big Ten would choose, though, I believe that all conferences should at least have the option to not have divisions and still hold a conference championship game.”
My preferences in order:
1. Nobody gets a CCG – you just don’t need one (this genie is out of the bottle, unfortunately).
2. Every league of at least 12 teams can have one.
3. Every league of 12+ must have one (level playing field for the playoff).
4. Any league can have one.
If they require divisions to have a CCG, then I think the round robin requirement should stay.
“Even if the Big Ten chose to keep divisions in a 14-school conference, they would (and should) want to keep all options open if it ever went to 16 schools.”
They can keep their options open later while still saying no now.
LikeLike
“They can keep their options open later while still saying no now.”
But why do that? The conferences and the commissioners all have to work together on a whole host of issues. If this is something the ACC proposes, and absent strong feelings against by the B1G, why say no just for some potential strategic advantage/gamesmanship? If nothing else, there will come a time the B1G wants to propose something, and the ACC or another conference could respond in kind to that proposal. No need for that, especially when the conferences have so many things that they work on (enforcement rules, inter-conference scheduling/challenges, academic matters, and a host of other issues). Same goes for the individual schools, who work with schools all across the country, regardless of athletic prowess. Conferences and schools need to be good neighbors, and if the B1G thinks the proposal is good for them, then it should approve it, regardless if it may be better for the ACC.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“But why do that? … why say no just for some potential strategic advantage/gamesmanship?”
Asked and answered. Helping your competition isn’t always wise, especially if you’re trying to steal some of their members.
“If nothing else, there will come a time the B1G wants to propose something, and the ACC or another conference could respond in kind to that proposal.”
Like home semifinal games? A conference champs requirement in the playoff? Real oversigning restrictions? The B10 gets shut down regularly by the others.
“Conferences and schools need to be good neighbors, and if the B1G thinks the proposal is good for them, then it should approve it, regardless if it may be better for the ACC.”
But is it good for them now, or is only potentially good for them later? The B10 seems happy with the current plan, especially since they want OSU and MI playing in NYC and DC a lot. The 9th game helps them with TV and eases concerns over rivalries fading.
LikeLike
“Helping your competition isn’t always wise, especially if you’re trying to steal some of their members.”
That’s the issue. You think the B1G should view other conferences as competition to be vanquished, like an opposing army. I, and others, view them as part-competitors, part-collaborators. Yes, the B1G recruited Maryland from the ACC–yet the ACC still plays the B1G -ACC challenge, and the schools still schedule each other. Delany and Swofford know it wasn’t personal–it was strictly business–the same business Swofford himself did when raiding the Big East.
There is more to be lost, long term, by being ornery and disagreeable just for gamesmanship. Delany knows that, and I think the other conference commissioners know that too.
Now, if the B1G has legitimate feelings in opposition, that’s a different situation. But if agnostic, or if its supportive because it helps them, then voting no would be a mistake.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“That’s the issue. You think the B1G should view other conferences as competition to be vanquished, like an opposing army.”
I didn’t say anything about vanquishing them. But the ACC is a business enemy, especially if the B10 truly wants to add UVA and UNC. That’s why the ACC also tried to steal some B10 schools.
“Yes, the B1G recruited Maryland from the ACC–yet the ACC still plays the B1G -ACC challenge, and the schools still schedule each other. Delany and Swofford know it wasn’t personal–it was strictly business–the same business Swofford himself did when raiding the Big East.”
Nor would it be personal to not help the ACC now. It’s just a business decision. Personal would be voting no just to spite Swofford.
“There is more to be lost, long term, by being ornery and disagreeable just for gamesmanship.”
Is there? You say that, but what exactly would the B10 be missing out on in the future? What grand changes does the B10 want that they would get if only they were nicer to the ACC now? Their biggest request lately was home semifinals and the ACC was no help there.
“Delany knows that, and I think the other conference commissioners know that too.”
Is that why they all go behind each others’ backs and do whatever is best for their conference?
“But if agnostic, or if its supportive because it helps them, then voting no would be a mistake.”
If they’re agnostic on the issue for the B10, shouldn’t the business concerns I mentioned then become a deciding factor? You assume they should default to helping the ACC, but have given no evidence of what they would do for the B10 outside of this issue. What vote from the ACC would this buy for the B10? What makes you think there is any issue the ACC would change their stance on because of this?
LikeLike
That’s the issue. You think the B1G should view other conferences as competition to be vanquished, like an opposing army. I, and others, view them as part-competitors, part-collaborators. Yes, the B1G recruited Maryland from the ACC–yet the ACC still plays the B1G -ACC challenge, and the schools still schedule each other. Delany and Swofford know it wasn’t personal–it was strictly business–the same business Swofford himself did when raiding the Big East.
I think Wainscott has captured the way the leagues, in practice, behave towards one another. One of these days, the Big Ten might steal another school or two out from under Swofford’s nose. But until then, it’s a “you scratch my back, and (if I can) I’ll scratch yours” world.
Even if the Big Ten were being Machiavellian, it’s far from clear to me that they are better off standing in the way of Swofford’s proposal. If they oppose a rule that they know they might actually want to take advantage of in the future, it might not be so easy to get it passed the next time.
It might be easier to get the 15th and 16th schools approved, knowing that it is no longer necessary to have divisions, because, as we’ve seen, scheduling 16 with static divisions is hard, and coming up with attractive pods can also be hard. If they wait till they have 16 to ask for it, it might take years, because the NCAA legislative process is notoriously slow.
“If nothing else, there will come a time the B1G wants to propose something, and the ACC or another conference could respond in kind to that proposal.”
Like home semifinal games? A conference champs requirement in the playoff? Real oversigning restrictions? The B10 gets shut down regularly by the others.
Sure, as part of the regular legislative give-and-take, no one gets everything they want.
But each of your examples has an immediate winner and loser. If the playoff is limited to conference champs, then the SEC can’t qualify two teams in the same year; with the rule that was eventually passed, they can. There’s a legitimate argument either way, with both sides preferring the rule that maximizes their competitive chances, here and now.
There’s no way Jim Delany is going to go into an NCAA meeting, and say: “I oppose Swofford’s proposal, because I still plan to pilfer at least two of his teams, at some point in the future. Any rule change that makes his league more successful is therefore against my best interests, so I vote no.”
So Delany would have to go in with totally fabricated reasons he does not in any way believe, that might even be totally contrary to his real long-term needs. This, as far as I can tell, is not the way the leagues generally operate with respect to one another.
In contrast, for the rules Brian mentioned (semifinals, playoffs, over-signing), the southern schools’ position is largely sincere, whether or not you personally like them.
LikeLike
“You assume they should default to helping the ACC, but have given no evidence of what they would do for the B10 outside of this issue. What vote from the ACC would this buy for the B10? What makes you think there is any issue the ACC would change their stance on because of this?”
I have no need to supply evidence, because Its the unknown that encourages conferences to play nice with another. Who knows what issues might arise in 18 months where the B1G will need ACC support? Sometimes, you have to go along to get along.
What I do know, however, is that needless gamesmanship would come back to haunt the B1G some day. Maybe not today, maybe not two years from now, but some day. Karma is a bitch.
And remember, we focus on a small portion of things. You are looking at it in the context of athletics, which is the point of this blog and why we are here. However, in this context, I’m looking at it in the broader context of universities dealing with other universities. Presidents know other presidents, have worked with other presidents, and presidents ultimately run the show. Big Ten universities work on a host of non-athletic matters with other universities–for example, many ACC schools are in the AAU, as are most B1G schools. Presidents don’t want to have to deal with the sports departments not getting along, because they have other, more pressing matters to deal with, and don’t want the athletic departments potentially poisoning those relationships.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Even if the Big Ten were being Machiavellian, it’s far from clear to me that they are better off standing in the way of Swofford’s proposal.”
Nor is it clear they’re better off approving it.
“If they oppose a rule that they know they might actually want to take advantage of in the future, it might not be so easy to get it passed the next time.”
1. Could you put more conditionals into that? How can anyone not know that they might want to do something at some undetermined point in the future? They would literally have to vote for everything ever proposed by that logic.
2. More narrowly, they don’t know they’ll ever expand again.
3. If they do expand again, they don’t know they won’t want divisions.
4. Why would it magically get harder to pass in the future? Because suddenly the ACC will change their minds about wanting it? Others will?
“It might be easier to get the 15th and 16th schools approved, knowing that it is no longer necessary to have divisions,”
The expansion decision is bigger than FB scheduling. The presidents will decide on larger issues (institutional fit, money, etc) and worry about the scheduling later.
“because, as we’ve seen, scheduling 16 with static divisions is hard,”
Not necessarily it isn’t. Depending on the schools added, preserving certain rivalries may be difficult. 7 locked plus 2 rotating is pretty simple.
EX. 2 eastern schools added (like UVA and UNC)
W = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN
E = OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, RU, UMD + 2 newbies
Is that difficult? Since they’ve established the E/W pattern, I think this concern has become much smaller to them.
“and coming up with attractive pods can also be hard.”
Again, it depends on the teams.
“If they wait till they have 16 to ask for it, it might take years, because the NCAA legislative process is notoriously slow.”
Which they’re already in the process of changing, plus you’ve already argued for why everyone else would support it so this should be a slam dunk whenever they ask.
“Sure, as part of the regular legislative give-and-take, no one gets everything they want.”
What’s the last thing the B10 wanted (not the AQs as a group, just the B10) that got approved?
I’ve seen give from the B10, but where’s the take?
“But each of your examples has an immediate winner and loser.”
So does the ACC getting their way on this.
“So Delany would have to go in with totally fabricated reasons he does not in any way believe,”
No, he wouldn’t. First, Delany doesn’t vote on NCAA rule changes. Second, since when is every voter required to explain their vote? Third, since when aren’t there any legitimate reasons to vote no?
LikeLike
“But each of your examples has an immediate winner and loser.”
So does the ACC getting their way on this.
No, it doesn’t. If Swofford’s proposal passes, he’s an immediate winner, but the Big Ten loses nothing.
Your argument is that, 10+ years in the future, the Big Ten might find it harder to dismember the ACC. Even if true, that’s not an “immediate” effect.
“So Delany would have to go in with totally fabricated reasons he does not in any way believe,”
No, he wouldn’t. First, Delany doesn’t vote on NCAA rule changes.
I was using Delany as a proxy for the whole Big Ten. I do realize that he doesn’t cast a vote, but I think it fair to say he is an influential party to the internal discussions in which the Big Ten formulates its collective position, if it has one.
Second, since when is every voter required to explain their vote?</em
These legislative proposals are all first debated in a committee, on which I am fairly sure the Big Ten has representation. In that type of setting, it would be unusual to vote 'no' without giving reasons.
Third, since when aren’t there any legitimate reasons to vote no?
I was taking your premise at face value, namely, that the Big Ten’s main reason for opposing the proposal would be that it makes it harder for them to poach the ACC in the future.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I have no need to supply evidence,”
Yes, heaven forbid you should have to support your argument.
“because Its the unknown that encourages conferences to play nice with another.”
You mean like secretly stealing teams from each other? Or punishing exiting members via bad scheduling and protracted lawsuits?
“Sometimes, you have to go along to get along.”
Sometimes you don’t. When a business has an edge over a competitor, it usually tries to maximize that advantage instead of voluntarily giving part of it away.
“What I do know, however, is that needless gamesmanship would come back to haunt the B1G some day.”
It’s not needless. There is a definite point to it.
“And remember, we focus on a small portion of things. You are looking at it in the context of athletics, which is the point of this blog and why we are here. However, in this context, I’m looking at it in the broader context of universities dealing with other universities.”
Don’t give me this crap about you seeing the bigger picture. You’ve been intentionally ignoring the bigger picture I’m looking at. We’re mainly talking athletics because we’re talking about athletics conferences making a decision about athletics.
“Big Ten universities work on a host of non-athletic matters with other universities”
None of which would be impacted by how B10 schools vote on this issue. It’s funny how you assume the B10 should be nice because that’s how schools act, and then justify it by discussing all the repercussions other schools would visit on the B10 for voting a certain way.
“Presidents don’t want to have to deal with the sports departments not getting along,”
They don’t have to. They have many more important things to discuss. It’s not like the presidents of OSU and MI can’t be together because the teams hate each other.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No, it doesn’t. If Swofford’s proposal passes, he’s an immediate winner, but the Big Ten loses nothing.”
I disagree. If the ACC wins, all their competitors lose a little as a result.
“Your argument is that, 10+ years in the future, the Big Ten might find it harder to dismember the ACC. Even if true, that’s not an “immediate” effect.”
The effect is immediate, it just wouldn’t be recognized until the GoR was ending.
“These legislative proposals are all first debated in a committee, on which I am fairly sure the Big Ten has representation. In that type of setting, it would be unusual to vote ‘no’ without giving reasons.”
Any one person can vote no and it isn’t a big deal. Are you claiming the whole ACC will be in an uproar if the president of NW is against the proposal in committee?
“I was taking your premise at face value, namely, that the Big Ten’s main reason for opposing the proposal would be that it makes it harder for them to poach the ACC in the future.”
Main reason doesn’t mean sole reason.
LikeLike
@Brian:
““I have no need to supply evidence,”
Yes, heaven forbid you should have to support your argument.”
Heaven forbid I acknowledge I’m not privy to all the matters in which athletic conferences need to cooperate on and spew off about gamesmanship for the sake of gamesmanship.
““because Its the unknown that encourages conferences to play nice with another.”
You mean like secretly stealing teams from each other? Or punishing exiting members via bad scheduling and protracted lawsuits?”
Punishing existing members and protracted lawsuits is a intra-conference matter and not relevant here. And all schools are free agents, free to contract with another conference. No conference has a birthright on any team, and yes, teams leaving is part of the territory. Conferences know that, since every major conference has added teams over time, and all have lost members, too.
““Sometimes, you have to go along to get along.”
Sometimes you don’t. When a business has an edge over a competitor, it usually tries to maximize that advantage instead of voluntarily giving part of it away.”
But you never provided any evidence that the Big Ten is a loser if the ACC’s proposal is adopted, and you also take it on faith the ACC will actually benefit from the proposal, instead of giving itself a whole new batch of scheduling issues and unhappy members..All you’ve said is that the Big Ten should, out of gamesmanship, not support it because you do not believe they benefit from it right now.
Indeed, lets assume the B1G implements your gamesmanship idea and votes no and the ACC proposal fails. Then the ACC realizes divisions are better but that B1G West schools are upset at the diminished frequency of UM/OSU/PSU coming to town, and push the conference office, who makes the same proposal/ You think a happy ACC, content SEC, and neutral Pac12 will go along with the B1G after the B1G earlier gamesmanship? What are the odds of this scenario occurring? A number would be a guess, but its reasonable, say 40%. Why should the B1G take this risk if the proposal never hurt them in the first place, only gave another conference a perceived benefit?
In my opinion, its not worth the risk, and to use the Godfather theme of Frank’s post, is the Sunny Corleone move in a Michael Corleone world.
““What I do know, however, is that needless gamesmanship would come back to haunt the B1G some day.”
It’s not needless. There is a definite point to it.”
And the point is…gamesmanship? A possible upperhand.
““And remember, we focus on a small portion of things. You are looking at it in the context of athletics, which is the point of this blog and why we are here. However, in this context, I’m looking at it in the broader context of universities dealing with other universities.”
Don’t give me this crap about you seeing the bigger picture. You’ve been intentionally ignoring the bigger picture I’m looking at. We’re mainly talking athletics because we’re talking about athletics conferences making a decision about athletics.”
1) Your “bigger” picture is gamesmanship due to the lack of a perceived immediate need by the B1G to have no divisions.
2) You are missing the bigger picture of conferences and individuals schools working together, and presidents working together.
3) Athletic Directors will not do something of any note without approval of Presidents.
4) Presidents would actually vote on the ACC proposal, not Athletic Directors.
5) Presidents have friendships and relationships that transcend the rather artificial borders of conference affiliation, and ultimately athletics really means little to them unless there is a scandal or championship.
““Big Ten universities work on a host of non-athletic matters with other universities”
None of which would be impacted by how B10 schools vote on this issue.”
You of course, have evidence to buttress this claim? Do share with the rest of us.
It’s funny how you assume the B10 should be nice because that’s how schools act, and then justify it by discussing all the repercussions other schools would visit on the B10 for voting a certain way.”
Actually. I think the B1G should be nice to be a good neighbor and because they might need or want support or votes on other matters down the line. I don’t justify it by mentioning repercussions. I mentioned that in the context of engaging in needless gamesmanship, and the consequences/karma that would result from that. If you cannot tell a difference between the two, that’t not my problem.
““Presidents don’t want to have to deal with the sports departments not getting along,”
They don’t have to. They have many more important things to discuss. It’s not like the presidents of OSU and MI can’t be together because the teams hate each other.”
All true, and all to my point that there are bigger matters than proposals that presidents work on and deal with, and that schools and conferences will routinely look past small matters and do what’s best for a larger group. When they don’t, like KU refusing to schedule Mizzou, or Texas refusing to schedule A&M, it comes off as needlessly petty and punishing fans and student athletes. But thanks for acknowledging that athletic rivals routinely cooperate with each others.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“about gamesmanship for the sake of gamesmanship.”
I never said it was gamesmanship for the sake of gamesmanship, I said it was gamesmanship for a reason.
“Punishing existing members and protracted lawsuits is a intra-conference matter and not relevant here.”
Yes, they are. They show the behavior of the party you’re saying the B10 must be nice to because that’s how schools act.
“But you never provided any evidence that the Big Ten is a loser if the ACC’s proposal is adopted,”
The ACC provided it by saying they want this. If a competitor wants something and gets it, then they gain and you lose. In addition, there’s thousands of words worth of discussion in these comments about how beneficial this change would be.
“and you also take it on faith the ACC will actually benefit from the proposal, instead of giving itself a whole new batch of scheduling issues and unhappy members..”
They think it and so do other people here. I have yet to see anyone make the case for them losing out by getting this change passed.
“All you’ve said is that the Big Ten should, out of gamesmanship, not support it because you do not believe they benefit from it right now.”
Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. I never said that.
“Indeed, lets assume the B1G implements your … idea and votes no and the ACC proposal fails. Then the ACC realizes divisions are better but that B1G West schools are upset at the diminished frequency of UM/OSU/PSU coming to town, and push the conference office, who makes the same proposal/”
Why would the ACC suddenly decide divisions are better? They spent a lot of time analyzing this before deciding to send it to the NCAA. If they thought they had a better fix that didn’t require this change, they wouldn’t waste their time on the effort.
You mean the B10 W that happily just supported the move to this new plan? Yeah, get back to me when that happens. They get all the games they said they most wanted, plus the 6 non-IN eastern teams 46% of the time on average. The parity-based scheduling complicates that some, but it means NE, WI and IA get the 3 eastern kings even more often. So that means only NW, IL, MN and maybe PU would be complaining. And those complaints would be more about the parity-based scheme than the divisions.
“You think a happy ACC, content SEC, and neutral Pac12 will go along with the B1G after the B1G earlier gamesmanship?”
1. The ACC wouldn’t be happy.
2. The P12 looked into changing the rule before. They are likely to always consider changing it.
“What are the odds of this scenario occurring? A number would be a guess, but its
reasonable, say 40%.”
We’re not even in the same ballpark on the reasonableness of that scenario. I’d say 4% is stretching it optimistically, let alone 40%.
“Why should the B1G take this risk if the proposal never hurt them in the first place, only gave another conference a perceived benefit?”
Because a benefit to a competitor does hurt them. Why should GM care if a new law doubled Ford’s sales as long as GM’s stayed the same?
“You of course, have evidence to buttress this claim? Do share with the rest of us.”
I’ve got your statements just above claiming all the relationships they have and how they extend across artificial conference borders.
“I don’t justify it by mentioning repercussions.”
Yes, you did. You gave the example of the B10 wanting the same change later but not getting due to retaliation. You mentioned karma punishing the B10 as payback. You mentioned nebulous changes the B10 might want later and need their votes on later but not get because of this. Everything you said was about potential repercussions.
I’m sick of this pointless discussion. Nobody is adding anything new, and nobody is changing their mind. I’m done.
LikeLike
@Brian:
You started a threat above with this:
Brian says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Frank,
“Conference Championship Games the Way We Want Them
…
Personally, I am all for it and hope that Jim Delany and the Big Ten hop aboard in support of the measure.”
I think it helps others more than the B10, so he should consider being against it out of gamesmanship. ”
So to the extent you now say: All you’ve said is that the Big Ten should, out of gamesmanship, not support it because you do not believe they benefit from it right now.” Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. I never said that.” would be untrue.
Also:
“The ACC provided it by saying they want this. If a competitor wants something and gets it, then they gain and you lose.”
No. Its not zero sum. Its not diving up a finite object. if someone gains, all it means is someone gains. It has no bearing if someone else gains, loses, or is not impacted.
Also:
“Why would the ACC suddenly decide divisions are better? They spent a lot of time analyzing this before deciding to send it to the NCAA. If they thought they had a better fix that didn’t require this change, they wouldn’t waste their time on the effort.
If you read my hypothetical, they didn’t decide divisions were better. They had to live with them because their proposal to end them failed but realized that they actually work out well for them overall.
“You mean the B10 W that happily just supported the move to this new plan? Yeah, get back to me when that happens. They get all the games they said they most wanted, plus the 6 non-IN eastern teams 46% of the time on average. The parity-based scheduling complicates that some, but it means NE, WI and IA get the 3 eastern kings even more often. So that means only NW, IL, MN and maybe PU would be complaining. And those complaints would be more about the parity-based scheme than the divisions.””
No kidding the B1G West would support that. But this was part of the hypothetical of a Big Ten proposal to do away with divisions down the road voted down by other conferences, meaning the schools would be unhappy without remedy.
“I’m sick of this pointless discussion. Nobody is adding anything new, and nobody is changing their mind. I’m done.”
Good.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
“They were locked because the Big Ten wanted two Kings locked in order to kick off a rivalry, because ESPN/ABC wanted that game, and because they were then the two most recent additions to the conference (with the resulting lack of established conference rival).”
Exactly, so why wouldn’t the B10 want that again if they don’t have to split in to divisions?
LikeLike
Frank:
To me, there is almost no difference between playing a school 50% of the time and playing a school 60% of the time. You still get to visit every opposing school once in 4 years and you’re not playing them enough to sustain a rivalry atmosphere.
There is a big difference between playing a school 50% of the time and playing a school 45% or so of the time, IMO, however, as you’ll have classes who were there 4 years who didn’t get to visit every other B10 school.
That’s why I think there is a huge difference between 5 locked series and 6 locked series in a 14-school league.
LikeLike
@Richard:
In a division less Big Ten, the PTB would 100% want PSU and Nebraska to play every year, as would I. Nebraska was added primarily to have a 4th King in the conference. To then not have them play at least one other King annually would be a foolish waste. Since PSU doesn’t have a main rival in the conference, a PSU-UNL is to me a no brainer. If it can be arranged for UNL to play multiple Kings annually, all the better for CFB fans and TV viewers.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
I completely agree.
Ergo 5 locked series.
LikeLike
I’m agnostic on 5 locked games vs. 3 locked games vs. some schools having more locked games than others. But not having Kings face off makes very little sense, regardless of the number of locked rivals.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
I agree. However, if you have fewer locked games and still want kings to face off, you’d have to sacrifice local rivalry games.
For instance, if you want PSU-UNL annually but only 3 locked games, then you’d have to drop one of PSU-OSU, PSU-RU, or PSU-UMD.
That would be idiotic when you can simply have 5 locked games and avoid such difficulties. If you lock UNL-UM as well, then UNL would have to drop UNL-Iowa or UNL-Wisconsin. That’s stupid when there’s no need to make such hare-brained choices.
LikeLike
I agree, and its a very fine line. Also, the B1G does have to make sure to spread the Kings around evenly so that other schools get to play them. Maybe 4 locked rivals? Maybe some schools have 3, some have 4? I dunno. Local rivalries are what made (and make) CFB special, yet the King vs King games are what most casual fans prefer. Have to try to cater to both. I agree that no divisions makes that possible to a greater extent than 2 divisions do.
LikeLike
Well, if you have 5 locked series, every non-king can be guaranteed a locked series with a king _even_if_ you also have each king locked with 2 other kings (8 non-kings will lock with 1 king while 2 non-kings will lock with 2 kings). In general, they’d be locking with a king that they care about more than other kings as well, so win-win.
For example, for the king locks, you can do this:
UM: OSU, UNL, MSU, Minny, Wisconsin
OSU: UM, PSU, Illinois, IU, PU
PSU: OSU, UNL, MSU, RU, UMD
UNL: PSU, UM, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern
MSU: UM, PSU
UW: UNL, UM
Iowa: UNL
Minny: UM
Illinois: OSU
Northwestern: UNL
IU: OSU
PU: OSU
RU: PSU
UMD: PSU
The 4 kings as well as the 2 strongest princes (Wisconsin and MSU) lock with 2 kings while everyone else lock with 1 king each.
LikeLike
The idea behind the locked rivals was to look at ways that a divisionless conference might work. Jumping up to 5 locked games defeats much of the purpose, you might as well just go ahead & split into two divisions.
LikeLike
Bingo
LikeLike
I’ll repeat my rationale:
To me, there is almost no difference between playing a school 50% of the time and playing a school 60% of the time. You still get to visit every opposing school once in 4 years and you’re not playing them enough to sustain a rivalry atmosphere.
There is a big difference between playing a school 50% of the time and playing a school 45% or so of the time, IMO, however, as you’ll have classes who were there 4 years who didn’t get to visit every other B10 school.
That’s why I think there is a huge difference between 5 locked series and 6 locked series in a 14-school league.
LikeLike
I don’t see anything wrong with 5 locked rivals….
But there isn’t any need for it, either. What the ACC proposal gives you is flexibility. It’s absurd to respond to that opportunity with an inflexible system.
LikeLike
Unless you want to reach all your goals (preserve rivalries, maximize king matchups, & maximize Eastern exposure).
Flexibility for the sake of flexibility may sound nice, but when you do the numbers, the difference between playing a team you don’t have emotions for 60% of the time vs. 50% of the time is small while the difference between playing a team you care about playing 100% of the time vs. 60% of the time is huge.
LikeLike
No one has suggested five locked rivals well suited to all 14 teams. They simply don’t have the same number of desired/desirable annual games. Forcing them all into the same number is unnecessary.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No one has suggested five locked rivals well suited to all 14 teams. They simply don’t have the same number of desired/desirable annual games. Forcing them all into the same number is unnecessary.”
I agree totally. There just aren’t that many games that need locking. I know we’ve argued this before when you tried to lock too few teams, but 5 is way too many. Three is a workable compromise.
LikeLike
I guess alignment similar to mine got discussed above already (probably should have read first). Anyway, for fun, here is how I can picture the ACC, SEC, and PAC-12 doing it. Again parenthesis are the ones that didn’t seem quite as mandatory, but thought filled out the best
ACC (similar to Michael in Raleigh, but a tad different)
Boston College: Syracuse, Pitt, (Virginia Tech)
Syracuse: Boston College, Pitt, (Louisville)
Pitt: Syracuse, Boston College, (Louisville)
Louisville: (Virgina Tech), (Pitt), Syracuse
Virginia Tech: Virginia, (Louisville), (Boston College)
Virgina: Virginia Tech, North Carolina, (Wake Forest)
North Carolina: Virgina, Duke, North Carolina State
Duke: North Carolina, Wake Forest, North Carolina State
North Carolina State: North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: North Carolina State, Duke, (Virginia)
Clemson: Miami (FL), Florida State, Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), Florida State, Clemson
Florida State: Miami (FL), Clemson, Georgia Tech
Miami (FL): Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson
The 4 southernmost schools play each other every year and every team outside those 4 will play 2 of those a year (including 1 Florida school). With 8 conference games, you play your 3 locked teams and the other 10, 50% of the time. Virginia-Wake Forest was fairly natural given they are old time ACC schools. I put Louisville with Syracuse and Pitt as they have shared more conference time together. I put Boston College with Virgina Tech since they have been in a conference together and locked teams for awhile and moved from the Big East together. That left Louisville-Virgina Tech which still feels fairly natural.
PAC-12:
1. 4 California schools play each other
2. Utah, Colorado, and Arizona schools play each other every year
3. Pacific Northwest schools play each year
Easiest conference for this. Set-up is natural and with 9 conference games and only 12 schools, they’d actually still play the other 8 teams, 80% of the time.
SEC
Florida: Georgia, (Auburn), (South Carolina)
Georgia: Florida, Auburn, South Carolina
South Carolina: Georgia, Missouri, (Florida)
Tennessee: Alabama, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Vanderbilt: Tennessee, Ole Miss, (Kentucky)
Kentucky: Tennessee, Mississippi State, (Vanderbilt)
Ole Miss: Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt
Mississippi State: Ole Miss, Kentucky, (Arkansas)
Alabama: Tennessee, Auburn, (LSU)
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, (Florida)
LSU: Ole Miss, (Texas A&M), (Alabama)
Arkansas: Texas A&M, (Missouri), (Mississippi State)
Missouri: (Arkansas), (South Carolina), (Texas A&M)
Texas A&M: Arkansas, (LSU), (Missouri)
This was far and way the most difficult. Too many cross-cutting rivalries without enough distinction between them (at least for me).
LikeLike
The story about Dodds and Del Conte is awesome. Understanding how relationships, or attributes like persistence-luck-timing, play a role in decision making is fascinating. If Del Conte hadn’t been able to solidify TCU’s standing with Dodds, I truly believe that a more detached analysis and process may have led to B12 expansion with WV and Louisville.
The B12 needed cohesion in order to have the best shot at retaining MO. Del Conte and TCU exploited the opportunity.
Currently, TCU truly is a big winner in the conference consolidation process.
LikeLike
If Texas Christian hadn’t landed a spot in the Big 12, the likely domino effect (Big 12 expanding with both West Virginia and Louisville) probably would have resulted in Connecticut joining the ACC (assuming Boston College had no veto power over the New England area). So for now, Fort Worth is a realignment winner, while Storrs is a loser.
LikeLike
Completely agree that UConn is the biggest realignment loser. Regardless of detailed circumstances, all of UConn’s long-standing Big East peers moved on to more stable and financially rewarding conferences. UConn had a realistic shot at being invited to the ACC, but it was not chosen.
The suggestion that UConn didn’t get selected because BC has some form of veto over schools in the New England geography is specious. BC does not seem to be a major power school within the ACC.
Louisville was probably selected over UConn because it brought more, of what the ACC desperately needed, to the table. Specifically, the ability to generate revenue.
LikeLike
Agreed that UConn is a big loser in realignment. Even the Big East that they joined wasn’t what they thought as Miami and company jumped ship even before the football team was part of the conference. I don’t recall the exact details, but I remember that UConn was alleging that Miami’s president gave her word to UConn that they were staying in the Big East, UConn then invested all the money to move to Division 1-A, only to have Miami and friends leave for the ACC before UConn was even in the football league. Shame on UConn for not getting something in writing, but I still feel bad.
LikeLike
I wound not worry about any of this until the MD – ACC court case is done.
The ACC could lose a lot more than Maryland.
The BIG could be adding a few more schools from before the new television deal.
Plus a couple B12 schools.
LikeLike
The ACC didn’t have a grant of rights when Maryland left. Even if Maryland’s exit fee is reduced to zero (and it won’t be), no school is going to give up its home TV revenues for a decade.
The Big Ten is playing a long game. Look for major conference re-alignment to heat up again in the 2020s, not before.
LikeLike
I strongly disagree regarding the ACC. The evidence which has surfaced makes me wonder if the ESPN involvement with the ACC in ESPN’s direction to break the Big East is very damaging. Do the RICO laws come into play? ESPN’s involvement was very much behind the scenes, but evidence the MD Atty Gen & the B1G posses is extremely damaging for the ACC & ESPN.
Basicly, IMHO the ACC is going to lose big time as is ESPN. If charges are not filed then IMHO ESPN & the ACC are accepting losses as a benefit of not being punished through the courts.
IMHO I believe the B1G has a strong desire to gain B1G membership by UVA, UNC, GT from the ACC & OU & KU from the B12. This will leave a single spot open for ND. A move by ND is not a given, but if UT moves to the ACC because of a demise of the ACC and hit to ESPN from this evidence, then ND stays in the ACC.
Either way, the B1G is expected to win big time should this happen sooner rather than later. Who a 20th member would be? Maybe Syracuse which would lock the NE market to the B1G unless a choice was made to add Baylor to creep the B1G into Texas which I doubt.
But either way, the evidence against ESPN & the ACC is extremely damaging and will nullify any GoR agreements and other conference actions.
LikeLike
Do you have links to any reputable analysis to back that up? It sounds entirely fabricated to me, or perhaps a fan’s wishful thinking.
LikeLike
@Marc:
My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris and Jim Delany talking with the AD’s of Syracuse, UVA, UNC, GT, KU, & OU, and the MD Attorney General at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.
LikeLike
Marc
I’m familiar with him from the Twitterverse. He’s a Michigan fan and has been predicting the demise of the ACC for some time. I don’t agree with that position, being that ESpin’s backing makes that league a little more solid. The thing we have to understand is that certain conferences are behaving like proxies for the networks. Since the B1G is waiting for its current contract to finish, I think they’re in a position of vulnerability that many pro-B1G fans don’t want to recognize. ESpin could finance a raid of certain schools, which would have the effect of downgrading the B1G’s value in the eyes of other media companies (i.e. Fox and NBC). This is exactly what happened to the old Big East after the ACC took school after school of any value. Afterwards, NBC made a low-ball offer, which ESpin easily matched. ESpin’s primary goal is to maintain the Worldwide Monopoly at the expense of conference value, if necessary.
In any conference, there are always areas of disagreement, from scheduling to issues of perceived fairness or unfairness. All it takes for a network to manipulate the process is to know the main players (athletic directors, presidents, faculty). ESpin has had it easy getting in with the university people and can use that to attempt to completely control college sports. BTN is a big thorn of their side and they would like to eliminate it. If, for example, the B1G takes the Tier 1 stuff to another over-the-air network and some Tier 2 to a competing cable network, that’s content that their competitors can use to win price increases with the cable companies, which may cause some decrease in the price ESpin charges. With more money coming in, the competitors can then finance higher-quality sports shows that attract audiences that currently watch College Gameday, etc.. Should that scenario happen, ESpin would hear from the greedy shareholders at the Mouse to make some changes. Out goes Mark May and other anti-B1G pundits. Maybe even the ESpin President, who is a southerner and, thus, not favorable to the B1G.
Maybe ESpin is using the possibility that they could finance a raiding of the B1G as a threat against Delany so that they would be ensured of their pound of flesh whatever the new media contract may be. Maybe. But nothing can be given to chance with these individuals.
LikeLike
Wishful thinking! Tell the MD Atty General who has this evidence and has state some of it in the filing of their counter suit to the ACC for $157 million. Unfortunately, for you who wish to make light of this evidence, bear in mind the ACC, ESPN, UMD, MD Atty Gen and the B1G are not laughing as the courts have much of this presented in the court documents.
LikeLike
One link is the doc filed by the MD Atty Gen. It is rather damaging towards the ACC. While the evidence that UMD, MD Atty Gen and Delany has is also damaging.
Click to access acclawsuit.pdf
LikeLike
Transic,
I’m hard-pressed to see how ESPN could finance the ACC stealing some B10 schools. The B10 already makes a lot more per year, had a GoR, and has projections through 2017 ending at $35M per year. In addition, the ACC just started a new deal and the B10 is ending theirs.
Is ESPN going to bump all the ACC schools up by $20M/year for the next 15 years in addition to buying out the B10 GoR? That’s $300M for 14 schools, or $4.2B dollars extra for the ACC, plus the GoR buyout.
You don’t think there might be some legal issues if ESPN did that in addition to the financial issues?
LikeLike
@Chris, @Transic: All I asked was, can you link to any reputable analysis to back that up? Documents from one side of a court case do not count as “reputable analysis,” because they’re just that: one-sided.
LikeLike
ESpin could finance a raid of certain schools, which would have the effect of downgrading the B1G’s value in the eyes of other media companies (i.e. Fox and NBC). This is exactly what happened to the old Big East after the ACC took school after school of any value.
During the years the Big East was getting poached, you could’ve asked just about anyone which league was more valuable, and the answer was obvious: the ACC. From the beginning, the Big East was a basketball league trying to create a big-time football league, and not really ever getting there. The schools that had the opportunity just followed the money. It’s no surprise the networks did too.
These events don’t support the proposition that ESPN could dismember a conference all by itself, even if it wanted to.
LikeLike
I won’t add much to what Marc has said but I will say that things take time to sort themselves out. We’re at 14 schools right now. #’s 15 and 16 have to be obvious adds in order to be executed. Let’s remember that interest has to be on both sides or it would not work. Right now is a time to work on conference cohesion and make sure the conference’s real power is used to thwart any immediate outside threats (i.e. ESpin) until they’re ready to move again.
LikeLike
Frank,
Do you or any of your contacts have any insight into whether the NFL moving to Thursday broadcasts might impact the Thursday night TV deals various conferences have? Would there normally be a minimum average rating in the contract that must be met or one side gets a chance to opt out?
Certainly the B10 has to be happy with their decision to stay on Saturdays. Any word how the conferences that regularly play on Thursdays (ACC, P12, SEC) are reacting?
LikeLike
I know that the Pac is contracted to put 4 games on on Thursdays yearly.
Are the ACC and SEC contracted for a set number of Thursday games? If not, then I don’t see why they’d care. ESPN will just show their games on Saturdays and everyone will be happy.
LikeLike
Michael Sam, Consensus All-American, SEC Defensive Player of the Year, and first openly gay professional athlete in a major league in U.S. history:
LikeLike
Andy,
I don’t always agree with your approach in sharing your comments on this board, but I read Michael Sam told his team he was gay over a year ago. The fact that the team did not share it with anyone and still supported/welcomed him speaks volumes about the football program…
Much Respect….
LikeLike
@DITB and Andy – Agreed. For all of the arguing about Missouri here lately, the fact that his Mizzou teammates continued to essentially just treat him normally (and if anything, increased their respect for him) is a testament to the football program here. It also goes to show that I believe most college-aged students and younger have simply moved beyond this issue in a way that older generations might not have (probably similar to the generational divide in viewing racial segregation back in the 1960s). Note that Sam said that some of his coaches were more worried about him coming out than his teammates. I remember seeing someone state that O.J. Simpson, in completely steamrolling one of Bear Bryant’s Alabama teams while he was at USC, did more for racial integration in the South than any civil rights leaders. At a certain point, racial segregation meant bad football, and that seemed to be the one area where the South finally realized that their policies and attitudes were holding them back from the rest of the country. The impact of gay players in football may not be quite the same as the impact of racially integrated teams (although we can be assured that there are and have been many more gay players than Michael Sam), but a culture of tolerance is certainly very important to young people today. The SEC, which is in a region where there’s a disproportionate amount of animus toward homosexuals compared to anywhere else in the country, could end up playing a big role in changing that.
LikeLike
That was Sam Cunningham of USC. OJ was already with the Bills.
LikeLike
I don’t really care if he’s gay or straight. If my team drafts him and he makes it on his skill, I’ll root for him just the same as any other player.
But the fact that hes a consensus All-American and SEC Defensive Player of the Year is irrelevant to his pro prospects. Unfortunately, many commentators mention this as if it means anything. The last two SEC defensive players of the year, Jarvis Jones and Morris Claiborne haven’t exactly taken the NFL by storm. Neither did Rolando McClain. (Patrick Peterson and Eric Berry have worked out, though).
Indeed, on this list (http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/sec-dpoy.html) the only true stud on this list is Patrick Willis.
If college awards meant anything in terms of pro success, then there would me far more Heisman winners with successful pro careers.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
I think they have mentioned his awards just to give him an identity and to acknowledge his accomplishments. Prior to yesterday, I had never heard of him. But identifying him as SEC DPOY and as an All-American just lets the general public know, “Hey, this guy can play ball.” He’s not a nobody without a real shot at being drafted in the first few rounds. I think they’re hust trying to distinguish him from, say, a prospect who may not be drafted at all and was just above average. Obviously, the team that drafts him won’t be influenced by his or others’ awards, but they will be influenced by a belief he could make the team better based on his talent.
LikeLike
@Michael,
“But identifying him as SEC DPOY and as an All-American just lets the general public know, “Hey, this guy can play ball.”’
But, like they say in investing, past performance is not indicative of future results. All it proves is he was a great college player. History is littered with great college players with little/no NFL success, and what makes a great college player does not necessarily make a pro prospect. Its misleading to imply that his collegiate awards (which are legitimate and impressive) have any greater value. Much like the Jason Collins news in the NBA–some say because hes not been signed since he came out means the NBA discriminates, when it in practice means his pro career was largely over with before he came out. By contrast, Branch Rickey sought out Jackie Robinson not only because he was black, but because he was black and had unquestionable baseball skills and brought it on the field. He was the real deal, not a sideshow for political purposes (and also because JR had the temperament to properly handle the racists he would encounter with class and grace).
Some of the more political commentators have used his SEC POY award, and his selection as a consensus all-American as evidence that he is a great player, someone who has an unquestioned place in the NFL, implying that if he is drafted in a low round, its proof of discrimination. One newscaster I saw teased him as a “Superstar Player”, which simply is not true. From what I read after the news broke, he was given a 3rd to 5th round grade by most scouts before this news broke.
Some sportswriters are also in on it:
However, I do agree with Andy, DITB, Frank and others that Mizzou players deserve lots of credit for not giving a s**t about his sexuality and accepting him when he came out, because he brought it on the football field. That’s the only thing that should matter, and its the only thing that matters to me..
LikeLike
“But, like they say in investing, past performance is not indicative of future results.”
Huh. I always heard past performance was an indicator, but not a guarantee, of future results. Busts in the NFL are known as such because they are, to an extent, the exception.
LikeLike
@Bullet:
From what I have seen, there is a difference, It appear to be this:
“Past performance is not indicative of future results” is the disclaimer used by funds/financial advisers.
“Past performance is not a guarantee future results” is the boilerplate for specific investments.
LikeLike
The first and only two time Heisman winner:
Ohio St.’s own Archie Griffin who did virtually nothing with the Bengals.
LikeLike
The fact that collegiate award winners sometimes fail in the NFL, does not mean winning those awards has no predictive power whatsoever.
Of course, you have to look at the situation. Florida State’s Charlie Ward put up gaudy statistics as a collegiate QB and won the Heisman, but practically no one thought he had a chance to play QB in the pros. He wasn’t even drafted.
But this is a guy that, to the extent such things can be forecasted, IS expected to have a pretty good shot at an NFL career. So it is perhaps significant that he has chosen to come out while the possibility of a substantial career remains open, than if it were a role-player not expected to play in the NFL.
LikeLike
@Marc:
Here is Sam’s scouting report from SI: http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/10/michael-sam-the-scouting-report/
I could cherry-pick quotes that hes a marginal, third-day talent, but its all a crap shoot. And this can change if he wow’s scouts at the combine, or if he lays an egg at the combine.
His best bet is to be drafted by a team who can control the crush of media coverage (Patriots, 49ers) by the force of the head coach’s will, so the he can be evaluated on his football ability. The Belichick/Tebow playbook is the one to follow here.
LikeLike
Basically he seems to have the same situation as Archie Griffin. An outstanding college player who is undersized for his position in the pros.
LikeLike
The guy actually has a pretty interesting back story that no one is paying any attention to. An older sister died in youth. A brother died of a gunshot wound in his arms. 2 other brothers have been in and out of jail.
LikeLike
For the record, Ward made his intentions VERY clear that he wanted to go the NBA route. That is 100% why he was not drafted, irrespective of where anyone knows where he should have landed. This was common knowledge 20 years ago. Funny how things get twisted as time goes by.
LikeLike
@Tom: I have not forgotten that. But the reason Ward chose the NBA is that he had very little chance at playing QB in the NFL. Now sure, if he hadn’t been a two-sport player, would some NFL team have taken a flyer on him? Probably. But he’d have been a long-shot, and he knew it.
LikeLike
And yet, at that time, Ward was still the best QB in the NYC metro area.
LikeLike
The motto of Gary Pinkel’s football program for years has been “family atmosphere”. That’s the first thing they talk about when recruiting or explaining their success. They try to foster a team culture where everybody has everybody else’s back. And it seems to be working. Over the last 7 years they rank 8th in wins among BCS schools, and top 5 in academic progress rate. So it’s in keeping for them to have handled this situation the way they did. That said I’m pretty surprised it stayed quiet for as long as it did.
As for Sam’s spot in the draft, the fact that he’s even going to be drafted at all is kind of amazing. He was a 2 star athlete coming out of high school. He’s undersized for the NFL. That will hurt him as much as him being gay if not more. But he can definitely play. He had a dominant season while playing in the toughest conference in college football.
LikeLike
I don’t care whether he’s gay, but I don’t think it deserves to be celebrated. I do not believe it is a healthy lifestyle.
LikeLike
It’s being celebrated because until now no active player in the NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL has ever come out. All of the probably hundreds of gay athletes have lived in secrecy. They shouldn’t have to hide who they are. I’m sure many will follow Michael Sam’s lead in the coming years.
LikeLike
The “proud gay man” bs is a bit much, imo. People have gotten away from the fact that it is a discusting, unhealthy lifestyle.
LikeLike
Disgusting, that is. I don’t think it should make a difference to the team if he can play football, but I don’t have to by into the gay agenda.
LikeLike
I don’t see any gay agenda here. The fact that it has taken 100-plus years for anyone to openly come out as gay and then step onto a field/court for pro baseball, basketball, football or hockey is indicative of how people like Michael Sam and Jason Collins (and assuredly many others before them never publicly come out) have been completely stifled because of the fear of the rest of society’s agenda. I legitimately *wish* that Michael Sam coming out wasn’t a big deal because I truly don’t care about whether someone is gay (and by “not caring”, I mean “being gay is perfectly cool with me” as opposed to the “I just don’t want to hear about it because I don’t agree with it” viewpoint that I’ve seen from some people today) and got over my own personal misconceptions and misinformed opinions about homosexuals many years ago when I ended up randomly living next door to a gay man and transgender person in my freshman year dorm. At the same time, I’m a firm believer that gay people should be able to freely come out in the open without discrimination and get married (and I say this as someone that has voted Republican in every Presidential election that I’ve been able to cast a ballot in). However, it would be disingenuous to say that it’s not a big deal when absolutely no one, out of the tens of thousands of pro athletes that have come before him, has been willing to do it up until now. If it wasn’t a big deal, then many others would have come out many years ago.
LikeLike
Well said, Frank.
LikeLike
@Andy – We may disagree on many issues, but on this particular one, we are completely aligned. The Mizzou community should be proud of Michael Sam and his teammates for how they’ve handled everything.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/11/ex-mizzou-qb-james-franklin-i-wouldnt-say-supportive-but-accepting-of-michael-sams/
Although, maybe his teammates weren’t as supportive as we’ve been led to believe.
“Almost immediately after Sam publicly came out as being gay, former Mizzou tight end and Sam’s roommate Eric Waters called out his former teammates on Twitter, writing that “[h]alf y’all posting these pics saying how proud you are… [were] the ones talkin s**t behind his back in the locker room.”
LikeLike
I doubt all 100 players on the roster were 100% gay friendly from day one. But it sounds like it was an overall positive environment, and nobody outed him to the general public.
LikeLike
Here’s a more extensive interview with Waters, if you’re interested:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10443289/missouri-blueprint-nfl
LikeLike
“Waters estimates that roughly 5 to 10 percent of the team was slow to come around to Sam.
“There were hurtful things that were said at the very beginning,” he said. “But you have to think about it. On a football team, there are various ages ranging from 17-year-olds all the way to 24-year-olds. Some kids haven’t matured; some guys haven’t learned. There’s more cultural differences in one small locker room. Some guys don’t know how to handle situations like that.
“Once that stuff came out, people automatically turned on him. Some people turned on him as they smiled in his face.”
But eventually, the team grew closer, and came together. That, he said, is one of the biggest success stories of 2013. Just watch the film clips that are currently playing in a loop during all the coverage on Sam, he said. They show Sam making big plays. And after every one of them, his teammates surround him with hugs and pats on the head.
“It wasn’t about, ‘Oh, I don’t want to touch him, he’s gay,'” Waters said. “It didn’t matter to us. It was all about celebration with our team. With our family.””
LikeLike
Seems like expectations for the B1G have been lowered. A year ago…a lot of folks were talking about UT, UNC, UVA, even FSU (and absurdly some SEC schools). Now it’s how to fit lowly UMd and RU in without ruining B1G rivalries and traditions. Is Delany perhaps overrated?
LikeLike
FSU not considered by the COP/C. UT not a fit – doesn’t play well with others as equals. Things are proceeding as should be expected.
LikeLike
FSU would never join the B1G anyway unless Delany broke open the check book.
LikeLike
Isn’t that what earning $40-50M in 2017 would be?
LikeLike
Maryland is comparable to North Carolina and Virginia academically and athletically. It’s no Texas or Florida State, to be true, but don’t let its well-documented athletic financial troubles lead you to put it in the same “lowly” boat as Rutgers, which has far less of a history of success.
LikeLike
vp, looks like he’s just trolling. If he had his head out of his ass he’d realize the Big 10 is very fortunate to add MD. ONLY question with MD I ever had was whether the MD fanbase will accept it. Fanbases are very fickle……if/when MD fans think they’re getting the short stick (esp. against the UMs and OSUs of the world), there could be some serious second guessing…..that was the downside of the secret dealing……the secrecy kinda backfired when it came to PSU, There was a lot of anti-PSU bias at the start, which ended up poisening the well………………….I would hope for everyone’s sake that the current fanbases accept MD and RU without a lot of bitching, as I think both will work out in the long run. I do think it’s a lot trickier proposition than Delany realizes.
LikeLike
Not trolling. Post here once every couple months. I’m an ACC fan for sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong in saying that I find Delany’s addition of RU and UMd to be questionable, at best. And I can say it without thin-skinned insults.
LikeLike
You can say whatever the hell you want. That doesn’t mean you’re not a moron.
LikeLike
Delany may well have thought (or still thinks) that Maryland is the key to unlock UVa and UNC from the ACC to the Big Ten should a 16-member conference be sought. And that may well occur if, by the mid-2020s, College Park has a thriving athletic environment, making vastly more money than any ACC school (thanks to a full share of the Big Ten Network, its days of red ink are a vague memory) and out-recruiting the Cavs and Tar Heels in football and some other sports. It’s not going to happen in the short term, and much will ride on whether ESPN actually builds an ACC network or whether it’s sold conference members a bill of goods. If it’s the latter case, a decade from now the GOR will tumble like a house of cards, whereas the Terrapins have found a safe harbor (albeit one it may take some time to get used to).
LikeLike
Rutgers and Maryland on the athletic front are questionable additions. The Big Ten will have a fight on its hands in New Jersey and Maryland to get on basic cable so any profitability from those schools could take a few years to realize. It’s a gamble but if it hits, you a talking a gigantic amount of money for the conference.
LikeLike
@PSUHockey:
Regarding NJ tv situation for the B1G, I posted this above but am re-posting here:
http://www.onthebanks.com/2012/12/6/3674206/project-big-ten-network
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“If he had his head out of his ass he’d realize the Big 10 is very fortunate to add MD.”
You can make solid arguments against it. Only time will tell.
“Fanbases are very fickle……if/when MD fans think they’re getting the short stick (esp. against the UMs and OSUs of the world), there could be some serious second guessing…..that was the downside of the secret dealing…”
Well, after the scheduling treatment the ACC gave them on the way out (no Duke, UNC or NCSU at home in hoops or FB), I doubt they’ll feel to fond of the ACC for a while.
“would hope for everyone’s sake that the current fanbases accept MD and RU without a lot of bitching,”
They are very different cases from PSU, although there is at least 1 direct correlation. PSU was a football king and there was no question of making more money. The main problems:
1. The fans (and many coaches and ADs) didn’t want to expand to the east and stop being a midwestern conference.
2. The B10 had been at 10 for a long time and people liked it. PSU disrupted the status quo when many people didn’t think change was needed.
3. PSU was an independent and their fans weren’t thrilled about joining a conference. Some of the talk from their side didn’t endear themselves to the B10 fans.
4. The process was handled poorly.
#1 is also an issue with UMD and RU, and is a point the fans and the presidents are unlikely to agree on. Since neither school is a king at anything and it hasn’t yet been shown the B10 will gain money from their addition (the only upside most people can see from this), it’s reasonable for fans to not be happy right now.
UMD and RU stink at football lately, and are joining a conference that needs to be improving in FB. RU’s athletic department is having all kinds of issues. UMD fans didn’t want to join at first and some things that angered midwestern B10 fans.
“as I think both will work out in the long run.”
If they start to show signs of working out, then fans will stop bitching. Right now they just see fewer games against real B10 teams and a lower SOS thanks to these outsiders.
“I do think it’s a lot trickier proposition than Delany realizes.”
Delany doesn’t care what fans think. He’s proven that. He’ll keep the administrators happy and the rest don’t matter.
LikeLike
Seems like expectations for the B1G have been lowered. A year ago…a lot of folks were talking about UT, UNC, UVA, even FSU (and absurdly some SEC schools). Now it’s how to fit lowly UMd and RU in without ruining B1G rivalries and traditions. Is Delany perhaps overrated?
Expectations have been lowered…by whom? Delany has always been patient: look at how long the league stayed at 11 teams. Whether you judge Delany a success or a failure, it surely has nothing to do with whether he performs in line with unsubstantiated rumors.
Delany is in his mid-60s, so by the time expansion heats up again, he may no longer be commissioner. If he retires with the league still at 14 teams, then integrating UMd/RU and the next TV deal might be his last two big projects. It’s too soon to tell how they’ll turn out, but given his track record I wouldn’t bet against him.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Seems like expectations for the B1G have been lowered.”
Whose expectations?
“A year ago…a lot of folks were talking about UT, UNC, UVA, even FSU (and absurdly some SEC schools). Now it’s how to fit lowly UMd and RU in without ruining B1G rivalries and traditions.”
People were discussing rumors of talks going on behind the scenes, as well as teams that might be available. The ACC GoR ended most of that discussion. There were rumors of UT having ideas on how to break the GoR in a cost effective way. Until that’s proven to be possible, the ACC schools and UT are off the board for a decade or more.
“Is Delany perhaps overrated?”
How is he rated? What more could he have done? The presidents have the final say on all expansion decisions.
LikeLike
OT – Francesa’s show may be picked up by Fox Sports 1
http://www.newsday.com/sports/media/source-mike-francesa-s-show-to-air-on-fox-sports-1-1.7006549
I’m sure Frank would say that this proves FS1 is a bad fit for B10 but I think it’s a smart move for them. Get different segments of sports fans to tune in and check out the channel, so that they can get used to the idea of tuning to FS1. Also, they are starting coverage of MLB this year, so they can use his promotion of the Yankees to segway into whatever Yankee game they have later in the night. Next for them would be to get an NBA package so that pro basketball fans check it out.
LikeLike
@Transic – That’s a mischaracterization of what I’ve stated up to this point. To me, the Big Ten’s targeted model for the next TV contract should be the Pac-12 model: Tier 1 and high tier 2 games on ABC/ESPN and Fox/FS1 and then low tier 2 and tier 3 games on the conference network. That keeps a presence on the two major media entities that are investing a lot on sports programming (Disney and Fox) with national broad exposure and supplementing it with conference network coverage.
So, I have no issue with *some* Big Ten games on FS1. However, what I disagree heavily with is the notion of completely leaving ESPN altogether as being any semblance of a good idea. Even if you don’t like their pundits, every sports entity that wants to get paid the maximum amount needs ESPN involved, and the smart ones leverage ESPN plus one or two other major media entities to get the right mix of revenue and exposure. That’s what the NFL, NBA, MLB, SEC and Pac-12 have all smartly done. Let’s not get so much hubris that the Big Ten can just waltz off on its own when stronger entities like the NFL (who could sell to anyone at any price or keep all of their games for their own network and charge whatever they want for it) know that ESPN’s dollars and all-week exposure on SportsCenter and other ESPN shows are very critical for a league that wants to be more than just a niche product. Existing Big Ten fans will watch games no matter what network they’re on, but that’s not who any of us should be concerned about. The leagues that get the casual fans are the ones that get the best revenue and exposure, and a major part of getting casual fans in today’s day and age means having a good relationship with ESPN (whether people like it or not). I’m not interested in taking the tactics of the NHL and the new Big East (and more importantly, the Big Ten doesn’t even have to consider that for financial reasons – ESPN will absolutely pay up big-time to keep the Big Ten).
As for Francesca, I don’t really have much of an opinion on him one way or the other. All of the sports networks seem to be simulcasting radio shows during the daytime (ESPN2 with Mike & Mike and SVP & Rusillo and NBCSN with Dan Patrick), so that makes sense with FS1. Chicago is possibly the most provincial sports radio town out there, so my exposure to Francesca is limited to hearing his NFL Sunday show occasionally, while I’m essentially clueless whenever I hear references to Paul Finebaum or even Colin Cowherd. They’re completely non-existent in this market. The only national sports radio show that has any traction here is Mike & Mike, and even then, Greenberg is an open and loud Northwestern partisan that spent his pre-ESPN career as a local Chicago sports reporter and Golic is a 100% Notre Dame guy, so it’s the one national show with a much heavier Chicago tilt compared to the most of the others that are wrapped up in the NYC/Boston pro sports vortex.
By the way, this is another reason why I’m tired of complaints that ESPN supposedly has a Big Ten bias. Between Greenie and Michael Wilbon, pretty much everyone outside of the Big Ten must wonder when ESPN is ever going to STFU about Northwestern football. We keep focusing on the negative trolls like Mark May, but then ignoring the others like Greenberg and Wilbon that actually have MUCH bigger audiences and power at the network and whose Big Ten views are overwhelmingly positive. I understand the belief that there might be an SEC bias at ESPN, but believe me, the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC all wish that they could get as much coverage as Big Ten football does. We really don’t have much place to complain, especially since we haven’t even been winning high profile games like the SEC has. I know many people here might not want to here it, but the SEC actually *deserves* the coverage that they’ve been receiving. As of now, we (the Big Ten) are getting coverage because we’re like the Dallas Cowboys or LA Lakers – we actually haven’t been very good, but ESPN still gets a bigger audience dissecting Ohio State instead of Baylor or Clemson (just as talking about Tony Romo or Kobe Bryant’s rehab is more “interesting” from a national perspective than talking about the Bengals or Spurs).
LikeLike
I think that Frank is right that the BIG would be better suited on both networks instead of one. I would love for BIG to mimic the NFL in the future and sell each division to a separate network much like the AFC/NFC packages the NFL sells. The West division is nowhere near strong enough to do that right now but if they could add Texas or Oklahoma down the road or both to the west, that would definitely do it. A package of OSU, PSU, UM, and MSU to espn and UT, OU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin to FOX with the crossovers games going to the home teams network.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
The last sentence in your post is telling – could Nebraska and Wisconsin be a compelling pair for the BXII to target in an expansion? I think Nebraska might be regretting their B1G move in some ways (having to share Ohio recruits instead of Texas recruits), but Wisconsin fancies itself too high-brow to be in a conference with a lower academic standing. Changing home-state politics (as in the case of Purdue) might make a bang for buck switch compelling.
I agree with Frank’s idea of splitting schools between networks. In many ways, the NFL should be split amongst 4 networks instead of 2. NBC seems like its the de facto NFC East network, anyway.
FOX – NFC North, NFC West
NBC – NFC East, NFC South
CBS – AFC East, AFC South
ESPN/ABC – AFC West, AFC North
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“The last sentence in your post is telling – could Nebraska and Wisconsin be a compelling pair for the BXII to target in an expansion? I think Nebraska might be regretting their B1G move in some ways (having to share Ohio recruits instead of Texas recruits), but Wisconsin fancies itself too high-brow to be in a conference with a lower academic standing. Changing home-state politics (as in the case of Purdue) might make a bang for buck switch compelling. ”
They can target anyone they wish, but there is literally zero chance of the B12 taking NE and WI from the B10 in the next few decades. The academics at NE are thrilled with the move to the B10, and the president is one of them. That trumps any sports concerns. Besides, they’re about to start getting $40M+ per year. WI has even less reason to leave.
LikeLike
Lessee. Jump from a richer league with better academics and a bigger footprint to a league with by far the smallest footprint of the P5, that exists solely due to the whims of Texas, that actually produces less football talent in its footprint than the B10 footprint, and which the other king had tried to escape from not too long ago. Also end the longest-played rivalry in top level college football. Just to take less money.
I think it’s compelling. I’m sure UW and UNL would consider an overtures from the B12 seriously.
LikeLike
Any raid of the B10 will not come from the B12. ESPN doesn’t control enough content in that conference to make that possible. Remember, their goal is to hoard all college sports and ward off competitors.
LikeLike
Riiiight…
Exactly who might be in enough desperate need that ESPN being willing to provide in the form of a temporary media contract that would be worth considering giving up all the other benefits of B1G membership?
LikeLike
@Frank:
I agree with everything you said, and I just want to add that the NFL–the most popular sport in the country–realizes that mass exposure is the only way to remain popular and grow, too. Nothing demonstrates the value of massive reach more than the league taking games from its own television network and selling them to a broadcast network, potentially weakening the NFLN somewhat, but done with the realization that nothing tops broadcast tv in terms of reach. NFLN ratings grew well for the league, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the new TNF ratings at least double last years ratings on the NFLN. Such is the power of mass exposure.
For college sports, especially football, Delany & Co. know that nothing equates to ESPN’s reach and promotional power (and access to ABC’s broadcast network). All the major conference heads know this, which is why all have deals in some form with ESPN. That mass exposure is unmatched, and is quite valuable for the B1G, I expect Delany to make sure his conference is secure with that exposure over the long haul when the next TV deal is negotiated. For the B1G, nothing tops having those ABC Saturday Night games.
LikeLike
I think one factor you overlook is the NFL is one of the few sports properties that can make broadcast work. A league like MLS would have trouble finding spots on a broadcast network. Broadcasters demand ratings that make it worthwhile to replace what would air on a regular weekend. It seems that weeknights are becoming the same issue, although not to the same extent as weekends.
This leads me to question whether B1G fans do not have confidence in their own league if they think that exposure on ABC couldn’t be replicated on NBC or Fox. OK, maybe NBC is out because of the Domers. So that leaves Fox as a possible replacement. Let’s remember that Fox already own stations in Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia and Washington. ABC doesn’t own stations in Cleveland, Washington and Detroit, AFAIK. This is somewhat important as O&O stations could be used for additional promotion for Big Ten teams. Also, Fox, via their ownership of WDCA, WWOR, WPWR, could promote local Big Ten teams in each respective area. Local stations already do a lot of promotion with the NFL teams. If I can see the possibility, surely I would think Delany or the B1G office can.
LikeLike
@Transic – The issue is NOT whether coverage on over-the-air NBC or Fox could be competitive with ABC. Those are all more or less equal. However, FS1 and NBCSN do not provide anywhere near the same level of exposure of ESPN. That is where the difference lies and yes, the Big Ten has to care about that in a world where sports fans instinctively turn on ESPN and recruits want to be seen on GameDay and SportsCenter *specifically* (not just on any random TV program). At best, FS1 and NBCSN are substitutes for ESPN2 and ESPNU (fine for lower 2nd tier games, but not for 1st tier/high 2nd tier games. In contrast, the ESPN mothership is akin to an over-the-air network in terms of coverage.
LikeLike
Transic,
“This leads me to question whether B1G fans do not have confidence in their own league if they think that exposure on ABC couldn’t be replicated on NBC or Fox. OK, maybe NBC is out because of the Domers. So that leaves Fox as a possible replacement.”
The problem is that there is much more ABC/ESPN synergy and cross-promotion than there is Fox/FS1. Could it work? Sure. The SEC does fine on CBS. But ABC is where the casual fan expects to find the biggest primetime games. Not being on there has a cost.
LikeLike
I think the B10 will keep a Game-of-the-week like the SEC does (for bidding in 2016) and sign a lucrative deal with ESPN for the bulk of games in the 2nd tier.
LikeLike
Back to the important subject, college baseball. ESPN has released their schedule. Heavy with ACC, SEC, and Big12, with an occasional PAC12 game thrown in.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/02/espn-networks-air-regular-season-college-baseball-games-ever/
The rich will continue to get richer while conferences like CUSA get ignored. It seems to me that the money in college baseball is about to shoot upward. And the SEC and ACC are positioned to grab the majority of it.
LikeLike
Then again, on this schedule, I count 3 games on ESPN, 4 on ESPN2, and 2 on ESPNews. The balance are on ESPNU and ESPN3 (online streaming).
College baseball still has a ways to go. Looks more like filler for ESPN’s lesser networks right now.
LikeLike
Which will leave quite a bit of valuable inventory for conference networks.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten hockey teams can each get $2M from the BTN, SEC baseball teams could get something, rather than the next-to-nothing they get now.
LikeLike
Is ice on the ball a foreign substance?
LikeLike
Speaking of college baseball, I thought this was interesting.
http://www.cornnation.com/2012/3/1/2835120/purdues-doug-schreiber-big-ten-baseball-scheduling-improving-rpi-inequity-difficult
A NE blogger wrote a piece about B10 baseball and how the teams need to schedule better to raise their RPIs. He got an email response from PU’s baseball coach, which he published in the article linked above.
LikeLike
Brian – Purdue is doing it’s part to pump up their RPI by playing a weekend series in Baton Rouge next month.
LikeLike
As their coach pointed out, the problem is that the B10 can almost always only get games like that on the road and early in the year. It’s of limited help to schedule hard and lose many of the games because they’re all road games. Later in the season, they are forced to play weaker local teams to get drivable weekday games.
LikeLike
Brian – if they can steal a win though, the RPI greatly rewards road wins.
My solution for the B1G’s baseball problems is for the conference to buy Dodgertown in Vero Beach, or some other vacant spring training facility, and send all the teams down there for the beginning of the spring semester. The guys players could take classes online, practice in better weather than most SEC/ACC/Big-12/Pac-12 schools, and play the early portion of their schedule in Florida. Then they would move back to their respective campuses by March 1.
Sure, the conference would have to build some dorms and maybe a few classrooms, but it would level the playing field with the sunbelt schools, and serve as a great recruiting tools (a two month spring break). The Midwest snowbirds would love it as well.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, they actually don’t play at home until mid-March. That’s a long time to take online classes, but doable in the future as the technology improves. For example, OSU starts with 14 road/neutral games this year IIRC. All the OOC games after the B10 season starts are local (and mostly bad for the RPI).
I think the B10 would be wiser to just drop baseball like WI did since the NCAA’s rules are so skewed to favor the south and west. That would send a stronger message than anything else they’ve tried, plus it would stop wasting resources.
LikeLike
It is not the NCAA that makes the B1G poor in baseball. A lot of sports are regional. Who plays men’s lacrosse or ice hockey in the SEC, B12 or P12? Even if all of the B1G members dropped baseball and softball the other 4 power conferences will still sponsor those sports and the rules will not change. The B1G does better in softball, so maybe the women have better weather.
LikeLike
No, it’s the season starting in February and players knowing they’ll be on the road for the first month of every season if they play up north, and even after that they’ll deal with near-freezing conditions sometimes. MLB doesn’t expect teams to play during February or most of March in the north.
Any talented northern player knows he should either go to the minors or go south/west to play if he wants a MLB career. Staying in the north is an unnecessary obstacle. Softball players don’t have those same career opportunities, so local players are more willing to stay home.
To be clear, I’m fine with baseball being regional. I’d just rather see the B10 quit wasting money on it than keep being so far below the top schools.
LikeLike
Eh. Schools “waste” money on a bunch of sports. All except football, basketball, hockey, maybe volleyball and wrestling, in fact.
LikeLike
The waste isn’t losing money on the sport, it’s losing money to produce glorified club level teams year after year. Rarely does an entire power conference perform that poorly in a sport across the board for decades. B10 baseball is like MN football – a power in the 60s and basically mediocre at best ever since.
LikeLike
The Pac12 wants fewer night football games:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/02/10/pac-12-football-relief-from-the-night-game-nightmare/
But I also thought I read that the really late Sat night telecasts had decent ratings this past season.
LikeLike
P12 didn’t seem to understand what they agreed to.
I wonder how much they’ll have to pay the networks to reduce or eliminate the exclusivity window.
LikeLike
The P12N has the ability to select first twice and second five times during the season. They can bargain with the value of the games they choose to leave available to Fox/ESPN for those weeks.
LikeLike
TV ratings, yes. Butts in the seats for November games ending after 10:30 pm, many with hundreds of miles to travel, some through Mtn passes, and only one interstate? That can be depressed.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20140209/NEWS/140208719/1002#unl-s-big-ten-windfall-around-the-corner
More details on NE’s B10 revenues.
2011 – $14.3M
2012 – $15M
2013 – up to $16.9M
So did Nebraska get a raw deal? Only if you look at the short term.
Other numbers uncovered by The World-Herald suggest Nebraska in three years is headed for a big financial score with the Big Ten.
In 2017, when Nebraska will finally be on equal financial footing with the core Big Ten schools, the school’s annual revenue from the conference could well swell to between $40 million and $50 million a year.
Such a figure is astounding compared with four years ago, when the Big 12 paid NU $9 million.
The university in 2017 also gains a full ownership share in the Big Ten’s TV network, which analysts have valued at more than $1.3 billion.
UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman says he has no regrets over the deal he negotiated with the Big Ten in 2010.
Also:
Nebraska agreed to wait six years to gain a full share of Big Ten revenue. It received $14 million the first year, $15 million last year and will receive no more than $16.9 million this year — each figure roughly $10 million short of a full share.
Even though Nebraska is taking in less league revenue than most major schools — and paid a $9 million penalty for leaving the Big 12, to boot — those costs can be viewed as a down payment on its ownership stake in BTN. Based on the television network’s estimated value, that stake in 2017 could be easily worth more than $50 million.
And:
League projections obtained by The World-Herald suggest a full Big Ten revenue share in 2016 will be worth $35 million. Given that, an industry source said the TV deal will likely boost the annual share in 2017 to $40 million to $50 million.
As to UMD and RU:
Did the University of Maryland get a better deal from the Big Ten than Nebraska?
There seems little doubt Maryland will be receiving more money than NU, from the very start of its league entry this fall. But Big Ten officials maintain that the underlying principles of the two deals are the same.
…
But to get Maryland, the Big Ten had to pay a price — apparently many millions more in league payouts than Nebraska is being paid.
Sports Illustrated and the Washington Post both report Maryland negotiated a front-loaded deal, with league money it would have received far in the future moved into the pact’s first six years. The school will reportedly receive $32 million next year and $43 million by 2017.
(emphasis mine)
…
But Brad Traviolia, the Big Ten’s deputy commissioner, said the Big Ten essentially followed the same template in its deals with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.
The Big Ten used the same six-year phase-in term. And all the deals attempt to hold schools harmless — that is, ensure that schools do not lose money compared with what they were receiving from their old leagues.
Because the schools were coming from different leagues, with varying levels of conference revenue, that required different hold harmless payments. It took only $14 million two years ago to hold Nebraska harmless when it left the Big 12.
Traviolia would not confirm that Maryland’s deal was front-loaded. But he said he believed all three schools are treated equally over the long run.
It appears that even with the big penalty Maryland could face, the Big Ten’s higher payouts over time compared with the ACC’s turned the move into a financial winner for the school.
Less is known about Rutgers’ deal. But its previous conference, the Big East, was self-destructing into a basketball-only league and reportedly paid the school less than $10 million. If the Big Ten indeed followed the same principles, Rutgers’ phase-in payments would be smaller than Nebraska’s.
In the end, NU Chancellor Harvey Perlman said he voted in favor of both Maryland’s and Rutgers’ entry into the Big Ten — doing so with full knowledge of the terms.
Said Perlman: “I have no concern that Nebraska was treated unfairly relative to Rutgers, relative to Maryland, or relative to where we would have been had we not gone into the league.”
LikeLike
http://omaha.com/article/20140210/news/140219937
They also had a chat that may answer some other questions people have.
LikeLike
Interesting. They will be about $25 million behind Iowa St. over their first 3 years in the league. And that doesn’t count anything they could have earned from their Tier III. They probably could have come close to OU’s $7 million. Its going to take a long time to catch up.
LikeLike
Which years?
In 2012 & 2013, they made less than ISU, but in 2011, the B12 was still under the old TV deal, if I recall correctly, and UNL would have made more.
LikeLike
Look at the chart in the article. I am including the start of their 1st year in the Big 10 (last Big 12 distribution) when they paid the $9 million exit fee. Also, I don’t think the 2011 figure for the Big 12 is correct, but I don’t have a link handy, so I’m using a zero difference on that year. I think it was closer to $17 million. The Big 12 got a “bonus” on their new contract.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Interesting. They will be about $25 million behind Iowa St. over their first 3 years in the league. And that doesn’t count anything they could have earned from their Tier III. They probably could have come close to OU’s $7 million. Its going to take a long time to catch up.”
What value are you assigning to their equal share in the BTN? That’s an asset ISU certainly won’t have in 2017.
LikeLike
In fairness to Nebraska, no one had any clue at that time the contracts would be increasing so much (for the Big 12 and Pac 12). It was another month before the Big 12 realized and the South schools stayed.
LikeLike
Confirms what many have always said: Nebraska got a junior membership deal for the first 5 or 6 years. They’ll end up losing out on $60M+.
The BIg 12 did the same thing to WVU and TCU, and the Pac 12 did it to Utah.
LikeLike
Compared to what? They’re gaining a stake in an already successful and up-and-running money-making conference channel.
The B12 doesn’t have anything like that.
LikeLike
They are not getting a junior membership. They are buying into their equity share of the BTN which is currently valued at $1.3 billion per the authors from Omaha.com. The value they have earned is already around $50 million. If you add the value they’ve earned in the BTN and the distributions they’ve received they are much farther ahead of their Big 12 counterparts.
The value they are receiving in the BTN is often underplayed. It’s always possible down the road that the B1G membership sells its ownership interest in the BTN back to Fox.
LikeLike
Mizzou and A&M didn’t have to buy into the SEC. Full members from day 1.
LikeLike
The SEC had nothing Mizzou or Texas A&M had to buy into. Half of the substantial start up costs for the BTN were paid for by the members schools. Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland shouldn’t enjoy the profits without investing any of their own money. The BIG didn’t screw anybody. I am not sure why the Big 12 is withholding money though.
LikeLike
What PSUhockey said, BTN members invested substantial amounts of money to get the BTN started up. Any conference with a conference owned network will do the same as the B10 did to Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.
LikeLike
They did have to “buy in” to some things. They got lesser distributions for, as the article termed it, “revenue earned in prior years.” Presumably they didn’t get basketball tourney revenue earned in prior years.
But they didn’t have to “buy” membership as is typical. The SEC obviously really wanted A&M and couldn’t offer Missouri, from the same conference, a lesser deal. The Pac 12 did give Colorado a better deal than Utah. And Rutgers didn’t get the revenue floors that Nebraska and Maryland got.
LikeLike
PSU and wolve—I’ve seen the statement that BIG 10 members made substantial investment in the BTN before….but I’ve not seen any $ figures……PSU says the BIG paid 1/2 the start-up costs…..my thought/memory was that FOX essentially paid the start-up costs. Either of you have any links or direct info on this?
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – The Big Ten didn’t pay startup costs for the BTN. There’s a reference to that in this article here:
http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/content/five-years-after-its-launch-big-ten-network-celebrated-whopping-success
However, even though there weren’t out-of-pocket costs, we shouldn’t forget how BIG of a risk it was for the Big Ten to sign those over those rights to the BTN back in 2007. It’s waaaaaaaaay too easy for fans from other conferences to look back with 20/20 hindsight, see how successful the BTN ended up, and then try to downplay the amount of risk involved and why the 11 older Big Ten members take that equity so seriously. The creation of the BTN wasn’t anything close to a no-brainer – the Big Ten could have easily taken an upfront payment from ESPN just as every other conference had done prior to that time. There was a ton of consternation about whether the BTN would end up getting basic carriage. Fans b*tched and moaned during the first season when the BTN was fighting with the likes of Comcast. Anyone in a leadership position in the Big Ten back in 2007 and had to sign off to pull the trigger on the BTN were
legitimately putting their necks on the line without any guarantee of success. Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are going to end up being the beneficiaries of that eventual success, but they never had to put their necks on the line in the way that the other Big Ten members did.
The concept of the “junior membership” that Andy keeps suggesting about is infuriating and absolutely ridiculous. The SEC does NOT own any asset like the BTN, so any comparisons to them on “equal shares” is irrelevant. The SEC does not own a single bit of equity in the new SEC Network (it’s fully-owned by ESPN), so Missouri and Texas A&M have nothing to buy into in the way that the new Big Ten members do. Kudos to Mizzou and A&M for getting full revenue shares right away in the SEC (I don’t begrudge them for that), but the quid pro quo is that they’re not getting equity ownership in anything (and as we’ve seen with the recent sale of the YES Network, such equity ownership can be quite substantial far beyond the annual rights fees).
LikeLike
Lots of interesting stuff in that story and chat…..
To answer my own question below, looks like the “hold harmless” to NEB was only for year 1. Therefore, NEB got a double whammy when the Big 12 TV contract expired, and they were still not getting a full Big 10 share. Thing is, as the story mentions, they are fillthy rich anyway, to the extent that the ath dept. is paying the academic side $2.5/year.
I can understand the buy-in, unlike Andy, but I think it has more to do with the equity in the network than to reimbursement of start-up expense……I’d be very interested in seeing what actual start-up expenses were to the Big 10 schools. I sure don’t remember any stories about IU or Purdue putting $20M in……it seems to me that was FOX’ role.
It does seem to me NEB gets screwed in one respect…..there is nothing paid for the value NEB immediately added to the BTN by making more more attractive programming……..
LikeLike
Great post and points Frank. I actually thought it was a crazy move at the time, primarily because even IF it worked (which seemed doubtful), it seemed to me the Big 10 would be the guinea pig for other conferences….that they could just come in, start their own networks, and avoid the mistakes the Big 10 had made……… seems that was not the case.
LikeLike
Didn’t Fox take extra $ in the early years to fund startup costs? I seem to recall reading that was why the school distributions shot up about 3 years ago.
The Big 10 didn’t take that much risk. I’ve never seen a breakout, but their payments include rights fees in addition to profit. Fox took the risk. The premier games are not on the BTN.
LikeLike
Conferences almost always charge membership fees which often get taken out of distributions. There is equity in the conference brand and future contracts. There is money spent promoting that brand. The Big 12 had to scrap a $1-$2 million program designed after CU and NU left when the next two left.
So A&M and Missouri did get substantial equity with joining the SEC. However, they gave up equity by leaving the Big 12 (as well as bb tourney credits), so they swung a good deal with the SEC. Utah, TCU, WVU and Rutgers didn’t have that type of leverage.
LikeLike
bullet, I think you’re right…..that there was a certain amount that went back to FOX off the top as reimbursement…….
LikeLike
I’m interested in a couple of other aspects of the news article…..First, the asserted academic benefits of being in the BT…..I can never tell how much of that stuff is bs and how much is real……I do think that the more it’s discussed, the more it becomes real….to me, it seems like there are genuine benefits to the IU, Purdue, Iowa, Neb, and MSU…..not so much to NW, UM, ILL, Wisconsin. I have always felt that Frank is a little to open to lowering the academic profile….for this reason, I liked the MD/Rutgers addition over a possible MO/KU addition.
The other interesting aspect is the “equity” in the BTN. Given that no present school looks to “sell” that equity, of what present value is it? In other words, isn’t the current value of the BTN it’s present and expected revenue streams? Now the interesting question about BTN equity is what happens when the Big/Fox deal expires……what in the world happens then? Do the parties simply reup, does FOX sell….does the Big have the negotiating advantage?
LikeLike
When the Fox deal expires, the B1G take full ownership of the network. Its the gamble Fox took. In practice, the parties will renegotiate before then.
LikeLike
@Frank, yes, I’ve heard all of the fancy talk about “buying in” and “equity”, but all it really is is an elaborate excuse for squeezing new members for as much as they can squeeze them for.
Nebraska
Maryland
Rutgers
Utah
West Virginia
TCU
All of those schools have different prices that they agreed to. Not one is the same as another on that list.
It was a negotiation. It was not about “this is how much you need to buy in for us to be able to afford having you as part of this conference network” or whatever. That’s all baloney. The conference network is relatively new and none of the pre-existing members had to buy in with a dime of actual revenue. Meanwhile every school on that list was out there performing, competing, building up a following, and developing their own brands in their previous conferences.
The new conferences are acquiring those brands and those followings and those markets and those reputations of those institutions. The question then becomes “how much is it worth to us?”
So how much is Nebraska worth to the Big Ten? Well, now we know.
And it’s a different number than what Rutgers was worth and what Maryland was worth, and those two were worth different from each other.
West Virginia was worth different than TCU.
Colorado was worth different from Utah.
And it’s not just about how much the conference is willing to offer. It’s also about how little a school is willing to take.
Neither A&M nor Missouri were desperate to join the SEC.
Both schools told the SEC that they needed full payment from day one if they were going to join.
That was the price required for the SEC to acquire those two institutions.
The SEC deemed it a worthwhile investment.
If Notre Dame came knocking a couple of years ago and told the B1G we want to join the B1G, but we’ll only take full membership from day 1, would the B1G have agreed?
You bet your ass they would have agreed. All that “buy in” and “equity” baloney would have been thrown out the window in about two seconds.
LikeLike
@Andy:
“And it’s not just about how much the conference is willing to offer. It’s also about how little a school is willing to take.
Neither A&M nor Missouri were desperate to join the SEC.
Both schools told the SEC that they needed full payment from day one if they were going to join.”
This is the critical part. Its not what the B1G or SEC valued the teams it added, its what it would cost them to add relative to the value.
If you have the choice of purchasing a Lexus at sticker price, and purchasing the same exact Lexus for $4,000 less, you obviously try to save the $4k.
In the B1G-Nebraska situation, the B1G saw an opportunity to get an elite brand name who was looking to escape an uncertain situation with the Big 12 and was able to drive a hard bargain as a result. Nebraska had nowhere else to go, no viable option.
Rutgers obviously had no other viable option, but the B1G saw an opportunity to get east coast exposure at a short and medium term discount. For Maryland, it was the mid-Atlantic exposure it coveted. But UMD also had options (staying in the ACC) so there was more of an equal footing for negotiation.
Mizzou and A&M were in a stronger position to bargain with the SEC, as the SEC clearly wanted to expand, and was looking for new markets–and A&M & Mizzou were among the best and most easily obtainable options, but both schools had stability in its conference affiliation (even if less lucrative).
But your larger implication that somehow A&M and Mizzou are more worthy or better additions or superior based on this doesn’t compute.
Remember, the article cited above also states:
“The Big Ten used the same six-year phase-in term. And all the deals attempt to hold schools harmless — that is, ensure that schools do not lose money compared with what they were receiving from their old leagues.
Because the schools were coming from different leagues, with varying levels of conference revenue, that required different hold harmless payments. It took only $14 million two years ago to hold Nebraska harmless when it left the Big 12.”
The hold-harmless payments were relative to what they were receiving in their original conference. This is the same deal either Mizzou or A&M would have gotten if joining the B1G, which at one time, was something Mizzou wanted to do very badly, and made it very clear and public. That Mizzou is now in a great situation, and possibly more lucrative one, will never change that.
LikeLike
The SEC owns almost nothing. They don’t even own their conference offices. There is nothing to “buy-in”. The SEC constitution and by-laws provide a process for how new members join and how existing members can quit. I think the SEC’s membership dues are $10 year.
In the latest round of conference realignment, the SEC wasn’t desperate to expand but A&M and the SEC have been flirting with each other since the early 90s when LSU AD Joe Dean and A&M AD (and Louisiana native) John David Crow first broached the subject when the SWC was on life support. When the Pac-16 looked imminent with the Big XII implosion as a by-product, A&M, led by Gene Stallings, wanted to go to the SEC. Then the B-12 was saved by Fox and ESPN, so A&M stayed. A year later, with the establishment of the LHN as an excuse (and the Texas legislature not in session) A&M had second thoughts about the new B-12 and wanted to join the SEC.
Sure, the SEC wanted them as they had for 20 years. But no special deal was cut for the Aggies or Mizzou for that matter. When a school is a member of the SEC, its a member of the SEC. Pass a vote by the existing members and pay your $10, and you’re in with all the rights and privileges that go along with full membership, including a full share (1/15th) of the money. The SEC office also gets a cut.
With Texas A&M in, the SEC was prepared to go with 13 members for a year or more. They didn’t want to, but were prepared to do it. When Mizzou looked like the best candidate, the PTB in Columbia did some hand-wringing, but decided to join and then wanted in without giving the B-12 much notice. That decision was theirs, not the SEC’s. Things were complicated by Ken Starr and Baylor who wanted sue everybody.
If Mizzou had said no, the SEC would have moved down the list, just like they did in the early 90s when Florida State, after 20 years of applying for SEC membership, said no, and invited South Carolina. Mizzou didn’t dictate terms to the SEC. They joined the SEC under the same terms as did Arkansas, South Carolina, and Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Wainscott, we’re basically in agreement (although you seem to think you’re disagreeing with me), except the part where you tried to claim to know what it would have taken for the B1G to have gotten Mizzou and/or A&M. There’s no way to prove that, and since the B1G didn’t actually offer either school the real answer is $0. Now if the B1G actually did want either school the answer could be anywhere from $0 to all of the money the B1G has, but it would probably end up being an offer of somewhere between what Nebraska got and what Missouri ended up getting. Both A&M and Missouri would probably agree to something in that range.
But yes, I agree, Nebraska isn’t objectively worth less than Missouri. But Nebraska to the B1G at that time was worth less than Missouri to the SEC a year later.
LikeLike
Alan, truth is the SEC could have gotten a lesser school for a lesser cut. They could have shot for Tulane or Rice or Louisville or even Clemson or Georgia Tech. Any of those schools would have agreed to terms at or below the terms that schools like TCU and Utah took.
But the SEC made the calculated decision 20 years ago and again in 2012 to pay full price for a school that best fit what they wanted. The SEC wasn’t going to get A&M or Missouri on the cheap.
LikeLike
Andy – whether the SEC could have gotten some school “on the cheap” is irrelevant. That’s not how the SEC operates and that’s not what its constitution and by-laws provide. When you’re in, you’re in and when you’re out you’re out. Based on its rules and precedent (not speculation), Mizzou got the same deal any other #14 would have received.
LikeLike
” But Nebraska to the B1G at that time was worth less than Missouri to the SEC a year later”
Worth is the wrong word. You mean to say that Nebraska was available for less than what Mizzou got from the SEC.
Using the car example, a new luxury car purchased on sale is not worth less than one purchased at sticker price. Its merely getting a better deal at the time. That the B1G was able to drive a bargain with UNL does not affect worth, it merely reflects value at the time for the conference.
Indeed, UNL had a lot of worth to the conference, as it felt that UNL + championship game would still = more money per team, so that UNL was not a net taker.
LikeLike
@Alan
So you are saying the “SEC” brand has no value?
And, of course, there are the basketball credits. SEC hasn’t been earning as many as usual the last 3 or 4 years, but its still substantial $.
Lets assume, hypothetically, that the SEC decided it HAD to get into North Carolina and Texas and Texas A&M had not been available. Do you really think Houston and East Carolina, who were earning very little, would have gotten the same deal as A&M and Missouri?
LikeLike
Alan, sure, their bylaws say they pay full price, fine, and that decision has helped them attract quality new members.
LikeLike
Wainscott, economically speaking something is only worth what you’re willing to pay for it.
LikeLike
bullet – I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that I’m saying the SEC brand has no value. I would argue that the SEC brand, if all conference contracts were up at the same time and offering the same packages, would be the most valuable brand in college sports. That has nothing to do with the way the SEC adds teams. The SEC doesn’t charge its new members for the “good will” of the brand, as a selling company may charge a buyer. There are no “franchise fees” like the professional sports associations charge. I’m taking issue with the assertion that A&M and Mizzou got sweetheart deals because the SEC was so desperate to have them. They didn’t and they weren’t.
Bringing up Houston and East Carolina are just red herrings. There is no way, the SEC ever would brought in a school like either of those.
If Mizzou had decided to stay in the Big XII, the SEC most likely would have stayed at 13 for a year or two to see if Oklahoma or an ACC team would shake loose. If not, they probably would have settled for West Virginia
LikeLike
I don’t remember what deals Arkansas and South Carolina got and I’m pretty sure Andy doesn’t really know either. But entrance fees are more common than exit fees. Not charging one is unusual, whether you are talking about the Southland Conference, the Southern Conference or the Southeast Conference.
LikeLike
Nebraska didn’t get “screwed” in their deal. In retrospect, they didn’t work a very good deal, but it looked good at the time. Its like criticizing the ACC and SEC for their TV deals when they last signed them. They were hailed as great deals at the time.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“It does seem to me NEB gets screwed in one respect…..there is nothing paid for the value NEB immediately added to the BTN by making more more attractive programming……..”
Except that they make more once they are a full owner, and that bump in value may well have been factored into the calculations for how much to pay NE each year until 2017.
LikeLike
That’s preposterous. Nothing was “calculated”. They just haggled and squeezed Nebraska for what they could get out of them.
At the time Nebraska was in a hurry to close the deal because the Big 12 was seemingly collapsing, with CU already in the Pac 10 and most of the Big 12 South headed that way too, and with Missouri and possibly others also chasing a Big Ten bid. So Nebraska eagerly low balled and grabbed the spot as quick as they could.
It wasn’t a calculation of what a fair buy in would be. It was a rush to get the sweetest deal possible.
LikeLike
Andy-
That the B1G got Nebraska without giving it a full buy in for a few years means nothing more than the B1G got a good deal for a name brand. It does not affect UNL’s worth/value overall to the conference.
LikeLike
Growth of SEC revenue sharing is remarkable. Kudos to Roy Kramer.
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/post/92787/a-look-at-how-southeastern-conference-revenue-sharing-has-grown
Other yearly money distributions, since 1992 (the year Arkansas joined the league) are as follows:
Year
Total Revenue Shared (In Millions)
2013
$289.4
2012
$244.0
2011
$219.9
2010
$209.0
2009
$132.5
2007
$122.0
2006
$116.1
2005
$110.7
2004
$108.8
2003
$101.9
2002
$95.7
2001
$78.1
2000
$73.2
1999
$68.5
1998
$61.2
1997
58.9
1996
$45.5
1995
$40.3
1994
$34.35
1993
$34.34
1992
$27.7
Source: The Southeastern Conference.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
Eh. It’s been good but not out of the ordinary compared to other sports.
Revenue in that dying sport of MLB baseball grew from $1.4B in 1994 to $7B in 2010, or 5X times.
In the same period SEC revenue grew from $34.35M to $209M, or roughly 6X times.
The NFL had revenue of $1.3B in 1990 (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/02/sports/discrepancies-in-nfl-revenue.html)
$9.5B in 2012. 7.3X over several more years.
B10 revenues are now at $315M (in 2013). Considering that league revenues must have been peanuts in the early ’90’s as well, the B10 probably grew revenues roughly as fast as the SEC over the same time period.
LikeLike
I see your point, but the SEC gets extra points for the revenue growth with a relative lack of major media centers within its geographic area (though explosive population growth does somewhat balance that out.
See: http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets — Only 5 of the top 35 tv markets are in SEC territory, and I include Houston in that. Compared to 12 of the top 35 in B1G country (not including NY/DC/Baltimore), 7 for the Pac, not counting Denver/STLake.
I also don know of the benefit of comparing pro and college leagues, as pro leagues have more teams, more economies of scale, more promotional power and the like. I’d like to see B1G’s rate of growth. Same for the Pac10/12.
LikeLike
“I see your point, but the SEC gets extra points for the revenue growth with a relative lack of major media centers within its geographic area (though explosive population growth does somewhat balance that out.”
Actually, I would posit that the lack of major media centers (and thus major urban centers) is a help, not a hindrance, as there would also be a lack of pro teams to take away interest. Plus, there’s nothing to do in the boonies except follow the local college team and roll in the hay. No spending time and money on stuff like going to concerts and clubs, etc.
There’s a reason why the flagship school in every state with close to 3M people or above without a pro franchise (with the except of MS) is at least a prince in football or basketball (and often times a king).
KS: KU is a bball king
AK: Prince in both football and bball.
IA: Prince in football
CT: UConn is a king in bball
OK (franchise is recent): OU king in football
KY: UK king in bball
SC: SC and Clemson both princes in football.
AL: A king and a prince in football in that state.
TN and NC got pro franchises recently. UT is a king in football (&prince in bball, as is Memphis). UNC and Duke are both kings in bball.
NE has less than 2M people but UNL is a king in football.
Only MS has nothing.
And yes, population growth definitely helps.
LikeLike
I see your point; however, SEC country has enough pro teams (7 NFL teams including Houston, 4 MLB) that there is some competition. While there might be less comparative competition (hence, greater share), there is also less income and still less folks overall, and less TV demand based on market (CBS does not inherently covet the Birmingham TV market). Despite this, states like Alabama are driving the revenue train to me is remarkable, especially when generating $120m plus a year. Its not all hicks in the boonies pulling that off, because they couldn’t do that by themselves. Nor could having a larger share of a small state explain that. No, Alabama’s name is well established so that it has fans everywhere. Folks in the north and west, with no ties to the area, nonetheless know Alabama/watch their games/buy stuff. Thats whats impressive to me, because its difficult for schools to get to that level. I’m sure I could word this better, but its late and an internet message board.
Also, you correctly point out the presence of Kings/Princes in smaller states, but thats also because of sustained success that made them household brands nationwide.
LikeLike
Well sure, But they go hand-in-hand.
Deep loyal support from a big enough population (3M or a little below seems to be the floor) that doesn’t have any loyalties to any pro teams often leads to success in college sports.
LikeLike
Richard – most of Mississippi’s population is no more than a two hour drive from New Orleans and the entire state of Mississippi is full of Saints fans.
LikeLike
Here’s the rate of grow from 2000->2010:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/conference_realignment_follow.html
Conference 2010 Revenue 2000 Revenue 2010 Avg. Member Payout 2000 Avg. Member Payout
Big Ten $265.1 million $85.2 million $22.9 million $7.2 million
SEC $261.0 million $94.1 million $19.5 million $6.6 million
ACC $167.2 million $82.0 million $12.3 million $8.1 million
Big 12 * $159.7 million $85.2 million $10.8 million $4.8 million
Big East $119.4 million $51.3 million $6.5 million $2.8 million
Pac-12 ** $111.8 million $58.3 million $9.4 million $5.4 million
C-USA $46.6 million $21.3 million $3.1 million $908,075
WAC $21.1 million $2.9 million $224,456 $260,587
MAC $12.3 million $2.9 million $142,708 $103,003
Mountain West $11.7 million $2.9 million $243,909 $50,315
Sun Belt $11.0 million $2.7 million $183,350 $107,798
Atlantic 10 $10.2 million $8.1 million $124,392
$331,591
Chart formatted much better in the link, but as you can see, the B10 has kept up with the SEC.
LikeLike
Alan:
Well, that may be true, but most of KS’s population is within a 2 hour drive of KC, yet they manage to support a bball king. Most (or at least half) of KY’s population is within 2 hours of Cincy, yet they manage to support 2 bball kings. Most (or at least half) of AL’s population is within 2 hours of Atlanta, yet they manage to support a football king and football prince. Most (or at least half) of SC’s population is within 2 hours of Charlotte, yet they manage to support 2 football princes. Most (or at least half) of AR’s population is within 2 hours of Memphis, yet Arkansas is a prince in both football and bball. Granted, the pro franchises in Charlotte and Memphis are new. A good chunk of CT is a suburb of NYC & the other part is Patriots territory, yet they raised a bball king (or at least prince) there. OK isn’t far from Dallas either.
LikeLike
Richard – the state Mississippi’s failure to have any sports royalty outside of baseball has nothing to do with support and more to do with being located in between Louisiana and Alabama. Mississippi is one of the best producers of football talent on a per capita basis. The Mississippi schools just don’t get to keep a lot of their elite players. Last week, the best player in Mississippi signed with LSU.
Three D-1 schools that have been somewhat indistinguishable since integration has also led to a fairly equal distribution of talent. While Louisiana may have five D-1 schools, LSU is not losing any players to the other four. Ole Miss, Miss State (and to a limited extent, So Miss) lose players to each other on a regular basis. Ole Miss and Miss State have a combined average attendance of 115,000. Ole Miss has plans to increase their stadium capacity to over 70,000, and this season Miss State’s Scott Field will seat over 60,000. Support is there, but after Bama and LSU have picked through the batch of recruits, Ole Miss and Miss State just don’t have enough to go around.
Also, the state of Mississippi’s role in the segregation movement and the symbols that still surround Ole Miss have to play a part. From 1947 to 1963, Ole Miss won 6 SEC titles, and zero since.
LikeLike
I think Andy’s problem is that when he was in Cub Scouts they would only let him be a junior member…..he’s never gotten over it.
LikeLike
“Confirms what many have always said…”
Confirms what Andy, almost alone, has always said.
There. Fixed that for you.
LikeLike
Except that it doesn’t even do that.
It is however in line with what those who aren’t butthurt over being passed over by the B1G have said…that Nebraska is buying equity in the BTN.
LikeLike
“It is what Andy says confirms what Andy, almost alone, has always said.”
This is how I should have fixed it. My bad.
LikeLike
If you think I’m the only one who has said that then you don’t get around much. Tons of people have said that.
LikeLike
The difference being WVU, TCU, and Utah are still receiving more than twice the $$ they would have received if they had stayed in their former conferences. Rutgers will also easily get double (due to poor AAC payouts) while Maryland will get more than its ACC payout, Only Nebraska took a cut from what they would have received if they had stayed in their old conference.
LikeLike
Exactly. The B1G and Big 12 screwed these teams because they could. The SEC chose not to screw their new members.
LikeLike
That is exactly true, if you never learned the skill of present-valuing an annuity stream.
LikeLike
That’s just an excuse. It was really just about setting a price that both parties were comfortable with.
The B1G didn’t feel that Nebraska was worth full price, and Nebraska was willing to join at less than full price.
The Big 12 paid more for WVU than they did for TCU. The Pac 12 gave full membership to Colorado from day one, but junior membership to Utah.
These sorts of things are flexible. If the B1G really wanted Nebraska and Nebraska demanded full membership from day 1, then Nebraska would have gotten full membership from day 1. The B1G could afford it if that’s what they really wanted.
LikeLike
To put it another way, if Notre Dame had demanded full pay from day one what are the odds that they would have gotten it?
LikeLike
You still don’t seem to understand the concept of present-valuing an annuity stream.
I don’t think, under any circumstances, Nebraska was going to receive full equity in BTN from Day One, nor should they.
The Big Ten has said, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, that Maryland also have to buy in, but on a different payment schedule. As I assume Jim Delany gets the math, I assume they are present-valued as well.
No, I don’t think ND would have been given full equity “for free”.
LikeLike
OK, well, we disagree on that because I think Notre Dame would have been given full payment from day one no questions asked just like Mizzou, Colorado, and Texas A&M, and there’s no way to prove who’s right, so I guess there’s really nothing left to argue about.
LikeLike
@Andy,
Regarding Notre Dame, I’m not certain they would get full equity from day one if there was still some years left on its NBC deal. I could see an agreement to get less than equal pay in return to not having to share the NBC money until the deal expired. But yes, this is all hypothetical and thus, cannot be conclusively proven..
LikeLike
OK, well, we disagree on that because I think Notre Dame would have been given full payment from day one no questions asked….
Even assuming that, there is a big difference between:
1) The best brand in all of college sports would have received a better deal than Nebraska; and,
2) Nebraska got screwed.
You haven’t demonstrated that Nebraska got screwed. Even Nebraska themselves, who presumably know more than we do, don’t seem to think so.
LikeLike
Does this reflect the difference between Nebraska as a brand (big-name football power) and Nebraska’s actual value (a sparsely-populated state)?
LikeLike
vp no doubt that’s part of it if you ask me.
LikeLike
My understanding was that during the buy-in period NEB would be “held harmless”, meaning that they would do no worse than had they stayed in the 12. Is that not the case?
LikeLike
The article does indeed say that there was a “hold harmless” provision in the first year, and apparently there have been adjustments afterward, though the size of those adjustments is not yet in the public domain.
Andy describes it as “getting screwed,” because he doesn’t understand basic math, but no one at UNL seems to feel that way. In fact, the article states, “Nebraska in three years is headed for a big financial score with the Big Ten,” also described (in the same article) as a “windfall”. Only in Andyland is that “getting screwed.”
LikeLike
They definitely were guaranteed they would make no less than they had been making. But clearly, they are not being guaranteed they would make the money they would have made off the new Big 12 contract (which didn’t exist at the time).
If I were Nebraska I would ask for an adjustment based on the Maryland deal and the spirit of the previous agreement.
LikeLike
Hey look, Marc, looks like I’m not the only one who gets it. Even bullet gets it. How about that?
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“My understanding was that during the buy-in period NEB would be “held harmless”, meaning that they would do no worse than had they stayed in the 12. Is that not the case?”
They are held harmless compared to the old B12 deal in place when they left. The B12 since has a new deal that pays much more, and they aren’t held harmless compared to that deal. The B10 has made upward adjustments twice in the payouts to NE as NE could show what their old deal would’ve paid them in a specific year.
LikeLike
The YES network has the Yankees contracted through 2042. The contract length was extended just before the Fox purchase, apparently a requirement of that purchase. Fox bought 49% at a $3B value, with the increase to 80% at the $3.9B value. YES also broadcasts Nets basketball and is reported to have a $200M+ annual profit.
I did not say the BTN network is not valuable, just that 90%+ of its value is in the content, not facilities. Nebraska contributed a lot of content to the BTN, but since they sold into a buyers market, Nebraska did not get compensated for that content. There is no way Notre Dame would have paid any buy-in to the BTN, and despite what some on this board believe, I doubt the B1G presidents would have lost their great white whale over this issue. If ND had become a full member of the B1G you would have heard the B1G saying the contribution of valuable content was ND’s equity contribution to the BTN, and the truth is the ND content is worth more than the current average equity of the 11 that founded the network.
LikeLike
Mack,
“I did not say the BTN network is not valuable, just that 90%+ of its value is in the content, not facilities.”
Which is true of every TV channel and entertainment company ever. What’s your point?
“Nebraska contributed a lot of content to the BTN, but since they sold into a buyers market, Nebraska did not get compensated for that content.”
They contributed no more than anyone else did, and they are getting compensated via an ownership share plus profit-sharing.
“There is no way Notre Dame would have paid any buy-in to the BTN,”
Because you say so? OSU, MI, PSU and NE all had to buy in. You don’t think they’d demand the same from ND? They’d just give them a $50M gift?
“and despite what some on this board believe, I doubt the B1G presidents would have lost their great white whale over this issue.”
If ND demanded that as a part of joining, it would be a clear signal they didn’t want to join. The B10 demands the schools share revenue equally and they start off by demanding special treatment? No.
“If ND had become a full member of the B1G you would have heard the B1G saying the contribution of valuable content was ND’s equity contribution to the BTN, and the truth is the ND content is worth more than the current average equity of the 11 that founded the network.”
The value ND would add is mostly to the ABC/ESPN deal. That’s where the valuable games go.
None of this is to say the B10 wouldn’t consider year over year BTN subscription increases once ND joined and credit ND for the value of those people above the projected growth curve. They might also credit them with any bump the B10 got from ABC or Fox (CCG). Even a deal considering the NBC contract might be considered. But the B10 wouldn’t just give ND a free ride.
LikeLike
MACK:
Obviously you have zero clue regarding equity of content. ND does not hold a candle to UM, Ohio State & PSU content. ND is a huge equity asset, but they are not greater than say a Michigan. UM is the 2nd most valuable asset of college sports and yet their expenses dwarf ND and most schools athletic budgets.
You continue to harp on a premise which is completely false! ND moves to a worthless league with virtually zero athletics equity simply to pave an easier road to championships in football. Granted, as I said, ND is a huge athletic equity asset and as a full member they bring a huge equity asset to the table. But your premise that ND’s equity asset is greater then the B1G’s original 11 who began the BTN is absolutely absurd.
LikeLike
Mack:
“The difference being WVU, TCU, and Utah are still receiving more than twice the $$ they would have received if they had stayed in their former conferences. Rutgers will also easily get double (due to poor AAC payouts) while Maryland will get more than its ACC payout, Only Nebraska took a cut from what they would have received if they had stayed in their old conference.”
UNL would not have owned a stake in a successful profitable conference channel if they had stayed in the B12. Plus, with the gigantic new TV deal that the B10 is poised to sign, UNL will likely end up making more than any school from any non-B10 conference in their first 15 years in the B10 over the same time period.
LikeLike
With the time value of money I seriously doubt they catch up to the SEC schools. And they certainly don’t catch up to Texas.
LikeLike
bullet:
I’m not sure what country/dimension you live in, but in our current one, inflation and interest rates are virtually zero. A dollar in 2012 will be worth almost the same as a dollar in 2017. Plus, starting in 2017, every B10 school will make substantially more than any non-B10 school.
LikeLike
You must be a liberal arts major Richard. That’s all I can say.
LikeLike
LOL.
By that comment, I have to say that you’re as bad a judge of people as you are at math, bullet.
OK, instead of launching potshots, why don’t you actually work out the math? Show me the figures that would have what UNL didn’t gain by being in the B10 instead of the B12 be worth more than what they will gain in the 10 years of the new TV agreement (assuming the World-Herald figures of 40-50M in 2017). And no, you can’t use 10% as the risk-free rate. You’ll have have to use the real-world risk-free rate.
LikeLike
At the last school I attended a number of economic degrees were offered through the college of liberal arts.
LikeLike
ccrider:
That’s the case at a lot of schools.
Ironically, I never actually ever picked up a liberal arts degree. A BS from an engineering school and then an MBA in finance.
LikeLike
UNL will be better off long term in the B1G, but it will not be due to “ownership” of the BTN. If the BTN were sold its value (like the YES network) will consist almost entirely of the difference between contracted payments for B1G programming and the current fair market value of that content. In effect the BTN value is the programming that UNL and other B1G members contributed. Strip the BTN of this content and it is almost worthless. Therefore, the only business justification for the $50M+ buy-in is that the current members could get it, much like an expansion fee in a pro league.
LikeLike
That’s true of the YES network and the Yankees, Mack, yet the Yankees were able to sell a share of the YES network for a hefty sum.
LikeLike
@Richard – Correct. I’m seeing quite a bit of an underestimation of the valuations of these sports networks. The payout that Fox provided the Yankees for its share of the YES Network valued YES as being worth almost twice as much more than the New York Yankees franchise itself. YES was valued at $3.9 billion under the Fox deal, while the rest of the Yankees franchise (excluding its interest in YES) was valued at $2.092 billion by Bloomberg last year. (Note that the only 3 sports teams in the world that have higher valuations than the Yankees are Real Madrid, Manchester United and FC Barcelona.) Now, that high valuation for YES might be a reflection of the current hot sports rights market and the fact that we still have widespread basic cable, but those numbers should show you that any equity interest in the BTN isn’t just chump change. Just because it’s not necessarily a liquid asset doesn’t mean that it lacks extraordinary value (i.e. privately-owned companies with restrictive covenants on sales, real estate holdings, etc.). Looking at the YES valuation and their revenue, it’s not exactly crazy to deduce that the BTN is worth well north of $1 billion (and maybe more than $2 billion or more). It shouldn’t shock people that the 11 Big Ten members that created the BTN wouldn’t be giving that away for free.
LikeLike
Alright Richard, I was wrong. You are a homer like Clay Travis instead of a financial illiterate!
A dollar today is worth a whole lot more than one 10 years from now. There’s the uncertainty factor on top of the time value of money. The CPI at the end of 2013 was 232.957 vs. 201.6 just 7 years before. 3% inflation adds up. And investors need a lot more than the CPI to justify getting their money later.
Nebraska’s decision was a good one at the time. But with perfect knowledge, they would have insisted on a better deal.
LikeLike
At the risk of winding up in the SEC? 🙂
LikeLike
The SEC could not get Texas A&M without a full payout, so there was no SEC choice there. Colorado also got a full share from the P12.
LikeLike
Yep, it has nothing to do with buy ins. It’s about how much a conference wants a school vs how much that school wants that conference.
In the case of Texas A&M, Missouri, and Colorado, the price was full membership from day one.
In the cases of Utah, TCU, West Virginia, and Nebraska, it was less than full membership.
LikeLike
Interesting Andy….so your theory is the SEC wanted Missouri more than the Big 10 wanted Nebraska or Maryland.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
So you are arguing that adding a 12th team to the B1G, which reduced each of the 11 schools equity share in the BTN from a value of $58mm to just over $53mm (by Forbes estimates) had nothing to do with Nebraska’s buy in, and another conference like the SEC would just give a new school the $53mm??
Right.
LikeLike
Seems that the B1G is rolling in money right now so yes I think they could have afforded it just fine. A few years ago they were making way less than they are now. All it would have done is slowed down their growth temporarily. But obviously they saw it as a worthy investment.
Obviously Nebraska saw it as a good deal. The B1G had options and Nebraska wanted to make sure that they were the one picked. So they took as little as they could afford to take. And as an athletic department with a fairly high revenue stream, they could afford to low ball a bit to guarantee that spot.
LikeLike
In the case of Texas A&M, Missouri, and Colorado, the price was full membership from day one.
I don’t where you are getting your info, but Colorado did not recieve a full share in its first year in the PAC 12.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/20/pac-12-revenue-soars-school-by-school-breakdown-scotts-compensation-and-more/
Stanford: $15,651,602
Oregon: $15,200,450
Washington: $13,520,128
USC: $13,464,426
UCLA: $12,753,358
Arizona State: $12,029,443
Cal: $11,595,746
Washington State: $10,564,842
Arizona: $10,562,878
Oregon State: $10,043,205
Utah: $4,079,028 (new member, partial cut)
Colorado: $3,413,697 (new member, partial cut)
LikeLike
Also, Andy you are forgetting that Colorado and WVU reduced shares came about because those schools had to take loans out from their new conferences to finance their exit penalties. The loans are being paid back in the form a reduced payout over the first few years.
LikeLike
I don’t follow the Pac 12 very closely. From what I’ve seen CU got a significantly better deal than Utah and I was under the impression that they’re basically getting full payments. If anyone has the full scoop I’d be happy to look at it.
LikeLike
Then don’t make assertions about the PAC (one school at which you have claimed to work?).
LikeLike
Andy says:
“I don’t follow the Pac 12 very closely.”
Really? Because previously, when it has suited your argument, you’ve claimed extensive knowledge of the Pac-12 innerworks and even stated that you worked for the Athletic Dept of a Pac-12 school.
LikeLike
Arch, like usual you’re full of crap. I do work for a Pac 12 school, and I do work with their athletic department (was just over there today), but I do not work for their athletic department and I certainly don’t keep track of Colorado’s TV money, and never claimed to.
LikeLike
Andy says
“I certainly don’t keep track of Colorado’s TV money, and never claimed to.”
Actually, you have claimed several times already just in the comments to this particular blog post that Colorado got a full share of Pac-12 money immediately.
How is that not claiming to keep track of Colorado’s TV money?
I expect a little better background research out of you in the future, Andrew.
LikeLike
I was actually just following along with what bullet and Mack already said before me in previous comments to this blog post. I didn’t dispute what they said and repeated it because it matches what I’ve heard elsewhere. And seeing as how nobody has proven otherwise I still feel comfortable for having said it. But I never once said that I learned anything about it through my workplace.
LikeLike
Missouri is also a junior member. I’m sure someone will hand wave it all, but Nebraska received less payout due to value accumulated prior to joining the conference, just as Missouri received less payout due to value accumulated prior to joining the conference. The level of the cut was less, due to less accumulated value, but they’re both junior members.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/01/sec_average_payout_reached_208.html
Texas A&M and Missouri received $1.4 to $1.5 million less than the next-closest SEC schools. 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.
LikeLike
greg, that’s silly. If A&M had joined on August 1st instead of July 1st it would have been even less. They were paid 100% for every day that they were members.
LikeLike
And Neb is proud owner of $53M worth of the BTN. How much does/will each school own of the ESecPN? Zero.
LikeLike
cc – the SEC operates under a different model. As I said in an earlier post, they don’t even own their office building. Also, in previous TV negotiations, the SEC’s number one priority was exposure. It appears that the B1G’s number one priority was money. Both conferences got what they wanted.
LikeLike
Alan:
I understand that, and am not suggesting anything is necessarily wrong with that. It’s like owning vs leasing a car or an apartment. Comparing initial costs is an apples and oranges comparison. Something your Missouri brethren seems to miss.
How’s the Tiger baseball team look this year?
LikeLike
cc, so what? They’re never going to sell it. They own nothing of any practical value.
The SECN will pay out just as much or more soon enough. Actual revenue it what matters, not imaginary assets you can never ever cash in on.
LikeLike
As for baseball, they’ve made the NCAA tournament 8 out of the last 10 years, so that’s pretty good. They weren’t very good last year and I don’t know if they’ll get much better. They keep getting players/ recruits drafted so that hurts. Football/Volleyball/Wrestling/Softball have all been very good this year. Basketball is on the bubble unfortunately but hopefully they finish strong. Jabari Brown is the favorite for SEC Player of the Year at the moment so at least there’s that.
LikeLike
Thanks Andy, but I was asking Alan. You know, a guy who actually pays attention to important happenings where he is.
Is Exxon or Apple or Toyota of no value other than revenue quarterlies or dividends? Are the Yankees (or Redbirds) only worth their current income?
LikeLike
I’m not really a fan of Pac 12 sports. I watch it now and then because I’m in California and I go to some of my employer’s games, but I don’t get into the minutia of the dollars and cents of what each individual athletic department is making from year to year. I’ve heard and read people talking about it the end that CU was getting a much better deal than Utah and I’ve seen no one post evidence to the contrary so I’m going to continue to assume I’m right until proven otherwise.
As for Exxon and Apple, if you own stock in those companies you can sell it. Not so with the BTN.
LikeLike
Just because schools can’t individually sell their shares in the BTN doesn’t mean there is no value to those shares. As a group they could decide to sell off all or part of the equity and make a lot of money (just like the Yankees have sold off 80% of the Yes network).
LikeLike
okay…. so you really think they’re going to end up doing that?
I guess you never know, but it seems very unlikely.
LikeLike
And as long as they don’t it’s moot.
LikeLike
“As for Exxon and Apple, if you own stock in those companies you can sell it. Not so with the BTN.”
Not the point. In the absence of sale do not Exxon and Apple still have a value?
“I’ve heard and read people talking about it the end that CU was getting a much better deal than Utah”
And a school moving from a non BCS conference getting a graduated payout as opposed to a BCS transfer (and one that had been courted for two decades) receiving aid, I believe a reduced payout year one (they moved a year early-before the new media contract began), and there was no conference owned (whole or partial) P12N yet to buy into means…what? Utah got screwed? I don’t hear any complaints.
Utah, Colorado, and UNL are all having a part of their distributions directed to equity in the conference networks. That is still a part of their distribution. It is just not in cash. CU/Utah’s conference mates also don’t have a sizeable headstart in that investment like UNL’s.
“The SECN will pay out just as much or more soon enough.”
That may be. But it is not a conference owned network. It’s just a 14x larger LHN. A great tier three contract with a dedicated channel. I look forward to it, but I don’t consider it the SEC’s Network. It is ESPN’s newest channel with a narrower than regional focus, for which they will pay the SEC.
“I don’t get into the minutia of the dollars and cents of what each individual athletic department is making from year to year.”
Then don’t state things as if you do.
LikeLike
cc, I’m still waiting for you to prove me wrong.
No, I haven’t looked at all of the numbers. If I was misled about CU getting a full share then I was wrong, but you haven’t even shown that much. Until then I’m going to keep assuming that what I read/heard was correct.
Apple stock is a liquid asset. It’s a tradable commodity that I can cash in at any time. Equity in the BTN isn’t a liquid asset. It’s highly likely that it will never be cashed in at all. Therefore for all practical purposes it’s no different from the SEC Network.
As for your talk of Utah, it reinfoces my point rather than contradicting it. Some schools are worth more than others. These deals aren’t calculated and fair “buy ins” to real equity. They’re just haggled deals, with brands being traded like commodities for what they buyer and seller agree to. Utah was a cheaper buy than Colorado.
LikeLike
“Apple stock is a liquid asset. It’s a tradable commodity that I can cash in at any time. Equity in the BTN isn’t a liquid asset. It’s highly likely that it will never be cashed in at all. Therefore for all practical purposes it’s no different from the SEC Network.”
Just like Yankees stock in the YES Network isn’t a liquid asset. Yet they managed to cash in.
Besides selling, though, owning an asset means that you collect excess profit via profit-sharing, which the BTN owners do. If there is excess profit from the SECN, that isn’t flowing to any SEC school; they won’t collect that; just whatever annual payout they negotiated with ESPN and that’s it.
LikeLike
“cc, I’m still waiting for you to prove me wrong.”
1) Don’t need to, you do that all by yourself.
2) Already did.
Pick one.
“Until then I’m going to keep assuming that what I read/heard was correct.”
That a boy. Nothing like absolute assurance in an opinion about something because : 1) you don’t follow closely and contrary evidence is overrated or denied.
Or : 2) you must be right because you work for/near/around (pick one) a PAC school and have heard things (things you don’t pay attention to).
Or : 3) you can deny the validity of differing opinions…well, because they differ from yours, say prove it but not accept that when provided.
PS: I do admire the way the Missouri FB team, coaches, etc handled the news that unfortunately I fear the NFL may not handle as well. They treated it as a non issue. The media should too, until and unless it becomes an actual issue. Perhaps we’ll be surprised and there won’t be the need to report on it hardly at all.
But media loves a story…
LikeLike
You guys are comparing apples and oranges. The expansions of the Big 10 are SEC are so different that comparisons of the way new members were added are virtually meaningless.
Although my take is that the difference in financial treatment that different conferences give different additions is explainable by the degree of risk the conference took in adding that school.
The SEC should absolutely give TAMU a full share, because that is as low risk of an addition as possible. TAMU dramatically expands the SEC’s population footprint, noticeably improves its academics, is a perfect cultural fit, has a dedicated fanbase, and usually has very competitive (if not necessarily elite) teams across a number of sports. 100% chance TAMU at least pays for itself so you aren’t losing money, and you almost certainly gain quite a bit. As far as risk goes, Mizzou isn’t that big of a risk either. Nowhere near the sure-thing that TAMU is, but not the gamble that Rutgers is either.
The Big 10 on the other hand took a few risks. Is Rutgers definitely going to pay for itself? Does Nebraska add the demographics and academics to the Big 10 that TAMU adds to the SEC? Maybe, maybe not. I happen to think that from a financial perspective at least, the Big 10 made winning bets, but they still took a gamble. You don’t pay full price when you’re taking a gamble.
The SEC also had a whole lot less to lose than the Big 10. The SEC doesn’t own anything of comparable value to the Big 10 network (and in a different way the CIC) that it would have to distribute to TAMU and Mizzou. Could the SEC lost a little bit of television revenue per year per school if TAMU and Mizzou don’t “pay for themselves”? Maybe, but that’s about the extent of their potential losses. The Big 10 further dividing ownership in the Big 10 network could be a much larger loss.
LikeLike
@Phil:
“Just because schools can’t individually sell their shares in the BTN doesn’t mean there is no value to those shares. As a group they could decide to sell off all or part of the equity and make a lot of money (just like the Yankees have sold off 80% of the Yes network).”
There might be value to those shares, but there is no open market to define said value. In those situations where something is sold in a closed business, there will be a method of valuation built in to the agreement on how to value something.
The Yankees sale of YES to Fox was done because Fox had an option to buy it at a set price as determined by a set valuation method. You, I, and 3 other commenters on this blog could not have bought the share of YES the Yankees sold.
And as a group, they probably could not sell off all or part to anyone. Fox would likely be the only permitted buyer (again, at a price determined using a specific valuation method). Though, the various governing documents of the network are not something I am privy to. But this is how these deals work in general.
LikeLike
cc, i saw a whole lot of words but still no proof. put up or shut up.
LikeLike
There’s no point in trying to discuss/engage with you. I really enjoy this forum and its participants. The exceptions are a few drop-ins who assume it is a usual “fan boy” site and move on when they realize it isn’t, and you. If refusing to form and support/debate positions on the evidence, but only on prejudiced opinion is “winning”, then you win. I concede. No one can influence a mind that is closed, and I don’t know why I tried. I knew better but engaged anyway…
I apologies to the rest of the posters for posting all these recent responses to Andy. I’ll refrain as best I can.
LikeLike
You do realize that every response you made was way less sensible and respectful than anything I said. Also, your main beef with me seems to be that I posted something without backing it up, but I was actually just repeating what bullet and Mack said right before me, and you didn’t give them grief. You just have a personal vendetta against me.
Also, you never even proved me wrong.
But I’d welcome you do do what Brian did and let your personal vendetta against me go, or at least keep it quiet. It makes you look a lot worse than it makes me look.
LikeLike
The P12 was much more severe about prior revenue than the SEC. Colorado received a full share in 2013 but Utah did not. That was also under the old TV contract and the old P12 unequal revenue sharing.
LikeLike
It is simply ludicrous to consider the fact that the B1G is not much more valuable in sports programming and makes every school more valuable. No one can expect to be given a complete share without investing into the business, that is common sense. But to consider the SEC giving a full share when the SEC owns nothing is comparing apples to oranges.
Obviously to say the ND brand is worth more than the original 11 who stared the BTN is simply not true. The U of Michigan is easily the 2nd most valuable brand in college sports behind Texas. Only anti B1G propaganda would promote such a miss truth.
RE: the B1G, the payouts will be substantially more than even the SEC’s due to value, market and demand. The BTN is a national network even when considering most must purchase sports tier programming when outside of the B1G footprint. At last viewer inventory the BTN has 80M plus viewers before moving Rutgers and UMD to the B1G. There is also a substantial international demand for B1G programming through the internet as well.
All in all, the SEC is what it is partly due to the fact the ES(ec)PN network family has pitched their future success upon the SEC which ES(ec)PN owns the network completely. While the BTN is owned by the schools/league and will forever always make more money than the SEC based upon OWNERSHIP.
RE: ND, their brand would be even more valuable if they were in the B1G, but I as so many B1G fans are sick of the ND arrogance and will look forward to their brand taking a huge hit once the ACC & ESPN face the evidence that UMD, MD Atty General and the B1G has on them which may invoke charges being file due to the RICO laws.
This will be very interesting. If these things pan out and the B1G can bring 2 or 4 valuable brands such as UVA, UNC, GT & OU. Would the B1G ever consider luring WVU if GEE can improve WVU’s academic standings? If so imagine renewing the PSU vs WVU rivalry in conference! HUGE! Then consider how the B1G could receive payouts easily approaching $75 M per school.
Consider season ending marquee matchups including the biggest in all sports being Mich vs ohio, then OU vs Neb, PSU vs WVU and MSU vs Wisky. Demand for these games would be massive alone.
LikeLike
“It is simply ludicrous to consider the fact that the B1G is not much more valuable in sports programming and makes every school more valuable”
” The U of Michigan is easily the 2nd most valuable brand in college sports behind Texas.”
Numbers? Evidence?
“. The BTN is a national network even when considering most must purchase sports tier programming when outside of the B1G footprint. ”
Really? If that’s true, why isnt the BTN in as many homes as ESPN? Oh, because this statement is completely untrue, that’s why.
“There is also a substantial international demand for B1G programming through the internet as well.”
Numbers? Evidence?
At the end of the day, in a few years, the B1G might make more money per school than the SEC, but its certainly not ludicrous to argue the SEC is close to as valuable, if not more so, than the B1G.
“Obviously to say the ND brand is worth more than the original 11 who stared the BTN is simply not true.”
Where was this said? I don’t recall seeing this.
“RE: ND, their brand would be even more valuable if they were in the B1G, but I as so many B1G fans are sick of the ND arrogance and will look forward to their brand taking a huge hit once the ACC & ESPN face the evidence that UMD, MD Atty General and the B1G has on them which may invoke charges being file due to the RICO laws.”
Don’t hold your breath for any federal RICO prosecutions/actions. Maryland does not have a state RICO statute.
“Would the B1G ever consider luring WVU if GEE can improve WVU’s academic standings?”
No. The WV tv market is useless for the BTN, and WVU is nowhere near the nationwide name brand that Nebraska is.
“If so imagine renewing the PSU vs WVU rivalry in conference! HUGE! Then consider how the B1G could receive payouts easily approaching $75 M per school.”
Best laugh I’ve had all week.
“Consider season ending marquee matchups including the biggest in all sports being Mich vs ohio, then OU vs Neb, PSU vs WVU and MSU vs Wisky. Demand for these games would be massive alone.”
UM & OSU? Absolutely. OU vs. UNL? No doubt. MSU vs. Wisky? Wisky has Minn as a rival, and those two schools/states hate each other. PSU & WVU? Not moving the dial.
But any self-described B1G fan would know the value of the Paul Bunyan Axe to Minny and Wisky. I suspect we have a new, The Dude-style commenter.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
Really? The published docs showing the value is not open for argument. If you doubt it, then you dispute the results with the authors. Oh, if I could find those ratings and figures, then surely you can as well.
Regarding B1G numbers, next yer the B1G will be receiving $35m per school minimum without expanding. Following in 16 the projections are $50M per year, fact not fiction and have been projected based upon viewer broadcast demand.
Your issue is you like many are simply anti B1G & BTN and simply cannot accept facts which are actually occurring in national demand.
Then you make a anti RICO statute. Sorry my friend, but the courts are in NC and I promise you, the B1G who has offices now in Chicago and now NY/NJ does have RICO laws and yes the FEDS are very, very interested.
Say what you will, but your acc will soon be begging to negotiate something reasonable in bringing this issue to a close, but the evidence is simply to overwhelming.
Discussing these issues with unreasonable people who actually believe their argument holds any truth is simply a waste of time.
LikeLike
Chris,
“Regarding B1G numbers, next yer the B1G will be receiving $35m per school minimum without expanding. Following in 16 the projections are $50M per year, fact not fiction and have been projected based upon viewer broadcast demand.”
No. Just no. The projection for next year is just over $30M. The first year of the new TV deals may well bump it up to $40M+ and even $50M, but that’s guesswork right now.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20130803/SPORTS020101/308030036/Purdue-football-Boilermakers-Big-Ten-Conference
Projected B10 distributions to PU:
2014 – $26.5M
2015 – $30.2M
2016 – $33.4M
2017 – $35.1M
“the B1G who has offices now in Chicago and now NY/NJ”
Wrong again. They’ve talked about getting a NYC office but don’t have one yet. maybe after RU officially joins.
“Discussing these issues with unreasonable people who actually believe their argument holds any truth is simply a waste of time.”
Yes, it really is but I was bored.
LikeLike
@Chris:
All kinds of LOL in here. To quote Al Bundy, “Let’s rock.”
“Really? The published docs showing the value is not open for argument. If you doubt it, then you dispute the results with the authors. Oh, if I could find those ratings and figures, then surely you can as well.”
No. You make a claim, you provide the evidence. You claim published documents show the value, then provide them. I will not be hunting for illusory facts and figures. Counselor, if you want to prove your case, you proffer the evidence.
“Regarding B1G numbers, next yer the B1G will be receiving $35m per school minimum without expanding. Following in 16 the projections are $50M per year, fact not fiction and have been projected based upon viewer broadcast demand.”
I read projections of $40mil per year with the next TV contract. Again, you supply the data to support your claims.
“Your issue is you like many are simply anti B1G & BTN and simply cannot accept facts which are actually occurring in national demand.”
No, I am a big B1G fan, or I would not be spending my time on a B1G message board. But the BTN, objectively, does not have the reach you claim. It is in around 52 million homes, and just recently went international. But not many Germans spend time watching their fifth cousins playing for the Wisconsin Badgers, not many Scandinavians follow the Golden Gophers.
“Then you make a anti RICO statute. Sorry my friend, but the courts are in NC and I promise you, the B1G who has offices now in Chicago and now NY/NJ does have RICO laws and yes the FEDS are very, very interested.”
Yes, because North Carolina courts will be oh-so-welcoming of a RICO case brought by Maryland against the ACC, including all major North Carolina schools. That homecooking is whty UMD countersued in…Maryland.
No. The Feds are not interested at all in getting involved with ESPN, ACC, and university disputes over conference affiliation.
The BIG’s offices in NY and DC are irrelevant in this matter.
“Say what you will, but your acc will soon be begging to negotiate something reasonable in bringing this issue to a close, but the evidence is simply to overwhelming.”
My ACC? I was heretofore unaware of any ownership stake in the ACC, Would be sweet, though.
“Discussing these issues with unreasonable people who actually believe their argument holds any truth is simply a waste of time.”
And yet, here you are on a holiday weekend.
LikeLike
@Chris: Once again, do you have links to credible outside analysis?
LikeLike
@Chris:
Still waiting for you to produce evidence to buttress your wild claims. Or were you just testing out new ideas to blather on about on your Twitter feed?
LikeLike
@Chris:
Still waiting for your proof, though I assume you have none.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s content is worth more than the average of the original 11, increasing the value of the BTN if this content was contributed vs. sold by ND to NBC. Since the BTN did not give value for the content of NE, MD, and Rutgers the buy-in is more like a fee to join the B1G vs. any real payment of the value in the BTN held by current members. Since there is no way to monetize the investment if any of the current or expansion members left the B1G, that also makes it look more like an initiation fee vs. the actual purchase of some asset. Being a member of the B1G is valuable to the new members, and is worthy of a high fee. Just saying “buying into the BTN” is not what is really happening even if it is framed that way.
As far as I can tell the B1G now has 3 separate and unequal secret “integration plans” for Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers (please post these if anyone reading this blog has them). From the limited information available it appears that Maryland got the best deal despite Nebraska having a better brand and Rutgers having more subscribers to convert to a higher BTN rate. So the BTN buy-in is lowest (including all other consideration provided when joining the B1G) for the school that contributed the least. Maryland’s advantage was that it was not as distressed a property as the other two. The B1G charged Nebraska and Rutgers more because they could get more for schools trying to escape the B12 and AAC vs. the ACC.
LikeLike
Mack,
“As far as I can tell the B1G now has 3 separate and unequal secret “integration plans” for Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers (please post these if anyone reading this blog has them). From the limited information available it appears that Maryland got the best deal despite Nebraska having a better brand and Rutgers having more subscribers to convert to a higher BTN rate.”
That’s not my understanding. Some link posted recently quotes a B10 administrator as saying all 3 will face a similar buy in. The big difference is that UMD negotiated to get more upfront and then buy in later due to their financial situation. NE had cash on hand so they chose to pay up front. We’ll have to track the payouts to each school for the next 10-15 years to be sure how it all works out.
LikeLike
Again your argument is false. Texas & Michigan’s value induvidually are much greater than that of ND. Then to include ohio, PSU, Neb and the remaining it is not close. ND is a huge brand, they will add huge value to any league. But regardless, ND is NuOT as huge as you suggest. This is simple common sense when considering actual value.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Rush
LikeLike
Actually, while I question the methodology of this survey, it lists UND as the #2 most valuable brand behind Texas: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/12/18/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-2013-texas-longhorns-cant-be-stopped/
Also, a WSJ chart based on unknown methodology also lists UND as #2 behind Texas.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579302752525141772
So, to the best extent possible, evidence suggests a school without a national title in football since the Reagan administration is slightly less valuable than the second winningiest program of the 2000’s located in one of the fastest growing and largest (and most football-crazed) states in the nation.
Yes, UND is as huge as people suggest. All other schools are valuable in part because of conference rivals and conference affiliation, whereas UND is valuable simply because of its own name, not its schedule or affiliations.
LikeLike
LikeLike
@ Frank The Tank
Frank, I am a long time reader and often but not always commenter. You owe me a keyboard! I about lost a mouthful of coca-cola when I read the “get DeLoss Dodds drunk comment and you’re in the Big 12” (I know I’m paraphrasing there a little, but that was the gist of it.
I don’t know if you recall during the crazy Big 10 expansion nuttiness that I penned a little something about the “only way Notre Dame and Texas would ever make it into the Big 10″….
With your permission, I’d like to re-run it as it seems the truth is never really that far away from really good fiction! Remember the players in this scene are someone from the University of Notre Dame whose last name rhymes with “Warbucks”, someone from the Big 10 that might be related to actress Dana Delaney, and someone from the Forty Acres who might or might not be related to actress Stephanie Powers from “Heart to Heart”
In a Dark Hole in the Wall Bar in St. Louis…..
Unknown Voice: Thanks for coming. Mr. S, Scotch and water?
Mr. S: Irish Whiskey, neat please.
Unknown Voice: Mr. P., what are you drinking?
Mr. P: Call me Bill.
Unknown Voice: Okay Bill, what’ll it be?
Bill: And by the way, I’m calling you Jim. This whole Mr. Letter of our Last Name thing is ridiculous.
Jim: Fine. Can I get you a drink?
Bill: I’ll have a beer. (Jim waves a waitress over and makes the order)
Jim: So, gentlemen, you all know why you’re here.
Mr. S: Uh, just for the record, I’m not officially here. I’m just here for the booze.
Jim: Yes, we know that Mr. S. (under his breath) Dumbass….
Mr. S: What was that?
Bill: Jim said that you’re all class, Jack.
Mr. S: DON’T SAY MY NAME!
Bill: JACK! JACK! JACK! JACK!
(There’s a commotion as Jack and Bill start to grab each other’s lapels. Jim separates and calms the two as the drinks arrive. Jack gulps his drink and immediately orders a double. Jim sips his vodka rocks as Bill takes a long pull on his draft)
Bill: All right, Jim. I’m going to put my cards on the table. We’re in if they’re in. (he nods to Jack).
Jack: I’m not here.
Jim: Shut up, (again – quietly) Dumbass….Okay. So, the state will let you make the move if A&M can come, right?
Bill: (nods) Yeah. We didn’t even have to push too hard with the legislature. They were on board with it based on the annual opportunity to pound on the two schools in front of us for all time wins. One in particular.
Jim: Michigan and present company?
Jack: I’M NOT HERE! (grabs the waitress and orders another double)
Bill: Yeah. (turns to Jack) So, what’s it going to be?
Jack: I’m in a difficult situation with a fan and alumni base that believes the college football world revolves around a golden dome in northern Indiana. We want – no, we NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR INDEPENDENCE and not tarnish ourselves in the football cesspool known as the Big 10.
Jim: But you make the decisions. You are the man in charge.
Jack: (gulping his drink) Who told you this? What makes you think I make decisions? Has he spoken to either of you? (Jim and Bill look at each other)
Jim: Has who spoken to us?
Jack: You know. (points up) “Him.” (Jim calls the waitress over and orders another Vodka and Beer)
Jack: And another double for me, thanks. (Tries to grab the waitress around the waist – she dodges the grab.)
Waitress: Is your friend okay? We don’t usually get big drinkers like that here.
Jim: He’s fine. Whiskey is like mother’s milk for him. (she walks away)
Bill: (Gives Jim a knowing look) You know, Jack. I actually did have a conversation with Him the other Sunday in Church.
Jack: (slurring) Are you serious, what did he tell you?
Bill: He said, “Join the Big 10. It’s the right thing to do.”
Jack: Seriously? Really? Oh, man! Wait till I tell Father! (Jack texts a quick note – there’s an immediate response.)
Jack: Father says you’re full of shit…no offense.
(Bill and Jim stare at Jack for a few minutes. Jack quaffs another double. Bill swipes Jack’s blackberry and starts typing under the table. He hits send and slides the device back in front of Jack after Jack tries to squeeze the waitress’ ass and cop a feel on her boob. It buzzes about 5 seconds later.)
Jack: (after looking at his blackberry and turning a little pale) I’m in. I mean, we’re in.
Jim: (glances at Bill speaks to Jack) What changed your mind?
Jack: I just got a text from “Him”. He says it’s okay.
LikeLike
Fun with colleges in all 50 states and Google autocomplete:
http://collegespun.com/features/google-autocompletes-reveal-stereotypes-for-colleges-and-their-sports-teams-across-the-nation#
This is one place where Rutgers actually wins.
LikeLike
UCLA is not diverse?
LikeLike
Somehow I think Buckeyes are poisonous was not aimed at Ohio St.
As for UCLA, I guess the perception is that its 100% Asian now.
LikeLike
34% Asian-American. 32% White. 17% Hispanic.
That seems pretty damn diverse to me. I’m not sure what percentages would lead to a more diverse student body. Do people mean “not black enough” when they say “not diverse”?
I guess to some people, “diverse” means 60% white, 35% black, and 5% other.
LikeLike
Plus 8400+ international students.
LikeLike
People really do have different definitions of diverse. In Atlanta, “diverse” is generally used for a school that is <50% White and anywhere from 25 to 100% Black.
LikeLike
@Richard – As a fellow Asian, I know what it’s like when a place isn’t considered to be diverse… yet it has a large Asian population. I live in Naperville, which often gets stereotyped as a white Chicago suburb where Stepford wives live, yet 25% of the population is minority (which is very high for a city with its high income levels). The thing is that it’s 15% Asian, 5% black and 5% Hispanic, so people see the relatively low black and Hispanic populations and label it a non-diverse city even though it’s filled with Asians (many of them first generation immigrants).
Toronto is another example. A lot of Americans that have never been there probably think of it as a Canadian white bread city (a la Strange Brew), yet it’s actually almost 50% minority. The vast majority of that minority population consists of Asians, though, so it doesn’t fit the typical American view of looking at diversity in a black/white lens.
LikeLike
Indeed. A lot of Americans seem to subconsciously bucket people in to either “white” or “black”. Maybe white/black/brown these days.
SF is another case. Canadians know how diverse Toronto is and Californians know how diverse SF is, but how many people in the rest of the US realize that Asian-Americans (mostly Cantonese) are almost half the grade school students in the San Francisco public schools now (with Hispanics making up another quarter)?
How many TV shows that are purportedly set in SF have a cast that is even close to half yellow or brown?
LikeLike
Richard – your 60/35/5 breakdown is pretty close to Louisiana’s demographic.
LikeLike
And within the Asian grouping there will be varying degrees of mix between “east/yellow” asians and south/brown/”hindu” asians, depending on the locale.
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/11/steve-spurrier-negative-recruiting-big-ten/?eref=sihp
Looking at Scout.com, there is one guy who visited Nebraska in late January, then committed to South Carolina. There is another who visited Nebraska several months ago, but who ultimately committed to South Carolina.
Judging by visits and the list of USC commits, the only B1G school a USC commit visited was Nebraska.
LikeLike
Update: it was Nebraska: http://southcarolina.247sports.com/Article/Nebraska-was-the-B1G-program-negative-recruiting-South-Carolina-178067
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24439347/as-acc-reignites-scheduling-talks-will-sec-be-on-eight-game-island-soon-
The ACC might be serious about going to 9 games, either internally or by playing the SEC.
But more than half the conference athletic directors want nine games, according to an ACC source, which means those talks will deepen the intrigue as the College Football Playoff era begins in earnest in the fall and leagues jockey for position in the national semifinal. If the SEC feels it can eschew nine gmaes based on its body of work on the football field and its ability to schedule good non-conference games, that conviction will be tested more than ever if it’s on an eight-game island.
Maybe the SEC doesn’t need to change, at least not yet. But right now the SEC still has an eight-game confidant in the ACC, which might actually need to change.
To understand why the ACC is revisiting nine games less than two years after the part-time football addition of Notre Dame stalled those talks, consider the league’s plans for an ESPN-run ACC Network.
More league games means more inventory for the network and more revenue. Schools understand this.
The ACC has targeted a 24-hour conference network for much of the last year, and it needs to give ESPN every incentive to execute it. The SEC is in a different place – the SEC Network launches in August, and all parties involved believe there’s already enough inventory to keep viewers happy.
For the ACC, nine conference games is generally seen as better programming, not to mention better gate sales. In most cases should bolster the precious strength of schedule dynamic that the playoff committee will value. The deterrent for schools is getting six home games instead of seven some years. Complicating matters is the ACC’s agreement to play Notre Dame five times a year.
The league is also looking at an “8+1” system that, according to ESPN, could include an eight-league schedule plus one game against an SEC team each year. This sounds fun but would be a beast to figure out. Four ACC teams (including Louisville) currently have permanent SEC rivals. Orchestrating 10 more such matchups would be complicated.
…
But if ACC teams are soon playing nine conference games plus Notre Dame every three years, that’s a serious haul.
LikeLike
ESPN article on this topic was posted above. FYI.
LikeLike
This story has new details and quotes and is much more focused on the ACC side of it.
LikeLike
“The ACC might be serious about going to 9 games, either internally or by playing the SEC.”
Huh?
How does an OOC game reflect on the “8 or 9” argument regarding conference games? Isn’t everybody at 12?
LikeLike
Games scheduled by the conference versus total games.
LikeLike
They are still OOC, so they would still be at 8 conference games. If the B1G/PAC alliance had stuck I doubt the PAC would be claiming 10. It would be 9 and a mandated OOC.
LikeLike
It’s just semantics: 9 games controlled by the league, rather than 8. Obviously, for purposes of conference standings, the OOC game wouldn’t count. But today, the schools have complete control over their non-conference games, and many of the schools schedule real stinkers.
LikeLike
I think the SEC will get to nine eventually. They don’t need it for competitive reasons, but they’re leaving a lot of money on the table.
LikeLike
Not necessarily.
9 conference games would be more attractive when your conference is looking to get more money from TV. However, 8 conference games allows you to schedule 8 home games some years, and for the schools that draw >80K (there are 8 of them in the SEC, or over half the conference) there’s a good amount of profit from an extra home game.
Furthermore, the SEC isn’t going to get extra TV revenues from playing 9 conference games for a while since they’re already locked in to long-term TV contracts.
LikeLike
“Furthermore, the SEC isn’t going to get extra TV revenues from playing 9 conference games for a while since they’re already locked in to long-term TV contracts.”
But need quality inventory for ESPN’s new SEC channel. We’ll see how much extra/new revenue that creates.
LikeLike
“But need quality inventory for ESPN’s new SEC channel. We’ll see how much extra/new revenue that creates.”
Not according to the article I read that talked about why the ACC wants an 8+1 format. That said that the SEC had enough inventory for the SECN. Plus, the fact that ESPN is going to launch the SECN without making the SEC change their scheduling philosophy suggests that more quality inventory is _not_ required for the SECN.
LikeLike
True, as far as we know. But it certainly wouldn’t be discouraged. We don’t know what ESPN will pay, and/or if the quality of inventory will effect that. It would have to be a consideration (wouldn’t it?), although not necessarily the final/determinative one.
Perhaps the ACC wants the SEC to benevolently help it build enough quality inventory to improve the prospects of an ACCN?
LikeLike
“Perhaps the ACC wants the SEC to benevolently help it build enough quality inventory to improve the prospects of an ACCN?”
That’s pretty much what they want.
The question, of course, is why the SEC would do that. If I squint hard enough, I could see ‘Bama, Auburn, and Tennessee agreeing to play VTech, UNC, & NCSU neutral site (in Atlanta or Bristol). However, you then have to match up Miami, BC, Pitt, SU, UVa, Duke, & Wake against A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSSU, Mizzou & Vandy.
LSU and A&M would only do a an annual HaH with Miami.
Nobody besides Vandy would want a permanent HaH with BC, Duke, and Wake. I don’t see how this would work.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10419715/acc-eyes-schedule-includes-one-sec-game-every-year
This article, posted above, mentions the possibly of a partial scheduling agreement between the 2 conferences, so that Richard’s (valid) points are dealt with (namely, not every SEC team would be forced into a game with a non-rival ACC team if its unwanted).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24436394/cowboys-classic-game-vs-florida-to-net-michigan-6-million
For those wondering what it would take to get Florida to leave the state for an out of conference game, the answer is $6 million.
LikeLike
. . . or less. UF probably will get that much, but from that contract, we just know that UM will receive $6M and UF won’t get more (or if they do, UM will get more to match).
LikeLike
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/gatorbytes/2014/02/07/florida-michigan-2017-cowboys-classic-contract-details/
ESPN will pay Florida $6 million for participating in the game within 10 business days.
LikeLike
Also of interest
ESPN has the right to cancel the game is Florida is hit with a major violation during a three-year period prior to the game.
LikeLike
Does Michigan have that clause?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/95736/where-2014-big-ten-recruits-came-from
Where did the 2014 B10 recruits come from?
1. Ohio 37
2. Florida 28
3. Illinois 27
4. Georgia 17
5. Texas 16
6. Michigan 15
7. New Jersey 13
8. Wisconsin 12
9. Maryland 10
T-10. Indiana 9
T-10. Pennsylvania 9
T-12. Minnesota 8
T-12. Virginia 8
T-14. Alabama 6
T-14. Kansas 6
16. Iowa 5
17. Missouri 4
Those are the states that produced 3 or more players. Also, UMD and RU weren’t included. Adding them in:
1. Ohio – 38
2. Florida – 35
3. Illinois – 27
4. New Jersey – 21
5. Texas – 18
6. Georgia – 17
7. Michigan – 16
8. Maryland – 15
9. Pennsylvania – 13
10. Wisconsin – 12
11. Virginia – 11
12. Indiana – 9
12. Minnesota – 9
14. Alabama – 6
14. Kansas – 6
14. Iowa – 6
15. NY +5 (don’t know if they had 0, 1 or 2 before, so they could also be #13 or tied for #14)
18. Missouri 4
LikeLike
Pennsylvania #10 with 9 recruits in the whole league? Has HS FB in PA dropped off that much, or is this just a down year?
LikeLike
http://dataomaha.com/big-ten/state/PA
From 2002-2011, PA yielded anywhere from 9-25 recruits to the 12 B10 schools with an average of 15.8 and a median of 14.5. Thus, this was probably just a bad year.
LikeLike
Well, of the top 20 in PA, the B10 (including UMD) took 7. However, VTech, Pitt, WVU, and SU took 8. Temple took 2(!)
PSU being perceived as being down has not helped. Also, while BoB definitely mined the talent-rich areas in and around PA, PA wasn’t more central to him than those other areas. In his small (17-member) 2013 class, 3 each were from NJ and VA, 1 each were from MD and DC, while 5 were from PA. Franklin says he wants to dominate the state. We’ll see.
Plus, being at the edge of the B10 with plenty of nearby programs from other conferences means that a good number of PA recruits will go elsewhere.
And, indeed, PA isn’t really a fount of football talent these days:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida
Less than half of OH and GA. Barely ahead of IL and MI (who are situated in the middle of the B10, so more players there would head to B10 schools).
LikeLike
When people look back on this recent period of conference expansion a decade from now, some some decisions will be considered home runs (SEC adding A&M), some will be considered good (B10 adding UNL), some will be considered very meh if not bad (Pac adding CU and UU; B12 adding TCU), some I’m not sure of yet (the B10’s eastward expansion) and some will be considered awful.
One decision I’m not sure will be considered awful, but has the potential to be: The ACC adding ND as a partial member. A lot will depend on how well the ACC schools accept that arrangement.
One I’m sure will be considered bad, and that was Texas deciding to spurn the Pac because they thought they could mint money with their own TV network. When the B12 GOR is close to expiration, Texas and friends (which would include TTech, & OU but not the religious schools) may head to the Pac anyway, but they would not have brought A&M with them and thus would have opened TX to the SEC (strengthened A&M & helped the SECN). They would have made TX in to something other than a pure B12 state, which is deadly as there are no other populous states in the B12 footprint anyway.
I took a look at where the Rivals top recruits in TX went in 2014 and 2011 (the last year that A&M was completely part of the B12):
Top 20 in 2011:
B12/TX schools (non-A&M): 16
A&M: 0
SEC (non-A&M): 0
Other (non-TX): 4 (3 by UNL)
Top 21-40 in 2011:
B12/TX schools (non-A&M): 13
A&M: 2
SEC (non-A&M): 2
Other (non-TX): 3 (1 by UNL)
Top 41-60 in 2011:
B12/TX schools (non-A&M): 13
A&M: 2
SEC (non-A&M): 1
Other (non-TX): 4
In 2011, TX recruiting was absolutely dominated by B12 schools (mostly Texas and OU). A&M did not have much success with top recruits. Neither did other SEC schools.
Top 20 in 2014:
B12/TX schools (non-A&M): 7
A&M: 5
SEC (non-A&M): 4
Other (non-TX): 4
Top 21-40 in 2014:
B12/TX schools (non-A&M): 9
A&M: 5
SEC (non-A&M): 1
Other (non-TX): 5
Top 41-60 in 2014:
B12/TX schools (non-A&M): 10
A&M: 2
SEC (non-A&M): 2
Other (non-TX): 5
(1 still uncommitted)
A handful of the more elite TX recruits went non-A&M SEC, but otherwise, not much impact by the SEC. A&M absolutely cleaned up, though. They went from 2 in the TX top 40 to 10 in the TX top 40.
Texas dropped from 15 of the TX top 40 to only 6 of the TX top 40. OU dropped from 6 of the TX top 40 to only 2 of the TX top 40
In total, the SEC (A&M & other) went +11 in the TX top 40 over 3 years. Texas and OU went -13 in the TX top 40 over 3 years.
In 2014, only 2 of the top 10 commits in TX went to the B12. That’s mind-boggling. That’s reminiscent of the last days of the SWC when the top TX recruits regularly started playing their football outside the SWC.
LikeLike
ACC hit a HR with the ND ‘addition’, even if its just 2.5 games for football. ACC was able to land a significant raise from the awful TV deal they agreed to, which went a long ways to curb the Big XII and B10 from raiding them in addition to solidifying the ACC’s GOR…
Hypothetically, what If ND (w/ the same agreement with the ACC; 2.5 games/year) had joined the Big XII. [Yes, I know ND had no interest in the Big XII, I’m purely talking hypothetically.] The Big XII would be extremely solid and the ACC would be thought of as the conference that’s likely to be raided when this round of GOR’s & TV contracts end.
LikeLike
One decision I’m not sure will be considered awful, but has the potential to be: The ACC adding ND as a partial member. A lot will depend on how well the ACC schools accept that arrangement.
They already DID accept that arrangement, by virtue of voting in favor of it. What do you envision them doing now, that would turn an otherwise good deal into an awful one?
I agree with @wolverine: it’s an obvious home run for them. If there’s a downside, I can’t see it.
LikeLike
It all depends on internal ACC dynamics.
The Big8 thought it hit a homerun when they merged with Texas and 3 other TX schools as well, yet the interactions in that league poisoned relationships so much that 5 of the 8 Big8 schools tried to leave the B12 (3 of them successfully doing so) while the other 3 would if they could but currently have nowhere to go.
LikeLike
The thing is, if you walk back the Big 8/SWC merger in your mind’s eye, the Big 8 is still in an extremely vulnerable position, without any large-market teams. Although the Big XII didn’t exactly work out the way everyone intended, it’s hard to see that if they’d stuck to themselves, the Big 8 would still be intact.
The ACC/ND half-merger is like that too. There’s no guarantee it will work out as well as they planned, but I don’t see a scenario where the ACC would be better off if they’d ignored ND altogether.
LikeLike
Agree completely re: the Big 8 and the SWC. Even if the 4 Texas schools had not joined the Big 8 (or whatever the technical, legal combination was), there was not going to be space for both an all-Texas league (post Arkansas) and a heartland conference without true large markets within its borders. The market would have eventually forced some sort of merger/union/expansion between the two conferences. Its fairly safe to say that had they not formed the Big 12 in the mid 90’s, something similar would have eventually taken place.
I also agree that the ACC did very weil with the UND addition, but the true test will be the implementation. The ACC obviously hopes for the incremental addition of games with UND in football, but I can foresee a situation where UND fans/alumni grow restless at the overall lack of name brands in the ACC played at the expense of traditional rivals. If there is one school with powerful alumni capable of shaping athletic policy, its UND (otherwise, it would have previously joined the B1G).
LikeLike
Like it was a HR for the BEast? Changing the “all equal” policy doesn’t present potential pitfalls?
LikeLike
The Big East had structural issues that pre-dated UND’s partial membership. Those structural issues ultimately led to its demise.
LikeLike
The Big East without Notre Dame would have had the same problems it wound up having—only worse.
With or without the Irish, the Big East was an unequal league as soon as it added football.
LikeLike
But if you are saying ND with the concessions (partial membership) is a HR for the ACC doesn’t that imply the ACC was/is in a position needing that HR? Now, if they had joined all in its an unqualified win. But they didn’t. How’s that unbalanced influence worked out for the B12-4+2? And that’s not with structural membership differences.
LikeLike
I suppose it’s all relative. You could say that ND as a full member is a home run; as a partial member, it’s a ground-rule double. Or you could say that ND as a partial member is a HR, and as a full member would’ve been a grand slam.
I agree with your premise: the fact that they made such concessions was clearly not a show of strength. But they addressed their problem with the second-strongest thing they could have done, i.e., ND as a partial member. The only stronger move would have been ND as a full member, but that required the Irish to cooperate, which they might not’ve done.
I suppose the ACC could’ve played hard ball. With the Big East collapsing, ND certainly had to move, one way or another. If neither the ACC nor the Big Ten would take them as partial members, their only choice would’ve been highly unattractive Big XII, which I believe would have taken them on those terms.
So do they take the Big XII as partial, the ACC as full, or the Big Ten as full? Or do they stay in the denuded AAC or Big East? That’s what the ACC had to weigh, as they decided to offer ND the deal they knew the Irish would take for sure, partial membership.
LikeLike
The Big East without Notre Dame would have had the same problems it wound up having—only worse.
I don’t think they would have been any worse. Unless ND was actually willing to live up to its pledge to play 3 Big East teams a year in football (which it never once did) their presence wasn’t going to make any real difference.
LikeLike
“Worse,” because ND’s partial membership in the Big East clearly had some value, even if it was at the margins. If you rewrite Big East history where ND doesn’t join, it is a less valuable league. The difference isn’t enough to alter the outcome; still, I’d say without hesitation that the BE was better off with ND (even on ND’s terms) than in the alternative universe where the Irish never joined at all.
Obviously, the BE erred in not holding ND to their 3-games-per-year football commitment (or in allowing that commitment to be so informal that it was easily violated without consequences). The ACC seems to have learned from that experience. But even if ND had played the 3 games, it wouldn’t have been enough to save the league.
LikeLike
@Marc
I still don’t see the value ND brought.
Their MBB program loses money every year (the only power conference team to do so), so without the 3 FB games I just don’t see what value they brought the Big East.
LikeLike
Whatever the value of the Big East TV MBB TV package, it had to have been worth a tad more with ND than without.
Whether the Irish themselves made money in MBB is not the issue.
LikeLike
I think we also have to look at the ACC adding ND as a defensive measure. One of the few things that could hypothetically get the true stalwarts of the ACC such as UVA and UNC to jump to the Big Ten would be if the B1G finally added ND. At the very least, ND being added to the B1G would give the conference even more enormous power compared to what it has now regardless of who else it expanded with (outside of the white whale of Texas). The ACC provided an avenue where we would be hardpressed to find any reason for ND to join the Big Ten at this point. Even if the ACC lost 5 or 6 schools to the Big Ten and/or SEC in the worst case scenario, ND would essentially just be back with most of the schools that it was with in the old Big East for basketball and other non-football sports that they had been perfectly fine with before.
So, there’s definitely value in the ACC taking ND completely off the table as an option for the Big Ten. In the past, the B1G could do some saber-rattling by merely suggesting that they could have a 16-team league with ND and the other leagues would freak out (even if it was all posturing or BS). Now, that option is gone, and with it, the realistic prospect of the Big Ten expanding to 16 in the near future is severely curbed, which further protects the ACC.
LikeLike
Whatever the value of the Big East TV MBB TV package, it had to have been worth a tad more with ND than without.
Why? They don’t have much a basketball following. If the fact they always operate in the red isn’t proof enough, then there is terrible attendance (about 5,000 a game or less than half the Big East average) should be.
LikeLike
Actually, I just checked last year’s attendance and it was up quite a bit compared to previous seasons, but it was still well below (about 25% or so) Big East average.
I just don’t see how a school with so limited of a basketball following would improve the Big East TV package enough to offset the added logistical costs having to deal with all the Irish’s non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
frug,
“Why?”
Because they are a brand near a huge market (Chicago) with lots of fans in another huge market (NYC). Is the ND brand based on FB? Sure, mostly. But that doesn’t mean they don’t bring value. Many ND FB fans will watch ND hoops, just not as fervently.
“They don’t have much a basketball following. If the fact they always operate in the red isn’t proof enough, then there is terrible attendance (about 5,000 a game or less than half the Big East average) should be.”
ND averaged 8k. In all of WI, IL and IN that’s only topped by UW-M, Marquette, UI-UC, IU and PU. For a basketball crazy region, that’s not bad.
As for the money, we all know the accountants can make the books show whatever they want. ND had $20.5M of unallocated revenue (MBB “lost” $1.5M). How do they allocate their TV money? Donations?
LikeLike
Because they are a brand near a huge market (Chicago) with lots of fans in another huge market (NYC). Is the ND brand based on FB? Sure, mostly. But that doesn’t mean they don’t bring value. Many ND FB fans will watch ND hoops, just not as fervently.
Big East basketball already had plenty of exposure in those markets. Honestly, ND basketball probably dones’t get any more attention in Chicago that Depaul.
ND averaged 8k. In all of WI, IL and IN that’s only topped by UW-M, Marquette, UI-UC, IU and PU. For a basketball crazy region, that’s not bad.
A. I don’t really get what your point.
B. Michigan, MSU, tOSU, Xavier, Cincinatti and Dayton all closer to South Bend than Madison and also get better attendance than Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Also, you can add Louisville to that list.
So basically, of the 12 power conference teams located within 4 hours of South Bend the only ones that ND outdraws are Northwestern (whose team is best known for being the only power conference team to never make the tournament) and sometimes Depaul.
Plus, they get beat by 2 mid-majors (Xavier, who is moving up, and Dayton) and sometimes a third (Butler).
LikeLike
frug,
“Big East basketball already had plenty of exposure in those markets.”
So? The ACC is the one that added them. Did they have a lot of Chicago exposure?
“Honestly, ND basketball probably dones’t get any more attention in Chicago that Depaul.”
Which is more than the ACC gets now in Chicago.
“A. I don’t really get what your point.”
You’re the one that claimed they had no following. I showed that they outdrew 10 or more D-I schools in a basketball-crazy area.
“B. Michigan, MSU, tOSU, Xavier, Cincinatti and Dayton all closer to South Bend than Madison and also get better attendance than Notre Dame.”
But they aren’t closer to Chicago, which is ND’s real home base and the market they can potentially tap for the ACC.
LikeLike
Notre Dame saved the ACC, without them the ACC was having trouble keeping Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and others from flirting with the B10, Big XII… Notre Dame is a home run if not a grand slam addition. Without them, it’s possible the ACC could’ve been plucked apart by the Big XII, B10 and SEC in the past year…
Still, it’s only a band-aid solution to the ACC’s issues. ACC is neighbored by a couple, much wealthier giants in the B10 and SEC and some of the ACC’s more valuable assets have been hitting on other conferences… Luckily for the ACC, it’s most valuable schools to it’s neighbors are the heart of the conference; North Carolina, Duke, Virginia.
The Irish won’t fully join a conference in football without a ‘seismic’ shift. Their alumni take massive amounts of pride in their silly independence. ND’s independence allows them to have a ‘national’ schedule getting exposure in the Midwest, California, Northeast, Florida, Texas and the along the Atlantic. That independence makes ND truly a ‘national’ program.
ND’s worst fear is being a mediocre Midwestern football program. Unlike fifteen years ago, I don’t see the Irish joining the B10 without some sort of major shake-up that takes away their ability to compete at the highest level.
LikeLike
@Brian
Marc and I were talking about ND’s value to the Big East not the ACC.
LikeLike
frug,
“Marc and I were talking about ND’s value to the Big East not the ACC.”
Sorry, Frank’s return to discussing the ACC confused me.
I still don’t know why you don’t think adding ND helped the BE in the Chicago and NYC markets. You can never have too much exposure in those markets. ND increased the Chicago exposure by at least 50%, and that’s big for recruiting in Chicago. It also helped draw attention in NYC with the subway fans. ND also makes the NCAA tourney often enough to not be a leech.
LikeLike
Richard,
“When people look back on this recent period of conference expansion a decade from now, some some decisions will be considered home runs (SEC adding A&M), some will be considered good (B10 adding UNL),”
While I agree that TAMU was a great add for the SEC, I think you undervalue the NE addition. Unlike the SEC, the B10 gained a CCG plus a king. If they ever get a coach who can lose fewer than 4 game per year, their value will be more apparent.
“some will be considered very meh if not bad (Pac adding CU and UU; B12 adding TCU),”
I think CO could turn out better than you think. As they get that P12 money, they can start rebuilding their AD. They were good at FB before and could be again. Utah will develop over time as well. The value of getting a CCG is significant.
TCU has to be looked at through the eyes of the B12 schools. They seemed to value the TX access more than getting the best available school. They may regret that decision long term, or maybe TCU will be a solid member.
“some I’m not sure of yet (the B10′s eastward expansion) and some will be considered awful.”
Depending how you’re measuring (on the field, money, both), the B10 ran some sizable risks.
“One decision I’m not sure will be considered awful, but has the potential to be: The ACC adding ND as a partial member. A lot will depend on how well the ACC schools accept that arrangement.”
I think the ND addition will work fine for them. Getting their hooks into ND has value, let alone the 2.5 home games vs ND each year. The 9th or 10th locked game will ruffle some feathers, but the extra money ND brought will smooth those over. Without ND, they were more likely to lose schools in the future when the GoR expires.
“One I’m sure will be considered bad, and that was Texas deciding to spurn the Pac because they thought they could mint money with their own TV network. When the B12 GOR is close to expiration, Texas and friends (which would include TTech, & OU but not the religious schools) may head to the Pac anyway, but they would not have brought A&M with them and thus would have opened TX to the SEC (strengthened A&M & helped the SECN). They would have made TX in to something other than a pure B12 state, which is deadly as there are no other populous states in the B12 footprint anyway.”
TAMU was never interested in the P12 as I recall. They might regret the LHN money grab over trying a B12N in terms of keeping the B12 together, and they might regret not heading west, but TAMU was never going west anyway.
LikeLike
I thought that A&M was going to go along for the ride west with Texas, TTech, CU, and the OK schools before Texas scuttled everything.
LikeLike
That was the Pac plan discussed with Texas, but A&M was never particularly interested. They much preferred the SEC. That’s what would have happened in 1990 if Texas had gotten the Pac invite. That’s what would have happened in 2010 if Texas accepted the Pac invite.
LikeLike
Kansas probably would have gotten that slot while A&M went east.
LikeLike
Utah sends their absolute never ending gratitude.
LikeLike
If the PAC16 happened, the SEC would look the same with A&M and MO, but it would have been RIP for the B12 after losing 9 of 12 members. That could have changed other realignments. Would the ACC have invited Syracuse and Pittsburgh without a threat from the B12 or SEC? The BE would not be much of a threat even after adding ISU, KSU, and Baylor. Besides the B12 leftover 3 , TCU and WV would likely also be in UCONN’s position if the P16 occurred.
LikeLike
re: Brian’s “While I agree that TAMU was a great add for the SEC, I think you undervalue the NE addition.”
Nebraska is a wounded and bleeding King who has won less games than even Missouri over the last 11 years, is located in a state with just 1.9 million people, has poor recruiting grounds, and doesn’t look like it will be a national power again any time soon. Also, they’re not AAU.
LikeLike
And yet, they are still considered valuable in the world of CFB.
LikeLike
King status is extremely durable. Kings can suffer a long fallow period (take it from a Michigan fan), and they are still kings. Nebraska has never been a populous state, and it has never been a great recruiting territory. None of that is new.
The fact is, Nebraska hasn’t been far off, and they have a mediocre coach. There is no reason why they can’t come back. Kings usually do.
LikeLike
2013 NCAA football attendance figures released: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2013.pdf
LikeLike
Fun article from December 1990 on the SWC conference:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-16/sports/1990350137_1_texas-tech-reunion-arena-football
LikeLike
That’s a plan I had never heard. I knew they were talking with UL, Tulane and Tulsa, but not in that type of format.
LikeLike
Are you talking about the Strong and Junior football division thing? I don’t even see how that would have worked in practice.
LikeLike
Right.
LikeLike
Honestly did not know that the B1G shares all gate revenue equally among its member schools.
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football/
LikeLike
Not all gate revenue. There’s a $1M cap (which probably was a much bigger deal when it was instituted) per game. Now with game gate revenues reaching $5M for the kings, it’s just a small tax for them.
LikeLike
Actually, topping $5M/game for the kings.
LikeLike
That plan replaced true gate sharing where Indiana, Purdue, etc. used to leave Ann Arbor and Columbus with bags of money. Michigan was the prime driver behind capping gate sharing, but the other top B10 schools did not object. Now the kings lose less than $1M. The P12 also has revenue sharing, but their caps are much lower ($200K?) so very little actually gets redistributed.
LikeLike
I look at those ticket revenue figures and I really don’t understand why Illinois is so insistent on 7 homes games. 2 neutral site games in StL against Mizzou would net more than either a HaH or 2 buy games, considering how much it costs now to get schools to come visit you.
LikeLike
It also help Mizzou satisfy an 8 plus 1 scheduling requirement (e.g. having a steady P5 rival as opposed to a 9th SEC game). MU is lucking in that its logical P5 OOC rivals (Illini, KU) are football doormats in their respective conferences.
LikeLike
USA will send its soccer team to North Korea to play a friendly before Mizzou & KU schedule each other in any sport.
LikeLike
The SEC doesn’t have a 8 plus 1 scheduling requirement. They don’t want one either. That’s the ACC.
LikeLike
Mizzou currently has a home and home with Indiana with another one with Purdue set up next. They’re looking for more, probably against Big Ten schools since the Big 12 seems to be boycotting us.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I look at those ticket revenue figures and I really don’t understand why Illinois is so insistent on 7 homes games. 2 neutral site games in StL against Mizzou would net more than either a HaH or 2 buy games, considering how much it costs now to get schools to come visit you.”
Do you have a link that shows playing MO neutral site is worth more to IL?
I’d think part of it is that home games allow for them to put their hooks into their boosters and alumni and beg for more money. Giving up 14% of those opportunities is a significant cost.
LikeLike
Illinois doesn’t sell all that many tickets to their home games anyway.
The Braggin Rights series in St. Louis had a fairly good tv deal.
Plus there’s no away game.
Seems like both teams would come out pretty well.
If any team should be against it it would be Mizzou. Mizzou sells way more home tickets than Illinois.
LikeLike
averages of 67,467 vs 45,564
Click to access 2012.pdf
LikeLike
Yeah. That Gazette link above shows that Illinois pulls in barely above $1M in ticket revenues each home game. In the last year of the Arch Rivalry (in 2010), Illinois got $1-1.3M:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/article_6742fdd9-ccd0-5e8e-96aa-ceaa0e171403.html
You can probably safely say that Illinois would pull in at least $2.5M for 2 Arch Rivalry games in StL, which would be roughly double the take of a HaH or maybe even more compared to 2 buy games (since guarantees to visiting teams are so much these days).
LikeLike
“Honestly did not know that the B1G shares all gate revenue equally among its member schools.”
They don’t. 35%, with a ceiling of $1M and a floor of $300k per game. It essentially means the kings pay $1M per year to spread to the small schools. The princes pay almost as much. The smallest schools make $1.7M.
The same concept applies to MBB.
LikeLike
I wonder what the all-in figures are. IU, Illinois, Minny (and UMD, when they join) would be paying back some of their football largess through basketball revenue sharing. Is hockey gate revenue shared? If so, then Minny would pay some back in to the pot there (and OSU would actually get some money back).
LikeLike
I believe only football and MBB are shared.
http://thegazette.com/2010/08/11/iowa-football-loses-iowa-basketball-gains-in-big-ten-revenue-sharing/
MBB shares 25%, with a ceiling of $67k and a floor of $29k per game.
These were the only numbers I could find. PSU ($248k), NW ($215k) and IA ($159k) were the only schools to benefit in MBB in 2010. OSU, MSU, WI, IL, IN, PU and MN all lost the maximum of $86.6k. That left MI to lose just a little ($15.6k).
LikeLike
Buffalo exploring a new stadium for the Bills: http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/11/buffalo-bills-new-stadium/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
I hadn’t realized the Bills regularly played in Toronto.
LikeLike
My understanding was the NFL’s long term plan was to make the Bills more of a regional team, possibly moving them to Toronto while retaining some connection to Buffalo (some combo of headquarters, practice facility, training camp, for example).
The only guarantee is that when Ralph Wilson dies, his estate will be putting the team up for sale (probably for estate tax reasons) (See: ihttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8340273/buffalo-bills-owner-ralph-wilson-returns-home-hospital).
The NFL would prefer not to have the Bills move out of the region, but they only way to prevent that is to sell to a buyer who agrees not to move the team (as Al Davis, Art Modell, and Bud Adams and others have demonstrated, the league can’t actually stop an existing owner from moving a franchise, but can get a concession not to move as part of the purchase approval process–only MLB has the power to affirmatively prevent any franchise move).
LikeLike
If NYS is serious about keeping the Bills in Western New York, that kind of kills any plans for assisting an new SU Orange open-air stadium. – oh well that’s an ACC problem (unless they become co-tenants of a larger stadium closer to Rochester).
LikeLike
Syracuse and the Bills sharing a stadium in Rochester? That’s the type of compromise where everyone loses.
LikeLike
On second thought, a Toronto NFL team may make a London team more palatable. The AFC East will become the AFC Commonwealth or AFC Passport (Jax-London swaps with Miami).
LikeLike
On paper, the Bills becoming a regional team merging Toronto and Buffalo makes sense. I know that was the intent of the “Toronto Series” deal. That turns the Bills market from arguably the weakest in the NFL from a demographic perspective into one of the strongest. Of course, it’s much easier said than done. NHL expansion into the Sun Belt made sense on paper, yet they found largely apathetic fan bases compared to the Northern markets that they vacated. At the same time, it’s just tough to attempt to dabble in a market as large as Toronto and expect to “own it” – you need to go all-in (meaning having an NFL team there permanently) or else it’s going to be difficult to get any traction. Pro sports are almost the inverse of college sports in that way. In college sports, the large flagships are generally the ones that get the most attention in major media markets despite not being actually located in them, whereas it’s not going to work to place a pro team in, say, Fort Myers, and then expect the Miami market to follow them by playing one game per year at Sun Life Stadium (or whatever the heck they’re calling that place now). (The Green Bay Packer connection to the entire state of Wisconsin is an exception, but they’re a different kind of crazy up there.)
LikeLike
Yes on paper it makes sense, but Canada does have the CFL, and the Argonauts don’t appear to draw well, are reportedly losing money annually, and are getting booted from the SkyDome. Word is the NFL would not move in to Toronto if it means killing the Argonauts (don’t want to anger football fans). Doesn’t look like Toronto will work out anytime soon.
See:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/jays-turf-argos-in-favour-of-grass-playing-surface-at-rogers-centre/article14211436/
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-55-yard-line/mlse-dance-toronto-argonauts-continues-interesting-turns-164354527.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/03/eventual-argos-sale-could-lead-nfl-to-toronto
http://www.thestar.com/sports/2013/09/27/argos_a_ticking_time_bomb_for_cfl_cox.html
LikeLike
Any NFL team in Toronto would face the same issues the Blue Jays do in attracting/retaining American players, who don’t want to live in a foreign country. Since nearly all NFL players are Americans (unlike MLB) any foreign based franchise would be at a severe competitive disadvantage.
Long term, Buffalo can’t support an NFL franchise; arguably neither can Jacksonville. But both will apparently have franchises until the mid 2020s. St. Louis, despite a supportive fanbase and an adequate stadium, seems poised to become a two time loser. Kind of a shame.
Incidentally, if both the Raiders and Chargers of the AFC West move to LA, how would the NFL likely realign its divisions to avoid having both LA based teams playing nearly identical schedules?
LikeLike
If Green Bay/Milwaukee and New Orleans can, why not Buffalo?
LikeLike
Long term demographic trends, basic economics (including competition from other cities for NFL teams) and (especially) the breadth/depth/intensity of local fan support. None of these seem favorable for the Bills whereas both the Saints and Packers have rabid, regional fan bases; in fact the Packers might as well be called the Wisconsin Packers.
LikeLike
@John O – I agree with most of what you’re saying, although MLB and NBA players aren’t against being in Toronto because it’s in a foreign country per se. Toronto almost always ranks very highly with players as a city and destination. However, the tax hit that players take by living in Canada as opposed to the US is definitely a big disadvantage – that’s really why it’s tougher for the Blue Jays and Raptors to attract free agents.
Unfortunately, it does look like the Rams are the most likely NFL team to move to LA even though others that you’ve mentioned would make more sense in a vacuum. As I’ve noted elsewhere, getting the best stadium deal is even more important than being in the best market for a pro franchise. The Rams have the flexibility to move (along with an owner that has already bought land in LA that could at least hypothetically be used for a stadium) that would be impossible for the Jaguars (who are financially handcuffed with their lease terms).
If 2 AFC teams moved to LA, the NFL would almost certainly have a swap between the conferences (i.e. send the Seahawks back to the AFC). The Byzantine TV contract rules that the NFL has about home market broadcasts are already tough enough to deal with in the NYC and Bay Area markets that have 2 teams in separate conferences. It would be impossible to have 2 teams from the same conference in the same market for that reason alone (and the NFL would want both the NFC and AFC TV packages to incorporate the LA market, anyway).
LikeLike
NU players take the next step to creating a union:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10433422/northwestern-university-players-union-attempt-gets-way-wednesday
LikeLike
Frank,
Sorry if you posted info on this already. Looks like an interesting, critical examination & some:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/chicagoland
LikeLike
Rutgers’ price of freedom: $11.5 million:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-sports/story/_/id/10445006/rutgers-pay-115-million-exit-fee-leave-aac
Also, apparently RU estimates a $200 million jump in revenue over 12 years:
LikeLike
Big 10 NC football schedules for 2014, together with a Chickenshit Index(1-10 with 10 being the most cowardly)
MD: James Madison; USF; West. Virginia; Syracuse Only 1 gimme and interesting games with WV and Syr……CI: 3
UM: App. St.; N.D.; Miami, OH; Utah……For God’s sake, please quit playing App. St……CI: 6
MSU: Jacksonville; Oregon; E. Michigan; Wyoming…..Almost a sure loss at Oregon…rest of schedule a real snoozer….CI: 6
OSU: Navy; V. Tech; Kent. St.; Cincy…..V. Tech’s a great game to play…a “name” school which is always overrated. Cincy’s interesting….CI: 6
PSU: UCF; Akron; U Mass; Temple….Why does PSU play such BORING NC schedules??…CI: 7
RU: Wash. St.; Howard; Navy; Tulane….Howard? Bad when your best game is the most boring PAC team…CI: 8
ILL: Youngstown; W. Kentucky; Washington; Tex. St…..To me, it would be far more interesting playing 2 toss-ups and 2 sure things than 3 sure things and 1 sure loss….CI: 6
LikeLike
continuing…..
IU: Indiana St.; Bowling Green; North Tx; MO……We ought to play 3 MAC teams and 1 mid-range BCS team each year. This schedule flat out sucks…….CI: 8
MINN: E. Ill.; Middle TS; TCU; San Jose St…..CI: 7
PUR: West. Mich; Central Mich; ND; South. Ill…..Major chickenshit points here. ND’s kind of a no-lose proposition as they always play up for that and ND always plays down….CI: 8
NEB: Flor. Atl.; McNeese St.; Fresno St.; Miami Fla…..CI: 8
WIS: LSU; W. Ill; Bowling Green; USF….interesting…CI: 3
LikeLike
@ mushroom – Florida Atl, at Fresno St, and Miami get an 8 from you? That isnt the toughest schedule but it is at least a 5.
LikeLike
Agree, Mike. Fresno-UNL will be worth watching a little.
Miami-UNL is very intriguing. King with everything but fertile local recruiting grounds vs. king with nothing but fertile local recruiting grounds.
LikeLike
yeah, not an 8 on the CSI.
LikeLike
“RU: Wash. St.; Howard; Navy; Tulane….Howard? Bad when your best game is the most boring PAC team…CI: 8”
Not a king or even a prince, but boring? Did you see them “Coug” their bowl game? A three touchdown lead, going in to score again, deep in the 4th and there is no reason to leave ’cause nothing has been decided. Bad maybe, but not boring. Plus it’s the beginning third year of the return of the Pirate.
LikeLike
Um, Mushroom, the B10 has 14 schools in it . . .
LikeLike
NwU: California (1-11 last year in Pac-12), Northern IL (MAC 12-2 last year), Western IL (FCS 4-8 last year) & @Notre Dame.
Iowa: Northern Iowa (FCS 7-5 last year), Ball State (MAC), Iowa State (BXII) & @Pittsburgh (ACC).
LikeLike
Your standards are a bit off. If you’re playing two P5 teams (and/or ND), how can that not be at least a 4?
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Big 10 NC football schedules for 2014, together with a Chickenshit Index(1-10 with 10 being the most cowardly)
OSU: Navy; V. Tech; Kent. St.; Cincy…..V. Tech’s a great game to play…a “name” school which is always overrated. Cincy’s interesting….CI: 6”
VT was at their peak when OSU signed them, and they’re still a solid program. Cincy was an AQ when signed and is emotionally invested in the game. The Navy game is in Baltimore (essentially a Navy home game) and the triple option is always a tough style to prepare for. It also means devoting lots of practice time on D to things that will only help against 1 team all year. Kent State is an in-state MAC team that was mediocre in the MAC last year under a new coach.
There aren’t 4 home games and there is no I-AA team. There is a prince and another AQ equivalent. I don’t see how that rates a 6.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-rules-committee-adjusts-targeting-rule-defensive
Two good rules changes coming for 2014. No more 15-yard penalty if a targeting call is overturned by replay. Also, the defense gets at least 10 seconds to substitute on every play. If the offense snaps the ball before the play clock hits 29, it’s a delay of game call. No more excuse for the Saban’s of the world to bitch even though research shows teams rarely snapped the ball before that anyway.
LikeLike
Sorry, to be clear these are proposed changes that still have to be passed. I think the targeting change is obvious to approve. Some no-huddle coaches are complaining about the 10 second rule.
LikeLike
How does this work in the last minute of a game with hurrying to the line to spike the ball?
LikeLike
It doesn’t apply in the final two minutes of either half.
LikeLike
I’d like to see the 10 second rule passed. Refs would stand over the ball until the subs were lined up. Not sure how likely it is to pass. The B1G team that it would affect the most would Indiana. Would likely really hurt the mid-major schools that run a lot spread when they face Power 5 level competition.
LikeLike
The proposed 10-second rule has me puzzled. If fast-pace teams rarely snap the ball before the play clock hits 29, then what exactly is the problem? All it seems to do, is to enshrine in the rule book what is already happening anyway.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – It’s a perplexing rule change proposal. If the offense wants to snap the ball as soon as the play clock starts, then let them. It shouldn’t matter whether it’s in the last 2 minutes of the half/game or not. This sounds more like sour grapes from coaches that can’t handle the faster pace of offenses today. Even though I personally don’t care for these wide open spread offenses, coaches should be allowed to run them without artificial restraints from others that don’t want to (or can’t) adjust. I hope that this proposal dies a quick death on principle.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“It’s a perplexing rule change proposal. If the offense wants to snap the ball as soon as the play clock starts, then let them. It shouldn’t matter whether it’s in the last 2 minutes of the half/game or not. This sounds more like sour grapes from coaches that can’t handle the faster pace of offenses today.”
Actually, I like this idea. Get rid of the stupid run up and snap QB sneak play that really should be an illegal motion penalty every time. The D literally can’t get set because the ref is in the way and then the snap happens before he’s clear the D can get in position. Other than a spike, no play should be allowed to happen when the D doesn’t have a reasonable chance to be set.
I also like the D having a chance to sub on any play. This should reduce the number of fake injuries and stop the complaints from the coaches. Their research shows this won’t impact the O very much, so why get upset about it?
“Even though I personally don’t care for these wide open spread offenses, coaches should be allowed to run them without artificial restraints from others that don’t want to (or can’t) adjust.”
Every rule in football is an artificial restraint.
LikeLike
I disagree. The complaint that might be legit is when a team goes and lines up quickly, and then looks to the sideline (may be 10 or 20 seconds for the play to come in. But if the D tries to sub a hot call can happen to take advantage of out of position players and/or draw a flag. Basically they are huddling in a ready to play position and play can be selected from the booth by coaches knowing defensive personnel and probable package/strategy being deployed in advance. Perhaps a 10 second rule if there is any sideline to field communication by the offense. Trust your coaching/game prep and the QB to run/call the fast offense on their own. Like they use to do for most of the game…(I’m getting old. Many don’t realize that’s how it was for a long time)
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I disagree. The complaint that might be legit is when a team goes and lines up quickly, and then looks to the sideline (may be 10 or 20 seconds for the play to come in. But if the D tries to sub a hot call can happen to take advantage of out of position players and/or draw a flag. Basically they are huddling in a ready to play position and play can be selected from the booth by coaches knowing defensive personnel and probable package/strategy being deployed in advance. Perhaps a 10 second rule if there is any sideline to field communication by the offense.”
How do you determine that? Coaches are always yelling things at the players. Do they have to be silent? Or is the number of heads turned towards the sideline?
I understand your premise, but how do they write it so there aren’t giant loopholes?
The reason I like the rule is that their own research shows it won’t really change much except the one play I think should be illegal anyway. If that’s enough to shut up the complaining coaches, it’s a small price to pay.
LikeLike
I think they should apply this to basketball. It’s not fair to make a team sprint back to defend a fast break…
(Sarcasm)
The best thing about the hurry up is that it reduces the celebrations after making a play that you should be expected to.
LikeLike
And it tends to encourage teams to have smaller players. Its harder to keep moving a 350 lb body. And that can’t really be healthy.
There was a time there was limited substitution. Its kind of silly to NEED to substitute so much on defense when offense isn’t changing players.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There was a time there was limited substitution. Its kind of silly to NEED to substitute so much on defense when offense isn’t changing players.”
Except that defense is purely reactive while offense is known in advance. That means playing D is more tiring play for play, especially for DBs chasing WRs around. Don’t forget that DL go 4 on 5 all game, too.
LikeLike
I’m with bullet. Didn’t the defense have to chase receivers and DL play 3 or 4 on 5 during limited sub era?
Go back to one sub per half. Then O and D tire equally. 🙂
LikeLike
There used to be lots of things. But it’s silly to act like defense isn’t more physically demanding. The less you let them sub, the more it will drive every team to run these ridiculous fast pace offenses. Or, everybody will just start faking an injury on D every play so they can sub freely. Neither of those are desirable outcomes to me.
LikeLike
Why is fast paced ridiculous?
Why do you need to spend 25 seconds in the huddle?
LikeLike
I heard a radio interview with an AA full back from the ’60s about a year ago. He was asked about Oregon’s fast pace and he was unimpressed. He was in a full house T offense that once had a 99 play game. He said they risked running stadium stairs if they weren’t snapping in 15 secs. Fast pace isn’t new, it’s just Sabin bitched.
Get your players in shape. Don’t expect the game to change because you feel that you need to make situational subs. Or use a time out, if it’ that important.
As I said elsewhere I don’t have a problem if communication with the bench was banned once the offense is arrayed at the line of scrimmage.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Why is fast paced ridiculous?”
Because the intent is to be unsportsmanlike on every play by snapping before the D gets set. It’s not about running their offense as well as they can. This is why teams start faking injuries on D, and that’s detrimental to the game.
“Why do you need to spend 25 seconds in the huddle?”
Yes, because that’s the only other choice compared to snapping in under 10 seconds.
LikeLike
“Because the intent is to be unsportsmanlike on every play by snapping before the D gets set.”
No. The intent is to snap it within the rules. It isn’t the offenses responsibility to make sure their opponent is as prepared as they are within the rules.
“This is why teams start faking injuries on D,”
Which is unsportsmanlike, and teams have been repremanded by their conferences when exposed. But it is difficult for a ref to decide whether an injury actually occurred, so the defenses are the ones currently using unsportsmanlike strategies. Perhaps if an injured player wasn’t allowed to return for 5 or 10 snaps? No penalty – just “player safety” precaution.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“No. The intent is to snap it within the rules.”
I said unsportsmanlike, not illegal.
“It isn’t the offenses responsibility to make sure their opponent is as prepared as they are within the rules.”
Intentionally taking advantage of loopholes in the rules, ref positioning, etc is unsportsmanlike.
“Which is unsportsmanlike, and teams have been repremanded by their conferences when exposed.”
Too bad. If the O wants to use the rules to their advantage, then so should the D. A player should cramp up on every play all game long. It’s not illegal. As long as they play within the rules, everything is fine, right?
LikeLike
“I said unsportsmanlike, not illegal.”
Unsportsmanlike is illegal in FB. It has been penalized forever, although not as often or as consistently as I’d like. We wouldn’t have to have specified taunting, excessive celebration, removing helmet as unsportsmanlike actions to be penalized. If quick play is unsportsmanlike (lunacy, in my opinion) and not a strategy allowed within the rules then a new rule is unnecessary. It would fall within existing rules.
“If the O wants to use the rules to their advantage, then so should the D.”
Until a new rule change comes both are playing within the rules.
“A player should cramp up on every play all game long. It’s not illegal. As long as they play within the rules, everything is fine, right?”
If a player cramps during a play we don’t we don’t have a stoppage, or a do over. Rugby, soccer, other sports are played for a time with a team a man down. Subbing isn’t prevented in FB during hurried play, only that no more than 11 are on the field during action. Less isn’t a penalty.
FB isn’t, and shouldn’t become even more like chess than it already has.
The most unsportsmanlike occurrences (in my opinion) is super rich programs scheduling/playing schools with vastly inferior resources. Should we require them to be halted until the lesser can get in the same income area code?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Unsportsmanlike is illegal in FB.”
Only a very small fraction of unsportsmanlike behavior meets the definition for that penalty and you know it.
“Until a new rule change comes both are playing within the rules.”
I never said they weren’t.
LikeLike
“Only a very small fraction of unsportsmanlike behavior meets the definition for that penalty and you know it.”
I do know many things have been flagged unsportsmanlike, but never trying to play fast enough to discomfort your opponent and their strategy and plans. I’m not the one suggesting it needed to be stopped in part on unsportsmanlike grounds, in spite of many decades of its use.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I do know many things have been flagged unsportsmanlike, but never trying to play fast enough to discomfort your opponent and their strategy and plans.”
I never said it had, nor did I say that the FB definition of the word matches the common English usage of it.
“I’m not the one suggesting it needed to be stopped in part on unsportsmanlike grounds, in spite of many decades of its use.”
1. Neither did I. I just called the behavior unsportsmanlike.
2. No, it hasn’t. Show me proof of decades of regularly snapping the ball in less than 10 seconds which is all this rule prevents. Even the fastest offenses today rarely achieve it. That means the rule will largely do two things – stop the quicksnap QB sneak play which uses the refs positioning against the D, and stop them from huddling at the LOS and looking over to the sideline to call the play as a way to prevent defensive substitutions. I’m not trying to prevent a fast tempo, just assure the D of a fair chance to substitute players.
LikeLike
“1. Neither did I. I just called the behavior unsportsmanlike.”
We differ on that.
How do you feel about hockey goals scored during a line change? The hidden ball trick, or intentional walks in baseball? Or an auto race won because one car was just efficient enough it needed fewer pit stops?
“Even the fastest offenses today rarely achieve it.”
Then a change is unnecessary as it doesn’t address a (nonexistent) problem.
“That means the rule will largely do two things – stop the quicksnap QB sneak play which uses the refs positioning against the D,”
That’s an issue with when the ref says ready to play, not a ten second issue.
” and stop them from huddling at the LOS and looking over to the sideline to call the play as a way to prevent defensive substitutions.”
How? They’ll simply make and relay the call in the remaining 30 secs, and get a look at the new defensive package first.
Didn’t take you to be such a Saban/Bielema disciple.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“We differ on that.”
Fine.
“How do you feel about hockey goals scored during a line change?”
No problem. Hockey is a continuous game.
“The hidden ball trick,”
Unsportsmanlike, especially at lower levels like little league. A pro that falls for it deserves it.
“or intentional walks in baseball?”
A waste of time. They should be able to just tell the ump to send the guy to first.
The baseball equivalent would be more like pitching while the batter is still digging into the box. It’s a cheap way to try to get something for free.
“Or an auto race won because one car was just efficient enough it needed fewer pit stops?”
Boring, but racing is also a continuous sport. Playing games on the restart is probably a better comparison.
“Then a change is unnecessary as it doesn’t address a (nonexistent) problem.”
Exactly the opposite. The change is good because it has almost no effect on the offense. What it does is give the D certainty on whether or not they can sub before a play. The threat of being able to snap the ball at any time is what prevents the D from subbing (11 on 10 is an easy way to gain yards). Since they aren’t actually intending to snap that early anyway, waiting 10 seconds isn’t a problem for the O.
“That’s an issue with when the ref says ready to play, not a ten second issue.”
But this rule change fixes it regardless.
” and stop them from huddling at the LOS and looking over to the sideline to call the play as a way to prevent defensive substitutions.”
“How? They’ll simply make and relay the call in the remaining 30 secs, and get a look at the new defensive package first.”
You ignored the last clause. “[A]s a way to prevent defensive substitutions” was vital to my point. I don’t care if they can do it after the D got a chance to sub. That’s just a coaching battle.
LikeLike
The only thing that is unfair is the ability to communicate with the bench while in a ready to play formation, as you said, because of the potential to go hot. Basically the coaches become virtual on field participants. Prohibit bench to field communication when at the line. If the coach trusts the QB to run the speed offense it’s 11 on 11.
The teams I have followed don’t use the hurry up, and this proposed rule would maybe help them. But it’s just not something I can support. It’s like “we can’t stop it so lets limit it”. And yet allow it in the final minutes of the halves? Shouldn’t the rules of a game apply for the whole game? It’s like the running/restart clock on OOB to speed the NFL game up because of TV’s concerns over time.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“The only thing that is unfair is the ability to communicate with the bench while in a ready to play formation,”
We disagree on what is fair/unfair.
“But it’s just not something I can support. It’s like “we can’t stop it so lets limit it”.”
No, it isn’t. That’s the whole point. Baylor could run their offense essentially unchanged by this rule. Teams rarely choose to snap the ball that early, so they aren’t being punished. And as a bonus for the O, any time a sub is slow coming in is a chance to play 11 on 10.
“And yet allow it in the final minutes of the halves? Shouldn’t the rules of a game apply for the whole game? It’s like the running/restart clock on OOB to speed the NFL game up because of TV’s concerns over time.”
The rules shouldn’t change, but they do. The NFL is even worse about it. Part of it is that seconds aren’t as important early in the half as they are in the last 2 minutes.
LikeLike
“Part of it is that seconds aren’t as important early in the half as they are in the last 2 minutes.”
But points from early are worth the same whenever they occurred, and speed may allow for scoring early, and/or by testing conditioning influence scoring later.
As you said it may not change much noticeable to fans. But it is effectively giving a 10 second timeout to the defense after every play. Kinda decreases the value/importance of using or conserving the currently allowed number of TO’s. To me this is further insinuating coaches into actual game action, rather than coaches preparing the players to be ready to adjust and react while they (the players) play the game.
We’ll see whether this one gets rubber stamped. There seems a lot of resistance.
LikeLike
Personally, I believe that multiple men in motion should be allowed again.
Bring back the Notre Dame Box!
LikeLike
The problem is that rarely isn’t never, and coaches want a chance to substitute. The point of mentioning that it rarely happens is to tell offensive coaches this won’t hurt you too much. It also helps because there were times when the offense substituted and the D wasn’t allowed to make their substitutions to match last year. Now the D coaches know they can make subs on any play as long as they’re ready to go.
If this is all it takes to shut up the coaches, then it’s a price well paid.
LikeLike
The defense is allowed to sub if the offense does.
LikeLike
They’re supposed to be, but the refs miss it sometimes.
LikeLike
That’s the refs’ fault, not the rulebook.
One of rugby’s positive features is that everybody has to run most of the game, so no one can be a huge lug with no endurance. As someone else said, smaller players should lead to less force in collisions, which has got to help when it comes to collisions & concussions.
LikeLike
Brian:
Did you see it this year? I saw more stoppages when the offense hadn’t substituted, just to make sure they hadn’t. That’s why the ref seems to be over the ball (and almost in the way) for near every snap, especially when a fast pace team is playing. I don’t recall seeing a defense not allowed to sub. But I did see many not sub even when the offense did. But, of course, I easily could have missed a mistake even in the games I saw.
LikeLike
Richard,
“That’s the refs’ fault, not the rulebook.”
Yes, but the rulebook might be the only fix to it. Refs are human and are going to miss things, and the other team could really suffer from not being allowed to sub when they should.
“One of rugby’s positive features is that everybody has to run most of the game, so no one can be a huge lug with no endurance. As someone else said, smaller players should lead to less force in collisions, which has got to help when it comes to collisions & concussions.”
I saw a show (Sports Science or something like that) that claimed rugby hits are just as hard as NFL hits because they don’t have pads to spread the force.
Besides, I see zero movement towards smaller players. I just see teams starting to fake injuries on D.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Did you see it this year?”
I did, but as you say it is relatively rare.
“I saw more stoppages when the offense hadn’t substituted, just to make sure they hadn’t.”
I agree, they err this way more often. Didn’t that happen to IA in their bowl?
If you make it consistent on every play, you can eliminate both sets of errors.
LikeLike
Apparently Saban and Bielema both support the 10-second rule proposal.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10453325/nick-saban-bret-bielema-backed-committee-proposal-slow-rule
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/13/ncaa-football-playing-rules-pace-of-play-delay-of-game/5439509/
An explanation of how the proposed rule change came to be.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if has been posted here before but an interesting article about the fan loyalty for college teams as opposed to minor league teams:
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2014/february/why-college-sports-prevail-over-minor-leagues-brands-matter.html
Excerpt:
With so much cash flowing into college sports and so little protection afforded to the athletes who help produce all that cash — bear in mind the NCAA claims zero responsibility for brain trauma suffered by college football players — it’s no surprise that college athletes would take it upon themselves to organize. It also begs the question: just why is so much money flowing into college football and basketball?
The short answer: millions of fans are watching.
Right. So why are they watching?
Is it because the schools at the top college conferences get the best players? Sure, that’s part of it. Wouldn’t it stand to reason, then, that fans of football and basketball would watch those players play in professional leagues, where the players are getting paid for their work?
Here’s where we get to the heart of the problem. The American sporting landscape is littered with failed attempts at starting alternative professional leagues for football and basketball. The World Football League? The United States Football League? The XFL? The United Football League? They all failed within five years of their launch.
Minor league basketball has had a bit more traction — the Continental Basketball Association survived for decades as an NBA minor league before finally folding in 2009 — but it doesn’t come close to outdrawing big-time college basketball. Go to any NBA D-League game, and you’ll be lucky to find a few thousand fans in the stands. More importantly, you won’t find the top high school prospects at those games. Jabari Parker gets more attention playing for Duke than he would playing for, say, the Fort Wayne Mad Ants.
This is where we begin to understand the status quo. What we have here is an issue of branding. Minor league football and basketball have no traction in America, because fans have declared their loyalty to the brands of college football and basketball teams. College football, in particular, has a century’s worth of rich history in America. College students attach themselves to their schools’ teams, remain attached through adulthood, and spread those attachments to children and other family members. You can’t sell the Omaha Nighthawks to an army of die-hard Cornhuskers fans. They’ve spent decades engrossed in the University of Nebraska’s football team and all of its traditions. Supporting a group of guys trying to play their way into the NFL is not enough. These people demand Nebraska football.
LikeLike
Comcast is set to buy Time Warner. That changes the landscape somewhat.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting, for sure. Maybe this will finally give NBCSN some kind of boost, but they’re really going to have to get bigger sports for that thing to take off. I wouldn’t be too thrilled with this move if I was at ESPN, though. One less idiot in the room to drive up prices for their wares. But, wow, I didn’t realize that many people still had cable. 22 million at Comcast, 11 million at Time Warner, plus whatever the others have. I thought satellite and the telecoms had a bigger share. Ooh, here’s a fun chart:
http://www.ncta.com/industry-data/item/217
LikeLike
@Jake – The impetus behind this deal is why ESPN and Fox, despite their on-air barbs with each other, have been working a lot together on the business side. Disney and Rupert Murdoch don’t have any love for one another, but they both hate Comcast much more. Neither of them can let Comcast get casual fan traction with NBCSN or else they’ll have massive leverage in carriage fee negotiations (i.e. Comcast would argue that it doesn’t need to pay for other sports networks if NBCSN has top tier properties). So, it’s an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” relationship.
For the Big Ten, the impact of this deal could be positive or negative depending upon the circumstances. This is generally a good thing for the first tier rights negotiations because it will likely make ESPN and Fox even more motivated to work together to provide the Big Ten with a deal that goes far beyond what they offered the Pac-12 and Big 12 in order to keep those games away from NBCSN. The possible negative is that Comcast will have a lot more leverage in future BTN negotiations (and to be sure, that’s going to be the case for all cable channels that aren’t owned by Comcast).
LikeLike
I thought Comcast signed a consent decree with DOJ when purchasing NBC that it cannot favor its own networks to other’s detriment.
LikeLike
@Jake – Also, remember that if you live in a highly dense urban area (and particularly apartments), you’re much more likely to have cable instead of satellite (and in many cases, you don’t have a choice). That’s why you see cable penetration being very high in the Northeastern markets. There are very few satellite customers in a place like Manhattan.
Of course, my less-than-satisfactory experience with Comcast when I lived in apartments ensured that I was going to sign up for DirecTV as soon as I got a house in the suburbs. I’ve ended up getting Comcast for broadband service only (mainly because I tried every other option and they simply weren’t fast enough), but I’m keeping DirecTV for satellite as long as exists.
LikeLike
I had Time Warner Cable before I switched to Verizon FiOS. TWC internet service is not bad, especially when living in an urban area. Hopefully, Comcast ends up adopting TWC technology for its services everywhere.
LikeLike
TWC internet is not that bad, but only when compared to carrier pigeons.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, as a long-time apartment dweller, I’m well aware of the limitations of satellite. I have Uverse; I figured AT&T and Verizon had made greater inroads.
Of course, if not for baseball, I wouldn’t have any TV service at all. Stupid MLB black out rules.
LikeLike
Holy crap. Thats a pretty big deal. I didnt know that. I wonder what this will do to my cable/internet bill. Frankly, I care about that way more than how that will affect NBCSN, ESPN, the Big Ten, the ACC, etc.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh – In theory, your cable/Internet bill shouldn’t be affected too much because Comcast and Time Warner actually don’t compete head-to-head in that many markets. Of course, that’s just in theory. In practicality, we all know that it will trigger some type of increase in your bill for some random reason. For instance, Time Warner committed literally billions of dollars to the Lakers and Dodgers to create 2 new sports networks in LA. I’ll have to find the article that analyzed this, but the amount of subscriber fees from the LA market that would be required to get those 2 networks to be in the black is massive. I wouldn’t be shocked if Comcast customers across the country end up subsidizing that a bit.
LikeLike
@Michael:
Doesn’t TWC own North Carolina in terms of cable? Is there any non-TWC cable company in NC?
LikeLike
TWC is pretty dominant, but there are other services in the state. I hear Comcast and Charter advertisements on the radio quite a bit. I don’t know whether they’re for resdents of Durham, Cary, Fayetteville or someone else, but they’re for someone not too far from here. My in-laws in Hendersonville, 30 minutes south of Asheville in western North Carolina, have Mediacom.
LikeLike
I believe both companies have minority stakes in SNY as well. Then there are those other regional cable networks they have across the country. It could be possible that the merger could be a prelude to buying out the Mets’ stake in SNY, although nothing is definite at this point.
It does add a wrinkle to the negotiations with BTN. Should the deal go through, Comcast would be getting some prime property in Los Angeles and Manhattan. Unless BTN strikes a new deal with TWC before the merger is completed, it could turn more complicated for them.
LikeLike
Yes, both TWC and Comcast (through NBCUniversial) own a combined 35%.of SNY. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703512404576208490857245246)
Also, an informative link to the various orders and agreements in the Comcast/NBC deal: http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/nbcuniversal-transaction
LikeLike
I was wondering about the antitrust angle since a combined Comcast/TWC would serve about a third of all pay TV subscribers. Here’s a blurb from the AP article.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/comcast-confirms-45b-time-warner-cable-deal-114213346.html
“Instead, Comcast now plans to divest 3 million pay TV subscribers after the deal closes. With 22 million of its own pay TV customers and Time Warner Cable’s 11.2 million, the combined entity will end up with about 30 million subscribers when the deal is complete, a level believed not to trigger the concern of antitrust authorities. A formal cap was dissolved years ago by regulators, but divesting subscribers could help the deal get approved more quickly.
Comcast is taking the position that because Comcast and Time Warner Cable don’t serve overlapping markets, their combination won’t reduce competition for consumers. Comcast operates mainly in the northeast including its home base of Philadelphia and places such as Boston, Washington and Chicago. Time Warner Cable has strongholds around its headquarters in New York as well as Los Angeles, Dallas and Milwaukee.
In many of those areas, the combined Comcast/Time Warner Cable will face competition from rivals AT&T and Verizon, which provide both pay TV services and Internet hookups. Both AT&T and Verizon are growing quickly. They ended 2013 with 5.5 million and 5.3 million pay TV subscribers, respectively.”
Here’s the breakdown of providers by type from Jake’s link below, if the Comcast/TWC deal goes through.
34.2 mm – Comcast/TWC
34.0mm – Satellite (Direct TV/Dish)
9.2mm – Telephone (Verizon/AT&T)
16.1mm – Cable companies with over 1mm subscribers
3.1mm – Cable companies under 1mm subscribers
96.6mm total pay TV subscriptions
LikeLike
Verizon gets an * because they have stopped laying down new fiber optic cables outside of completing its NYC build out. They are largely content with what the currently serve.
LikeLike
97ish million seems about consistent with these projections:
http://paidcontent.org/2013/01/11/pay-tv-will-shrink-for-first-time-in-history-study-says-cable-watching-peaked-in-2012/
We have reached Peak Cable. Such a frightening age we live in.
LikeLike
http://www.jconline.com/article/20130803/SPORTS020101/308030036/Purdue-football-Boilermakers-Big-Ten-Conference
This is a little old, but interesting.
Projected B10 distributions to PU:
2014 – $26.5M
2015 – $30.2M
2016 – $33.4M
2017 – $35.1M
In 2012, the network — which is owned by the league and Fox Cable Networks — generated a profit share for the first time, meaning all startup costs had been recouped. Those shares were scheduled to be distributed to conference members, but Burke said the league is shifting the money elsewhere for now.
“Turns out they’re going to need that money in the short term for Maryland and Rutgers,” he said. “That money got embargoed.”
…
Projections are just that, but the aforementioned $35 million per-school figure may pale in comparison to what each school will receive once the league’s next television contract is finalized.
“The ’16-’17 year is an important mark because that coincides with the end of our current television agreement with CBS, Fox and ESPN,” Traviolia said.
“Those numbers are very accurate, and we wouldn’t expect any significant variance from those. Going forward, how we do in the next round of television negotiations will determine where those numbers go.”
There are also charts breaking down the money by source (TV, NCAA, bowls, CCG, etc).
LikeLike
http://www.saturdaymorningtailgate.com/2013/01/16/projections-of-sec-revenues-in-2014-15-34-million-per-institution/
Here’s an SEC fan projection for 2014-5 as a comparison: $34M.
LikeLike
B1G ticket price comparison chart is quite interesting (scroll tot he bottom):
http://www.laketheposts.com/2014/02/07/go-eastside-cats-fans/
Factoring in the required annual contribution, Illinois is 3X more expensive for comparable seats at UM. Not something I would have guessed. (Yes, I know that Illinois’ recent expansion has to be paid for, but still that’s quite the gap.)
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Factoring in the required annual contribution, Illinois is 3X more expensive for comparable seats at UM. Not something I would have guessed. (Yes, I know that Illinois’ recent expansion has to be paid for, but still that’s quite the gap.)”
Why do I get the feeling there’s some other way that MI makes up that difference, it just didn’t make the chart?
Also: WOOO!!!!! We’re #1.
LikeLike
Here’s a link to download the latest version of the Nielsen Sports Media Report:
http://bit.ly/1gbbokU
The college conference rankings are basically the same as the report that I had posted a couple of years ago (with Notre Dame included separately for football):
FOOTBALL VIEWERS
1. SEC
2. Big Ten
3. ACC
4. Big 12
5. Notre Dame
6. Pac-12
BASKETBALL VIEWERS
1. Big Ten
2. ACC
3. SEC
4. Big 12
5. Big East (“old” version with Syracuse, Pitt, etc.)
6. Pac-12
It’s another indicator that the Big Ten is likely going to break the bank with its next TV contract with it ranking so high in both of the major revenue sports. This also shows that the ACC’s TV contract is undervalued compared to their fairly high viewership numbers (including football), the Big 12 contract is about right, and the Pac-12 contract is overvalued.
I highly recommend downloading the entire report since it goes in-depth about the demographics, TV ratings and even Twitter mention info for all of the major sports (pro and college). The main thing that college conferences have to be wary of is that their viewership for both football and basketball skews very old with a lot of viewers over 55 – it’s in line with golf and MLB. In contrast, the NBA and NHL skew very young with a lot of under 34 viewers (which matters greatly for advertisers since they pay the most for the age 18-34 demo by far).
LikeLike
What’s the context of the numbers, meaning whats the gap between the conferences?
LikeLike
The numbers are for the top 10 games for each conference:
FOOTBALL
1. SEC – 9.7 million viewers
2. Big Ten – 7 million
3. ACC – 5.3 million
4. Big 12 – 4.2 million
5. Notre Dame – 4 million
6. Pac-12 – 3.9 million
BASKETBALL
1. Big Ten – 3 million
2. ACC – 2.5 million
3. SEC – 2 million
4. Big 12 – 1.9 million
5. Big East – 1.9 million
6. Pac-12 – .98 million
So, the SEC is very clearly at the top for football, with the Big Ten a clear #2 and the ACC a clear #3. The Big 12, Notre Dame and Pac-12 are all packed quite tightly together. (Note that this still shows ND’s power even during a “meh” season with their average, which includes games against the likes of Temple and Navy, is being line with the top 10 games of the year for the Big 12 and Pac-12.)
For basketball, the Big Ten is a clear #1, the ACC is a clear #2, and then the SEC, Big 12 and old Big East are right next to each other. The Pac-12 is very weak here with half of the ratings of the SEC/Big 12/Big East tier.
LikeLike
Adding the two sports (for convenience):
1) SEC: 11.7 million
2) B1G: 10 million
3) ACC: 7.8 million
4) B12: 6.1 million
5) P12 4.88 million
6) ND 4 million (football only)
7) BE 1.9 million (MBB only)
The Pac 12 woefully underperforms overall, and with the presence of major media markets and all major cities in and west of the Rockies (save for Las Vegas). Is it scheduling or overall lack of interest, or both?
Also this bolsters Frank’s view (in which I concur) that if the B1G ever left the warm embrace of ESPN, the network would simply turn its gaze to the ACC and begin pumping it up and promoting it big time to fill any scheduling voids. ACC had presence and pull in enough markets to compete and top the B1G with ESPN’s full promotional might behind it.
Those who think UND is not a special/unique case in CFB should look at this and reassess their viewpoint. No other school could outdraw an entire conference like UND (for it a school could, they would have already tried to mimic what UND has).
LikeLike
This is described as the top 10 games. So you are comparing the top 10 of all the conferences to 100% of Notre Dame’s. The ACC wouldn’t have gotten more money for Notre Dame if anyone seriously believed the ACC average was higher than Notre Dame.
The Big 12 and Pac 12 reflect the “Fox” effect for any of you anxious to abandon ESPN. On another report, the only Fox game in the top 25 this season was the Big 10 championship game.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
“The Pac 12 woefully underperforms overall, and with the presence of major media markets and all major cities in and west of the Rockies (save for Las Vegas).”
I’ve mentioned before that having major media markets is not really a help and probably a hindrance when it comes to fan support of colleage teams. Major media markets means plenty of pro teams. Casual and t-shirt fans would generally support those instead of the local college team that they have no affiliations with.
LikeLike
Excellent point about the Fox effect.
And when you consider the Pac12 includes 9 of the top 33 tv markets within its footprint, (so excluding Las Vegas), it is a remarkable underperformance. Or, you could say, tremendous opportunity for long term growth.
LikeLike
@Richard:
“I’ve mentioned before that having major media markets is not really a help and probably a hindrance when it comes to fan support of colleage teams. Major media markets means plenty of pro teams. Casual and t-shirt fans would generally support those instead of the local college team that they have no affiliations with.”
I don’t agree with that, but I see where your coming from. The B1G’s recent expansion is a good example. You want major media markets within your borders because that’s where more people/viewers are. Even if you get less of a percentage of viewers in an area, it will trump having a higher share of viewers in a lesser market, mainly because of the potential to reach more casual fans. The die hards will watch their teams regardless.
If having major media markets were not a help and probably a hinderance, then the old Big 8 would have been a far more viable conference, having 2 football kings, 1 basketball king, 2/3 princes (Okie State, Colo, Mizzou) and two lesser teams (KSU, ISU). But it wasn’t
And its not just media markets, but several of them in different areas for balance. Otherwise, the SWC would have survived, too.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 woefully underperforms overall, and with the presence of major media markets and all major cities in and west of the Rockies (save for Las Vegas). Is it scheduling or overall lack of interest, or both?
It’s a number of factors. The geography works to their disadvantage: their night games start at 11pm on the east coast.
They are short on kings and princes. On the list of all-time football wins, their highest-ranked schools are USC (13th), Washington (29th) and Colorado (30th). USC has been going through a tough period (due to sanctions), and the other two haven’t been good for years.
It’s similar in basketball: they currently have just one team ranked in the top-25 (Arizona). UCLA is a king historically, but for the last six seasons they’ve been mediocre.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
I didn’t say that population didn’t help. I said that major media markets don’t help. For example, the Pac and SEC footprints before the recent expansion by both had a similar amount of population, yet the SEC led the Pac in both football and bball viewership despite having less big media markets.
LikeLike
Those who think UND is not a special/unique case in CFB should look at this and reassess their viewpoint. No other school could outdraw an entire conference like UND (for it a school could, they would have already tried to mimic what UND has).
Actually, that’s not true at all.
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/4/5173376/sec-college-football-tv-ratings-2014-texas-am-missouri
Alabama, TAMU, UGA, LSU and tOSU all averaged higher viewership than ND last year.
LikeLike
But major media markets are by definition either regional or national population centers. The number of people in an area is the sole criteria for defining a media market. The more people, the higher the market.
And as Marc and others have pointed out, the Pac has its own set of issues that make comparisons with the SEC fall flat, even if the populations are the same. For starters, more SEC teams are national brands, transcending regional boundaries to attract viewers. Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tenn., and others all have fans nationwide, which is not the case for Pac schools. Also, the SEC has 6 of the last 7 BCS national titles, whereas only USC has a BCS title to its name, and only Washington and USC have won national titles in the last like 40 years. Also, Pac games are scheduled at odd time for east coast viewers, whereas SEC games are in traditional afternoon or prime time slots. That plays a big role as well.
That the SEC schools have rabid fans in its territory is very good, but its not the sole explanation for having more viewers. Success, scheduling, promoting games, and name brand schools are critical, too.
LikeLike
@Frug:
Fair enough, I’ll revise my statement to say that no national network would give UND-like contract to any other school, even if UND is not the highest rated team year in, year out. Even with no national titles since the start of the NBC deal, UND is still performing well enough to keep its deal with NBC.
Though, if I delved into the numbers more deeply, I’m sure I could illustrate that those higher ratings were through being in the championship hunt, watching a popular heisman trophy winner, aided by ESPN promotional power–and that’s assuming those numbers exclude conference championship games (which would also boost average ratings higher because of the stakes involved).
But yes, you did rebut what I said, so I have to revise it in the face of facts.
LikeLike
…you did rebut what I said, so I have to revise it in the face of facts.
He didn’t, really. Although other schools out-draw Notre Dame, they all do so within a conference structure. Notre Dame is the only one that achieves it without that structure.
I think your premise is accurate, which is that if other schools could replicate what Notre Dame has, someone would’ve done it by now.
LikeLike
Colorado did win an MNC, the year before Washington. But they have fallen so far the last 10 years, they aren’t much of a draw.
LikeLike
Yes, but as a member of the Big 8, and I was respond to a point made referring to before the recent round of expansion.
LikeLike
I think your premise is accurate, which is that if other schools could replicate what Notre Dame has, someone would’ve done it by now.
I’m not really sure that is true either.
Texas had the option of going independent in both 2010 and 2011 but ruled it out because of the effects it would have on their non-FB sports.
Alos, even if ‘Bama, LSU, UGA and/or tOSU were offered an ND style deal they still wouldn’t leave the SEC/Big Ten.
What makes ND unique isn’t its ability to pull off independence; the thing that makes them unique is that they have both the ability and desire.
LikeLike
And the avid (almost irrational) continuous truely national support whether in a down decade or not. No one else has that to the same extent.
LikeLike
“…and the Pac-12 contract is overvalued.”
Or that the others are undervalued?
LikeLike
Actually, the ACC is getting paid now. ESPN has found excuses to pay up to keep members of that league happy.
If you just add together the average viewers of the top 10 football and top 10 bball games for each conference, this is what you get:
SEC: 9.7M + 2M = 11.7M
B10: 7M + 3M = 10M
ACC: 5.3M + 2.5M = 7.8M
B12: 4.2M + 1.9M = 6.1M
Pac: 3.9M + 1M = 4.9M
If the B12 is fairly paid, the Pac is slightly overpaid, the ACC is slightly underpaid, the SEC is way underpaid, and the B10 will receive a windfall soon.
LikeLike
However, there are many more bball games (though they’re not much watched by many people). Still, it probably makes sense to weigh the bball games by 1.5:
SEC: 9.7M + 2M*1.5 = 12.5M
B10: 7M + 3M*1.5 = 11.5M
ACC: 5.3M + 2.5M*1.5 = 9M
B12: 4.2M + 1.9M*1.5 = 7.1M
Pac: 3.9M + 1M*1.5 = 5.4M
No matter how you dice it, the SEC and B10 should make more than twice what the Pac does. The ACC should make close to twice what the Pac does. The B12 is in between the ACC and Pac.
LikeLike
More games doesn’t necessarily mean a bonus though. ESPN doesn’t really care about raw number of viewers they get (they could put on a lesser conference or Sportcenter and still get a decent number of viewers), but how many they get over other available options.
Lot of variables so hard to say how that would work, but let’s say that Sportscenter averages 1 million viewers. They an ACC basketball get the network an 1.5 million viewers and ACC football gets another 4.3 million. So rather than being a little over twice as valuable (just from those variables), it’s actually closer to 3x.
Again you aren’t really just comparing two things at a time so it’s more complicated, but I think those football games are actually worth a lot more than the same number of viewers watching basketball.
LikeLike
@Eric – This is true. Even further, there’s an extra premium attached to larger audiences where it rises exponentially. 2 separate games with audiences of 3 million viewers each are worth less than 1 game with 6 million viewers. An ad on that 6 million viewer game is worth 3, 4 or even 5 times more than an ad for the 3 million viewer game (and the rights fees for them would be raised accordingly).
LikeLike
This debunks the theory that the ACC isn’t worth much because of its pretty woeful performance on the field in the past decade. It’s all about viewership, not wins, and the ACC has good viewership.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I highly recommend downloading the entire report”
I would if they didn’t demand so much info. They don’t need to know all that.
“The main thing that college conferences have to be wary of is that their viewership for both football and basketball skews very old with a lot of viewers over 55 – it’s in line with golf and MLB.”
Yes, because of the baby boomers. As they die off, the numbers will correct somewhat.
LikeLike
Make info up. But I didn’t get it to download anyway. Didn’t work.
LikeLike
http://www.thedailygopher.com/2014/2/13/5405582/TCF-Bank-Stadium-beer-Vikings-improvements-board-of-regents-gopher-football-university-of-minnesota
A look at the changes at TCF Bank for the Vikings.
Some things of note for us:
2. Scope of Project:
The scope of the project is driven by the needs of the Vikings to satisfy certain requirements of the National Football League (NFL) as well as the need to operate the stadium into December and possibly January of each season. The stadium was designed originally to be operated through the end of November. Areas of the stadium will require winterization to protect systems from freezing and potentially damaging the building.
That’s one reason home semifinals weren’t going to happen. Not every stadium is available for use in December.
The project scope includes:
…
• Installation of a field heating system.
Again, these northern stadiums can be dangerous for the players in December.
There’s also a long discussion of the beer sales.
LikeLike
I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that if there was even a remote possibility of playing December games, the Gophers would have put heating coils in to begin with. And as it turns out, starting this year, they’ll have them after all! Problem solved!
LikeLike
And, they’ll have ’em for free! Best of both worlds.
LikeLike
Fabian,
“I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that if there was even a remote possibility of playing December games, the Gophers would have put heating coils in to begin with.”
So are you saying they’ll never be good again or that they knew the presidents would never allow December home games for northern schools?
And remember, it was much more than just the field. The whole building had winterization issues (frozen pipe concerns, etc).
“And as it turns out, starting this year, they’ll have them after all! Problem solved!”
So now every northern team just needs an NFL team to move in and fix everything for them. I’m sure that’s right around the corner for everyone.
LikeLike
“And remember, it was much more than just the field. The whole building had winterization issues (frozen pipe concerns, etc).”
Then again, schools in !-AA, II, and III are all potentially hosts for home football games in December, and most do so without heated fields (an NFL requirement). Building winterization would not be that a big of a deal if necessary.
For Minny, the total price tag is $6.64 million, and that includes the new artificial turf (that’s easy to paint/strip paint from) field heating system (about $3 million), construction of temporary bleachers/removal of existing plants, additional camera platforms (NFL TV requirement), additional storage space, and removal of the easily painted turf, removal of temp bleachers in 2017, and replanting the shrubbery where the temp bleachers will be. See: http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/245294301.html and the article posted above on this topic.
While I cannot find a specific line item for the winterization elements, it cannot be that much (maybe half a million) its an expense that would be easily recouped if not specifically budgeted for in annual maintenance.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Then again, schools in !-AA, II, and III are all potentially hosts for home football games in December, and most do so without heated fields (an NFL requirement).”
With the concussion concern, frozen fields will become a player safety issue. Have you watched some of those December games at schools like Montana? It’s ridiculous. Players are dressed like polar explorers and basically skate around the field.
“Building winterization would not be that a big of a deal if necessary.”
The bigger the building and the more amenities it has, the bigger the issue and cost.
“While I cannot find a specific line item for the winterization elements, it cannot be that much (maybe half a million) its an expense that would be easily recouped if not specifically budgeted for in annual maintenance.”
TCF is a basically brand new building, though. It may be a little tougher for a 70+ year old stadium built to very different building codes.
And all of this for a bunch of schools that may never use the capability. Do you think the southern schools would agree to use TV money up front to retrofit all the northern stadiums before splitting the money equally? To top it off, the southern schools don’t want to play there and the rich corporate fans don’t want to be there either.
LikeLike
“With the concussion concern, frozen fields will become a player safety issue. Have you watched some of those December games at schools like Montana? It’s ridiculous. Players are dressed like polar explorers and basically skate around the field.”
I think you mean that concussion concerns SHOULD become a safety issue. But with the push for playoffs only meaning that the number of games in a season will increase, I don’t think the evidence supports anything more than lip service by the PTB on this matter. Certainly not when more TV dollars are at stake. But you are correct in that outdoor games in the cold is an increased concussion risk.
As for winterizing a stadium, if there is a payoff to be had, schools will do it. Michigan did it for the Big House. If Colombus sought and got a Winter Classic at home, I’m sure the NHL and OSU would gladly work to winterize Ohio Stadium. Same idea would apply for a possible home winter playoff game.
“And all of this for a bunch of schools that may never use the capability. Do you think the southern schools would agree to use TV money up front to retrofit all the northern stadiums before splitting the money equally? To top it off, the southern schools don’t want to play there and the rich corporate fans don’t want to be there either”
I would expect this would be a burden borne by individual schools/stadiums as the cost of doing business. Each stadium is different. It’s money that could be found in maintenance budgets.
The cost of winterization is low enough that Michigan did it for a college hockey game vs Michigan State. A home playoff football game would generate far more revenue that that college hockey game.
See: http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=24462
Also, interesting article that pegs the cost of whats apparently called de-winterization at $700k for TCF: http://blog.pennlive.com/bobflounders/2010/12/a_cold_hard_fact_winterizing_a.html
The PSU one is interesting for the idea that while its a big, time-consuming, and costly process, if the revenue is there, it would likely be done. PSU’s main challenge to getting a Winter Classic would be that large enough modern NFL stadiums exist in both Philly and Pittsburgh, giving it tougher competition that, say, Michigan Stadium, Ohio Stadium, and the like.
LikeLike
Michigan, with its enormous budget and its iconic stadium, could afford the costs of winterizing the Big House, as they’ll recoup that investment over a period of years. Not every northern school has the budget or the potential returns to justify that.
LikeLike
Winterization (or de-winterization) is something any school will do if there is a profit to be had. We’re not exactly talking about a $10 mil capital program here.The penn live article I linked to details the process as simply re-assembling the building’s plumbing and turning on the water. Depending on man power, this can be done on very short notice.
Again, no one’s talking about putting in heated turf. I’m talking only about the winterization of the stadium. That’s not really an investment as much as a one time charge that would gladly be incurred if a profit could be had.
LikeLike
The key words are, “where there’s a profit to be had.” At the garden-variety Midwestern school (lacking an iconic stadium), there is no reason to do it.
LikeLike
Totally agree. Issue is that hosting a first round home CFB playoff game is such an event where profit is to be had.
I dunno if, for example, IU’s Memorial Stadium is winterized. But if IU was good in CFB and hosting a first round game CFB playoff game, that stadium’s getting winterized.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Totally agree. Issue is that hosting a first round home CFB playoff game is such an event where profit is to be had.
I dunno if, for example, IU’s Memorial Stadium is winterized. But if IU was good in CFB and hosting a first round game CFB playoff game, that stadium’s getting winterized.”
They’d get very little notice. They’d have to have a plan in place and workers ready. And that still doesn’t fix a frozen field.
LikeLike
“They’d get very little notice. They’d have to have a plan in place and workers ready. And that still doesn’t fix a frozen field.”
So? You think a lack of notice will stop them? TCF Bank did it in 4 days and with 17 inches of snow when the Metrodome roof deflated. IU has a professional staff to manage facilities and if told they have X amount of time to get something done, they’d get it done.
As for the frozen field, unfortunately I think few of the PTB actually care about that very much.
LikeLike
As for the frozen field, unfortunately I think few of the PTB actually care about that very much.
The other conferences definitely care. The Big Ten proposed campus sites for semi-finals, and found very little support. Florida State doesn’t want to play a semi-final in an ice storm.
LikeLike
“The Big Ten proposed campus sites for semi-finals, and found very little support. Florida State doesn’t want to play a semi-final in an ice storm.”
1) Was addressing a cold/frozen field, not an ice storm.
2) Southern conferences rejected that in the context of a 4 team playoff, not an 8/16/32 playoff.
3) In other divisions (FCS, II, III), southern teams do occasionally travel north to play CFB playoff games. They manage. Montana has hosted Appalachian St. and Stephen F. Austin in playoff games. If that’s the system, that’s the system.
My Bottom Line: If there is an 8 team playoff, I believe the first round will be on campus, hosted by the higher seed, and could mean games in the cold. Host schools will happily dewinterize a stadium to host such a game, and would do so regardless of how much advance notice (probably a week or to after a conference title game, so plenty of time). Stadium maintenance folks have much more difficult tasks than de-winterizing a stadium. If CFB PTB truly cared about the concussion on frozen turf issue, then no team, regardless of NCAA division, would host a game with temperatures below a defined degree. But if a freak polar vortex descended on the midwest over Thanksgiving, that OSU- Michigan game is still being played, no matter how cold it is at Ohio Stadium, and no matter how frozen the field is.
Fabian below hit the nail on the head. Schools won’t winterize unless they have to, but if they have to, they’ll do it happily.
We can agree to disagree on these points.
LikeLike
“The Big Ten proposed campus sites for semi-finals, and found very little support. Florida State doesn’t want to play a semi-final in an ice storm.”
1) Was addressing a cold/frozen field, not an ice storm.
The ice storm was just a randomly-selected northern weather event that a southern school wouldn’t want to play in. They wouldn’t want to play on a frozen field either.
2) Southern conferences rejected that in the context of a 4 team playoff, not an 8/16/32 playoff.
I see no reason to doubt that they would have the same concern if the playoff size was 8 teams.
3) In other divisions (FCS, II, III), southern teams do occasionally travel north to play CFB playoff games. They manage. Montana has hosted Appalachian St. and Stephen F. Austin in playoff games. If that’s the system, that’s the system.
True, but there is no substantial market for lower-division football games at neutral sites, so they have no choice. FBS does have a choice. Assuming they go to eight at all, I agree with Frank that the traditional bowls are overwhelmingly more likely to host the quarter-finals; indeed, I have trouble imagining any other way it could turn out.
If there is an 8 team playoff, I believe the first round will be on campus, hosted by the higher seed, and could mean games in the cold. . . . We can agree to disagree on these points.
We sure can, but you haven’t really offered any reason for your view, except to state that if schools needed to winterize their stadiums, they would. Even granting that, what else have you got?
LikeLike
“The ice storm was just a randomly-selected northern weather event that a southern school wouldn’t want to play in. They wouldn’t want to play on a frozen field either.”
Maybe so, but I think southern schools would focus on possibility of hosting the playoff game themselves and less on the chance of one cold weather game.
“True, but there is no substantial market for lower-division football games at neutral sites, so they have no choice. FBS does have a choice. Assuming they go to eight at all, I agree with Frank that the traditional bowls are overwhelmingly more likely to host the quarter-finals; indeed, I have trouble imagining any other way it could turn out.”
Its unknown if there is a market for three additional neutral site games. We assume there is, and there likely would be in the short term, but the viability of three neutral site games is no guarantee in an age of overall stagnant/declining attendance at sporting events based on price and increasing quality of home viewing technology. This debate was hashed out at length on one of the prior posts.
“We sure can, but you haven’t really offered any reason for your view, except to state that if schools needed to winterize their stadiums, they would. Even granting that, what else have you got?”
I outlined my views in comments in one of the previous FtT threads. Winterizing isnt a reason or non reason. it focuses on benefit for fans (less travel to neutral site games/expenses incurred therein, potential for TV ratings bonanza with games on or around Christmas, not extending season into two semesters, familiar system to presidents because its what exists for all other levels of NCAA football competition, utilizes some New Years Day bowl games the same way they will be starting this coming season (as de facto semi final games). Negative to my idea is impact on broader bowl system/disruption of existing lucrative relationships/nobody likes drastic change, potential Southern opposition to cold weather games, potential for home game at small stadium (say, Boise State hosts a game in a 30k-ish stadium).
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I still firmly believe that whatever size playoff that we have, all of the games will end up at neutral sites – there are just too many corporate interests that would want it that way. That being said, if there were to be on-campus games, the better argument for them from a financial standpoint would be the reverse of what you propose in terms of the progression. That is, the quarterfinals would use the bowls as I’ve noted previously (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta) and be played on or around New Year’s Day but then the semifinals get played on-campus. That ensures that the playoff isn’t taking away 4 top-level teams away from the bowl system (which is what would occur if you had on-campus quarterfinals) along with leaving little or no time to allow fans to plan for holiday traveling (which is critical for the bowls). There’s also a side benefit that a conference champ’s reward is a trip to Pasadena/Miami/et. al as opposed to a road game to Tuscaloosa. (No offense intended toward the Bama fans here. I love Champaign, but I wouldn’t begrudge a Pac-12 fan getting pissed if they got sent there for a playoff game. Indeed, one purely superficial issue with taking the first round of playoffs away from the bowls is that these elite teams will end up getting sent to worse locations in terms of attractiveness than the worse teams in their own conferences that are getting sent to lower-level bowls in Orlando, Tampa, San Diego, etc.)
The semifinals would then be played on-campus at the sites of the top 2 remaining seeds. That provides some extra incentive to play well during the regular for the very top teams. This would also alleviate the issue of having fans needing to travel to too many neutral site games, but not rob half of the 8 playoff teams of the bowl experience in the first round. Psychologically and financially, this also creates a bit of buffer: a fan can go to a bowl game during New Year’s, come home for the semifinal game a week or two later, and then travel again for the national championship game a week or two after that. My guess is that the ticket sales for all rounds would be better – you wouldn’t have as many fans just waiting out and not buying bowl tickets with that setup (whereas back-to-back neutral site games would very likely depress the ticket sales of the first neutral site game).
I’m just throwing that against the wall since I just thought of it (or maybe someone else has already suggested it and I’ve completely forgot about it). It still seems less likely than just having all neutral site games, but that setup seems to be an easier sell to me because it truly preserves the bowl system (which simply matters a heck of a lot to the powers that be).
LikeLike
As far as the quarter-finals go, Frank nailed it. There are too many entrenched interests for it not to be the traditional bowls.
For the semis, all it would take is for the southern schools to believe they can sell two more football games at neutral sites, and as long as they’re persuaded of that, they would not risk having to play in (say) Madison in January.
LikeLike
@Frank:
Thanks for your reply. My response:
1) I think you overestimate the attachment of the PTB to the bowl system as a whole. Unquestionably, the B1G and Pac12 are absolutely attached to the Rose Bowl. But Teddy Greenstein reported that had the SEC and B12 had their way, the semifinals would have been bid out like the championship game, solely because it would generate more money (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-25/sports/chi-source-sec-big-12-wanted-playoff-games-outside-bowl-system-20120625_1_pac-12-bowl-system-rose-bowl). This coming from a conference (SEC) with a historic tie to its own prestigious bowl (Sugar), and another with many teams with ties to the Orange Bowl. So other than the Rose Bowl, I don’t sense the same level of attachment vs. the increase in revenue. Stewart Mandel reported it was closer than we think that on campus semifinals took hold, and other columnists have voiced support for the concept (http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/05/01/Colleges/BCS.aspx) Also, remember the SEC considered replacing the Sugar Bowl with the Champions Bowl.
2)My issue with your original proposal is more on the idea of the CFB season stretching so far into January. One of the impacts of a season going well into January is on recruiting. Nick Saban famously said the BCS title game vs. LSU “That damn game cost me a week of recruiting,” Granted, playing that late is definitely good for attracting recruits, but certainly games in late January would pose issues. Also the obvious impact on the academic calendar, extending football games into the spring semester and away from its traditional timing.
Also, Mike Slive was quoted when the coming system was adopted talking about the value of celebrating the spectacle of college football in late December and early January (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/04/27/bcs-takes-big-step-toward-college-football-playoff/). This article is also interesting for identifying the Pac12 as also supporting of on campus playoff games.
3) Your proposal on this thread I think poses its own challenges. For starters, what’s the climate difference playing in late December in Ann Arbor vs. early/mid January. If southern schools will oppose home playoff games, they’ll oppose all of them. Also, the Semifinal games would be more valuable if part of the bowl system than mere quarterfinals, which lacks the real pull of a game with more significance. The Rose Bowl now is billed as a celebration/vacation. Changing that to semifinal reduces the game significantly (even making it a semifinal does that, but the coming system does just that.
4) I will say I like that your proposal does take into consideration the burden that three consecutive neutral site games would have on fans. But I think a better reward for high ranked teams is hosting a playoff game and rotating the semifinals around the bowls/bidding them out, and a neutral site title game. I agree with you on the value of wanting to reward players/fans with a trip to the warm weather, but beyond 4 teams, that does not seem plausible to me.
I will also concede that your proposal does make it easier on fans who want to travel to the quarterfinals than mine does by having semifinals one week after the quarters.
Now, as a funny aside, your original proposal is very similar to the one in 2008 by the UGA president at the time, who proposed an 8 team playoff. The differences are he had all neutral site games, a shortened CFB season to 11 games (not happening), and games on three consecutive January Saturdays (not happening because of NFL playoffs). But that proposal has largely been forgotten (at least for now, anyways).
The bottom line to me is that quarterfinals for bowl games weakens bowls by giving them the least valuable games and stretches CFB well past its natural timeframe, something that present-day leaders recommitted to doing after the BCS madness of random early January games. To me, that seems to lead to having the quarters in December, around christmastime (not a problematic time frame as evidenced by the numerous lesser bowls from Dec 20-27). I genuinely do not believe most presidents would be willing to stretch in to late January.
Don’t take it from me, take it from Dennis Dodd: “2. Scheduling. It’s a real concern because the college presidents aren’t going to allow any more second-semester football” (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24399700/eightteam-playoff-makes-more-sense-but-is-it-worth-the-complications) Also, with expanded NFL playoffs, and the possibility of Friday and Monday night games, that knocks out a whole weekend for any CFB games (No chance any CFB game ever goes up against a NFL playoff game.)
LikeLike
This is all moot because we won’t see an 8-school playoff anytime soon, and we won’t see an 8-school playoff anytime soon because the quarterfinals would cannibalize the TV ratings for the top bowls too much. Considering that the BCS bowls are already drawing ratings similar to what quarterfinals would draw, there’s really no impetus for an 8-school playoff because there won’t be extra money, and unlike the quarterfinal revenue, the power conferences (especially the B10, SEC, B12, and Pac) control more of the revenue for the top bowls. Once TV ratings for the Rose and Sugar dwindle down to what they are for the Outback, we’ll see an 8-school playoff, but I don’t expect that to happen for 2-3 decades, if ever.
LikeLike
I agree with Richard on the realities of the situation. The Dodd article and others have mentioned how the money wasn’t really there for an 8 team playoff ($50 mil sounds like a lot, before you start splitting it among conferences and teams). It’ll be a while before any 8 team comes to existence, regardless of the controversies created by the selection committee.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Maybe so, but I think southern schools would focus on possibility of hosting the playoff game themselves and less on the chance of one cold weather game.”
That isn’t what happened last time.
LikeLike
“That isn’t what happened last time.”
That was in the context of semifinals in a 4 team playoff, not for quarterfinals in a potential 8 team playoff. As quarterfinals, I could see SEC schools focusing more on the higher probability (based on rankings after conference title games) of hosting a game than worrying out the lesser possibility of one in Columbus/Ann Arbor (based on BCS standings, my understanding is more of the games would have been south and west than would have been north and east in an 8 team playoff.
LikeLike
Apparently, a columnist in PA laid out what is basically the proposal I made on this thread:
http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/12/why_an_8-team_playoff_is_inevi.html
I think that makes the best use of how an 8 team playoff should look like, even if I sincerely hope there never actually is an 8 team playoff.
(The author reserves 5 slots for the 5 power conference champs. I have no views on if conf champions should be guarantees a spot in the playoff).
LikeLike
I actually understated what the BCS bowls draw. The Rose and Sugar (or whatever bowl is played on NYD night) actually draw viewers like semifinals while the other BCS bowls draw like quarterfinals. We won’t see an 8-team playoff for a while, especially since it adds impetus to the argument by players looking to unionize that they need bargaining power if the schools are looking to squeeze every last cent out of their football teams by requiring them to play more.
LikeLike
I think it is pretty obvious that we will never have December home games for northern schools. I think it was pretty obvious to the University of Minnesota as well.
But I also think if there was a change and an eight-team playoff had home teams hosting the first round, Barry Alvarez himself would drive a backhoe down the 50 yard line of Camp Randall.
LikeLike
@Frank:
Thanks for your reply. My response:
1) I think you overestimate the attachment of the PTB to the bowl system as a whole. Unquestionably, the B1G and Pac12 are absolutely attached to the Rose Bowl. But Teddy Greenstein reported that had the SEC and B12 had their way, the semifinals would have been bid out like the championship game, solely because it would generate more money (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-25/sports/chi-source-sec-big-12-wanted-playoff-games-outside-bowl-system-20120625_1_pac-12-bowl-system-rose-bowl). This coming from a conference (SEC) with a historic tie to its own prestigious bowl (Sugar), and another with many teams with ties to the Orange Bowl. So other than the Rose Bowl, I don’t sense the same level of attachment vs. the increase in revenue. Stewart Mandel reported it was closer than we think that on campus semifinals took hold, and other columnists have voiced support for the concept (http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/05/01/Colleges/BCS.aspx) Also, remember the SEC considered replacing the Sugar Bowl with the Champions Bowl.
2)My issue with your original proposal is more on the idea of the CFB season stretching so far into January. One of the impacts of a season going well into January is on recruiting. Nick Saban famously said the BCS title game vs. LSU “That damn game cost me a week of recruiting,” Granted, playing that late is definitely good for attracting recruits, but certainly games in late January would pose issues. Also the obvious impact on the academic calendar, extending football games into the spring semester and away from its traditional timing.
Also, Mike Slive was quoted when the coming system was adopted talking about the value of celebrating the spectacle of college football in late December and early January (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/04/27/bcs-takes-big-step-toward-college-football-playoff/). This article is also interesting for identifying the Pac12 as also supporting of on campus playoff games.
3) Your proposal on this thread I think poses its own challenges. For starters, what’s the climate difference playing in late December in Ann Arbor vs. early/mid January. If southern schools will oppose home playoff games, they’ll oppose all of them. Also, the Semifinal games would be more valuable if part of the bowl system than mere quarterfinals, which lacks the real pull of a game with more significance. The Rose Bowl now is billed as a celebration/vacation. Changing that to semifinal reduces the game significantly (even making it a semifinal does that, but the coming system does just that.
4) I will say I like that your proposal does take into consideration the burden that three consecutive neutral site games would have on fans. But I think a better reward for high ranked teams is hosting a playoff game and rotating the semifinals around the bowls/bidding them out, and a neutral site title game. I agree with you on the value of wanting to reward players/fans with a trip to the warm weather, but beyond 4 teams, that does not seem plausible to me.
I will also concede that your proposal does make it easier on fans who want to travel to the quarterfinals than mine does by having semifinals one week after the quarters.
Now, as a funny aside, your original proposal is very similar to the one in 2008 by the UGA president at the time, who proposed an 8 team playoff. The differences are he had all neutral site games, a shortened CFB season to 11 games (not happening), and games on three consecutive January Saturdays (not happening because of NFL playoffs). But that proposal has largely been forgotten (at least for now, anyways).
The bottom line to me is that quarterfinals for bowl games weakens bowls by giving them the least valuable games and stretches CFB well past its natural timeframe, something that present-day leaders recommitted to doing after the BCS madness of random early January games. To me, that seems to lead to having the quarters in December, around christmastime (not a problematic time frame as evidenced by the numerous lesser bowls from Dec 20-27). I genuinely do not believe most presidents would be willing to stretch in to late January.
Don’t take it from me, take it from Dennis Dodd: “2. Scheduling. It’s a real concern because the college presidents aren’t going to allow any more second-semester football” (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24399700/eightteam-playoff-makes-more-sense-but-is-it-worth-the-complications) Also, with expanded NFL playoffs, and the possibility of Friday and Monday night games, that knocks out a whole weekend for any CFB games (No chance any CFB game ever goes up against a NFL playoff game.)
LikeLike
Posted this in the wrong thread. Reposted above.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1375238.html
Link goes to the East page, which contains a link to the West page.
2014 B10 schedule rankings from hardest to easiest, with projected finishes for everyone:
Toughest Schedules
Based on home games as well as who the teams play when. From toughest to easiest …
EAST
1. Rutgers
2. Indiana
3. Maryland
4. Michigan
5. Ohio State
6. Penn State
7. Michigan State
WEST
1. Wisconsin
2. Purdue
3. Northwestern
4. Nebraska
5. Minnesota
6. Illinois
7. Iowa
Expected results:
EAST
MSU 11-1, 8-0 (loss @ OR)
OSU 11-1, 7-1 (loss @ MSU)
MI 9-3, 6-2 (losses @MSU, @OSU)
IN 6-6, 3-5
PSU 6-6, 3-5
MD 5-7, 2-6
RU 4-8, 1-7
WEST
WI 11-1, 8-0 (loss @ LSU in Houston)
NE 9-3, 5-3
IA 8-4, 4-4
MN 7-5, 4-4
NW 7-5, 4-4
IL 4-8, 1-7
PU 3-9, 0-8
LikeLike
I’m projecting 8-4 for Northwestern (best case: 10-2; worst case: 6-6).
1/3rd chance of beating UM & ND.
Even against UNL, Minny, PSU, and Iowa
Loss vs. Wisconsin
Wins against Illinois, PU, Cal, NIU, & WIU
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1375237.html
2014 B10 composite schedule and weekly rankings of the games.
Remember, it’s another double-bye year. Four weeks only have 5 games and 3 more only have 6.
3 best games each weekend:
August 30
1. Wisconsin vs. LSU (in Houston)
2. UCF vs. Penn State (in Dublin)
3. Ohio State at Navy (in Baltimore)
September 6
1. Michigan State at Oregon
2. Michigan at Notre Dame
3. Virginia Tech at Ohio State
September 13
1. Penn State at Rutgers
2. Iowa State at Iowa
3. West Virginia at Maryland
September 20
1. Miami at Nebraska
2. Maryland at Syracuse
3. Utah at Michgian
September 27
1. Minnesota at Michigan
2. Northwestern at Penn State
3. Maryland at Indiana
October 4
1. Nebraska at Michigan State
2. Wisconsin at Northwestern
3. Ohio State at Maryland
October 11
1. Penn State at Michigan
2. Northwestern at Minnesota
3. Indiana at Iowa
October 18
1. Nebraska at Northwestern
2. Iowa at Maryland
3. Rutgers at Ohio State
October 25
1. Michigan at Michigan State
2. Ohio State at Penn State
3. Maryland at Wisconsin
November 1
1. Indiana at Michigan
2. Wisconsin at Rutgers
3. Northwestern at Iowa
November 8
1. Ohio State at Michigan State (may well decide the East)
2. Michigan at Northwestern
3. Iowa at Minnesota
November 15
1. Nebraska at Wisconsin (may well decide the West)
2. Ohio State at Minnesota
3. Northwestern at Notre Dame
November 22
1. Wisconsin at Iowa
2. Minnesota at Nebraska
3. Maryland at Michigan
November 28/29
1. Michigan at Ohio State
2. Nebraska at Iowa
3. Michigan State at Penn State
December 6
Big Ten Championship, in Indianapolis
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140213/recruiting-class-2011-re-rank/
Re-ranking the recruiting classes of 2011 based on actual results since then.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24441789/sleeper-classes-for-2014
This one’s just for Richard. 5 sleeper recruiting classes for 2014, including NW.
In nearly every recruiting cycle there are a handful of classes that you look at and say “this is a good class” despite it not ranking among the best in the country. For the 2014 cycle, here are five that jump out as being in that category (listed in alphabetical order).
…
Pat Fitzgerald and company finished this class early and in all honesty it’s not ranked higher because of the numbers (only 15). There’s no doubt, however, it’s an excellent group. Quarterback Clayton Thorson (Wheaton, Ill./North) has the type of potential to be the best signal caller in the entire 2014 class when all is said and done. He is 6-feet-4, 205 pounds with an excellent arm and enough mobility to make things happen with his feet. Justin Jackson (Carol Stream, Ill./Glenbard North) is explosive and also has good hands. Garrett Dickerson (Oradell, N.J./Bergen Catholic) can be elite at tight end but also has high upside on defense and cornerback Parrker Westphal (Bolingbrook, Ill.) was the highest-rated prospect in the class. In a recruiting cycle deep with talent in the Land of Lincoln, the Wildcats landed three of the top seven in-state.
LikeLike
Thanks. Yeah, this is NU’s best recruiting class since forever and is top half of the B10 by average stars.
LikeLike
“A seven-member steering committee with the NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors is working to provide wealthier conferences with “a range” of autonomy…”
A group having different restrictions/abilities within the existing governing structure isn’t a subdivision?
“We’re not talking about full autonomy,”
That would be a breakaway – a completely different governing structure.
LikeLike
Oops , wrong place.
LikeLike
New NCAA subdivision may be in place by August for the wealthier conferences:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10446900/ncaa-committee-working-provide-wealthier-conferences-more-autonomy
LikeLike
Note that your leader is not what the article says ~ there’s absolutely nothing in there about a new NCAA subdivision.
LikeLike
“A seven-member steering committee with the NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors is working to provide wealthier conferences with “a range” of autonomy…”
A group having different restrictions/abilities within the existing governing structure isn’t a subdivision?
“We’re not talking about full autonomy,”
That would be a breakaway – a completely different governing structure.
LikeLike
If the division or subdivision grants more leeway to its conferences on specific issues, or a division grants more leeway to its subdivisions, neither of those are a new subdivision. If a set of conferences lose their votes in their current subdivision and instead vote in a new subdivision, that’s a new subdivision. Nothing in the article distinguished between those two, so nothing in the article was a direct indication that a new subdivision is being formed.
LikeLike
I think they are talking in practical terms, not literally. Like AQs versus non-AQs, which were subdivisions of I-A to the fans and the BCS but not the NCAA.
LikeLike
This goes out to all the Ohio State fans/homers on this board:
(Note: this is quite cool. A LEGO version would kick ass).
LikeLike
You mean this?
LikeLike
Yes. Yes I do.
LikeLike
Holy cow, that’s incredible!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/95904/delany-big-ten-mind-set-must-be-national
Delany and the B10 thinking national.
The Big Ten likely will open a second office in New York next month, as well as a satellite office in Washington D.C., Delany said. The New York office will have some full-time staff. Delany will spend much of the 100 days leading up to July 1 on the East Coast to facilitate and promote the transition.
…
The Big Ten is trying to reach a larger audience, Delany said, and after some missteps with the integration of Penn State in the early 1990s, the league wants to ensure its next bridge to the East Coast has a stronger foundation.
“We’re so much more sensitive to working at this,” Delany said. “We want to get people to adopt the Big Ten. That means come to New York, play games in DC, play games at [Madison Square] Garden — play, live and build on a broader scale. It’s where you recruit students, where you play bowl games, where your television games go.
“We have 30 percent of the population, 15 percent of the territory, but we’re not constrained to that. We have a national look.”
LikeLike
ESPN’s Ivan Maisel has a piece about the end of the BCS and the end of conference realignment. The editor’s tease headline on the main page is “Peace for our time,” originally a quote by Neville Chamberlain after the Munich Agreement.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10452933/college-football-realignment-era-ended
“But the BCS also brought about the greatest upheaval in the history of intercollegiate athletics. A total of 44 FBS schools will compete in a different conference in 2014 than they did in 1997, the last pre-BCS season. That number doesn’t include the schools that hopped from league to league as if they were speed-dating (TCU, Marshall, Temple, et al). Nor does it include the 12 schools that have moved up from the FCS or started programs from scratch over the past 16 years.”
LikeLike
But that history confuses causation and correlation.
I would argue the BCS did not necessarily cause it to the same degree as television. The wheels were set in motion by the 1984 SCOTUS case and the subsequent rise in TV revenues, the late 80’s and early 90’s consolidation, and creation of conference title games.
The BCS didn’t cause UNL to join the B1G any more than the BCS caused PSU to join the B1G,
LikeLike
But that history confuses causation and correlation.
I would argue the BCS did not necessarily cause it to the same degree as television. The wheels were set in motion by the 1984 SCOTUS case and the subsequent rise in TV revenues, the late 80′s and early 90′s consolidation, and creation of conference title games.
Absolutely. It was really the 1984 case that set the wheels in motion.
LikeLike
Is that speed dating thing still around or it go the way of swing dancing?
LikeLike
That’s pretty funny to use that quote especially with a blog on the same page talking about Delaney and the Big ten desire to be a national conference. Hopefully for the ACC, Swofford isn’t playing the part of Chamberlain.
There shouldn’t be any more movement in the top conferences until at least 2024-25 when the Big 12’s GOR is up but I just can’t see the peace lasting. Some school will challenge a GOR. They can’t be unbreakable especially if it is true that the ACC backed by ESPN made advances on 2 Big Ten schools. ESPN would know better than anybody media rights deals.
LikeLike
Right. if there is money to be made in further conference realignment, further conference realignment will occur.
LikeLike
Some school will challenge a GOR. They can’t be unbreakable especially if it is true that the ACC backed by ESPN made advances on 2 Big Ten schools.
No one has ever said that a GOR is unbreakable. It’s a contract. All contracts are breakable at some cost. The trouble is, no one knows how much, because none of the GORs have been challenged.
When Maryland left the ACC, it made two plausible calculations. 1) It could probably settle for something less than the full exit fee, because there’s a precedent for that; 2) If it couldn’t, the full freight was tolerable, even if not ideal.
Bear in mind, a big part of Maryland’s case is that it never agreed to the ACC’s higher exit fee. It’s harder to break out of a GOR that you agreed to. All of these schools had competent counsel, which presumably advised them that the deal was legal. Just try to break out of that without paying full freight.
So it’s not that they’re unbreakable. It’s that the cost is unknown, and the upper end of the potential cost is likely intolerable until the GORs get down to their final few years.
I don’t read much into the claim that the ACC “made advances on 2 Big Ten schools.” No one knows how serious it was, or the context of the discussions. But whatever the context, the more important fact is this: nothing happened.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“ESPN’s Ivan Maisel has a piece about the end of the BCS and the end of conference realignment.”
It’s a good piece, but he needs a fact checker. He claimed that the SEC makes more money than any other conference, and that isn’t true (as of 2012-2013, it’s the B10).
“But the BCS also brought about the greatest upheaval in the history of intercollegiate athletics. A total of 44 FBS schools will compete in a different conference in 2014 than they did in 1997, the last pre-BCS season. That number doesn’t include the schools that hopped from league to league as if they were speed-dating (TCU, Marshall, Temple, et al). Nor does it include the 12 schools that have moved up from the FCS or started programs from scratch over the past 16 years.”
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/11/30/football-conferences/?ref=ncaafootball
But it does include the WAC16 splitting up to form the MWC and the formation of the Sun Belt and the AAC. CUSA formed in 1996 with only 6 teams, so all of its growth is also counted.
If you back up to 1980-1997 (a roughly equal time period):
1981 – Ivy League and Southern Conf. move to I-AA, IL St joins the MVC (17)
1982 – UNLV joins PCC (1)
1983 – GT joins ACC (1)
1984 – NMSU joins PCC (1)
1985 – MVC drops FB, NIU leaves MAC (8)
That’s 28 changes in 6 years
1988 – PCC changes name to Big West (8)
1991 – BE forms, LBSU drops (9)
1992 – SC and AR to SEC, Fresno St to WAC, CSF drops, NV to Big West, FSU to ACC, Akron to MAC (7)
1993 – PSU to B10, Ark St, LT, ULL, NIU to Big West (5)
1996 – B12 forms, WAC adds 6, Big West loses 5 and adds 3, CUSA forms (32)
1997 – ECU to CUSA, NIU and Marshall to MAC (3)
That’s 64 more changes in 10 years.
LikeLike
There’s a dual irony in Maisel quoting Swofford as his primary source. Swofford says he’s happy that re-alignment is over, “because I think the collegiate landscape athletically needs that for a period of time. It will be healthy for major college athletics.”
The ironies are that: A) His league was one of the major acquirers; and B) Any further moves are likely to be to his detriment. So, another way of putting Swofford’s comments, is that “Realignment is great when you’re winning, but it sucks when you’re losing.”
I’m a free marketer, so I do not criticize Swofford for his acquisitions, nor would I have any sympathy if he loses again. He’s just not the best poster child for the view that it’s time for re-alignment to stop. Athletics is a business. When teams find better homes, they should move.
LikeLike
NCAA is trying to drive kids out of school early. On the eve of the season opener OrSUs Ben Wetzler, who had made the choice to return for his senior year (was a probable early round draft) rather than go pro, is suspended indefinitely. A call suggested his transgression was being in a room that an agent walked into last summer.
Aaron Fitt :
“Oregon State’s Ben Wetzler won’t pitch this week due to an NCAA eligibility issue stemming from draft last summer. Agent rules must change.”
“It is unclear when (or if) Wetzler will return to action – this process is atrocious. And for this to come out on eve of season – pathetic.”
“Dear NCAA: enough lip service about how you’re examining agent rules for baseball. Fix it already! No one should have to miss time for this.”
LikeLike
Edit: he was a 5th round pick.
LikeLike
But do we actually know what his infraction was? Rumors don’t mean squat. Maybe he did a lot more than be in a room that happened to have an agent walk into it.
LikeLike
He probably greeted him. The NCAA had him at “Hello.”
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t have any idea. It just seems odd that the NCAA would suspend a player who chose to forgo probably 1/4 to 1/2 mil signing bonus to return for his senior year – the night before the first game. Apparently they’ve known since the fall. Perhaps some of these really slow moving eligibility issues can be moved to and streamlined in the anticipated new Super D1 governance system.
LikeLike
Yes, that’d be nice. It could also be that he’s been appealing and only recently did he get his appeal denied.
LikeLike
Not my understanding. Ineligible until they reach a decision. Too bad he isn’t an SEC QB who’s parent took booster money. He’d be cleared, and in just a couple days. 😉
LikeLike
If the NCAA effectively eliminates the division requirements…….I’d say adding U Conn to get to 15 and holding would be more likely……I think Delany wants the east coast…….
LikeLike
Does UConn genuinely add enough to pay for itself/not dilute the existing revenues per team?
I don’t believe so, and I think if UConn had that much value, the ACC would have opted for it over L’Ville.
LikeLike
Don’t know, but big difference is the ACC’s lack of it’s own network……becoming bigger in the broad NY and NE market is big for Delany….all indications are he REALLY wants to add teams before the new contract….Also, BIG could use U Conn’s basketball status….with ACC adding ND, Pitt, Syracuse, and UoL they will clearly be the #1 bb conference……
LikeLike
1) UConn’s post-Calhoun basketball status needs to be proven. Recruiting to Storrs, CT is not the same as Lavin rebuilding an urban-located school like St. Johns.
2) ACC is exploring a network down the road.
3) I question that UConn actually adds much outside CT to justify its revenue share.
4) Being the best basketball conference has never been a goal of any successful conference expansion. Its a nice perk, but not the end game.
5) Delany wants to add the right teams before the new contract, not just teams in general.
6) The Big Ten is already big and broad enough as any conference can expect to be in the NYC area absent a mega-name like Notre Dame. Between Michigan/PSU/NWU/Wisconsin/Indiana/OSU and Rutgers, the basic critical mass is there. More lucrative to focus on schools in other, new markets.
LikeLike
“2) ACC is exploring a network down the road.”
2) ESPN is exploring an additional ESPN network that would be devoted to ACC content.
There. Fixed that for you. 😉
LikeLike
Not sure how this post got right here—-should be down under the FSU comments……..
LikeLike
If the NCAA effectively eliminates the division requirements…….I’d say adding U Conn to get to 15 and holding would be more likely……I think Delany wants the east coast…….
I agree that if the division requirement is eliminated, it gives leagues the flexibility to add one team at a time, rather than two—yet another reason why I think the Big Ten presidents can be counted on to vote yes for the ACC proposal.
But I find it difficult to imagine that UConn is the team. They don’t “deliver the East”. Heck, if the ACC proposal had been in place, I am not convinced the Big Ten would’ve been in any rush to add Rutgers.
Rutgers, at least, is in a terrific recruiting state, is in the AAU, is historically a rival of Penn State, is closer to NYC than UConn, and has been playing FBS football for as long as the FBS has existed (even if not well). It would be a pretty big step down for the Big Ten to admit UConn.
Beyond that, UConn is a small-market team, headed in the “wrong direction” from where the demographics are moving, i.e., Northeast, rather than South. The Big Ten isn’t going to make another speculative addition so soon after Rutgers and Maryland, when even the benefits of those two are far from certain.
…all indications are he REALLY wants to add teams before the new contract…
Indicated by whom?
BIG could use U Conn’s basketball status
The B1G is not exactly lacking high-stature basketball teams.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“If the NCAA effectively eliminates the division requirements…….I’d say adding U Conn to get to 15 and holding would be more likely……I think Delany wants the east coast…….”
AAU. AAU. AAU. The presidents aren’t adding another weak school academically for a shaky financial reason.
LikeLike
Reports of Penn State naming Dr. Eric J. Barron to be the new President, according to Onward State:
LikeLike
Since its all personal, FSU to the Big 10?!
LikeLike
Half of this message board was believing that and far dumber things about a year ago. I’d get shouted down for suggesting that the B1G probably wouldn’t expand to 20. Oh those were the days.
LikeLike
I think most of that “half” was just playing the “what if?” game, not actually predicting it would happen in a particular time frame.
LikeLike
okay…. well, I was of the opinion that a Big 20 was a farce and dreams of the B1G adding UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, AND FSU were folly. People would argue with me to no end that it was very likely. This board was in it’s own little world when it came to realignment. To his credit, Frank never really bought into it.
LikeLike
You’re right, Andy.
It would be UVa, UNC, Duke, GTech, FSU, AND Miami.
Substitute ND for Miami if you like.
LikeLike
It won’t even get beyond 14. The B1G is already too big geographically for the non revenue sports and for basketball. There are no divisions for those sports, and the trip from Maryland to Nebraska is a bear. Increased travel costs will nullify any possible gains in revenue from East Coast TV sets. And travel times will make the lives of student-athletes impossible. Look for a 10 team Big 10 in 15 to 20 years.
LikeLike
“There are no divisions for those sports, and the trip from Maryland to Nebraska is a bear. Increased travel costs will nullify any possible gains in revenue from East Coast TV sets.”
Not if they could use a similar model for locking football rivals regionally for Olympic sports. It should not be necessary for a Maryland women’s soccer team, for example, to travel more than every other two years to Lincoln. One suggestion I would make is use single sites for meets (and probably invite teams from MAC, etc.) like it’s done in wrestling. For in-conference play, use a site that is more or less central in the footprint for four teams at a time. Even women’s basketball could benefit from this.
LikeLike
It won’t even get beyond 14. The B1G is already too big geographically for the non revenue sports and for basketball.
A number of ADs have said they think the Big Ten will keep expanding (assuming they can eventually attract the right teams), and most of them don’t seem to be troubled by it, or at least not for those reasons. Of course, there is no guarantee it will happen, but the people in the best position to know, don’t think they’re done.
There are no divisions for those sports, and the trip from Maryland to Nebraska is a bear.
Which Maryland knew when they joined.
Increased travel costs will nullify any possible gains in revenue from East Coast TV sets.
Time to re-check your math.
And travel times will make the lives of student-athletes impossible.
The reality is, once you get in an airplane, travel time and cost is dominated by factors other than the air time, unless you’re going a really long way. It’s a big issue for a school like West Virginia, which was formerly in a league with multiple schools within driving distance, and is now in a league where all of its mates are in another time zone. The Big Ten hasn’t made any moves like that.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“It won’t even get beyond 14.”
One can hope.
“The B1G is already too big geographically for the non revenue sports and for basketball.”
Based on what? The Pac-12 is bigger. The ACC is bigger. The SEC is a little smaller but more square.
“There are no divisions for those sports,”
By their own choice. Every sport was considered for them but no others wanted them.
“and the trip from Maryland to Nebraska is a bear.”
Of course the longest trip is long. How often does a team make that trip? It’s a 5 hour flight with a layover in Chicago if they don’t charter a flight.
“Increased travel costs will nullify any possible gains in revenue from East Coast TV sets.”
Show me that math. Travel might cost $3M more per year more now for the extreme schools. The B10 projects the current TV deal to allow the B10 to pay out $35 in 2017 versus the $26.9M they paid most recently.
“And travel times will make the lives of student-athletes impossible. Look for a 10 team Big 10 in 15 to 20 years.”
OK.
LikeLike
So, basically, travel in non-revenue sports is not such a big issue that its driven a split into divisions, but is such a big issue it will destroy the current alignment over the coming two decades. Pragmatically, if there were to be a point where travel costs became a serious financial strain for the non-revenue sports, then we would expect the specific sports that are challenged to adopt divisions, and then the problem would be substantially eliminated.
LikeLike
Look also at the travel times. What is the round trip time from MD to MINN and back, dorm room to dorm room? Well, judging from my travel time from Mt. Vernon, OH, to Salem, NH, I bet it’s around 20 hours. So, you leave your dorm at noon (more likely 10 am) to go to a night bb game with Minnie, get there, play the game, and come back by, say 8 am. At that point, you go to bed. You’ve missed the better part of two whole days of classes.
If you think conferences can get to 16 or 20 schools, you’re not paying attention to logistics. The wear and tear on the athletes and the disruption of their education will become severe. If you want to stay at 14 B1G schools, you might want to consider a bb schedule of less than 20 games, say 13 in conference (a simple round robin, no home and home) and four or five OOC games. How are your TV revenues holding up then.
And don’t forget, if the student-althletes ever unionize they will have a say in scheduling as well as stipends. What if they find the travel times excessive?
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Look also at the travel times. What is the round trip time from MD to MINN and back, dorm room to dorm room?”
Who makes that trip? Isn’t there a sporting event in there somewhere?
Anyway:
Drive to airport = 30m
Airport time = 10-60m (chartered vs commercial), call it 30m
Flight = 2.5h
Drive from airport = 30m
One way = 4h
Total = 8h
“If you think conferences can get to 16 or 20 schools, you’re not paying attention to logistics.”
Or you don’t understand money. NE spent less than $7M on travel last year. The B10 paid out just under $27M. Also, you do realize that divisions become more likely for the non-revenue sports as a conference grows larger, right?
“The wear and tear on the athletes and the disruption of their education will become severe.”
Which is why the B10 and the member schools work together to minimize the impact via scheduling. Remember, this is one of the things JHU mentioned in their report suggesting they join a conference. They pointed out that a major conference like the B10 has a lot more resources and experience to devote to minimizing the impact on the athletes. If it was such a bad deal, JHU would have stayed independent or joined a local league.
“If you want to stay at 14 B1G schools, you might want to consider a bb schedule of less than 20 games, say 13 in conference (a simple round robin, no home and home) and four or five OOC games.”
Why on earth would they suddenly drop 33% of the schedule? The B10 has been playing 18 conference games since 1974-1975. Teams were playing just under 30 regular season games back then, too. I think travel is a little easier today, personally.
“And don’t forget, if the student-althletes ever unionize they will have a say in scheduling”
They will? Since when does the NFLPA have a say in scheduling? Players might get the right to agree on the total number of games, but that’s it. By the way, college players always want more games. It’s more chances to showcase their skills for the pros. Players greatly favored a playoff in FB, for example. It was the adults saying it might be too hard on the players’ bodies.
Besides, remember that the union only applies to revenue sports (FB and MBB).
“What if they find the travel times excessive?”
The pros travel across the country regularly. Would you audition for a job by refusing to perform the easiest part of the job (sitting on a plane)?
LikeLike
To bob sykes…you repeatedly point out that Maryland will be visiting Nebraska periodically; well, on Thursday, Maryland’s women’s basketball team played at Miami. Distance from College Park to Coral Gables: 1,100 miles. Distance from College Park to Lincoln: 1,200 miles. University officials estimate Terrapin teams will lose, at most, one class day each semester from the added travel (the difference, on average, is some 200 miles).
The ACC extends about 1,500 miles from Boston College to Miami, and those teams have met in sports for decades without anyone raising a fuss over travel. The same thing applies to Washington State and Washington playing Southern Cal and UCLA.
LikeLike
Right, and being in the same league as UCLA and USC clearly hasn’t worked out for Washington and Washington State.
LikeLike
After a certain distance (~400 miles; 6+ hour drive) you pretty much rely on air travel. Travel times don’t vary much unless you’re a very short drive from an opponent. Missing class isn’t a valid argument against further expansion…
Costs of travel certainly holds some weight. Air fair has risen rapidly recently though most institutions willingly changing conferences are leaving for a conference with payouts that far exceeds the increased travel costs.
LikeLike
Costs of travel certainly holds some weight.
True, but not in the way some people think. A 500-mile trip isn’t 25% more expensive than a 400-mile trip, even though it’s 25% father away. Once you have to get in the plane, many of the costs are practically the same, invariant of the distance, unless you go a loooooong way.
LikeLike
The only situation travel costs come into play are for schools like WVU, when there are no schools nearby, and where credible news accounts report on WVU’s unhappiness with the travel situation and attempts to try to resolve some issues with the B12. But there is no chance that WVU leaves the B12 without having a better home to go to, regardless of the travel situation.
For the B1G, UMD can get to at least half of the other schools in the conference by bus. And even now, just the 12 schools, Penn State and UNL are flying to at almost half of their games. Its overblown, and the increased revenues overall justify the increased costs in flying the women’s softball team from Happy Valley to Minneapolis as necessary.
LikeLike
Some assumption but it costs significantly more for any air travel than a road trip… Further expansion likely increases air travel expenses.
Which isn’t a good argument against it for schools that’ll make many millions more in their new conferences but probably is much more significant for smaller, lower revenue conferences like the Mountain West, Conference USA.
LikeLike
Interesting snippet from this article
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/15/michael-sam-appears-at-halftime-of-missouri-tennessee-video/
“Missouri students caught wind of the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church would be picketing Michael Sam on Saturday, so they formed a half-mile human barrier on Stadium Blvd. to keep the protesters from reaching Sam and to try to drown out their hate-speak by singing Missouri’s fight song.”
LikeLike
Class move by those students. That Westboro Church is the mouthpiece of pure evil.
LikeLike
Church should be in quotes. More like cult.
LikeLike
It’s mostly just one extended family. They don’t even have 50 members.
And I’m amazed nobody has shot them at a protest yet.
LikeLike
It’s amazing how B10 basketball continues to turn back time. 48-39? 28% shooting? I’d love to say that was just great D, but no.
LikeLike
love them, but …. the Bball team has the opposite problem from the Fball team ~~~ lots of D, but no O.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1376030.html
14 coaches who need a good year.
2. Pelini – NE
3. Hoke – MI
5. Beckman – IL
7. Flood – RU
LikeLike
Though a UM fan, I find hard to argue with this article. Pelini is above Hoke probably only because he is much more likely to self-destruct with some obscene comment or intemperate behavior. Hoke seems to be everything a “Michigan Man” should be, but I’m not sure he’ll survive another 7-8 win season.
LikeLike
I agree that Hoke is ranked about where he belongs on this list, but by firing Al Borges, I think he bought himself another two years, even if he goes 7-5 again. But by the end of 2015, Dave Brandon will have a tough decision if Hoke hasn’t emphatically turned it around. Hoke has a six-year contract, and 2015 will be the fifth year. Hardly anyone coaches in their final contract season (it would be terrible for recruiting), so by five years he either needs to be fired or extended.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepard
I hope you are right.
LikeLike
Shepherd! Sorry….
LikeLike
@ Frank
Does the Comcast + Time Warner deal warrant a separate blog based on what shakeups may follow that would affect college sports?
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/02/the_big_tens_ohio_problem_rest.html
The B10 needs to recruit OH better (in FB) than they did for the 2014 class.
LikeLike
1. What’s the over/under on Ohio State’s next violation of NCAA rules?
2. What’s the over/under that the “Graveyard of Coaches” claims Urban Meyer as its next victim?
I’m not real sure how tight a ship Meyer has been able to run in Columbus given his past history in Gainesville, plus, after all, it is C-Bus and the natives can be a little “generous” to the football players.
Meyer seems to have refocused himself with the Ohio State job and the natives will remain on the low side of restless if he’s successful on the field in terms of wins and losses. They clearly don’t have a major concern about ethics in terms of their head football coach, so being Mr. Clean won’t be a concern for Meyer.
3. Why does the Big Ten need to recruit “better”?
The article says that Kentucky got its fair share of recruits, but is that a one-year blip or a real trend? I mean, we are talking UK football here, not basketball. We’re also talking Mark Stoops here, who if I recall correctly, has never been a head coach (d-coordinator at Florida State and Arizona).
But seriously, the article only talks about Big Ten recruiting in the state of Ohio. It’s void of details about where other B1G schools went to get their talent. It also makes no mention of what schools are doing now that the conference has a presence in the mid-Atlantic region.
LikeLike
cutter,
“1. What’s the over/under on Ohio State’s next violation of NCAA rules?
…
I’m not real sure how tight a ship Meyer has been able to run in Columbus given his past history in Gainesville, plus, after all, it is C-Bus and the natives can be a little “generous” to the football players
…
They clearly don’t have a major concern about ethics in terms of their head football coach, so being Mr. Clean won’t be a concern for Meyer.”
Big talk for a fan whose school just sat on a rape investigation for 4 years for no reason, and then the coach lied about the outcome.
“3. Why does the Big Ten need to recruit “better”?”
Ask the author. All I did was summarize what he wrote.
“But seriously, the article only talks about Big Ten recruiting in the state of Ohio.”
Shocking, considering that was the whole point of the article.
“It’s void of details about where other B1G schools went to get their talent.”
No, it actually mentioned the top other states.
According a survey done by ESPN.com, Ohio still provided more recruits to the Big Ten than another other state, followed by Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Texas, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Maryland, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Grabbing 81 players from Florida, Georgia and Texas? It’s exactly what the Big Ten has to do.
But the choice shouldn’t have to be between reaching out to players in the South or beating back a 2-10 SEC team for players in Ohio. Doing both is feasible.
LikeLike
“What’s the over/under on Ohio State’s next violation of NCAA rules?”
I’ll take ‘under’ with the line being the number of convicted felons playing for Flinstone.
LikeLike
One of the best things about the FTT forum, is that usually it’s free of silly questions like this.
LikeLike
“But why should Louisville sign four Ohio players when Nebraska signs none and Purdue signs one?”
Umm. Because Louisville is right next door while UNL is far away and PU football currently stinks compared to L’ville (or anyone else) right now?
The surprising thing isn’t that UK pulled so many OH recruits this year but that they never did so earlier, especially since OH is the only adjacent state to them with very fertile recruiting grounds.
BTW, the scuttlebutt is that a bunch of the OH kids that UK signed didn’t qualify academically at one or another B10 school. Let’s see how many actually end up attending UK in the fall; 2nd-year coaches (especially SEC ones) have a habit of signing a ton of kids who they know won’t qualify academically just to make a splash on recruiting day.
I agree that the B10 schools adjacent to OH should recruit OH hard. The western schools in the B10 will be selective. They won’t be playing much in OH in the future. Iowa, UNL, and Minny are all rather far. Illinois stinks right now and won’t be able to attract top talent. Northwestern always has to be selective due to academics and won’t pull more than a handful of kids from any one state. That leaves Wisconsin. They pulled 1 of their top 3 recruits in both 2014 and 2013 from OH.
So let’s take a closer look at the types of recruits that UK pulled from OH. Their ratings from 247:
90, 88, 88, 88, 87, 87, 87, 86, 86, 84, 79
Solid.
How about Michigan’s out-of-state non-OH recruits?
100, 96, 96, 92, 92, 90, 89, 88, 86, 77
UM might have been able to improve their class by one or 2 recruits at most.
How about MSU’s out-of-state non-OH recruits?
95, 94, 92, 92, 89, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 80
A little bit more room for improvement, but marginal (also, the 83 guy comes from a CC, so he was recruited obviously to fill a near-term need).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Umm. Because Louisville is right next door while UNL is far away and PU football currently stinks compared to L’ville (or anyone else) right now?”
PU should get lesser players, but they should still be mining OH. As for NE, they have OSU locked for 2016-2021 plus Pelini has OH ties. They don’t need to only recruit OH, but they should be challenging OSU, MI and PSU (or at least MSU and WI) for players in OH.
“The surprising thing isn’t that UK pulled so many OH recruits this year but that they never did so earlier, especially since OH is the only adjacent state to them with very fertile recruiting grounds.”
The cultural divide between OH and KY is huge. I think many of the OH players preferred to play in the B10 because it’s closer to home and felt more like home. I think the big surprise this year was the quality of OH players UK got more than the numbers.
“BTW, the scuttlebutt is that a bunch of the OH kids that UK signed didn’t qualify academically at one or another B10 school.”
That’s a regular occurrence. It used to be WV that picked up those guys, though. Their move to the B12 seems to have cut off that pipeline, though. The Stoops’s OH ties may have made UK the heir to it.
“I agree that the B10 schools adjacent to OH should recruit OH hard. The western schools in the B10 will be selective. They won’t be playing much in OH in the future. Iowa, UNL, and Minny are all rather far. Illinois stinks right now and won’t be able to attract top talent. Northwestern always has to be selective due to academics and won’t pull more than a handful of kids from any one state. That leaves Wisconsin. They pulled 1 of their top 3 recruits in both 2014 and 2013 from OH.”
It’s still easier for them to recruit OH than TX or FL. They should recruit all 3, but neglecting OH is unwise.
“How about Michigan’s out-of-state non-OH recruits?
100, 96, 96, 92, 92, 90, 89, 88, 86, 77
UM might have been able to improve their class by one or 2 recruits at most.”
MI’s “problem” was a small class, mostly. With more room, they could’ve taken some players from other schools with the trickle down hurting UK.
LikeLike
Kentucky has always gotten a lot of recruits out of Ohio. The quality is the difference.
LikeLike
No way UNL should be challenging OSU, UM, and PSU for the vast majority of OH players that those 3 schools want considering that all 3 are as or more elite than UNL and far closer. Maybe MSU, but MSU is also much closer. Wisconsin, sure, but the Badgers take only a handful from OH each year anyway.
Note that UNL is as close to OH as they are to TX, and TX has 2-3 times more talent than OH. Yet, while 4 kings are adjacent to or in OH (OSU, UM, ND, and PSU), fewer are adjacent to or in TX (Texas, OU, & LSU). Even if you elevate A&M (a prince that is like a king in all but brand) to that group, there’s still a lot more talent left over in TX for UNL to go after.
Same thing with CA. Tons of talent there. Only 1 king & 1 prince local to SoCal. Every other king is far away. Stanford is closer but has strict academic standards. UDub is as far away from SoCal as UNL. Oregon is closer, but once you get on a plane, the difference between 3 and 4 hours isn’t big.
So no, I don’t believe that it’s actually easier for UNL to recruit OH than TX or CA. A certain percentage of kids want to experience a new environment and a certain percentage want the same environment. UNL can compete for the kids in the former category in TX and CA, but can’t really offer anything to kids in the latter category in OH that OSU, UM, ND, and PSU can’t offer & they’re farther away. Then throw in the fact that TX and CA have 2-3 times as many elite recruits as OH.
As for Wisconsin, they can pitch academics as a differentiating factor when talking to many recruits in TX and FL. In OH vs. ND, UM, PSU, and OSU? Not so much.
As for UK, it’s Stoop’s 2nd year, when coaches (especially in the SEC) make a big splash in recruiting. As it is, he’s really only taking recruits from the likes of IU, PU, and Illinois (and those kids who can’t meet the academic standards at MSU, Wisconsin, etc.). Let’s see if he can sustain that.
Finally, concerning those 3 schools, PU and Illinois are dumpster fires right now. At some point, does it matter if your 2-stars are coming from OH or elsewhere when you can only pick up scraps? However, I agree that IU should do better in recruiting. While Kevin Wilson has done a wonderful job with their offense, their defense is atrocious and their recruiting hasn’t picked up.
Posted here because I replied to the wrong post before.
LikeLike
Richard,
“No way UNL should be challenging OSU, UM, and PSU for the vast majority of OH players that those 3 schools want”
I didn’t say the vast majority, but they should find a few of the elite ones to chase. Some people in OH will have NE (or great plains) ties, plus Pelini knows a lot of coaches and that goes a long way.
“considering that all 3 are as or more elite than UNL and far closer.”
PSU isn’t that close and isn’t more elite. MI hasn’t been better than NE either.
“Maybe MSU, but MSU is also much closer. Wisconsin, sure, but the Badgers take only a handful from OH each year anyway.”
Being a king should trump playing closer to home for some/many recruits.
“Note that UNL is as close to OH as they are to TX, and TX has 2-3 times more talent than OH.”
Except NE plays in and near OH, and against the schools OH kids grew up hearing about. Two other major conferences are between NE and the TX recruits. And I said NE should keep recruiting TX. But the advantages they used to have there are dwindling and the SEC has moved in to take even more of the top players.
“Yet, while 4 kings are adjacent to or in OH (OSU, UM, ND, and PSU), fewer are adjacent to or in TX (Texas, OU, & LSU). Even if you elevate A&M (a prince that is like a king in all but brand) to that group, there’s still a lot more talent left over in TX for UNL to go after.”
You say that like other SEC brands such as AL can’t recruit in TX. Now that the SEC has a foothold in TX, the whole SEC has a leg up in recruiting there.
“Same thing with CA. Tons of talent there. Only 1 king & 1 prince local to SoCal. Every other king is far away. Stanford is closer but has strict academic standards. UDub is as far away from SoCal as UNL. Oregon is closer, but once you get on a plane, the difference between 3 and 4 hours isn’t big.”
So distance doesn’t matter except when it helps your argument?
“So no, I don’t believe that it’s actually easier for UNL to recruit OH than TX or CA.”
1. I said TX and FL, not TX and CA.
2. I think it is.
“A certain percentage of kids want to experience a new environment and a certain percentage want the same environment. UNL can compete for the kids in the former category in TX and CA, but can’t really offer anything to kids in the latter category in OH that OSU, UM, ND, and PSU can’t offer & they’re farther away.”
And the kids in the former category from OH? And why can’t NE offer something different or better? A certain major, a certain style of play, etc?
LikeLike
“PSU isn’t that close and isn’t more elite.”
Er, wut? PSU is in an adjacent state and within driving distance of OH, which UNL is not. As for eliteness, PSU definitely declined during JoePa’s dotage and then got hit by heavy sanctions, but there’s no reason than a high-energy guy like Franklin can’t get PSU up to the level of at least Michigan (and above UNL). In any case, even in JoePa’s declining years, PSU crushed UNL when they competed head-to-head to sign the same recruit.
“MI hasn’t been better than NE either.”
On the field. In recruiting, UM has crushed UNL under Hoke, so recruits (who’s opinions are all that matter when it comes to recruiting) evidently disagree with your assessment.
“Except NE plays in and near OH, and against the schools OH kids grew up hearing about.”
But how much does that matter? WVU plays a bunch of teams in and near TX now, yet they pulled in exactly 0 recruits from TX in 2014 (a big giant total of 1 in 2013).
“You say that like other SEC brands such as AL can’t recruit in TX. Now that the SEC has a foothold in TX, the whole SEC has a leg up in recruiting there.”
I actually looked at that in a recent post; the non-TX SEC schools actually have not increased their (small) share of the top TX recruits much at all since A&M joined (the big change is A&M picking up a lot of the top recruits at the expense of B12 schools; especially OU). Evidently, having one school in a giant state like TX doesn’t matter all that much. ‘Bama will pick up a few, but there’s still plenty of talent left over for UNL.
“So distance doesn’t matter except when it helps your argument?”
Brian, do you realize that when you say something like that, people wonder whether you really are an idiot or just pretend to be one? The difference between being within driving distance and having to fly to visit is big. The difference between having to spend one hour more or less on a plane isn’t. Did I have to explain that to you or were you just pretending to be an idiot, Brian?
“And the kids in the former category from OH?”
They’d head south.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Er, wut?”
Which word confused you? PSU isn’t that close to much of the talent in OH. It’s 450 miles from Cincinnati, for example. That’s not a day trip.
“PSU is in an adjacent state and within driving distance of OH, which UNL is not.”
Both are large states and PSU isn’t near the OH border. Lincoln is a much longer trip, but WI, NW, PU, IL, IN, OSU, MSU and MI are all closer to Cincinnati than PSU.
“As for eliteness, PSU definitely declined during JoePa’s dotage and then got hit by heavy sanctions, but there’s no reason than a high-energy guy like Franklin can’t get PSU up to the level of at least Michigan (and above UNL).”
A guy like that could raise NE up, too. The point is where they are now.
“On the field.”
Yes, which is what I was talking about.
“In recruiting, UM has crushed UNL under Hoke, so recruits (who’s opinions are all that matter when it comes to recruiting) evidently disagree with your assessment.”
That only says Pelini and his staff aren’t great recruiters.
“Except NE plays in and near OH, and against the schools OH kids grew up hearing about.”
“WVU plays a bunch of teams in and near TX now, yet they pulled in exactly 0 recruits from TX in 2014 (a big giant total of 1 in 2013).”
WV isn’t NE, and what they are doing doesn’t necessarily limit what they could be doing. Coaches choose where to devote their recruiting time, and don’t always choose wisely. Hoke recruits OH much harder than RichRod ever did, for example, and gets good results. Were RichRod’s OH numbers proof that MI couldn’t and shouldn’t recruit OH?
LikeLike
Cincy is less than 7 hours drive (thus within driving distance) from Happy Valley, and most of OH is closer. All of OH is in the 500 mile radius that coaches talk about as being local talent.
LikeLike
You’d have to average 65+ mph including stops to make it in under 7 hours. That’s not realistic for most people, especially if you have a healthy fear of the OH state patrol or there is any road construction. You could fly to NE faster.
As to the 500 mile radius:
http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-recruiting-changes-shrink-nus-sphere-of-influence
1. NE claimed that size. Most schools choose a smaller circle (200 miles is stated much more frequently) because they aren’t in the middle of nowhere.
2. In Osborne’s last decade plus, only 56% of his players came from within that circle.
3. Under Pelini, that number has dropped to 31%.
4. TV and airplanes have changed the radius a coach can successfully recruit.
LikeLike
Google Maps says you can drive from Cincy to Happy Valley in under 7 hours. I’ve found them to be, if anything, on the conservative side when it comes to how long it takes me to drive somewhere.
“TV and airplanes have changed the radius a coach can successfully recruit.”
Yet, as you saw in my post on where recruits in the states with the most elite talent end up, among the top 8 states in terms of talent, 62% to 84% of the elite recruits went to a school that is in-state or in an adjacent state (and Louisiana is at 62% only because ‘Bama, which isn’t exactly far away but isn’t adjacent, took 3 guys).
I actually took a look at this, and there seems to be a limit on the number of elite (4-star or above) players any program manages to take from states that aren’t adjacent. ND recruits nationally but landed only 6 of those types of recruits (using Rivals stars). Meyer at OSU recruits distant talent better than anyone in the B10 and landed 7. Tennessee managed 8. ‘Bama did land 11, but 3 of those are from Louisiana, which almost doesn’t count.
Basically, UNL has to recruit distant talent at an elite level just in order to get in to that second tier of schools below the at-least-50%-elite level, and they have to do it while being much farther away from the eastern seaboard than ND or OSU (where ND landed 4 and OSU landed 5) or ‘Bama is from any place in the south east of TX (where 6 of ‘Bama’s elite recruits from non-adjacent states came from).
LikeLike
And in 2005 (the one time they landed a top 10 class; though that was also helped by the class size of 31), that’s what Callahan (in his 2nd year) did, landing 9 elite recruits from non-adjacent states. However, coaches like Saban and Meyer aren’t exactly plentiful (we’ll see how well Butch Jones does going forward, when he won’t enjoy the benefit of the “2nd-year bump” any more).
LikeLike
Richard – the three Louisiana guys that Bama signed are from Monroe in northeast Louisiana. Monroe is a four and a half hour drive from Tuscaloosa all along I-20. Monroe is a three and a half hour drive from Baton Rouge. Also, LSU only really wanted one of those guys – 5* OT Cam Robinson. Louisiana also had a very high number of number of top recruits go out of state because Louisiana had such a high number of top recruits this year. LSU didn’t offer half a dozen of those 4 stars because LSU didn’t have a need at their position, or they liked an OOS kid better.
Louisiana always produces a lot of top recruits, especially for such a small state, but this past year was ridiculous.
LikeLike
Google Maps doesn’t account for stops or traffic. Few people drive 450 miles straight without stopping, most wise people don’t speed too much in OH, and there is never a time without road construction on that route. I’m talking the total time, not just the driving time ignoring traffic and stops.
LikeLike
No way UNL should be challenging OSU, UM, and PSU for the vast majority of OH players that those 3 schools want considering that all 3 are as or more elite than UNL and far closer. Maybe MSU, but MSU is also much closer. Wisconsin, sure, but the Badgers take only a handful from OH each year anyway.
Note that UNL is as close to OH as they are to TX, and TX has 2-3 times more talent than OH. Yet, while 4 kings are adjacent to or in OH (OSU, UM, ND, and PSU), fewer are adjacent to or in TX (Texas, OU, & LSU). Even if you elevate A&M (a prince that is like a king in all but brand) to that group, there’s still a lot more talent left over in TX for UNL to go after.
Same thing with CA. Tons of talent there. Only 1 king & 1 prince local to SoCal. Every other king is far away. Stanford is closer but has strict academic standards. UDub is as far away from SoCal as UNL. Oregon is closer, but once you get on a plane, the difference between 3 and 4 hours isn’t big.
So no, I don’t believe that it’s actually easier for UNL to recruit OH than TX or CA. A certain percentage of kids want to experience a new environment and a certain percentage want the same environment. UNL can compete for the kids in the former category in TX and CA, but can’t really offer anything to kids in the latter category in OH that OSU, UM, ND, and PSU can’t offer & they’re farther away. Then throw in the fact that TX and CA have 2-3 times as many elite recruits as OH.
As for Wisconsin, they can pitch academics as a differentiating factor when talking to many recruits in TX and FL. In OH vs. ND, UM, PSU, and OSU? Not so much.
As for UK, it’s Stoop’s 2nd year, when coaches (especially in the SEC) make a big splash in recruiting. As it is, he’s really only taking recruits from the likes of IU, PU, and Illinois (and those kids who can’t meet the academic standards at MSU, Wisconsin, etc.). Let’s see if he can sustain that.
Finally, concerning those 3 schools, PU and Illinois are dumpster fires right now. At some point, does it matter if your 2-stars are coming from OH or elsewhere when you can only pick up scraps? However, I agree that IU should do better in recruiting. While Kevin Wilson has done a wonderful job with their offense, their defense is atrocious and their recruiting hasn’t picked up.
LikeLike
Live sports programming continues to dominate the ratings. Olympics are a ratings hit so far.
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/02/14/151-million-viewers-more-than-half-of-all-american-tv-viewers-have-watched-the-sochi-winter-olympics-on-the-networks-of-nbcuniversal-538513/20140214nbc02/
And, in a reversal of CFB metered markets, this time, the top ten cities are northern except Ft. Myers, FL.
An interesting note on streaming: “On NBC Sports Live Extra, the U.S. men’s hockey team’s 7-1 victory against Slovakia on Thursday accounted for 6.9 million minutes of live streaming – a record for a TV Everywhere/authenticated hockey game.” (I’m gonna track down the numbers for yesterday’s game against Russia.)
LikeLike
USA vs. Russia set records too both in OTA and streaming.
http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/nbc-sports-network-hockey-olympics-usa-russia-record-ratings-sochi/
LikeLike
Here are some comparison numbers for Thursday night.
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2014/02/14/thursdays-cable-ratings-and-broadcast-finals-nbc-continues-win-streak-with-winter-games-449212/cable_20140213/
Olympics (much of it rebroadcasts of earlier live events) = about 23M viewers
Next show was Amer. Idol at about 10M viewers.
Again, just some data points on the popularity of sports broadcasting going back to earlier discussions of whether there is a sports ratings “bubble.”
LikeLike
Frank,
With the possible Comcast-Time Warner cable merger, it would make a lot of sense for future BTN negotiations for the Big Ten to have some sort of media rights relationship with Comcast/NBC. The Big Ten currently sold a few hockey games to NBCSN but I would imagine a lot more needed to have some sort of partnership.
It has been widely speculated here that the BIG will split its football between ESPN/ABC and Fox. Is there any way football could be split 3 ways? Would the BIG be better off dumping CBS and selling tier 1 basketball to NBC? In your opinion, would top tier basketball be worth enough to NBC/Comcast to get favorable dealings with that company over the BTN coverage and fees?
LikeLike
Wrong spot. Sorry.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“And, in a reversal of CFB metered markets, this time, the top ten cities are northern except Ft. Myers, FL.”
Shockingly, people that grew up playing and watching winter sports watch the winter Olympics more than those from warm weather locations. The taped-delayed Olympics are lagging the mostly live Vancouver games, not surprisingly.
I’m more curious to see how the summer Olympic do in various markets.
http://tvaholics.blogspot.com/2012/08/xxx-summer-olympics-broadcast-ratings_7.html
The summer games top ratings of 20 compared to numbers like 13 for these games.
Top markets in 2012:
Rank City Rating/Share
—————————————-
1. Salt Lake City 26.8/47
2. Milwaukee 24.7/41
3. Kansas City 24.4/41
4. Denver 24.0/45
5. Columbus 23.6/39
6. Norfolk 23.5/36
7. Indianapolis 23.0/39
8. San Diego 22.9/41
9. Richmond 22.3/36
10. West Palm Beach 22.2/37
11. Albuquerque 21.8/36
12. Washington, D.C. 21.6/39
12. Minneapolis 21.6/41
14. Austin 21.3/38
14. Oklahoma City 21.3/34
16. Ft. Myers 21.2/38
17. Portland 21.1/43
17. Nashville 21.1/33
19. Sacramento 21.0/39
20. St. Louis 20.9/35
20. Atlanta 20.9/34
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
Thanks for the link above. I want to get personal and share an email that I just sent to my parents back home in the great state of Michigan:
Yesterday was “Super TV Sports Day” for me. In the morning was the Men’s 50 km Cross-Country Skiing event − my most favourite event in the Winter Olympics − with a super-cool and tough! track. The race ended with a spectacular finish as the Russians finished 1-2-3 thus ensuring the host country to win the Medals Standing while also providing a Closing Ceremony of great national pride.
That was immediately followed on TV by the last 10 km of the Tokyo Marathon (taped replay), one of the world’s most prestigious marathons that also includes Boston, New York, Chicago, Berlin and London. After that was the Ice Hockey Gold Medal game which the Canadian men’s team deservingly won 3-0 as they were clearly the better team. The day ended with the “Turin Derby” which Juventus won 1-0 against city rivals Torino FC, followed by the Daytona 500 where NASCAR’s most popular driver − Dale Earnhardt Jr − won the prestigous race for the second time, a decade after his first victory in the “Great American Race”.
Otherwise, I didn’t pay any attention to the Winter Olympics, as they nowadays comprise too many “fun events” like snow-boarding, etc. But I did watch − by accident − the Woman’s Figure Skating competition. I had a colleague from Germany − actually a Chinese national with a PhD from the University of Karlsruhe of Germany − arrive at work that afternoon and found myself stuck in front of the TV with him that night. The competition was fun to watch, especially the slow-motion replays, but I thought South Korean superstar “Queen” Kim Yuna was robbed of the Gold Medal as her program was both flawless and elegant, and performed under incredible stress. Oh well, the South Koreans will have their revenge in 2018 when they host the next Winter Olympics.
Finally, the TV highlight of “Super TV Sports Day” for me came from the Tokyo Marathon. Distance running is totally dominated by Kenyans and Ethiopians, and the Tokyo Marathon was no exception, with Kenya’s Dickson Chumba winning the men’s competition and Ethiopia’s Tirfi Tsegaye winning the women’s competition. The woman winner of a marathon usually finish about 20 minutes after the man winner, and this race was no exception. For the women in this event, there were two Ethiopians running together with the winner breaking away about 200 meters from the finish. Funny enough, there was also a Japanese man running with them. He probably finished 10th place or so, but nobody was paying attention because the top Japanese man runner had already finished. But this Japanese man tried really hard to keep up with the two Ethiopian women, which I thought was unusual because he could had interfered with the two women who were fighting for the top women’s prize. Anyway, this guy really pushed hard until the very end, beating the two Ethiopian women by less than two seconds to the finish. There was simply no way he was going to get beat by two Ethiopian women. No way!
ALL THE BEST
LikeLike
I doubt something like this could become reality but David Beckham has begun talking about the possibility of a joint stadium involving an MLS and the University of Miami football program. 40,000 seats is the minimum that UM has requested as the capacity. No idea how they can break the lease at Sun Life Stadium.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sports-buzz/2014/02/beckham-exploring-possibility-of-joint-mlsum-stadiumshula-takes-stand-fins-heat-marlins-chatter.html
LikeLike
If, or should I say, IF, this could be pulled off, this would be a win-win for all involved. But I agree with your skepticism that this could actually get done.
LikeLike
Clay Travis’ take on the proposed Comcast/TWC merger and how it affects carriage for the SEC network.
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/what-does-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-mean-for-the-sec-network.php
LikeLike
Clay Travis is an complete unbiased journalist. In an election year with obamacare, immigration, minimum wage, and the economy all up for debate, SEC football will take precedent over it all. Also, using a Temple versus Vanderbilt game as example of pressure on Comcast disqualifies your argument on the spot.
As far as politics and comcast. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/comcast-time-warner-agree-to-merge-in-45-billion-deal/2014/02/13/7b778d60-9469-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
“But analysts also note the company’s powerful lobbying operation in Washington.
David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, is a longtime Democratic insider who has held fundraisers for President Obama and the Democratic National Committee. This week, he and his wife attended the White House state dinner for the president of France.
Said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at Medley Global Advisors: “Comcast has a strong track record on transactions pursued during the Obama administration, and we believe the company is quite capable of once again negotiating a successful path forward on this deal.””
I don’t see a few thousand crazed football fans stopping that merger.
LikeLike
@psuhockey:
You missed the part where Sen. Schumer (D-NY)’s brother is the lead attorney for TWC on the deal.
http://blog.littlesis.org/2014/02/17/schumer-reassures-new-york-about-comcast-time-warner-cable-deal-doesnt-mention-his-brother-was-the-dealmaker/
http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202643172475&Dealmaker_of_the_Week_Paul_Weiss_Robert_Schumer
LikeLike
psuhockey – I offered no opinion on the Travis column, only provided a link.
But if you think southern Republican politicians are going to prioritize the issues and stay away from red meat like college football and kicking around giant cable companies with Obama ties, you give them way more credit than most of them deserve. Thanks for the Washington Post link. Before I read that article, I just took Clay’s column as painting the issue in a light most favorable to the SEC. But thanks to your Post link, I easily can see southern Republican House members raising Hell about this merger as some sort of tin-foil hat conspiracy to break the SEC. Crazier things have been said by congressmen and senators that represent SEC states. In fact, the House Communications and Technology subcommittee has five Republican members hailing from SEC states. I can think of at least two of them that would love to call hearings to discredit the president for any reason.
LikeLike
No doubt you might have a comment here and there and I don’t give republicans any credit; they are more likely to say something stupid about abortion then talk about the issues. There is just way too much going on right now that not getting the Texas AM South Carolina game is far down the list, especially for the people that actually call politicians. Not to mention no politician is going to expend political capital over a business negotiation for which they are not going to prosper. What are republicans going to gain by talking about this, even more local support in the south.
I thinks its pompous and demeaning to southerns to even considered political pressure being forced because Southerns don’t get their football. You can be diametrically opposed to all my political views Mr President and that’s fine but if I can’t see Ole Miss versus Auburn, now I am marching to Washington. Give me a break.
LikeLike
psuhockey -I live in the south and do a lot of work in politics & government.
I see crazier sh!t every day.
LikeLike
Alan,
I will take your word on it. Although still think Clay Travis is full of it.
LikeLike
Clay Travis is full of it, but I’ve also seen crazier stuff down here regularly.
LikeLike
“psuhockey -I live in the south and do a lot of work in politics & government.
I see crazier sh!t every day.”
God bless you, Alan.
LikeLike
Some of TWC will be absorbed by another cable company. Comcast just wants certain markets. They will sell the smaller markets off to other providers.
LikeLike
Clay Travis isn’t self aware enough to realize he looked like an idiot with his previous SEC network article (where he said $400mm in carriage fees would mean $28.5mm in revenue for each SEC school, as if there are no costs and ESPN won’t be taking a cut) and actually links to it in this new one.
LikeLike
Frank,
With the possible Comcast-Time Warner cable merger, it would make a lot of sense for future BTN negotiations for the Big Ten to have some sort of media rights relationship with Comcast/NBC. The Big Ten currently sold a few hockey games to NBCSN but I would imagine a lot more needed to have some sort of partnership.
It has been widely speculated here that the BIG will split its football between ESPN/ABC and Fox. Is there any way football could be split 3 ways? Would the BIG be better off dumping CBS and selling tier 1 basketball to NBC? In your opinion, would top tier basketball be worth enough to NBC/Comcast to get favorable dealings with that company over the BTN coverage and fees?
LikeLike
It certainly seems that NBC is punching way below its weight in the college sports game. Sure, Notre Dame football is a valuable property, but it’s just ~7-8 games a year, and never more than one per week. And not all of ND’s home games are blockbusters, either. You’d think NBC could, and would want to, do better than that.
LikeLike
Totally agree with Marc. I think for NBC, its just that there aren’t worthwhile CFB packages available for non-Notre Dame Saturdays that actually make it to the open market.
I wonder if NBC bought, say, the MWC package on the (very) cheap and threw its promotional muscle behind it if it would work out for the network. Not a ton of great names now in the MWC, but there are some good markets represented there that could, long term, maybe pay off. Certainly couldn’t hurt to have the content on NBCSN, with a game of the week on NBC on non-UND Saturdays.
LikeLike
Certainly couldn’t hurt to have the content on NBCSN, with a game of the week on NBC on non-UND Saturdays.
Even on ND Saturdays, other networks are pitching double- and triple-headers, while NBC has just one game. There is clearly room for a lot more, if they decide to go all-in.
Now, you might say that ESPN/ABC is just too entrenched, but I remember when people thought that only ABC could televise an Olympics, and it was considered a seismic shift when Fox pulled the NFC away from CBS. For the right amount of money, nothing is sacred.
I agree with Frank that it doesn’t seem to be NBC’s style to get into that kind of bidding war, so it would take a considerable philosophical change for this to happen.
LikeLike
All true, but all those deals nowadays have exclusives for the existing rights holders to try to extend an existing deal. I don’t see ESPN/ABC playing games and letting the package even get to market (by making that good of an offer).
Also, with Comcast as owners, I’d expect to see corporate-mandated belt-tightening at NBC. And its not like NBC was known for overbidding beforehand.
As for Fox taking the NFC from CBS, whats remarkable there is CBS had an opportunity to match/come close to the Fox offer but decided not to. Obscene money always trumps. (See: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138126/2/index.htm )
LikeLike
The MWC has some decent games, but not a full season’s worth.
Boise St., the Cali schools, the Nevada schools, and Hawaii frequently get the PAC 12 and BYU at home. Air Force brings the Army and Navy games. Probably 4 or 5 such games per year – mostly in September. And after Boise St.-Fresno St., there really aren’t many sexy MWC-only matchups.
It might makes sense if NBC could get BYU and the MWC on board. Then, it could fill in the open slots when Notre Dame is on the road with a game that has half-a-chance at decent ratings.
2014 example:
Aug 30 – Rice at Notre Dame; Washington at Hawaii
Sep 6 – Michigan at Notre Dame; Oregon St. at Hawaii or Arizona St. at New Mexico
Sep 13 – Purdue v. Notre Dame at Lucas Oil; Nebraska at Fresno St.
Sep 20 – Virginia at BYU
Sep 27 – Houston at BYU
Oct 4 – Stanford at Notre Dame; Navy at Air Force
Oct 11 – North Carolina at Notre Dame
Oct 18 – Nevada at BYU
Oct 25 – BYU at Boise St.; Air Force at at Utah St.
Nov 1. – Fresno St. at Boise St.
Nov 8 – SDSU at Fresno St.
Nov 15 – Northwestern at Notre Dame; UNLV at BYU
Nov 22 – Louisville at Notre Dame; SDSU at Boise St.
Nov. 29 – Boise St. at Air Force; UNLV v. Nevada
LikeLike
2015 Example:
Sep 5 – Texas at Notre Dame; Washington at Boise St.; Colorado at Hawaii
Sep 12 – UCLA at UNLV; Arizona at Nevada; Boise St. at BYU
Sep 19 – Georgia Tech at Notre Dame; Utah at Fresno St.
Sep 26 – UMass at Notre Dame
Oct 3 – Fresno St. at SDSU
Oct 10 – Navy at Notre Dame
Oct 17 – USC at Notre Dame
Oct 24 – Cincinnati at BYU
Oct 31 – UConn at BYU
Nov 7 – Army at Air Force; Boise St. at Fresno St.
Nov 14 – Wake Forest at Notre Dame; BYU at UNLV
Nov 21 – Boston College v. Notre Dame at Fenway; Fresno St. at BYU
Nov 28 – BYU at Utah St.; Air Force at Boise St.
Not stellar, but could get NBC into the game.
LikeLike
Could BYU even sign a deal with NBC if it wanted to or does ESPN have all home games?
LikeLike
BYU is early in an 8 year deal with ESPN.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700062009/BYU-ESPN-agree-to-8-year-broadcast-partnership.html
The google does wonders.
LikeLike
Certainly MWC games would not be glamorous, but would be a sign of increasing focus on college football. I’m sure one of the reasons that NBC only has UND and the Grambling-Southern game is because it made a business decision against having more CFB (and letting go of some NYD bowl games, like the Gator and Rose over time). But that business decision means few if any consider it a natural home for CFB and CFB leaders don’t want to make risky bets. Its why Fox is having a hard time starting a CFB Saturday tradition from scratch, both on its broadcast network and on FS1. But if NBC can start to rebuild something, it could become a long term viable option for some of the bigger conferences.
Bonus: NBC loves deals (like its NHL broadcast deal). Live on the cheap is something historically they are interested in.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – The biggest reason why the split between ESPN/ABC and Fox is what has been speculated the most for the Big Ten is that those two are very clearly and openly partnering with each other to outbid Comcast/NBC on numerous sports properties (including the Pac-12). They don’t want anything to do with sharing with NBC specifically. Period. They aren’t even trying to hide it. So, with ESPN/ABC providing the most money and exposure and Fox providing the second most money and exposure (FS1 is in more homes than NBCSN) working together, it would take a massive over-the-top offer from Comcast/NBC to win any rights, which simply isn’t their style. Comcast seems to be satisfied with NBCSN being the “hipster/yuppie” sports network with lots of hockey and soccer plus the Olympics, which gets nice income demographics but doesn’t really drive the broader viewership that gives the Big Ten its power over other conferences besides the SEC in the first place (unlike ESPN’s full suite of NFL/NBA/MLB programming and even Fox’s MLB/Pac-12/Big 12 packages). That audience is fine for Big Ten hockey, but not for football or basketball. That’s not to say that NBC won’t try (I’m sure they will and that’s a good thing for the conference to drive up the price), but the next Big Ten package is tailor-made to be a supersized version of what the Pac-12 agreed to with Disney and Fox. The Big Ten also has a ton of entrenched leverage with both of them – as I repeatedly point out, ESPN and ABC actually rely upon Big Ten games even more than the SEC and ACC, while Fox has its BTN relationship.
LikeLike
Doesn’t Comcast have a minority interest in the BTN? I’ve read that somewhere when BTN was trying to get carriage in eastern PA
LikeLike
Fox 51% Big Ten 49%
LikeLike
Someone with insider knowledge provided greater detail of the contract the B1G signed when they were getting carriage in the Philly market and essentially had to give some equity. The B1G’s share was closer to 40%. Not sure how accurate that was but the information provided was very detailed and very believable. This is coming from someone who values businesses for a living and studies partnership agreements on a routine basis.
LikeLike
@Kevin – That’s definitely not true. Comcast has no interest at all in the BTN. Here’s an article from 2011 (which would have been long after the carriage deal in the Philly market would have been signed) stating that it’s 51% Fox/49% Big Ten:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/157692/fox-moves-to-majority-position-in-big-ten-network.html
There also isn’t anything in Comcast’s public filings about an interest in the BTN, which would have had to have been disclosed at some point.
LikeLike
Link? That’s news to me, and apparently to the media since I have never seen a stroy claim anything other than 51%/49%.
LikeLike
ESPN article on CFB attendance and student no-shows.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10458047/next-generation-ticket-holder-concern-students-show-college-football-games
Also on this topic, I received an e-mail with an attached survey from the SEC office last week regarding ways improve the game day experience. I can’t send the survey as its encrypted, but the topics ranged from traffic, tailgating, getting into the stadium, bathrooms, food, replays, music, and Wi-Fi.
LikeLike
In related stories, ESPN’s conference bloggers rate the student sections in each P-5 conference.
SEC – 1 LSU, 2 Bama, 3 Florida, 4 A&M, 5 Auburn
B1G – 1 Penn State, 2 Ohio State, 3 Wisconsin, 4 Nebraska, 5 Iowa
ACC – 1 Clemson, 2 VA Tech, 3 Florida State, 4 GA Tech, 5 NC State
B12 – 1 Texas Tech, 2 Baylor, 3 OK State, 4 K-State, 5 Iowa State
P12 – 1 Arizona, 2 Utah, 3 Oregon, 4 Washington, 5 Arizona State
LikeLike
I’m a Mizzou season ticket holder and I received the same survey. A big thing for me would be getting data for my phone in the stadium. I never get a signal inside Faurot Field.
LikeLike
That’s an issue just the same at pro stadiums. And it’s not a cheap fix.
See: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/09/16/Colleges/Pac-12.aspx
“It costs around $2 million to install Wi-Fi, and more for those schools that need both Wi-Fi and a DAS.”
LikeLike
PAC 12 is doing it conference wide. Of course it’s easier to say what you want than to deliver what the students and fans will expect. And what will the actual timetable be?
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/09/16/Colleges/Pac-12.aspx?
LikeLike
Same thing at UGA-you can’t get a signal. But for that matter, when Atlanta had the snow disaster a couple of weeks ago you couldn’t send a call. You could text, but couldn’t make a call.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2014/02/14/isu-ui-ads-see-cy-hawk-continuing-as-long-as-conference-formats-allow/
At least 2 AQ ADs don’t see more AQ realignment as likely.
Barta and Pollard don’t foresee more conference changes of the kind that expanded the Big 10 to 14 universities and shrunk the Big 12 to 10.
“I’m not going to say it’s not going to happen,” Pollard said, but not to the extent seen in recent years when “that was the discussion every single day.” He expects there will be movement among non-Bowl Championship Series schools, but not in the five major conferences.
Also, Barta looks at the pros of expansion for IA:
Although re-alignment has not always been popular with fans, Barta thinks expansion has been good for the Big 10, including the move into a “corridor of 60 million people” with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers. That offers the possibility of more television revenue, he said.
There’s an upside for fans, too, he added.
“It made us redistribute our divisions and so now every year our fans are going to see us play Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern,” Barta said. “So more good than bad. We have yet to see where the negatives are.”
IA gained more than most from expansion. First they got NE to play, then the new divisions gave them back WI and made IL annual again. They can top that off with a lot more money once the new TV deal starts, in part because of RU and UMD.
LikeLike
The only expansion I foresee within the next 10 years or so on the FBS level would be if the CFB selection committee penalizes the B12 for not having a conference championship game. I could see them reaching out to the BYU/Cincy combo if that does happen (and if BYU finds being an independent less fulfilling/lucrative).
But if nothing else, the GOR will enforce some stability until 2025ish (a few years before they end).
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/02/rutgers_football_poll_should_the_scarlet_knights_play_at_metlife_stadium.html
RU fans don’t want to move FB games off campus to MetLife. I don’t blame them, but I’d consider it for a team that wouldn’t come otherwise, like ND.
Poll results:
55% – Never give up a home game
30% – Only do it occasionally for a really big game (ND, OU, etc)
15% – Do it once a year
LikeLike
As an RU season ticket holder I would prefer no MetLife games, but understand it may be inevitable.
I just hope the people running things do one thing correctly. Rutgers shouldn’t play anyone in MetLife until they have played them at least one time at Rutgers Stadium first. I understand you can accommodate more visiting and casual fans at MetLife, but you want to reinforce how big a deal it is that some of the kings of college football are visiting New Jersey and one way to do that is to make tickets very hard to get.
One game a year at Metlife starting in 2016.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is the LAST team I would want Rutgers playing at MetLife. ND wouldn’t play at the 52,500 seat Rutgers stadium because it was “too small”, while they had no problem visiting the much smaller venues at BC and Wake (and this was while ND was a partial member of the BE, not the ACC).
LikeLike
While I agree with you 100%, I just don’t see RU passing up the opportunity to make extra money with moving a possible UND game to MetLife Stadium, even if it would result in a terrible fan atmosphere for a Rutgers “Home” game.
Kind of like this game: http://www.insidenu.com/2013/09/24/the-strange-story-of-the-modell-bowl/
LikeLike
I don’t think any extra money RU would make for a MetLife ND game would make up for the negative reaction amongst the fanbase. People were proud that RU stood up to ND and that was at a time when RU really could have used a high profile game like that. Giving in now (when visits by OSU,PSU,MI and Neb make Notre Dame no big deal) would be foolish.
LikeLike
To be fair, that game at Wake was part of a 2-for-1. I’m sure ND would do a 2-for-1 with RU if Rutgers was up for that.
ND has also gotten BC to move their next home games against the Irish offsite (to Fenway).
LikeLike
It could be set up as a neutral site game. The Badgers are playing LSU in 2017 at Lambeau. Tickets will be split between schools and number of other tickets will be made available to the General Public. If it’s a neutral site game at Met Life I think that would work better
LikeLike
Anyone could vote in that poll. My guess is that the RU fans who are season ticket holders (like me) all voted to never give up a home game. RU loses its home field advantage by moving the game to MetLife because a large number of tickets are purchased by the other team’s fans. My guess is that it would also decrease the number of students attending the game. PSU outnumbered Syracuse there last year by at least three to one, and I heard USC outnumbered Syracuse the year before by a wide margin. Let’s have RU prove that it can keep its own stadium 75% red on September 13th before we start moving games elsewhere.
LikeLike
I’m sure it’ll be at least 75% red when OSU, NE or WI come to town.
LikeLike
Don’t you mean 100% red? RU’s color is scarlet, too. Or are you counting referees and vendors along with fans?
LikeLike
Not everyone will wear red. Some OSU fans wear gray, for example. There are always those who wear black or some other random color.
LikeLike
Then again, is Rutgers guaranteed a home field environment if the game is on campus, or will students/season ticket holders use a game vs. Michigan/OSU/PSU to profit?
LikeLike
The students can make a profit if they want to scam someone, but they turn their tickets into empty seats because you need to show a student ID to enter RU Stadium on a student ticket.
LikeLike
Season ticket holders have any such restrictions?
LikeLike
No. However, I don’t see a ton of season ticket holders selling their own tickets to the marquee games, after sitting through years of unattractive opponents. I see season ticket holders using their “front of the line” status to buy the extra available tickets and sell them for a profit.
Based on the only evidence we have with a motivated road team fanbase and the ability to resell for a tidy profit (which would be West Virginia), I would expect that the upper limit on how many tickets a road team can get their hands on for an RU stadium game would be 15-20M (out of 52,500)
LikeLike
Big Ten’s office in NYC is apparently opening next month. Will be staffed full-time. Big Ten’s DC office will be a satellite office.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/95904/delany-big-ten-mind-set-must-be-national
LikeLike
I am still not getting what the full-time staff there would actually do.
LikeLike
Ha. I’m wondering the same thing. Shop online. Order lunch. Hunt for best happy hours seem to be the best bets.
In practice, its probably a room subleased from a Big Ten school’s alumni office in NYC. Staff probably meets with reporters/advertisers/potential advertisers/social media folks on a regular basis. That’s the best I can come up with.
LikeLike
PR events and ad sales, I’d guess. Maintain relations with the power brokers and local alumni.
LikeLike
Maybe it brings them closer to their TV Partners. But probably mostly to create a PR presence in NYC. Not sure how they go about that in such big city. Does the B1G HQ’s in Chicago really create a buzz in that city? Maybe to hold coaches meetings and/or AD meetings. Otherwise it seems more like window dressing.
LikeLike
Where the office is located will tell us a lot about what the office is expected/intended to do. The office in “Chicago” is actually in a close suburb right next to Ohare airport. It is an actual functioning office like one would expect with conference rooms for various meetings, events, etc.
If the B1G puts the office near JFK for example, then I think it will be a real functioning office. Something in Manhattan or midtown will be PR and window-dressing.
LikeLike
Given the different purposes of the two offices, Midtown Manhattan is the only place that makes sense. In NYC, nobody puts that type of office near JFK.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships
Another way to look at recruiting. Every national champ lately has recruited more blue-chips than not. Also gives data for every school and talks about the conferences.
LikeLike
Amazing how almost half of those schools under-performed the last few years relative to the number of Blue Chip recruits (Texas, Mich, UF, UGA, USC*). Alabama & OSU performed where they should have.
LikeLike
Which speaks in part to coaching and player development, but also to luck. UGA has had a lot of injury problems and legal troubles, I know. UT hasn’t been able to find a good QB. MI had to dig out of a whole with the style change that came with Hoke. USC had the NCAA issues.
Basically, the talent level is a necessary condition to win it all, but it’s not sufficient in and of itself.
LikeLike
Someone who follows it much closer than me said that the number of blue chips had declined significantly in California and Texas the last couple of years. His theory is that the rating is highly influenced by the number of major schools offering and Georgia and Florida are enormously competitive and being recruited by a lot of schools who have finished near the top recently and getting over-rated relative to Texas and California.
LikeLike
Shhh…
Let everybody recruit the SE and leave the “declining talent” of Texas and CA to others.
LikeLike
By this standard of measuring recruiting, the B12 appears to be in trouble. UT and OK need to do better, they lost 2 solid recruiting schools (UNL and TAM), they picked 2 meh recruiting schools, the state of TX has had a decline in blue chip prospects, and the SEC is now in the territory. Some of these items are cyclical, but this makes for tough times at the B12.
LikeLike
Hmm. Based on the recruiting, we may see a shift in the prince categories in the near future.
Every king is at at least 30% (except PSU, but JoePa was a notoriously bad recruiter in his declining years and they’ve had issues; I expect Franklin to move them up to king-level quickly) and every prince is at at least 16% except for Wisconsin (missing barely at 13%) and . . . . Iowa, down there at 8%.
We’ve seen Oregon and then Stanford make the jump from the plebes to prince-level. Iowa could very well drop down.
LikeLike
BTW, this adds substance to my hypothesis that the SEC will win roughly half the national titles going forward, as they make up 5 of the 11 realistic contenders.
The current situation is sort of a mirror of the situation 50 (actually, 40-70 years ago), when one region of the country dominated college football. Now, of the 11 realistic contenders, 6 (UF, UGa, ‘Bama, LSU, Auburn, & FSU) are in the southeast, 3 (OSU, UM, & ND) are in the Midwest, 1 (Texas) is in the SW, and 1 (USC) is out west.
Back 50 years ago, of the 10 kings, 5 (OSU, UM, ND, UNL, and OU) were in the Midwest, 2 (‘Bama and Tenn.) were in the SE, and Texas and USC were the lone representatives in their regions back then as well.
And indeed, from 1940-1977, a Midwestern school won or shared the national title in 23 of the 38 years. The dominance by one region just wasn’t as noticeable then because the Midwestern kings were split among the B10, B8, and one independent where as 5 of the 6 current Southeastern kings (and 5 of the 7 Southern kings) are in one conference.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/96045/b1g-night-games-could-come-to-early-nov
We may get November night games in the B10 this year. Most likely are 11/1 and 11/8 since the ADs still worry about weather issues.
Will 2014 be the year we see Big Ten football kick off under the lights after Nov. 1?
We won’t know for sure until ESPN/ABC and BTN announce their prime-time schedules this spring, but there’s momentum for more night games and later night games, and talks are underway.
“We’re more amendable to that first November Saturday,” Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith recently told ESPN.com, “and I think some of us will be willing to look at that second Saturday in November if the contest is right.”
Weather is still a potential deterrent for Big Ten schools to schedule night games later in the season, as it creates possible logistical problems for all involved (fans, game operations staff, police/security). But the temperature difference between late October and the first portion of November often is negligible.
The 2014 season includes Saturdays on Nov. 1 and Nov. 8.
Here are the schedules:
Nov. 1
Indiana at Michigan
Maryland at Penn State
Illinois at Ohio State
Wisconsin at Rutgers
Northwestern at Iowa
Purdue at Nebraska
Byes: Minnesota, Michigan State
Nov. 8
Penn State at Indiana
Michigan at Northwestern
Ohio State at Michigan State
Iowa at Minnesota
Wisconsin at Purdue
Byes: Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, Nebraska
11/1 might get a BTN night game (PSU, NE and RU all like night games), but none of those would make ABC.
11/8 could get OSU/MSU on ABC if it lives up to the hype as the game of the year in the B10. The BTN might get PSU@IN or MI@NW.
Usually the primetime schedules are released in late April to early May, but the B10 may be pushing to do it earlier so they can advertise the games even more.
LikeLike
At a minimum, certainly going forward there should not be the same weather-related concerns for November night games in College Park or in New Jersey that they have for the other schools.
Wouldn’t shock me to see the schedule in 2015 and beyond to be tweaked so that marque teams play at UMD/RU in November with the thought being the game gets played at night.
LikeLike
RU is only 2-3 degrees warmer than OSU in November, but the smaller stadium, public transit and shorter drives could make a big difference. The moderating influence of the Atlantic probably makes for more consistent weather, too. DC is another 2 degrees warmer or so.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see them host more November night games in the east, although I’m not sure how much more attention that gets. Night on BTN versus afternoon on ESPN/ESPN2?
LikeLike
@Brian – Just for pure scheduling purposes, it makes sense. I recall someone from the SEC Network stating that it will be have morning, afternoon and prime time games every week. The BTN isn’t able to do that in November as of now and often has multiple 12 pm ET games going on at the same time on splillover channels. It’s much more attractive to move a game to prime time, particularly when Maryland and Rutgers generally have hospitable weather (or at least nothing materially different compared to late October) during that time.
LikeLike
It has been fairly common in prior years to have Big 10 games on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 all at the same time.
LikeLike
11/1: Bucky@RU and PU@UNL are candidates for being night games. No way UMD@PSU is considering that Happy Valley is located in the mountains (I’ve driven through that stretch of the country in the dark in freezing rain and that’s not what I would call safe).
Considering that the BTN will be pressing hard for NJ and MD carriers to pay the full rates, I fully expect UW@RU to be a BTN night game.
11/8: Agree that OSU@MSU is a possibility. However, since the B10 schedules night games before the season starts, OSU@MSU will probably be ESPN/ABC (ABC if it’s a nationally relevant matchup by that time; ESPN if otherwise). Agree that PSU@IU and UM@NU are candidates to be BTN night games. Also Wisconsin@PU, but IU and NU like night games more.
BTW, if OSU@MSU is an ESPN/ABC game, there will likely not be a BTN primetime game that night; the B10 hasn’t scheduled a conference game on the BTN opposite a conference game on ESPN/ABC yet.
LikeLike
Then again, there will be roughly 1 extra game a week, so maybe we will see a game on BTN at primetime almost every week after all.
LikeLike
Richard,
“No way UMD@PSU is considering that Happy Valley is located in the mountains (I’ve driven through that stretch of the country in the dark in freezing rain and that’s not what I would call safe).”
PSU is one of the schools that’s shown the most interest in night games, plus it would get UMD primetime exposure which the league may want.
LikeLike
Night games before November, however.
The league can get primetime exposure for UMD with OSU on 10/4, Iowa on 10/18, @UW on 10/25, and MSU on 11/15 if they want that.
LikeLike
They have shown interest in November night games before (with OSU, at least), but didn’t get it arranged soon enough for it to happen. OSU played @PSU on 10/27/12 at 5:30pm and it was originally scheduled for 6pm (MI @ NE was at 8pm). I doubt 4 days later they’d be too worried about playing at night.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/96069/northwestern-bad-example-for-union-push
Why NW was the wrong school to start the player union movement at.
LikeLike
It really doesn’t matter where the union movement starts; it only matters whether it succeeds or fails. If the players from any school unionize and survive the inevitable court challenges, it will mean several things:
1) Players at other schools, who may have hesitated, will now have a template for how it’s done.
2) An uncertain, practically Quixotic quest, becomes far more likely. Once you’ve got a successful court challenge in hand, courts in other jurisdictions are likely to be guided by it. You see this with issue after issue (e.g., same-sex marriage). Once you’ve prevailed somewhere, it becomes a lot easier to prevail everywhere.
3) The NCAA will have a first-class headache on their hands, as a bedrock premise of their entire existence will have been undermined.
4) Student-athletes at a unionized school will start to gain advantages not available to others. Once unionized players gain a particular benefit through collective bargaining, the NCAA will probably have trouble denying it to others for very long. (This, of course, is how unions have long worked: they get a benefit from Ford, and push Chrysler and GM to agree to the same thing.)
Of course, the unionization effort may fail, in which case the opposite will occur.
By the way, I agree with the writer that Northwestern athletes are getting a pretty good deal, probably better than at most other schools. But in the big picture, it really doesn’t matter where the movement begins; only how it ends.
LikeLike
It matters a great deal where it starts. The wrong test case and the wrong outcome could set the plan to unionize decades. The right test case and the right outcome gets the ball rolling now. If Colter fails. Its going to be a while until someone tries again.
An articulate, mediocre football player at a real football factory would have been a better test case than someone who it can be objectively argued got paid in terms of getting a world class education for free.
LikeLike
It matters a great deal where it starts. The wrong test case and the wrong outcome could set the plan to unionize decades. The right test case and the right outcome gets the ball rolling now. If Colter fails. Its going to be a while until someone tries again.
Although that is entirely true, that is not the point that the quoted article made. What matters is whether the challenge occurs in a state where the laws are conducive to it (which Illinois is), and it helps that Northwestern itself is not really trying very hard to get in the way.
LikeLike
The state doesn’t matter. Its a hearing before the federal National Labor Relations Board. Any challenges would be in federal court.
LikeLike
The state matters; look it up. Like most subjects, labor law is a mixture of state law and federal law.
LikeLike
Actually, the state does not matter for Northwestern players, because its a private university.
“The NLRB only governs the rights of private sector employees. Northwestern is a private university. College athletes at public universities would have to go through state labor boards to form a union.”
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/5_questions_about_northwestern.html
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/northwestern_football_players_1.html
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10366061/northwestern-players-attempt-unionize-likely-fail-impact-far-reaching
“Although that is entirely true, that is not the point that the quoted article made. What matters is whether the challenge occurs in a state where the laws are conducive to it (which Illinois is), and it helps that Northwestern itself is not really trying very hard to get in the way.”
Actually, the point of the ESPN article originally cited is that NWU players are a bad test case because its not a football factory, graduates 97% with a stellar, world class education, and players graduate with excellent non-football job prospects (the article explicitly mentions Colter’s internship at Goldman Sachs). There is no absolutely no mention/discussion of the state where laws are conducive to organizing.
LikeLike
See also, for general background:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-northwestern-football-union-hearings-20140212,0,7797485.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/sports/ncaafootball/northwestern-players-take-steps-to-form-a-union.html?_r=0 (“There are other logistical questions facing the new players’ association, such as how public universities, whose employees are governed by state law, will be affected.’)
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140212/BLOGS04/140219918/northwestern-university-college-players-union-state-cases-to-nlrb
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/18/capa-northwestern-football-union-labor-hearing-nlrb-chicago/5588045/
LikeLike
2 and 4 are not necessarily true.
2. Public schools are bound by state laws regarding unions. Just because northwestern, a private school, becomes unionized doesn’t mean that the university of Alabama will follow. Right to work states will complicate the process of unionizing all of college football. All automakers aren’t unionized, all truck drivers are not unionized, all tradesmen are not unionized. Just because the NFL which is essentially a single corporation is unionized across the country doesn’t mean that every school will with difference conferences in different states with vastly different views on public and private sector unions.
4. Again this not necessity true and a good example is 4 year scholarships. There are schools now that offer 4 year scholarships. Two schools that definitely do not and are notorious for cutting players is Alabama and LSU. Neither of these schools have felt pressure to change since they still attract top talent from around the country. You are dealing with 18-22 years olds. That age group is not known for long term planning. The strength in most unions are not the new young workers coming in to a union, as they are often the ones screwed with last in first out polices and greater wage restrictions. Unions have coercive powers from their long term members. Who will that be in this situation? Lettermen who will receive nothing from current players unionizing?
In the end, even if this goes thru which I am not sure it will because as much as the current administration loves unions, it loves higher education the same, the effects could just end up hurting private schools. Northwestern and Vanderbilt won’t becoming football powerhouses because of it either. If anything, these schools will devalue sports even more. If I had to guess, this fails but the players get what they are asking for anyway.
LikeLike
#2 and #4 are absolutely true. You’re just too impatient. In the long run, they are true. It just might take decades.
I do realize that some state laws are more hostile to unions. But bear in mind, there are two ways the players could succeed. One is that they succeed in the courts. The other is that the NCAA lifts some of its restrictions, because it doesn’t want athletes at some schools to receive benefits that those at other schools don’t get.
You referred to 4-year scholarships. This is a fairly recent innovation. The fact that some schools do not yet offer them, says nothing about how the issue will eventually turn out, after a period of many years.
LikeLike
Tonight’s Iowa-Indiana basketball game in Bloomington, Ind., has been postponed after a large piece of metal fell from the ceiling of the Assembly Hall.
Indiana University engineers advised postponing the game because of safety concerns.
http://qctimes.com/sports/basketball/college/big-10/iowa/iowa-indiana-game-postponed/article_78b6a3c5-0175-5c0d-b717-34e50cc9500d.html
Wow! Did they catch a lucky break or what? Imagine if that had happened during the game.
LikeLike
I’m sure Bobby Knight threw worse during his IU days…
LikeLike
IU has committed itself to a 40 million or so renovation of the Assembly Hall (http://tracking.si.com/2013/12/19/cindy-simon-skjodt-assembly-hall); yet there is a strong contingent of IU followers that would have preferred a new arena. Lets say that the roof problem is worse than currently believed – would they move remaining home games to Indy (Bankers Life Fieldhouse)?
Bonus – why are the player benches situated behind the main camera (out of the view of TV viewers) at Assembly Hall and for that matter, at Duke’s Cameron Arena – is that a Knight-influenced way of making players less important than the program?
LikeLike
Is the game on the bench or the floor? Of course the game and program are bigger than any particular player(s).
LikeLike
Rules Committee Chairman backtracks, flashed some up-tempo, no-huddle speed while doing so:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal
LikeLike
Thank goodness. Dumbest idea I have heard in a while.
LikeLike
The only safety issue is the safety of some coaches jobs.
Saban and Bielema tried to sneak this one in and got caught. The article says the only rule changes allowed this year are those related to player safety and as Malzahn says, “There’s absolutely zero documented evidence that is hazardous on the pace of play, only opinions,” Malzahn told reporters Tuesday.
LikeLike
And there is no prohibithon of stoping the game over a safety/injury concern currently (ie. injuries, fake or real, stop play). What was being addressed by the proposal was a competitive conditioning concern. An injured player, or even a fatigued one isn’t prevented from leaving now.
LikeLike
I’d like to see them throw a bone to the defense and allow more contact by the DB’s. The game is way to slanted towards offense. I would also eliminate this idea that the entire offense, including the line, can stand up and look towards the sidelines for play call direction before snapping the ball since most of the lines are in 2 pt stances. QB fine, but not the whole team. It’s ridiculous.
One expert I heard recently predict that maybe in 20 Years you could see the 3 pt stance being banned due to the helmet to helmet contact at the LOS. In many respects the game is becoming less recognizable and mimicking the age of seven on sevens.
Who knows maybe they will ban 330lb linemen too.
LikeLike
Wrestling changed the unlimited class to 285, 264 in international.
Ban sideline to field communication if the offense is at the line arrayed to legally snap the ball.
LikeLike
They already quit calling interference unless it would be classified as at least a misdemeanor.
LikeLike
Amway is the new sponsor of the new national championship trophy, presumably also selling the trophy cleaner:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24447594/amway-new-sponsor-of-glass-football-national-championship-trophy
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yeesh. I have some strong personal problems with the multilevel-marketing schemes of Amway and its subsidiaries. Their tactics that I witnessed with someone that I know closely are absolutely appalling. I’m not the type that’s quick to call companies evil, but Amway is at the top of the list in my book.
LikeLike
Baseball Coach Wayne Graham won his 1000th game at Rice last night (I was there, of course).
Averaging almost 45 wins a year over 23 years. 18 consecutive conference championships. 19 consecutive NCAA appearances. 7 CWS appearances. 1 National Championship.
Arguably the best streak in Houston sports history.
http://www.chron.com/sports/rice/article/Rice-s-Graham-earns-1-000th-career-win-with-5246495.php
LikeLike
Congrats to one of the all time greats in College Baseball.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten ever leaves ESPN, ESPN will merely do this in CFB (albeit with different teams):
http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2014/02/syracuse_basketball_espn_college_gameday.html
Games like FSU-Miami, FSU-Clemson, Miami-Clemson, UM/FSU/Clem vs. UND would probably get this treatment, not to mention any of the other schools having a good season (Pitt, GT, Cuse, L’Ville).
ESPN marketing can very easily do this in CFB.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t they want to do that WITH the Big Ten staying in the fold with ESPN? Games involving any combo of Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa (in its good years) is pretty big-time. And why wouldn’t they do that with the SEC, too? Are you suggesting that ESPN is more bent towards pumping ACC football than they are for SEC football?
LikeLike
Because the Big Ten has more, bigger brands than ACC, and ESPN/ABC is the typical home of Big Ten Saturday night games.
If the Big Ten stays with ESPN, it will not get any less ABC Sat Night exposure then it currently gets. Only if there is a void to fill will ESPN insert ACC and SEC into that slot.
LikeLike
wainscot – Under the current contracts, the SEC can’t play a home game on ABC.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. Further bolsters my theory that ESPN will pump up the ACC if left without B1G programming in the next TV deal.
What’s the rationale for that rule? CBS gets the exclusive for network prime time? SEC has two prime time games (ESPN, ESPN2), why the contractual ban on ABC?
LikeLike
Wainscott – CBS is the exclusive broadcast partner for SEC home games and conference games. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and SECN get the rest. SEC teams only get on ABC as the visitor in an OOC game, or for a neutral site game that is sold individually.
LikeLike
Bears watching:
http://www.nationofblue.com/directv-says-they-have-no-plans-to-carry-sec-network/
LikeLike
I have a difficult time reading anything prefaced with “According to Clay Travis…”
LikeLike
DirectTV is the only major cable carrier not taking the Pac 12 network. They don’t have the Longhorn Network. They probably wouldn’t be carrying the Big 10 network if not for ownership ties back when it was formed.
LikeLike
The BTN came at a time when the economy was better and pay television wasn’t hemorrhaging thousands of customers. The price point for pay television, IMO, is at its maximum. Any addition cost will be taken out not from the customers but from the cable and satellite providers because they really can’t raise prices too much more with the loses in subscribers they are enduring. With Fios television, they are already offering packages without sports programming all together and others with limited channels. It should be interesting going forward with these conference sports channels.
Directv has a very nice position regarding sports by having the sole carriage rights to the NFL ticket. A good amount of their subscribers probably sign up just because of that. So now you have sports fans deciding every NFL game versus tier 2 & 3 college games.
LikeLike
“The price point for pay television, IMO, is at its maximum”
Don’t think the maximum (if there is one) for pay television is one to one related to their most valuable inventory, live sports. I’ve been hearing how TV costs are unsupportable above the “current level”…since cable went above $20/mo.
LikeLike
DirectTV’s contract with ESPN expires 12/31/2014. Unlikely for them to pick it up prior to then. Good chance it happens then.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24448406/finance-professor-rice-or-duke-may-be-next-unionization-target
A ND finance professor says he doesn’t think the NW players will win their union case and that Duke and Rice might be the next schools to try it.
LikeLike
I would think trying to get a scrub at the U of Miami with no pro potential would be better. Private school and football factory with God-only-knows what skeletons lurking underneath. Players at Duke and Rice present the same challenges as NWU players from a union perspective–by and large smart, articulate ones getting a world class education for free.
Miami isn’t on that level academically, and I’m sure there are far more professionalized elements of the football program that at Duke, Rice, or NWU.
LikeLike
Duke may be a target for unions, but Rice? As a CUSA member they are not making any money in football. Given their football finances and the likely inclinations of their big donors (Texas being quite anti-union) I expect that would be the end of Rice football. Rice is better at baseball anyway.
LikeLike
The author’s point was that the players largely don’t have NFL aspirations so they’re more likely to take the risk. Players in a top program risk hurting their draft status potentially according to him (since all NFL players are already in a union, I don’t think the teams would care).
LikeLike
I know what the author’s point was. Just pointing out that picking a good candidate for college football unionization is multi-factor,. NFL aspirations might not be at the top of the list, after all, the NFL is unionized. There are lots of schools that lose money on football in the Go5, FCS and lower divisions. Labor laws do not prevent businesses shutting down lines of business, so going after a target that might go “out of business” is not wise. Therefore, targets should be limited to the P5 conferences and a couple of independents where the football profits will discourage such actions. General union attitudes of the players and right to work laws should also be considered. So good candidates would be Syracuse, Boston College, Stanford, USC, and Notre Dame. Going into the less union friendly states adds Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Miami, TCU, Baylor, and BYU.
Even in Texas, Baylor and TCU are better targets than Rice with their B12 payments. The recent (2012-2014) $150M+ investments by each school in new football stadiums makes them even better targets. Being from Notre Dame, the author may have thought these were not good candidates because, like Notre Dame, Baylor and TCU will claim that football is a religious sacrament in Texas exempt from the NLRB.
LikeLike
Why are you mentioning only private schools? Several states are actually more sympathetic to unionization than the NLRB. Just look to see in which states grad students (and professors) have unionized.
LikeLike
Each state has its own laws on public unions. Unionization in one state will not set a legal precedent in other states. Grad Teaching Assistant unions are not a great indicator of a school favoring the unionization of its athletes. TAs have always been recognized as employees, had taxes/SSI withheld, received regular paychecks, etc. There are also no title IX or NCAA concerns with TAs either. I doubt that any state will go against the opposition of the public schools and classify athletes as employees. WI and MI heavily favored public unions a few years ago, but politics have changed in those states. CA and IL might be the lead states now.
As you note, the NLRB currently (and always except for 4 years) refuses to even recognize the right of TAs to unionize despite their status as student employees. Most of the arguments universities have been successful with before the NLRB to prevent TA unions will also apply to athletes. So even if athletes are successful in getting recognized as employees they may not have a legal right to unionize, but could attract the attention of the IRS and like TAs, have to pay taxes on their cash compensation and room & board value (TAs do not pay taxes on tuition, fee, & book grants so athletes will not be taxed on those).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24448633/spring-cleaning-podcast-resetting-the-big-ten-expectations-for-texas-usc-more
A national podcast with a lot of B10 discussion. Not too positive about MI.
LikeLike
I’m a Michigan fan, and I am not too positive about MI either.
LikeLike
If you want to know why the P5 want some change in the rule book-read about what OU felt they had to report to the NCAA-3 fb players ate too much pasta:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10484741/oklahoma-sooners-penalized-three-student-athletes-eating-too-much-pasta
LikeLike
I mean, one probably should be punished for eating any amount of pasta in Oklahoma. What’s that Henry Hill line in the end if Goodfellas regarding the pizza quality in witness protection?
LikeLike
…and yet an Oklahoman (founder of Pizzeria Uno) got to define, at least to outsiders, what Chicago Deep Dish Pizza is.
LikeLike
I believe the founder was a Texan and his original chef was Lou Malnati, Sr.
LikeLike
Correction, Rudy Malnati, Sr., Lou’s father, was the original chef.
LikeLike
Lou Malnati’s >>>>>>>> Pizzeria Uno
No one with properly functioning taste buds denies this.
LikeLike
@Frank:
The original Uno and Due are not part of the crappy chain and are in fact delicious.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
I’ve eaten pizza from the original Uno.
Still not as good as Lou Malnati’s or Gino’s East.
Though the best Chicago style is Carmen’s up in Evanston.
Burt’s Place is also very good, though, alas, the place closed because the owner was hospitalized.
LikeLike
I remember a comment by a Chicago newspaper guy (Mike Royko?) that there weren’t enough Greeks running restaurants anymore (implication-Greeks run good restaurants with any type of food). But there are still Greek and Italian families running restaurants all over the place. Probably even in Oklahoma.
LikeLike
@bullet – Ha! I was just talking to one of my friends whose parents were from Greece and ran a diner and how Greeks end up in the restaurant business. Royko is correct about the Greek-run restaurants – huge menus in places that are open all night long and everything is done pretty well for the price.
LikeLike
Except the NCAA came out right away and said they didn’t need to report anything and that OU punished the 3 players for no reason. OU’s failure to know the rule book doesn’t mean the rule book is bad.
Almost every rule in the book is either obvious or the direct result of ridiculous excesses by coaches or boosters over the years.
LikeLike
Almost every rule in the book is either obvious or the direct result of ridiculous excesses by coaches or boosters over the years.
The latter half of that is true: most rules are because of past excesses.
But there are many articles and comments, over the years, from knowledgeable people, that the rules are often ambiguous, and it is very difficult at the margins, to know exactly when you have crossed the line.
LikeLike
Concerning Big Ten football with 16 schools, 9 conference games and no divisions:
Ref: “I think that Frank is right that the BIG would be better suited on both networks instead of one. I would love for BIG to mimic the NFL in the future and sell each division to a separate network much like the AFC/NFC packages the NFL sells. The West division is nowhere near strong enough to do that right now but if they could add Texas or Oklahoma down the road or both to the west, that would definitely do it. A package of OSU, PSU, UM, and MSU to ESPN and UT, OU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin to FOX with the crossovers games going to the home teams network.”
The following example scheduling scheme is presented to analyze the above hypothetical. At the same time, the principles of such example scheme could be also adopted for any expanded 16-school conference; whether the 2 new schools would be in the Central Time Zone (CST) region, or in the Eastern Time Zone (EST) region, or one each in the CST and EST regions; or modified to suit the specific schools and/or any specific conference objectives at that time of expansion (if that would ever happen).
The main principle of this example scheme is that each school would have 3 locked schools, with 6 other schools as home & away for Years 1&2, and the remaining 6 other schools as home & away for Years 3&4.
The example scheme is first presented as follows (with details provided as replies to this post):
Year 1:
XX // E5 : E1 : E2 : W2 :W3 :W6 : C3 : C2 : E4 : E6 : E3 :W1 :W5 :W4 : C4 : C1
E5 // XX : AA : HH : HH : AA : HH : AA : XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH
E1 // HH : XX : HH : AA : HH : AA : HH : XX : AA : XX : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH
E2 // AA : AA : XX : HH : AA : HH : HH : XX : XX : HH : HH : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA
W2 // AA : HH : AA : XX : HH : XX : AA : HH : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : AA : XX : XX
W3 // HH : AA : HH : AA : XX : HH : AA : AA : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX
W6 // AA : HH : AA : XX : AA : XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : HH : XX : XX
C3 // HH : AA : AA : HH : HH : AA : XX : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA
C2 // XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : HH : HH : XX : HH : AA : AA : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH
E4 // AA : HH : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA : XX : HH : AA : HH : AA : HH : HH : XX
E6 // HH : XX : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : XX : HH : HH : AA : HH : AA : XX
E3 // XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH : HH : AA : XX : AA : HH : AA : HH : XX
W1 // XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : AA : XX : XX : AA : AA : HH : XX : XX : HH : AA : HH
W5 // XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : HH : XX : XX : HH : HH : AA : XX : XX : AA : AA : AA
W4 // XX : XX : XX : HH : XX : AA : XX : XX : AA : AA : HH : AA : HH : XX : HH : AA
C4 // XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : AA : HH : AA : HH : HH : AA : XX : AA
C1 // AA : AA : HH : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : HH : HH : XX
Year 2:
The schedule for Year 2 is simply the transpose of the 17×17 matrix for Year 1.
Year 3:
XX // W2 :W3 :W6 : E4 : E6 : E3 : C1 : C3 : W1 :W5 :W4 : E5 : E1 : E2 : C2 : C4
W2 // XX : HH : AA : AA : AA : HH : HH : XX : AA : HH : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA
W3 // AA : XX : HH : HH : HH : AA : AA : XX : HH : XX : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA
W6 // HH : AA : XX : HH : AA : AA : AA : XX : XX : AA : HH : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH
E4 // HH : AA : AA : XX : HH : XX : HH : HH : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : AA : XX : XX
E6 // HH : AA : HH : AA : XX : HH : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX
E3 // AA : HH : HH : XX : AA : XX : AA : HH : XX : XX : XX : HH : HH : AA : XX : XX
C1 // AA : HH : HH : AA : AA : HH : XX : HH : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH
C3 // XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : AA : AA : XX : HH : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH
W1 // HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA : XX : AA : HH : AA : HH : AA : HH : XX
W5 // AA : XX : HH : XX : XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : XX : AA : HH : AA : HH : AA : XX
W4 // XX : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : HH : XX : AA : AA : HH : AA : XX
E5 // XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : AA : XX : XX : HH : AA : HH : XX : XX : HH : HH : AA
E1 // XX : XX : XX : AA : HH : AA : XX : XX : AA : HH : HH : XX : XX : HH : AA : HH
E2 // XX : XX : XX : HH : XX : HH : XX : XX : HH : AA : AA : AA : AA : XX : HH : HH
C2 // XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : XX : HH : HH : AA : HH : HH : AA : HH : AA : XX : AA
C4 // HH : HH : AA : XX : XX : XX : AA : AA : XX : XX : XX : HH : AA : AA : HH : XX
Year 4:
The schedule for Year 4 is simply the transpose of the 17×17 matrix for Year 3.
LikeLike
In the above example scheduling scheme, each school is designated as E1, E2, etc. The home games for E1, E2, etc are HH in each row for the respective school in the top row of each column. The away games are AA in each row for the respective school in the top row of each column. The no games are XX in each row for the respective school in the top row of each column.
For example, E5 in Year 1 has 5 home games with E2, W2, W6, E4 and C1; and 4 away games with E1, W3, C3 and E6.
This example scheme is presented in this manner as “proof of concept”. The scheduling principles can otherwise be described in a simple and concise manner as follows:
(a) The scheme is generated by assigning schools into “pods” for games to be played annually among each other only; however these pods do not represent “rotating pods and/or divisions”.
(b) There are a total of four 3-school pods and one 4-school pod. Schools in each pod are locked with each other. All schools of one 3-school pod also lock individually with all schools of another 3-school pod. Schools of the 4-school pod only lock with each other.
(c) The schedules for the schools of each 3-school pod are then generated for every other year by: scheduling the school’s 3 locked schools; scheduling 3 schools from both of the other two 3-school pods which do not have one of the school’s locked school; scheduling 2 schools from the 4-school pod; and scheduling one of the other schools in the same 3-school pod as the school’s third locked school.
Although this description is concise as written, it still presents the scheme in a complicated manner, so that a symbolic description is also provided to give more clarity:
Pod A : W1, W2, W3
Pod B : W4, W5, W6
Pod C : C1, C2, C3, C4
Pod D : E1, E2, E3
Pod E : E4, E5, E6
For this particular example scheme:
(d) W1 is locked with W2 and W3 of its pod; W1 is also locked with W4; W1 then plays one of W5 or W6; and plays 2 schools of Pod C; and plays 3 schools from both Pod D and Pod E;
(e) W2 is locked with W5; and W3 is locked with W6; and these schools play the other schools in a similar manner as described in (d) above;
(f) Ditto for Pod D and Pod E; with E1 locked with E4; with E2 locked with E5; and with E3 locked with E6, etc; and
(g) E1 plays two schools in Pod A and one school in Pod B for Years 1&2, and then plays the other two schools in Pod B and the other school in Pod A in Years 3&4, etc.
As this is only an example, such scheduling scheme should certainly not be considered as the only possible scheme for this hypothetical, nor for or any other similar 16-school scenario, nor should it be construed as the best possible scheme for any such scenarios.
However, this example scheme does accommodate Frank’s KISS strategy, especially how Frank would assign the Big Ten rivalries to be played annually; particularly for Penn State, because the locked rivals in this case would include:
Penn State : Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Ohio State : Penn State, Michigan, Mich State
Michigan : Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Mich State : Michigan, Maryland, Ohio State
Plus, there would be no “rotating pod” that would schedule Ohio State, Michigan and Mich State to play a “rotating pod” of CST schools, with another “rotating pod” that would schedule Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland to play another “rotating pod” of CST schools.
LikeLike
In the above example scheduling scheme, another important feature is that sets of schools are arranged in groups that rotate every other year for the Years 1&2 and Years 3&4 schedules. These groups comprise the following:
Years 1&2:
Group A : E5, E1, E2 & W2, W3, W6 & C3, C2
Group B : E4, E6, E3 & W1, W5, W4 & C4, C1
Years 3&4:
Group A : W2, W3, W6 & E4, E6, E3 & C1, C3
Group B : W1, W5, W4 & E5, E1, E2 & C2, C4
These groups can also be seen in the 17×17 matrices, with Group A as the first 8 schools in the top rows, followed by Group B as the second 8 schools in the top rows, respectively.
These groups function as “virtual divisions” with the following “divisional” characteristics:
Years 1&2:
(a) Schools W3, W4, C3 and C4 each play: 7 games “in-division” and 2 games “out-division”.
(b) Schools C1 and C2 each play: 4 games “in-division” and 5 games “out-division”.
(c) All other schools play 6 games “in-division” and 3 games “out-division”.
Years 3&4:
(d) Schools E2, E6, C1 and C2 each play: 7 games “in-division” and 2 games “out-division”.
(e) Schools C3 and C4 each play: 4 games “in-division” and 5 games “out-division”.
(f) All other schools each play: 6 games “in-division” and 3 games “out-division”.
For each year, each group then has: 5 schools that play 6 games “in-division” and 3 games “out-division”; 2 schools that play 7 games “in-division” and 2 games “out-division”; and 1 school that plays 4 games “in-division” and 5 games “out-division”.
As a result, there is sufficient head-to-head competition for tie-breaker purpose. And most importantly, it is impossible to have 3 schools finishing with 9-0 records.
LikeLike
In the above example scheduling scheme, the last important feature is that since each of the above groups include 3 CST schools and 3 EST schools, which rotate every other two years, then the home & away scheduling can be symmetrically balanced by scheduling (in this example scheme) each of the CST schools to have 4 home games in Years 1&3 and 5 home games in Years 2&4, with each of the EST schools having 5 home games in Years 1&3 and 4 home games in Years 2&4, respectively.
So, if this example would have CST schools comprising:
W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, C1 & C2
And EST schools comprising:
E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, C3 & C4
Then in Years 1&3, CST schools would have 6*4 + 2*5 = 34 home games, and EST schools would have 6*5 + 2*4 = 38 home games.
And in Years 2&4, CST schools would have 6*5 + 2*4 = 38 home games, and EST schools would have 6*4 + 2*5 = 34 games (obviously symmetric).
In Years 1&3: The 38 EST home games comprise 19 home games with other EST schools and 19 home games with CST schools; and the 34 CST home games comprise 19 home games with other CST schools and 15 home games with EST schools.
In Years 2&4: The 38 CST home games comprise 19 home games with other CST schools and 19 home games with EST schools; and the 34 EST home games comprise 19 home games with other EST schools and 15 home games with CST schools (obviously symmetric).
In other words, if FOX (for example) would have the complete inventory of home games of CST schools, then:
In Years 1&3: FOX would have inventory to televise 34 games featuring 15 appearances of EST schools and 53 appearances of CST schools, and ESPN would have inventory to televise 38 games featuring 19 appearances of CST schools and 57 appearances of EST schools.
In Years 2&4: FOX would have inventory to televise 38 games featuring 19 appearances of EST schools and 57 appearances of CST schools, and ESPN would have inventory to televise 34 games featuring 15 appearances of CST schools and 53 appearances of EST schools.
As conclusion: For this hypothetical scheduling, the Big Ten Network would certainly feature some of these games. It would then be easy to assume that an even distribution of top tier games could be contracted to both ESPN and FOX according to these CST and EST schools.
Considering also that ESPN may already have plenty of EST schools from its SEC and ACC television contracts to broadcast those games: It would then be easy in this case to also imagine that ESPN may instead prefer to contract for the CST schools, with FOX then contracting for the EST schools instead.
LikeLike
I appreciate that you put a lot of work into this, but it’s meaningless until you know the actual schools. People have no opinion about a locked annual rivalry between XX and HH. They will have very passionate opinions when you replace them with actual schools.
If the next two Big Ten schools are Virginia and North Carolina, then the scheduling problems are very different than if they add Texas and Oklahoma.
LikeLike
The above example scheduling scheme was probably beating a dead horse. But the mathematics behind such scheme would not change if expansion would occur tomorrow or ten years hence.
If the two expansion schools would be Virginia and North Carolina instead, then the example scheme still has possibility for adoption. In this case, the pod assignments could be:
Pod A : Northwestern, North Carolina, Virginia
Pod B : Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
Pod C : Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Pod D : Ohio State, Michigan, Mich State
Pod E : Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
Locked rivals would then include:
North Carolina : Virginia, Northwestern, Indiana
Virginia : North Carolina, Illinois, Northwestern
In this case, Duke could easily replace North Carolina as School No. 16 because its locked rivals for football would include Northwestern (another prestigious private univeristy) and Indiana (another basketball-crazy university).
LikeLike
I’m sure Northwestern fans would be delighted to be re-assigned to the ACC.
LikeLike
Another option would be:
Pod A : Northwestern, Duke, Virginia
Pod B : Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Locked rivals include:
Duke : Virginia, Northwestern, Indiana
Virginia : Duke, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois : Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
This retains the Illinois & Northwestern rivalry for football. Purdue engineering students could also schedule a visit to Langley Research Center during any road-trips.
Correction for another comment below:
Share Morris => Shane Morris
LikeLike
“And most importantly, it is impossible to have 3 schools finishing with 9-0 records.”
Actually, this statement is false, because this possibility exists if one of the schools finishing with a 9-0 record would be one of the 2 schools who play 4 schools “in-division” and 5 schools “out-division”.
For example, in Year 3 of the above example scheduling scheme: C3 does not play either E1, E2 & E5, nor W2, W3 & W6. In this case, one of either E1, E2 & E5 and one of either W2, W3 & W6 could then also finish with 9-0 records.
If there would ever be a 16-school conference with 9 conference games and no divisions, then one possible tie-breaker criterion (among others) could be winning away-games.
In Year 3, or this example, C3 and W2, W3 & W6 all play 5 away-games and 4 home-games, whereas E1, E2 & E5 all play 5 home-games and 4 away-games. Such tie-breaker could then be used to select C3 and also W2, W3 or W6 with the 9-0 record for the championship game, because these two schools won more away-games than the other school.
However, if this would be the case in Year 4, then this application of such rule would not apply, since C3 and W2, W3 & W6 all play 5 home-games and 4 away-games.
In this case, these schools would play E3, E4, E6, C1 & C4 as common opponents. Using away-game wins as a tie-breaker criterion in this case, then the simplest solution is to ensure that C3 plays more away-games with this common group of schools than E3, E4 & E6. Thus, C3 would also be selected for the championship game in Year 4 using this tie-breaker criterion, with the other school being the 9-0 school with 5 away-game wins.
LikeLike
Correction to above comment:
In this case, these schools would play E3, E4, E6, C1 & C4 as common opponents. Using away-game wins as a tie-breaker criterion in this case, then the simplest solution is to ensure that C3 plays more away-games with this common group of schools than W2, W3 & W6. In this way, C3 would also be selected for the championship game in Year 4 using this tie-breaker criterion, with the other school being the 9-0 school with 5 away-game wins.
Concerning Michigan’s academics and Federal research money:
Clarence Leonard Johnson (as Michigan alumnus of blog duet) says:
The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird was an advanced, long-range, strategic reconnaissance aircraft, capable of flying at more than 3 times the speed of sound. The SR-71 Blackbird served with the U.S. Air Force from 1964 to 1998, and has held the world record for the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft since 1976. During reconnaissance missions, if a surface-to-air missile launch was detected, the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate and out-fly the missile. On 6th March 1990, an SR-71 Blackbird was flown at record speed between Washington D.C. and Los Angeles with a flight time of 64 minutes 20 seconds.
Victor Lyle Streeter (as Michigan alumnus of blog duet) says:
The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest electric power-producing facility in the United States (total installed power capacity: 6,800 megawatts). Penstocks for hydroelectric installations are often equipped with surge tanks to prevent destructive water hammer pressures occurring when water flow is rapidly shut-down. Contrary to a sonic boom, where shock waves move with an aircraft flying faster than the speed of sound, the sound of water hammer pressures – experienced as a repetitive banging noise in domestic plumbing – is caused by shock waves moving back and forth in the conduit system.
LikeLike
3 national championship each year now possible? 3-way split anyone?
Wainscott posted this link above.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24447594/amway-new-sponsor-of-glass-football-national-championship-trophy
Aside from Amway, I thought this was interesting:
Quote: “Going forward in the College Football Playoff era, the glass football will be awarded to the team that finishes No. 1 in the final coaches’ poll. … However, the AFCA was notified within the last year that the glass football will not be considered the official championship trophy of the new College Football Playoff.”
So, the College Football Playoff will not use the Crystal Football as its trophy. (FWIW, that is dumb. The Crystal Football is awesome.)
But the Coach’s Poll and the AFCA (Amer. Football Coaches Assoc.) will still have a poll and trophy. Presumably the AP will continue its poll and trophy. Now we get a third one from the Playoff?
Anyone have any more details or news on this?
LikeLike
1970. Texas, Nebraska and Ohio State all selected as National Champs by one poll or another, but, alas, no glass trophy..
It doesn’t get any better than that.
LikeLike
I wasn’t aware of the AP ever having a trophy. Did they?
So 2 trophies, like the NHL or soccer: regular season and playoff or league and cup.
LikeLike
Its early, but not looking good for the NWU players seeking to unionize so far:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/10489434/national-labor-relations-board-officer-calls-northwestern-wildcats-union-bid-weak
LikeLike
I raised this issue on some threads way back when, and now I have an answer:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24449896/the-new-pay-for-play-college-football-union-could-get-slammed-with-tax-bill
LikeLike
Maybe. If income that’s specifically earmarked to educational expenses is taxable, then I do wonder whether the programs themselves are then delinquent on payroll taxes.
Moreover, if this actually happened, the likely outcome is that programs (or at least wealthy ones) are forced to pay the value of the taxes as well as scholarship costs (goes right alongside “true cost of attendance).
The likely outcome of THAT happening would be that the “value” of the scholarship goes way down. Right now, schools have a huge incentive to jack up the “value” of the scholarships, because it makes them look better and helps them hide true income. If programs actually had to pay taxes on athletic-based scholarships you’d see a pretty big increase in stuff like financial aid (non-taxable) or as long as they could get away with it, anything they could find on the academic merit-based side. Or maybe they’d even “negotiate” with the schools to get lower tuition numbers for athletes on scholarships.
Overall, the idea that this is somehow disqualifying for a unionization effort seems like an incredible reach.
LikeLike
Theoretically it could lead to more in-state recruiting for state schools, which would be great for some (UF, UT, etc) and terrible for others.
LikeLike
It’s hard to see that. Any program with money would just bite the bullet and pay the taxes on it. It’s one of those easy “OMG this would totally be a problem” reactions that some people (cough, cough, Delaney) love to throw out there but are actually bogus.
LikeLike
The issue isn’t the program paying taxes, its the players paying taxes.
The article raises the interesting issue of if, classified as employees, that the scholarship and related benefits can be taxed on the players as income. Programs won’t be able to artificially deflate the value of the scholarship, because the scholarship is tuition (a disclosed amount) + some expenses.
LikeLike
Sort of. Right now there’s zero incentive at all to keep the tuition numbers down; if anything there’s an incentive to inflate the numbers. If it was actually taxed and programs had to pay, there would be more of an incentive to game it the other way. Who knows how successful they’d actually be at cutting that number for tax purposes, but it’d be interesting to see.
LikeLike
Apparently Pat Fitzgerald testifies tomorrow in the NWU union hearing. And reporters have been noting some interesting numbers, like NWU and Alabama spend approximately the same on football recruiting.
If I find good articles, I will post links.
LikeLike
Looks like D1 FB attendance is holding its own, in spite of what seems to have been an incorrect impression of decrease.
Click to access 2013.pdf
LikeLike
cc – the problem is not with selling tickets, but the no-shows – especially the students.
LikeLike
Are we saying these numbers are deceptive, or have changed from what they have represented in the past? I noticed ASU averaged more than 2k above their proposed stadium remodel/contraction. Manufacturing scarcity?
There were plenty of no shows in the ’70s and ’80s. An empty student section sometimes filled after half if a heavy underdog was in position to pull an upset. I understand the concern, but a no show is not the same as no interest.
LikeLike
Most years, UK averages more than their proposed capacity.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/20/college-football-season-kickoff-espn/5640283/
I-AA will kick off the season with a game the weekend before Labor Day weekend.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10491366/michigan-wolverines-shuffle-roles-defensive-staff
Hoke is rotating the responsibilities of all the defensive coaches:
DL -> LB (also DC)
LB -> CB (one source says he was OLB coach, another says ILB coach)
DB -> S only
LB -> DL
Thoughts, MI fans? Moving a LB coach to CB seems odd to me.
LikeLike
First things first: The Wolverines need to improve significantly on the offensive line (which stank in 2013). My hope is a yin/yang effect caused by the head coaching changes of the last six years that explains UM’s current funk. I am personally happy that Devin Gardner is returning for another year. I also thought that Share Morris showed poise in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. I have confidence in Greg Mattison and expect the defense to take care of itself.
LikeLike
Michigan had two LB coaches last year, one for ILBs (Mark Smith), another for OLBs (Manning). In a spot-check of NCAA coaching staffs, I couldn’t find any others with that peculiar division of duties.
So now they’re going from two LB coaches, to a part-time LB coach who is also DC. Michigan’s secondary was burned repeatedly last year, so it makes sense to put extra focus on that area. I also think it makes sense to have a full-time DL coach (which they didn’t have).
It is not terribly unusual for assistants to be capable of coaching more than one position group. But this complete re-shuffling seems bizarre. A week before spring practice, everyone on the defensive roster except the safeties will have a new position coach. It smacks of desperation.
In the meantime, Michigan’s running backs and OL last year were not very good, and there are no changes on that side of the ball, aside from replacing the coordinator.
LikeLike
Losing Lewan isn’t going to help the Michigan OL situation.
LikeLike
I sympathize with some of the viewpoints expressed at this link:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9936259/brady-hoke-fix-michigan-wolverines
Especially:
“… Michigan’s offensive line has exceptional young talent. It’s underachieving because of a lack of proper leadership. Lewan is the group’s leader, but he has set a horrible example. He ran his mouth before Saturday’s game, promising the Wolverines wouldn’t get bullied again by the Spartans. After the game, Lewan had to apologize for blatantly twisting the face mask of a Spartan and drawing a flag …”
Hoke has shown that he can “talk the talk” but now he must “walk the walk”. He must be the S.O.B. that was Glenn Edward Schembechler Junior and not run the football program like some country club.
LikeLike
I read that article, one of the dumbest ever written about Michigan. Most of it is sourced on rumor and message board innuendo. He thinks the team would’ve been better if its best player had not returned for a fifth season. Yeah, right.
LikeLike
You mean these rumours and innuendo:
August 31, Central Michigan, W 59-9.
September 7, Notre Dame, W 41-30.
September 14, Akron, W 28-24.
September 21, Connecticut, W 24-21.
October 5, Minnesota W 42-13.
October 12, Penn State L 40-43.
October 19, Indiana W 63-47.
November 2, Michigan State L 6-29.
November 9, Nebraska L 13-17.
November 16, Northwestern 27-19.
November 23, Iowa L 21-24.
November 30, Ohio State L 41-42.
December 28, Kansas State L 14-31.
LikeLike
The games are facts. Had the article been contained a realistic assessment of those facts, it might have been useful.
Indeed, Whitlock wrote, “Firing offensive coordinator Al Borges won’t fix what’s wrong with the Wolverines.”
Firing Al Borges is exactly what Brady Hoke did.
LikeLike
Woah–slow down a sec.
Someone actually cited to a Jason Whitlock article???
LikeLike
1, 3, 3, and 4 point losses (out of 6, including the bowl game) doesn’t sound like a raging dumpster fire. One single play made in each and we’re talking about how great a coach Hoke is.
LikeLike
1, 3, 3, and 4 point losses (out of 6, including the bowl game) doesn’t sound like a raging dumpster fire. One single play made in each and we’re talking about how great a coach Hoke is.
Actually, we’d be talking about how lucky he is. Michigan went 3-4 in 1-score games, which is a pretty fair outcome, because 1-score games are generally a 50/50 proposition. Sure, if you change four plays, Michigan is 11-1 in the regular season. But if you change three plays, they’re 4-8. Luck doesn’t just go in one direction.
That’s without considering the fact that two of the three 1-score wins were against Akron and UConn, teams that Big Ten programs ordinarily ought to dominate; and the third (Northwestern) went 1-7 in the conference.
Michigan didn’t beat a single Big Ten program that had a winning conference record. So yeah, I would say it was pretty close to a dumpster fire, by Michigan standards. And this was in Hoke’s third year, when (ordinarily) you expect a new coach’s system to have started to pay dividends.
LikeLike
I am not going to defend the author of that article, because I am not yet convinced that Hoke is tough enough for the job. Hoke may also perform better coaching over-achievers at another university with less expectations. In 2013, Michigan could had easily lost a few more games, but Michigan could had easily won a few more games. However, the difference in winning and losing those few more games starts in spring training, and it starts at the top, with the head coaches, assistant coaches and team captains.
LikeLike
Thoughts about the “Chet is Dead” conspartacy as alternate ending to the “Tag Team” lost pilot episode:
The Riddler (as Head) asks: Which creature has 1-voice and yet becomes 4-footed and 2-footed and 3-footed?
Jesse (as Body) answers: Man, who crawls on all fours as a baby, then walks on two feet as an adult, and then uses a walking stick in old age.
The Joker (as Side Kick) asks: There are two sisters: one gives birth to the other and she – in turn – gives birth to the first. Who are the two sisters?
Roddy (as Body Slam) answers: Day & Night.
The Big House (as Chorus) concludes:
Look ye, countrymen and Thebans, this is Oedipus the great, He who knew the Sphinx’s riddle and was mightiest in our state. Who of all our townsmen gazed not on his fame with envious eyes? Now, in what a sea of troubles sunk and overwhelmed he lies! Therefore wait to see life’s ending ere thou count one mortal blest; Wait till free from pain and sorrow he has gained his final rest.
LikeLike
Continuing the recruiting discussion, UNL really should start playing more TX teams. Scheduling CU HaH 4 times makes no sense from a recruiting perspective.
LikeLike
True, but CU and UNL have a rivalry that they want to preserve. More fan-focused than recruting focused.
But yes, UNL should be trying to schedule, say, TCU HoH.
LikeLike
Is there any evidence that a one-off home & home in a fertile recruiting state actually makes a statistically significant difference in recruiting?
It seems like an unlikely proposition to me. “Come play for our school, because once in the next four years, we’ll play a game in your home state.”
LikeLike
Agreed. There are essentially 3 types of recruits: the top guys who seem to be more mobile nationwide, the next level guys who make up the vast majority of recruits who tend to stay locally and the fringe guys who will go with the best offer. Nebraska isn’t going to recruit Texas better by playing in Texas. Nebraska will recruit better in Texas by getting a better coaching staff.
LikeLike
Actually, my idea is a game in TX every other year, whether through HaH’s or neutral site matchups & doing buy games vs. TX schools. The benefit isn’t as much through visiting, but exposure to potential recruits from a young age through local media.
Back when UNL regularly played in the Orange Bowl, they got a decent number of FL kids, as local media would keep UNL in the news. That pipeline dried up with the move to the B12.
With the B10 bowl lineup, UNL will be playing in CA and FL a decent amount. TX is closer & thus more important to UNL, however.
Finally, yes, the series with CU was definitely for the fans. However, considering the recruiting situation that UNL is in (by far the worse of any king when it comes to the abundance/scarcity of local talent), giving away precious HaH’s that do not help recruiting in any way is a luxury that the Huskers can’t afford.
LikeLike
I wonder if the B1G can leverage – on a subrosa level, mind you – improvements to a lower-tier bowl venue such as the Liberty Bowl and feature a long-term series of neutral or buy-in games. I dont think SEC teams would risk a matchup, but swapping out a slam-dunk game with an FCS team (the Gateway or Colonial schools) with a marginally better low FBS school in a recruit-rich area may have its benefits.
LikeLike
Well, the B10 will have a bunch of bowl games in FL and CA in the next cycle.
The problem with a neutral site series is that to the kings and princes who want 7 home games every year, non-home games are precious and only one every other year can be given (that’s why I think it’s stupid for UNL to sign up for that CU HaH). The others can’t bring enough fans to make a neutral site game far away worthwhile.
LikeLike
http://thebiglead.com/2014/02/20/college-football-in-2034-existential-threats-could-bring-about-sweeping-changes/
One prediction for what CFB will look like in 2034.
LikeLike
Great article. Sometimes I think it helps to, instead of look a few years down the road, look way down. Granted you can be very wrong doing that, but it let’s you take trends to natural long term conclusions without getting stuck up in the details that we get focused on in the short term.
LikeLike
I agree, excellent article. Most of the guesses are at least plausible, which is about all you can ask for when the predictions are 20 years into the future.
The article quite reasonably suggests that Texas is the catalyst for the next round of major-conference re-alignment. The Big XII is inventory-deficient, and with the SEC now taking a bite out of the state, Texas can no longer dominate recruiting to the extent it formerly did.
What Texas decides to do about it is the interesting question. The article suggests that the Big XII would swoop into the ACC, taking Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and Louisville — the rationale being that the ACC’s football schools would be tired of having their schedules diluted by the likes of Duke, Wake Forest, and Boston College.
The writer goes onto suggest that UNC and UVA would choose the Big Ten, leaving the SEC to take VT and NCSt. If you take it that far, I’m sure the Big Ten would be happy to have Duke for its academics, its basketball, and two annual UNC/Duke hoops games, which gets the B1G to 17.
The ACC relicts would likely merge with the American, creating a league something like the former Big East. (The writer doesn’t say that, but it seems to be the only option, assuming everything else goes as he predicts.)
That leaves Notre Dame, and the writer believes the Irish would join the expanded Big XII as a full member, although here I disagree with him. ND would probably manipulate the Big XII into giving them the same type of deal the ACC did.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140221/bret-bielema-proposed-ncaa-rule-change/
Bielema explains his rationale for supporting the 10-second rule.
LikeLike
Bielema is a lying d-bag. If he is so concerned about sickel cell and conditioning, they shouldn’t be playing major college football.
LikeLike
What evidence is there that’s he’s lying (only a WI fan could attempt to deny him being a d-bag)? You don’t have to agree with him, but that doesn’t mean he’s lying. Denying every sickle-cell player a chance to play might be viewed as discriminatory, especially since they obviously can play as long as they are monitored.
LikeLike
“What evidence is there that’s he’s lying”
His lips are moving.
LikeLike
I know an asthmatic who’d love to run the 10K. Should we build in rest breaks?
LikeLike
Running is supposed to be a continuous sport. Football isn’t. It’s not rugby.
If the rule saved 1 player from dying, would it be worth it?
LikeLike
Football isn’t baseball either. It wasn’t designed for players to be subbed out so frequently. They originally played pretty much the whole game. What Saban wants to be able to keep doing wasn’t done nearly so much just 15 years ago. Its advantageous to him and he doesn’t want to change what worked for him so he is trying to stop people from changing things.
He would have been against the forward pass and the wishbone as well.
LikeLike
“Running is supposed to be a continuous sport. Football isn’t. It’s not rugby.”
Who says its not continuous? FB has 25/40 second clock to hurry play. Ball in play the clock runs between downs. It is the offspring of rugby. If you want off the field there is no prohibition on leaving, only on having the sub on before you’ve left (and only if the snap happens). This is purely a strategy manipulation rule. It’s beyond disingenuous to play a pre existing health card in a game being overrun by designer roids, stimulants, and completely inhuman oversized freaks. (1980 there wasn’t more than five 300+ lbrs in the NFL)
If you want off the field then stuff the offense. Stanford hasn’t seemed to have a problem the last couple years.
LikeLike
If the rule saved 1 player from dying, would it be worth it?
By that argument, we shouldn’t play football at all, because a number of players have died over the years, but none that we know of who would’ve lived if this rule had existed.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Football isn’t baseball either. It wasn’t designed for players to be subbed out so frequently.”
The game and its rules have always been in flux. The days of iron man football are gone. The rules have continually changed to deal with new schemes that show unintended consequences of rules.
What football was designed to be in the 19th century isn’t particularly relevant. It’s what the current people decide it should be.
“What Saban wants to be able to keep doing wasn’t done nearly so much just 15 years ago.”
So? What Briles wants to able to keep doing wasn’t done nearly so much just 5 years ago.
“Its advantageous to him and he doesn’t want to change what worked for him so he is trying to stop people from changing things.”
Again, that exact same sentence applies to Briles.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Who says its not continuous?”
The rule makers who put in all sorts of things that stop the clock.
“This is purely a strategy manipulation rule.”
So?
“It’s beyond disingenuous to play a pre existing health card in a game being overrun by designer roids, stimulants, and completely inhuman oversized freaks.”
If a coach (who’s held responsible for the health of players) wants to say he worries about it, I think that’s OK. He may be lying, but he might not be, too.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“By that argument, we shouldn’t play football at all, because a number of players have died over the years,”
Actually, many rules have been established because of prior injuries. CFB almost went away due to the death rate before helmets and rule changes cleaned it up. Horse collar tackles, head slaps, clotheslines, hi/lo blocks, etc all were legal until the risks were deemed to high. Continued extreme exertion is a known risk factor for those with sickle cell trait.
“but none that we know of who would’ve lived if this rule had existed.”
Several have died in football practice or workouts. I’m not aware if it happening in a game, but there’s always a first time.
That said, it isn’t my rationale for the rule, it’s Bielema’s.
LikeLike
“The rule makers who put in all sorts of things that stop the clock.”
Stoping the clock has nothing to do with pace of play. In fact it allows for more plays/game. Time outs are available six times/game per team if needed to create a longer break during stoppage.
“So?”
Does this response mean you agree there isn’t a safety issue? Which is what this committee is supposed to be addressing?
Bringing any “safety” issue with no supporting evidence, in a sport that yearly takes several lives, or any suggestion that applying it would cause a reduction in the unquantified risk is bunk. I guess he can be afraid of that, or of spiders. Rich Rodriguez suggested he has just as much evidence that slower, fatigued players sun slower and hit less hard thereby reducing injuries and concussions.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Stoping the clock has nothing to do with pace of play.”
Yes, it does. Especially since you asked who said FB was not continuous. I think the clock stopping repeatedly is pretty much the definition of a discontinuous sport.
“Does this response mean you agree there isn’t a safety issue?”
I don’t believe any solid evidence for a safety issue has been presented so far. I don’t know whether or not there is such an issue. I do know a lot of defensive players seem to get hurt in games when the offense runs a high tempo, but those players generally return quickly. To me, it’s a sportsmanship and game appeal rule. Training CFB players to flop on D after every play isn’t good for the sport, but you know some coaches will do that as long as the current rules apply.
Are there other ways to fix this? Sure. Would they be preferable? Maybe. But I’m OK with this method.
But my response was really directed at you acting as if strategy manipulation wasn’t a legitimate basis for a rule. All sorts of FB rules exist to combat strategies that TPTB didn’t want.
“Which is what this committee is supposed to be addressing?”
They are, and it’s a stretch to say this qualifies since they didn’t present any injury evidence. That doesn’t change my opinion of the rule. I don’t really care about the process side of it.
LikeLike
“Yes, it does. Especially since you asked who said FB was not continuous. I think the clock stopping repeatedly is pretty much the definition of a discontinuous sport.”
No it doesn’t. It just means the number of plays/game will be increased. It’s the opposite of a running clock. Play clocks set a max time between plays, assuming no TO is taken. Whether a team takes 9 or 39 seconds between snaps isn’t dictated by whether the clock is stopped or not. No such limit is set as a minimum, only that the ball is set ready for play. Clock stoppage has not effected the pace of hurry up teams. They seem to me to be engaged continuous play with brief stops with tackles made (like rugby).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“No it doesn’t.”
Yes, it does. You compared it to running. Having lots of mandatory stoppages absolutely changes the pace of play.
“It just means the number of plays/game will be increased.”
No, it *also* means that.
“They seem to me to be engaged continuous play with brief stops with tackles made (like rugby).”
Too bad the numbers show you are completely wrong. A football game is less than 15 actual minutes of action (11-12 minutes for NFL). All the rest is downtime. That’s about the least continuous game there is. Baseball games have more action on average (MLB vs NFL).
LikeLike
“You compared it to running. Having lots of mandatory stoppages absolutely changes the pace of play.”
Yes, I did, because this rule is almost as absurd. The strategy and conditioning factors are the same. An unexpected and unresponded to move at 7k can decide a 10k race as much as the final straight kick.
“No, it *also* means that.”
I disagree. Without the introduction of a rule like this there is no max number of plays or a minimum time between them, only a max amount of time between plays. More stoppage=more plays possible within the time. This isn’t anything new really. Every team has a hurry up offense. It has usually only been used later in halves, but there has never been a prohibition against play as soon as the ball is made ready.
“A football game is less than 15 actual minutes of action (11-12 minutes for NFL). All the rest is downtime. That’s about the least continuous game there is.”
It means it is/has been through choice the sport that makes the least use of the continuously available time. Some teams are choosing to avail themselves of some of that time.
LikeLike
I’d prefer to go back to the 25 second clock and let the officials control the pace. In the NFL the officials have much more authority to control pace and it works well for them.
The threat of snapping the ball is gamesmanship. If the up-tempo teams want to run up to the LOS so be it but don’t give them an opportunity to look over to the sidelines for play calls. Once they are at the LOS no more sideline play calls. I think that would be a fair compromise.
LikeLike
That’s basically what supporters of this rule are trying to accomplish, I think.
LikeLike
I strongly oppose the proposed rule, but advocate for banning sideline/field communication at the line.
LikeLike
Defensive coaches send in signals the same way. I can’t imagine coaches of any stripe favoring a rule that makes it illegal for them to coach their players from the sideline.
LikeLike
Defense doesn’t get to decide when the play starts. I was referring to when the offense lines up ready to play the offense should be limited. Defense is assumed to always need to be ready to react, and defensive call are guesses as to what to defend. Offensive calls from the sideline while lined up are effectively putting coaches in the booth onto the field. Just a bit too much like a video game.
LikeLike
Defense can’t decide when play starts, but defensive coaches do call in continuous adjustments from the sideline. The defense has the advantage that they can be moving before the snap, but the offense cannot.
I can’t imagine a rule where the defensive coaches get to communicate from the sidelines but the offensive ones can’t, and I can’t imagine a rule where both can’t.
LikeLike
NFL cuts the QB helmet mic/reciever communications at a specified point.
LikeLike
Inspite of the NFL’s apparent (obvious) desire to promote scoring even they recognize the inherent unfair advantage of offense communicating after seeing the defense.
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=3035449&src=desktop
And they created this limit with very little hurry up being employed.
LikeLike
NFL cuts the QB helmet mic/receiver communications at a specified point.
True, but there is no point in the play clock when they prohibit sideline communications, only the electronic kind, which CFB doesn’t have at all.
LikeLike
True. Perhaps cut booth to sidelines – any electronic communication.
LikeLike
According to this article, slow-playing teams are more injury-prone than fast-playing ones.
LikeLike
Their analysis isn’t great. Injury data is not consistent. They only considered injuries that cost a start in the next game or ended the season. What about when a coach changes starters but doesn’t mention injury? What if it’s the last game of the year? What if the previous game was only the straw that broke the camel’s back?
Lost starts per play is a bad metric here, since one injury can cost multiple starts and when an injury occurs (September vs November) can skew the stat. There’s also no normalization for size or skill level (a bad team might play quick but not be good enough to present the same threat of injury).
The conclusions start with this:
The conclusion Is up to you. This is not, nor was it ever intended to be, scientific and
conclusive. This does not prove nor disprove anything with regards to the assertion
that the HUNH causes injuries at a greater rate than any other type of offense.
LikeLike
I agree with you, the analysis is not solid. But it’s hard to beat something with nothing, and the advocates of the 10-second rule have nothing.
LikeLike
I agree with you there 100%. I never argued for this on a player safety basis, I just pointed out that Bielema did and presented his rationale.
I have no data, but I doubt it makes much of a safety difference. If it does, it’s probably in minor injuries more than major ones.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/20/5409336/college-football-recruiting-map-regions
A look at how the local talent pool influences the style of play in CFB.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/02/20/ed-obannon-antitrust-ncaa-player-likeness-case-trial/5659807/
A federal judge said Thursday that there will be a trial in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes’ names and likenesses, a case that could alter what major-college football and men’s basketball players can receive in exchange for participating in their sports.
The trial has been set to begin June 9 and is scheduled to last 19 trial days.
The NCAA and a group of former college athletes led by UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon both had asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to decide the case in their favor without a trial.
Wilken did not issue a specific ruling Thursday, but she said near the conclusion of a more than 2 ½-hour hearing here “the whole case is not going away on summary judgment.”
LikeLike
Of the 45 elite (4-star or above, according to 247) recruits in FL, 31 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (2 to LSU & Tennessee; 1 each to OSU, Michigan, Clemson, Wisconsin, VTech, UK, ND, SC, PSU, & Stanford).
Of the 43 elite recruits in CA, 32 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (3 to OU, 2 to Washington, 1 each to Vandy, Miami, PSU, Boise, ND, & WSU)
Of the 37 elite recruits in TX, 31 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (2 to Stanford; 1 each to ‘Bama, Oregon, UCLA, Boise, OSU, FSU, OrSt., ND, & USC)
Of the 29 elite recruits in GA, 24 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (1 each to OSU, Wisconsin, OU, Mizzou, & Ole Miss)
Of the 21 elite recruits in Louisiana, 13 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (3 to ‘Bama; 1 each to UF, UCLA, Oregon, OKSt., Stanford)
Of the 17 elite recruits in OH, 13 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (1 each to ‘Bama, Tennessee, Wisconsin, VTech)
Of the 15 elite recruits in NC, 11 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (1 each to UF, FSU, PSU, Miami)
Of the 15 elite recruits in VA, 11 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (1 each to ‘Bama, OSU, FSU, ND)
Of the 13 elite recruits in NJ, 3 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (they were 2 to PSU and 1 to Pitt) (2 to Michigan & ND; 1 each to Northwestern, MSU, OSU, Maryland, FSU, Miami)
Of the 12 elite recruits in AL, all 12 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (11 in-state, 1 to Tennessee)
Of the 12 elite recruits in IL, 5 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (they were 3 to Northwestern and 2 to ND) (2 to Nebraska, 1 each to LSU, OSU, MSU, Tennessee, Michigan)
LikeLike
Of the 37 elite recruits in TX, 31 stayed in state or went to school in an adjacent state (2 to Stanford; 1 each to ‘Bama, Oregon, UCLA, Boise, OSU, FSU, OrSt., ND, & USC)
This reinforces my point that Nebraska is not going to gain a measurable advantage by playing one or two games in Texas every four years. By your numbers, about 85% of Texas recruits are going to stay in Texas or adjacent states; all Nebraska would do is enter the lottery for the very small number of elite Texas recruits who are willing to go farther away, of which they would get very few. ‘Bama, of course, plays in Texas every other year automatically, by virtue of being in a division with A&M. ND has scheduled numerous H&H’s with UT, and other schools play there too, simply because there are so many Texas schools in FBS.
LikeLike
Marc,
You might be right. UNL might be better off concentrating out west. When they landed their stellar 2005 class with 13 elite recruits (according to Scout), 5 of the 13 were from out west (including some guy named Ndamukong Suh). The rise of Oregon since then and even the improvement in UDub and UCLA makes it harder, though.
Still, I wonder why they didn’t hire Scott Frost. Maybe UNL is OK with 4 losses every year? They could do worse, granted. . . .
LikeLike
BTW, this shows how difficult it is for UNL to get back to elite status. To win the national title, they’d need over half their class to be elite each year, or about 12 each year. To contend, they’d need at least a third, or about 8 each year.
In 2014, here were the elite recruits in NE and adjacent states (by 247):
NE: 0
CO: 3
KS: 3
MO: 3
IA: 2
The blueprint to the top level for UNL will likely have to be 2-3 from NE&adjacent states, 1-2 from Chicagoland/IL, 1-2 from the rest of the B10, 2-3 from CA & the rest of the West Coast, 1-2 from elsewhere, and 1-2 from the CC ranks.
The decline in the number of elite recruits in Chicagoland (at one time, Chicagoland/IL produced almost as many elite recruits as OH) and areas in and around NE have not helped UNL. Still, they could do better.
They got 0 of the elite recruits in their adjacent states in 2014.
LikeLike
Richard,
“BTW, this shows how difficult it is for UNL to get back to elite status.”
Yes and no. With an elite coach, they’d win a higher percentage of recruiting battles in non-adjacent states. They could scoop up a bunch of elite players that didn’t want to stay near home.
“The decline in the number of elite recruits in Chicagoland (at one time, Chicagoland/IL produced almost as many elite recruits as OH) and areas in and around NE have not helped UNL. Still, they could do better.”
Many northern big cities are producing fewer elite players as school funding has dropped and the quality of football played in the city leagues has dropped.
LikeLike
“Many northern big cities are producing fewer elite players as school funding has dropped and the quality of football payed in the city leagues has dropped.”
Seeing more and more city kids heading to the suburbs to play football but the reality is that so many inner city kids never play football and we are seeing fewer of them playing sports in general. The schools are terrible and many quality athletes can’t stay eligible to play HS sports. The only trend I see that can reverse this is if more inner city families move to some of the suburbs.
LikeLike
http://csnbbs.com/thread-678155.html
Frank tweeted this link to discussion about JMU to the MAC. Apparently rumors are heating up about it. The link has some interesting discussion.
LikeLike
This has been floated over the past several years. They draw very well for a FCS program and have passionate fans. Not the worst candidate out there for the MAC
(though, that message board contained an immortal line that the MAC needs to get out of the B1G’s shadow. Good luck with that–but the MAC knows thats not gonna happen and actually has carved out a very nice niche for itself with rivalries, good teams, star NFL players, and made-for-TV scheduling).
LikeLike
I was wondering how well recruiting predicts achievement at the highest level (as indicated by consensus All-Americans. We know that in recruiting, the SEC leads everyone else by a wide margin, with the Pac, B10, and ACC bunched together and B12 trailing slightly. So what’s the count by All-Americans? Does the SEC have double the All-Americans of all other leagues (as recruiting rankings would suggest) with the other conferences close together?
Here’s the tally from 2011-2013 (excluding punters and kickers since recruiting services don’t evaluate them well):
SEC: 25
Pac: 15
ACC: 10
B12: 9
B10: 8
Ouch.
LikeLike
A bit more worrying is the drop-off.
The current 14 B10 schools had 6 consensus All-Americans in both 2010 & 2011. One each in 2012 and 2013.
LikeLike
It’s really more a tale of what is happening at Nebraska, Michigan and Penn State. All three have been down and perhaps PSU and Michigan are on the upswing (at least talent wise). Regardless, the middle and lower tier B1G schools have also under performed and it would difficult to ever catch the 25 the SEC produced but the gap should close in the coming years. .
LikeLike
Hmm. UM has been down but is recruiting at a high level again. Agree that PSU also has been down (helped heavily by sanctions). But if this is “down” for UNL, then they’ve been “down” ever since Osborne retired. Pelini is winning as often as Solich and more than Callahan.
As for the middle-tier, Iowa is definitely down, but Wisconsin never won 3 straight B10 titles before 2010-2012 (heck, their last B10 title was in 1999) and they were nothing good before Alvarez. MSU last year also achieved more than they have in decades. Meanwhile, Northwestern’s 2014 recruiting class is it’s best ever.
LikeLike
The improved Michigan recruits are still a couple of years from being Seniors. UNL down I am referring to their recruiting. Nebraska has produced very few NFL caliber players in the last 3 years or so. Their draft numbers reflect the decline in pro talent.
As for middle tier I was more so referring to the third tier ( out of 4). I would suggest that Wisconsin and MSU are playing in Tier 1 the last 5 years.
All good points on improvements for several programs but Northwestern’s improved recruiting won’t show up on the all-american lists for several years.
Also, Wisconsin has been producing a high number of NFL players the last half dozen years or so but one wouldn’t expect that they would be leading the conference or finishing second to OSU in that category. Would expect Mich and PSU to be pumping out the NFL talent given their recruiting.
Maybe more surprising is that Minnesota or Northwestern failed to produce any NFL picks last year and maybe the year before.
LikeLike
Very much agree, B10 needs at least a couple of PSU, Michigan and Nebraska to recruit & compete at a high level; e.g. regularly play in ‘major’ bowls… Wisconsin is doing quite well, I like them going forward as they’ll have a pretty easy run of it in the weaker B10 west…
One issue the B10 runs into is there is only so much talent in the B10 footprint. Talent elsewhere is much better relative to the B10… B10 needs schools like the aforementioned three (PSU, Michigan & Nebraska) to recruit well outside the B10 while it seems like more ‘top’ talent is leaving the B10 region for the SEC, ACC than the B10 is plucking from Florida, Texas, California, Georgia, etc.
LikeLike
Wolverine:
Actually, the B10 footprint produces as much talent as the Pac footprint or B12 footprint, but unlike the bulk of the Pac talent (sequestered far away in CA), the B10 talent is more easily raided, sharing a long border with southern states.
LikeLike
As for the transfer of talent between the B10 and southern states, you’re right that the SEC has had the upperhand when it comes to elite (4 star or above) talent: 12 went from B10 states to the SEC while 7 went from SEC states (all from FL, GA, or TX, where the SEC overlaps with the ACC and B12). PSU took 1 from NC and OSU took 1 from VA while southern ACC schools took 4 from B10 territory.
However, what hurts just as much is that ND took 7 from the B10 footprint. The B10 and Pac have roughly the same amount of elite talent, but while ND is one of only 2 schools that has a CA pipeline, landing at least 1 elite recruit from CA each year (the other is OU), there are simply more non-B10 schools in and around B10 territory. For instance, Pitt, WVU, and ‘Cuse took 4 from B10 territory.
In large part, that’s been due to PSU doing a terrible job of protecting its territory in recent years. 0/7 elites in PA in 2014, 1/10 in 2013, 1/11 in 2012, 1/10 in 2011
LikeLike
“Maybe more surprising is that Minnesota or Northwestern failed to produce any NFL picks last year and maybe the year before.”
Why is that surprising? Not all schools produce draft picks. Especially ones who typically don’t pull in elite recruits (and even some who do). TTech, Arizona, ASU, GTech, Pitt, BC, ‘Cuse, Ole Miss, UK & Louisville didn’t produce any draft picks in 2013 either.
Northwestern actually had 2 draft picks in 2012.
LikeLike
Adding the 2010 numbers for a 4 year total:
SEC: 31
Pac: 20
B10: 14
B12: 14
ACC: 13
A little better.
LikeLike
I bet Boeheim right now thinks he could find a worker at Denny’s who can ref a game better.
LikeLike
Terp fans: Hey, SU, that’s your problem now.
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Auburn’s athletic department joins the $100 million dollar club.
http://www.oanow.com/sports/college/auburn/article_547e30fe-9c0e-11e3-9a2f-0017a43b2370.html
The article contains one of the most detailed descriptions of revenues and expenditures I’ve seen from any athletic department.
Also, this article describes the exponential growth of athletic budgets. That got me thinking that just 25 years ago, when I served as the student representative on the LSU Athletic Council, the last budget I was part of approving was less than LSU’s portion of the SEC media rights payments it received last year.
LikeLike
It’s 2024 and the B10 and SEC both look to add 2 universities to reach 16 members, who do the B10 & SEC add? Pac 12 can add in the fun too if you see them expanding.
LikeLike
tiger,
“It’s 2024 and the B10 and SEC both look to add 2 universities to reach 16 members, who do the B10 & SEC add? Pac 12 can add in the fun too if you see them expanding.”
B10’s top targets (as of now): ND, UT, UVA, UNC
Others: KU, GT, Duke
Maybe by then: OU, FSU, VT
SEC’s top targets: ND, UT, OU, UNC, VT
Others: Duke, UVA, NCSU
Maybe by then: FSU, Clemson
There are too many ways it could turn out to make any sort of confident projection. The order and choices will affect the later moves, too. Besides, we have yet to see what the financial gap will be between the P5 conferences.
If I had to assume expansion to 16 happens and had to guess how:
1. The ACC crumbles
B10 – UVA/UNC, SEC – VT/NCSU
2. Both crumble (I don’t see 4 viable choices in the B12 alone)
B10 – UT/ND, SEC – OU/VT
3. My preference
B10 – VT, UVA
It solidifies the DC and MD markets, adds a decent FB program, adds a good state, keeps SEC out of the footprint, and I don’t think ND will join. I don’t think UT really wants it either.
SEC – OU, FSU
FL is big enough to support 2 SEC schools and OU helps TAMU and MO fit in while strengthening the SECN in TX.
P12 – UT, TT, KU, ??? (Baylor, TCU, BYU, UNLV, other)
Adds some hardcore fans and another large state. More importantly, it gets some time zone help.
ACC – WV, UCF, USF
Splits into N/S divisions mostly:
N – BC, SU, Pitt, WV, UL, UCF, USF
S – Miami, GT, Clemson, NCSU, UNC, WF, Duke
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is as interested in anyone in leaving their current situation. GT is well aware they don’t have an SEC future and much prefer the B10 to the Big XII, even if the money was similar. They already feel pretty isolated in the ACC, essentially being in SEC country of which they’re very unlikely to ever get an invite… B10 however only likely sees them as a complimentary addition to the B10, similar to Rutgers solidifying the East Coast with Maryland… Georgia Tech would make an ideal #16 team if the B10 added another southern school like Virginia, FSU, NC or Duke but it’s tough to see them paired with an Big XII school like Kansas or Texas…
I hear a lot of B10 fans clamoring for North Carolina and/or Duke. I’d love either of those universities. However North Carolina is very much a southern state and their fans & boosters would much prefer the SEC to the B10 and they are in a position of strength to decide between the two or stay where they are and unfortunately their preference is the SEC… I also believe the two schools are tied to each other a good deal and would prefer to not be split among the B10 and SEC unless forced…
Notre Dame is every conferences dream addition but I can’t see anything forcing them in to a conference without a major shake-up of college football. Their major boosters collectively stated their donations weren’t going to ND if they played football in a conference and that ended any thought of them joining the B10…
Texas situation is one that could change the most in the next ten years. They could be very firm in the Big XII’s future or they could be really itching to make a move. Factors such as the B10’s next TV contract and Texas’ success on the football field will play a big part in where their boosters want them to be…
I’d love the addition of Virginia or Virginia Tech but I’m not sure if the B10 would take two schools from the same state with the BTN’s revenue model. Fifteen years ago, Virginia Tech was arguably even less of a football power than Virginia. Tech’s success in football could prove to be a short-term one when Beamer retires and if Virginia makes an excellent head coach hire…
Missouri holds a good deal of resentment towards the B10 over being by-passed in favor of Nebraska but if the B10 nets the type of money in their next TV deal that’s rumored ($35mil plus annually), it sure changes the minds of a lot of people in Texas, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, etc. on how attractive the B10 is…
My preference assuming Texas & ND aren’t available; Virginia & North Carolina. North Carolina says no? I look at one of Missouri, Georgia Tech or Kansas to compliment them, probably in that order.
LikeLike
wolverine,
“Georgia Tech is as interested in anyone in leaving their current situation. GT is well aware they don’t have an SEC future and much prefer the B10 to the Big XII, even if the money was similar. They already feel pretty isolated in the ACC, essentially being in SEC country of which they’re very unlikely to ever get an invite…”
It takes 2 to tango, and that’s GT’s problem. The SEC doesn’t want or need them and GT doesn’t want to rejoin the SEC. The B10 doesn’t really want to stretch that far (GT would be on an island at 16). GT’s only hope would be if FSU was #15.
“Georgia Tech would make an ideal #16 team if the B10 added another southern school like Virginia, FSU, NC or Duke”
If UNC comes, #16 would be UVA. If UVA comes, #15 would be UNC. If Duke comes, #15 would be UNC. FSU is the only partner for GT that makes sense.
“I hear a lot of B10 fans clamoring for North Carolina and/or Duke.”
It’s not clamoring as much as trying to be realistic about the B10. They like to stay contiguous. PA -> MD -> VA -> NC.
“Notre Dame is every conferences dream addition but I can’t see anything forcing them in to a conference without a major shake-up of college football.”
You mean like the P5 becoming the P4 with the B10 and SEC (and maybe P12) expanding to 16? That seems fairly major. But it wouldn’t be about forcing. ND has half-joined the ACC already. If the ACC crumbled, they’d need another home for their teams. A properly expanded B10 might offer them the least objectionable home.
“Their major boosters collectively stated their donations weren’t going to ND if they played football in a conference and that ended any thought of them joining the B10…”
They are halfway in a football conference already. As they get used to that, going to full membership somewhere will become more likely.
“I’d love the addition of Virginia or Virginia Tech but I’m not sure if the B10 would take two schools from the same state with the BTN’s revenue model. Fifteen years ago, Virginia Tech was arguably even less of a football power than Virginia. Tech’s success in football could prove to be a short-term one when Beamer retires and if Virginia makes an excellent head coach hire…”
I doubt they would either, but I think it would actually be wise. UVA doesn’t come close to owning the state. VT is the better football brand now, and likely will be then, too. Letting the SEC take VT while the B10 has UVA will assure that VT is dominant in state and will really hurt the BTN in VA.
“Missouri holds a good deal of resentment towards the B10 over being by-passed in favor of Nebraska but if the B10 nets the type of money in their next TV deal that’s rumored ($35mil plus annually), it sure changes the minds of a lot of people in Texas, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, etc. on how attractive the B10 is…”
MO ain’t going anywhere.
“My preference assuming Texas & ND aren’t available; Virginia & North Carolina. North Carolina says no? I look at one of Missouri, Georgia Tech or Kansas to compliment them, probably in that order.”
GT is too far and KU is too borderline academically to accept their horrid FB team.
LikeLike
As usual, you’re likely correct on GT. They are more likely to be involved in an expansion if the B10 goes 18 or more but I think they deserve stronger consideration to the B10 than most give them credit for. Yeah, they’d be on an island to the B10 but the B10 will be getting spread out a lot regardless if they go to 16 universities…
You’re likely correct on Missouri too, I think they are a great fit for the B10, there fans are very pro B10 though I agree that shipped has likely sailed and they are happy (for now) in the SEC. Mizzou’s happiness in the SEC could change if they start to struggle to win 8 games a season in football…
I have a relative who just moved away from Virginia a couple years ago. He says when he moved there in about ’99, Virginia Tech was a very, very distant second to Virginia in football. He claims (a couple years ago) that even with VT’s recent success on the football field, they aren’t significantly more popular in Virginia which surprised me. I think it’s possible Virginia could become the better football program of the two if Virginia ends up with the better coach after Beamer retires… Again, were talking about things that ‘might’ happen 7-12 years from now. VT might’ve built themselves up to Prince status but they still need to sustain their success with another coach before I’m convinced they’ll remain a Prince…
You bring up an excellent point about sharing the state of Virginia with the SEC if Virginia is B10 and VT is SEC. Is it better for the B10 to land Virginia & VT with the SEC netting NC & Duke or is the B10 better off splitting both states; netting Virginia & NC with the SEC getting VT & Duke/NC State? I’m of the opinion, none of the universities prefer being split with their in-state rivals.
LikeLike
wolverine,
“As usual, you’re likely correct on GT. They are more likely to be involved in an expansion if the B10 goes 18 or more but I think they deserve stronger consideration to the B10 than most give them credit for. Yeah, they’d be on an island to the B10 but the B10 will be getting spread out a lot regardless if they go to 16 universities…”
If GT was a brand in any sport, they might get more consideration. But for now, I just don’t see the B10 trying to add them without VA and NC already being in the footprint. A lot of GT fans would be upset about joining a northern conference, and GT isn’t important enough to force BTN coverage in Atlanta.
“You’re likely correct on Missouri too, I think they are a great fit for the B10, there fans are very pro B10 though I agree that shipped has likely sailed and they are happy (for now) in the SEC. Mizzou’s happiness in the SEC could change if they start to struggle to win 8 games a season in football…”
I think ego would prevent them from moving even if they wanted to deep down. Besides, there won’t be a large financial gap so it’d be hard to justify to the fans.
“I have a relative who just moved away from Virginia a couple years ago. He says when he moved there in about ’99, Virginia Tech was a very, very distant second to Virginia in football. He claims (a couple years ago) that even with VT’s recent success on the football field, they aren’t significantly more popular in Virginia which surprised me.”
It’s a very regional split. People in or near the mountains are pro-VT generally. VT also has strong support in the tidewater region, but those are largely bandwagon fans. UVA generally is strong in the middle of the state and near DC.
“I think it’s possible Virginia could become the better football program of the two if Virginia ends up with the better coach after Beamer retires… Again, were talking about things that ‘might’ happen 7-12 years from now. VT might’ve built themselves up to Prince status but they still need to sustain their success with another coach before I’m convinced they’ll remain a Prince…”
The right coach can do almost anything. But VT still has a leg up for now, and that’ll help in hiring Beamer’s replacement. So will the slightly lower academic standards.
“You bring up an excellent point about sharing the state of Virginia with the SEC if Virginia is B10 and VT is SEC. Is it better for the B10 to land Virginia & VT with the SEC netting NC & Duke or is the B10 better off splitting both states; netting Virginia & NC with the SEC getting VT & Duke/NC State?”
It depends how you evaluate better. The larger footprint has advantages, but being the little brother in VA wouldn’t be ideal. NC is the larger state, though, and UNC would demand full BTN coverage everywhere. If 16 is the absolute endpoint, I’d rather have a firm border than split 2 states with the SEC. I’d prefer the B10 go to 18 and get UVA, VT, UNC and Duke, frankly (assuming that’s possible, obviously).
Pods for divisions:
16:
E = UNC, UVA, UMD, RU
S = OSU, PSU, PU, IN
N = MI, MSU, NW, IL
W = NE, WI, IA, MN
18:
E = Duke, UNC, UVA, VT, UMD, RU
C1 = OSU, MI, MSU
C2 = PSU, PU, IN
W = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
“I’m of the opinion, none of the universities prefer being split with their in-state rivals.”
Agreed. That’s why I said maybe the B10 could get UVA and VT while UNC kept the ACC alive. It’s a small chance, but possible.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is every conferences dream addition but I can’t see anything forcing them in to a conference without a major shake-up of college football.
Even with such a shake-up, I don’t see them in a conference. They can always go to the next-weakest conference, and say: “Either you take us as a partial member, or we join the Big Ten as a full member.” Everyone wants to do business with the Irish, and no one wants the Big Ten to get another media king, so undoubtedly they’d find someone willing to give them that deal.
Missouri holds a good deal of resentment towards the B10 over being by-passed in favor of Nebraska…
The resentment is mainly Andy’s. Sober minds at Missouri may have been disappointed, but they surely recognize that Nebraska was the more rational choice for the Big Ten, given its needs at the time and what was then known. Heck, even Andy (when he lays off the tequila) acknowledges that if you were adding only one team, Nebraska was probably the best choice, or at least a reasonable one.
LikeLike
They can always go to the next-weakest conference, and say: “Either you take us as a partial member, or we join the Big Ten as a full member.”
It won’t be the PAC or SEC as a partial member. They are already in the ACC, sorta. I don’t know whether they either turned the B12 down, or that the membership refused to offer a partial (setting president for UT). Where is their leverage? Will they threaten going to the MAC?
LikeLike
Who would be threatened?
LikeLike
It won’t be the PAC or SEC as a partial member. They are already in the ACC, sorta. I don’t know whether they either turned the B12 down, or that the membership refused to offer a partial (setting president for UT). Where is their leverage? Will they threaten going to the MAC?
I was referring to the situation where the ACC is no longer tenable. Between the ACC and the Big XII, at least one is going to survive: a landscape with just three power conferences seems awfully unlikely.
So the place where they’d likely make that pitch is the Big XII, assuming the ACC crumbles. I think the XII would take that deal. Of course, if the ACC remains viable, the Irish have nothing to worry about, as they already have what they want.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I was referring to the situation where the ACC is no longer tenable. Between the ACC and the Big XII, at least one is going to survive: a landscape with just three power conferences seems awfully unlikely.”
Unless the ACC and B12 both lose their top programs and become a pair of second tier leagues ahead of the rest but not peers of the big 3 (like the BE used to be after the ACC raids). I suppose ND might have the leverage to only do 3 FB games, and that might be OK even in a reduced ACC.
If UT is gone, there isn’t much left in the B12 to attract ND. If the P16 happened (UT, OU and KU gone), would ND really want to be in the B12?
LikeLike
“So the place where they’d likely make that pitch is the Big XII, assuming the ACC crumbles. I think the XII would take that deal.”
They didn’t make that deal while the ACC was/is stronger than if
a crumble occurs. Why would the B12, with a strengthened hand, re offer (an offer I don’t know was actually ever made) as if threatened with collapse?
LikeLike
In the worst case scenario for ND, they’d find a home with their old Catholic brethren in the new Big East. Believe it or not, that’s going to be good enough for the universe of Domers as opposed to joining any power conference as a full member. Simply put, they’re in with the in crowd and wit be pushed or forced to do a single thing.
LikeLike
They didn’t make that deal while the ACC was/is stronger than if a crumble occurs. Why would the B12, with a strengthened hand, re offer (an offer I don’t know was actually ever made) as if threatened with collapse?
If we assume for argument’s sake (as is rumored) that ND had a partial membership offer from both the ACC and Big XII, the ACC was clearly the better choice. The ACC footprint includes more markets with large Catholic audiences; and the ACC is better for both basketball and the non-revenue sports that ND plays. In football, quite a few ACC teams are traditional ND rivals that they would have wanted to play regularly in any event.
If the ACC is no longer viable, all the Irish have to say to the Big XII is, “Would you rather have us as a partial member, or watch us join the Big Ten as a full member?” My guess is the XII would take the Irish as a partial member, because: A) Everyone likes having ND on their schedule; and B) No one outside the Big Ten wants to see the Big Ten get stronger.
That’s my working hypothesis, if something happens to the ACC (not that I think it will).
LikeLike
I can see that argument, but the only rumor I heard that way was Chipster spewing the burnt orange line.
“A) Everyone likes having ND on their schedule; and B) No one outside the Big Ten wants to see the Big Ten get stronger.”
A) not everyone will get to play them.
B) that concern is irrelevant to those not Texahoma, if the cost is to set up the Longhorns (and perhaps Sooners) to demand the same scheduling freedom.
LikeLike
@Frank
In the worst case scenario for ND, they’d find a home with their old Catholic brethren in the new Big East.
I disagree. The Big East has made clear they are done with FB schools, and, more importantly, without football games ND just doesn’t add anything to a conference. Their MBB is basically worthless. Not only is it a money loser it is maybe the 10th or 11th most popular MBB team in both Chicago and Indy two media markets the Big East already has covered with Depaul and Butler.
Plus, I doubt the administration considers the Big East strong enough competition for their non-BB sports. (Yes, the boosters are powerful but the administration and BOT have ultimate authority).
@Marc
No one except Texas and maybe Oklahoma would support ND as a partial member. An extra million $ a year in conference distributions and 2-3 home games a decade against the Irish doesn’t come close to outweighing the risk of setting a precedent for Texas to eventual do the same thing (especially since the collapse of the ACC would give the Big XII plenty of attractive pieces they could pick up as full members)
LikeLike
ND joined the ACC for the bowl tie ins. WIthout the bowl tie ins I think ND could be screwed. They’ll have access to the playoff but that would be it unless some bowls want to negotiate exclusively with that school which isn’t likely. Maybe ND is okay with not going to bowls outside of a playoff appearance.
LikeLike
@Kevin
I can’t believe no one mentioned that yet, but it’s a good point. Two years ago ND would have been left at home if they hadn’t made the BCS because they didn’t have any tie ins and every conference filled their bowl allotment.
On a similar note, as a member of the Big East ND wouldn’t be able to make a schedule as a football independent. Swarbrick admitted that the ACC deal came about because he realized without a scheduling agreement he was incapable of putting together anything resembling an acceptable schedule. With 9 almost all conferences playing 9 game schedules and schools unwilling to play tough OOC games late in year, it was either make a scheduling agreement or accept playing nothing but non-AQ’s in the second half of the season.
LikeLike
Over and over again, fans on message boards predict that the major conferences are going to screw Notre Dame. Over and over again, it does not happen; actually, the opposite continues to happen. Notre Dame always gets (basically) what they want.
No major school or conference has shown anywhere near the hostility to Notre Dame that non-Irish fans seem to have. To the contrary, just about everyone wants to do business with Notre Dame.
So if you’re placing bets, the bet that Notre Dame will continue to get what they want is safest. It has practically never failed yet.
LikeLike
@Marc ~ Quite: no P5 conference is interested in “hurting ND” as a goal in its own right. I doubt they would mind doing it if they saw a substantial benefit to their own conference, but those who engage in imagining the P5 conferences visiting vengeance on ND for one or another imagined slight or inequity aren’t starting from some actual rational benefit to a P5 conference.
And the easiest one to say but the least likely to happen is “force ND to join a conference”, since even with a P5 or P4 with sufficient autonomy to make a rule change that makes it happen, majority voting means that its three conferences voting to hand one conference an exclusive windfall.
LikeLike
You’ve asked the wrong question: it’s not just who they want to add, it’s who wants to move. I am pretty sure that the SEC or Big Ten would go to 16 in a heartbeat, if the two schools moving were UNC and UVA. But those schools have to want to make a switch, and when they had a chance, they signed a grant of rights instead.
The schools controlling any future re-alignment are likely to be Texas, North Carolina, and Florida State.
All leagues have keystone schools, but more than any league, the Big XII exists only because one school wants it to exist: Texas. The day Texas no longer wants it to survive, is the day the Big XII (as we know it) dies. As I mentioned above, the Big XII is starved for inventory, starved for markets (outside of the state of Texas), and even in Texas is no longer a monopoly. It has the biggest existential problems of any power league.
The Big XII is also starved for revenue-accretive expansion targets, unless it can join forces with the ACC’s football schools. So the main question for the Big XII is whether it gets carved up, does the carving, or decides to stand fast because Texas wants it that way.
In the ACC, there is a similar dynamic with North Carolina, but it’s not quite the same thing because power there is divided, with Florida State controlling in football, UNC in basketball. If UNC and FSU decide they want the ACC to survive, the remaining schools will come along for the ride. If one of those two decides it wants out, then a bunch of other dominoes will fall.
What saved the ACC last time around was that FSU didn’t want to join the Big XII, and the Big Ten wasn’t offering. North Carolina isn’t going to be the school that breaks up the ACC, but if they see it’s breaking up anyway, they will certainly land on their feet. The only question is whether they prefer the Big Ten or the SEC. UNC and UVA will move as a team, if they move at all.
I don’t see any expansion targets for the Pac-12, unless they start talking to Texas and Oklahoma again. As it is, they took two comparatively weak schools, Colorado and Utah, to get to 12. I don’t see anything out there for them that makes any sense, unless the Big XII schools are in play.
LikeLike
The answer to your question is a very simple one, the B10’s next TV deal could dramatically alter college football if it’s as sizable as some analysts predict. If the B10’s tv deal is a game changer, it goes a long way to influence universities to jump aboard. And once a couple jump ship, especially if it’s some of those schools you list, we could see many others follow.
LikeLike
If football-oriented revenue continues to grow to the point where a conference with a lesser overall football brand (such as the ACC) is left further and further behind, schools such as Florida State and North Carolina will be in a quandary. We’ll have to wait about a decade to see what the landscape is like; if FSU is AAU-worthy by then, it will be sufficiently attractive to the Big Ten where it and Georgia Tech (already AAU) could be #15 and #16 for a southern flank…and that would leave UNC and UVa with a decision to make: Stay in a drastically weakened ACC, become #17-18 in the Big Ten, or be #15-16 in the SEC?
LikeLike
A real problem for the PAC is that water severely limits the future prospects for growth in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zone states. Recently, there have been articles about the water shortage emerging along the Colorado River basin, with Lake Mead drying out in the last decade or so. There’s no way a culture can sustain such growth without water. Then again, water issues have always remained in the forefront in the western states. Sooner or later, there will be trade-offs unpopular with certain groups or everyone suffers.
What this means for future realignment I have no idea. But maybe this is another reason for them to go further east (or north if they could incorporate some Canadian universities into the conference).
LikeLike
We also assume that any additions would necessarily come from the ACC in 2024. I could just as easily see the ACC in a much stronger position in 10 years, strong enough, and profitable enough, to ward off other conferences.
Consider: If FSU, Miami, and Clemson all become and remain consistent top 15 teams, and VaTech is a consistent top 25 team, then ESPN/ABC will be quite interested in giving them a bigger deal and possibly co-brand a network (like with the SEC).
Combined with a potential L’Ville rise back to a consistent top 25 team, along with any number of other ACC schools that have had success and could easily do it again (GT, Cuse, Pitt) and the partial presence of UND, in 10 years from now, schools like UVa, GT, UNC might not want to leave, especially if they anticipate the ACC would get paid bigtime in 2026-2027 (I could see, however, ESPN gently suggesting higher payments for the ACC if it adds UConn only because ESPN and UConn have a long, deep history together).
If the SEC and B1G desire expanding, they might very well be forced to look west for partners, with Texas (the crown jewel) and Oklahoma as 3-conference targets (SEC, B1G, Pac12). And if Kansas loses AAU status, the B1G might not even see any value outside of Texas and OU and could very well stay pat.
Bottom Line: Its not a stretch at all to envision a CFB landscape 10 years from now where the ACC is on par with the B1G, if not better on the field, and approaching the SEC on the field. Plus, add in the ACC’s basketball, and you could have an all year round conference equaling the B1G.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“We also assume that any additions would necessarily come from the ACC in 2024.”
No, it just seems more likely than the B12 based on desirability of the schools. Other than UT, which B12 schools would the B10 want? Maybe KU, maybe OU. The ACC offers more choices.
“Consider: If FSU, Miami, and Clemson all become and remain consistent top 15 teams, and VaTech is a consistent top 25 team, then ESPN/ABC will be quite interested in giving them a bigger deal and possibly co-brand a network (like with the SEC).”
Why would ABC want to give them a bigger deal when they already have them locked in? Even with an ACCN and a small bump in the current deal, how large does that total get compared to the B10 projections of $40M+ per year in 2017 and beyond?
“And if Kansas loses AAU status, the B1G might not even see any value outside of Texas and OU and could very well stay pat.”
His hypothetical demanded that the B10 and SEC expand to 16, so standing pat wasn’t an option. He didn’t ask about the likelihood of that expansion happening.
“Bottom Line: Its not a stretch at all to envision a CFB landscape 10 years from now where the ACC is on par with the B1G, if not better on the field, and approaching the SEC on the field.”
Yes, it is. You assumed every ACC team essentially returned to their historical highs all at the same time. Somebody has to lose the games, and not everyone can be at their peak at the same time. The ACC has been down for the entire BCS era. At some point that becomes their norm, not being down.
Besides, the B10 has been really down so it is at least as likely as the ACC to improve over the next decade. OSU is about over it’s sanctions. PSU will get over theirs soon. MI and NE will either improve on the field or find better coaches soon. MSU is doing well under Dantonio. WI and some other West teams will prosper from the new divisions.
LikeLike
“No, it just seems more likely than the B12 based on desirability of the schools. Other than UT, which B12 schools would the B10 want? Maybe KU, maybe OU. The ACC offers more choices.”
Desirability does not equal availability. I’m sure the B12 desires Arkansas and LSU, But neither is available. My point is that the ACC schools, as desirable as some are, might not want to leave if the ACC is doing well with bright future prospects in 2024..
“Why would ABC want to give them a bigger deal when they already have them locked in? Even with an ACCN and a small bump in the current deal, how large does that total get compared to the B10 projections of $40M+ per year in 2017 and beyond?”
Well, if ACC was giving ESPN/ACC great ratings, the ACC would be in a position to demand it in a new conference TV deal to be signed around that time. Or Fox would make ’em a big offer.
“His hypothetical demanded that the B10 and SEC expand to 16, so standing pat wasn’t an option. He didn’t ask about the likelihood of that expansion happening.”
Nope. Tiger said they look to expand. No requirement they do.
“Yes, it is. You assumed every ACC team essentially returned to their historical highs all at the same time. Somebody has to lose the games, and not everyone can be at their peak at the same time. The ACC has been down for the entire BCS era. At some point that becomes their norm, not being down.”
Its not a stretch, and I named 8/9 schools, not every ACC school. Yes, some ACC teams have to lose games, but that’s just as true in other conferences, and success/failure in CFB is by and large very cyclical. But the main thrust of my point is that if the ACC is winning on the field with its main schools, the conference will be in a much stronger position money-wise, and will be able to bargain better with ESPN. A decent part of the ACC’s weakness is UM and FSU drastically underperforming for almost 10 years. Yes, if they rise again, and Clemson and Va Tech sustain, and some of the GT/Cuse/Pitt get their act together, the schools considered to be exploring might not want to.
I’m just posting the other side of the coin. One could also argue that FSU is a Jimbo Fisher to Alabama away from falling back again, that UM seems to be a walking NCAA violation, and that Beamer’s replacement at Va Tech can’t keep it going, as well as none of the former BE schools do much of anything, and that the UVa/UNC/GT folks will have giant countdown clocks to 2027/freedom. Neither is more likely than the other, but both are plausible scenarios.
“Besides, the B10 has been really down so it is at least as likely as the ACC to improve over the next decade. OSU is about over it’s sanctions. PSU will get over theirs soon. MI and NE will either improve on the field or find better coaches soon. MSU is doing well under Dantonio. WI and some other West teams will prosper from the new divisions.”
I don’t disagree with this, but not really that on point.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Desirability does not equal availability.”
Availability is pure guesswork this far in advance. What we do know are current TV deals, and the B12 leads the ACC there. Plus, it takes 2 to tango and I’m not convinced the B10 wants to expand to the west. So, since the hypothetical included the B10 expanding to 16, adding ACC teams seems more likely to most people.
“My point is that the ACC schools, as desirable as some are, might not want to leave if the ACC is doing well with bright future prospects in 2024.”
But you didn’t similarly analyze how well the B10, B12 and SEC might be doing by then. You seem to assume the status quo for everyone else but big improvement for the ACC. While that’s possible, how likely is it?
“Well, if ACC was giving ESPN/ACC great ratings, the ACC would be in a position to demand it in a new conference TV deal to be signed around that time. Or Fox would make ‘em a big offer.”
He said 2024. The current ACC deal extends through 2027. That’s why I asked why ABC would give them a raise. Should ABC take all the risk and the ACC gets all the upside?
“His hypothetical demanded that the B10 and SEC expand to 16, so standing pat wasn’t an option. He didn’t ask about the likelihood of that expansion happening.”
“Nope. Tiger said they look to expand. No requirement they do.”
I disagree. He finished it by asking: Who do they add? He wasn’t asking about the null result.
“Yes, it is. You assumed every ACC team essentially returned to their historical highs all at the same time. Somebody has to lose the games, and not everyone can be at their peak at the same time. The ACC has been down for the entire BCS era. At some point that becomes their norm, not being down.”
“Its not a stretch, and I named 8/9 schools, not every ACC school.”
Yes, it’s a huge stretch. There’s no historical precedent or evidence for it. And naming 8/9 of 14.5 schools in a hoops first league is naming every football program of any note. They can’t all be up.
“Yes, some ACC teams have to lose games, but that’s just as true in other conferences, and success/failure in CFB is by and large very cyclical.”
So why didn’t you consider the cycle for the B10 or anyone else but the ACC?
“But the main thrust of my point is that if the ACC is winning on the field with its main schools, the conference will be in a much stronger position money-wise, and will be able to bargain better with ESPN.”
They would still be years from their next deal. That means they wouldn’t be in a stronger financial position yet.
“A decent part of the ACC’s weakness is UM and FSU drastically underperforming for almost 10 years.”
Underperforming compared to what? Their historical highs, all achieved under one coach in FSU’s case? Neither was any good before the 80s.
Miami’s all-time W% is 63.2%. In the last 10 years, it’s 60%. For FSU, it’s 67.4% and 66.7%. For the last 50 years, it’s 66.5% for Miami and 71.0% for FSU. They’ve been down, but not by much.
“Yes, if they rise again, and Clemson and Va Tech sustain, and some of the GT/Cuse/Pitt get their act together, the schools considered to be exploring might not want to.”
But if the top teams win more, how can the next tier also win just as much if not more? Don’t FSU and Miami have to beat them more consistently to achieve what you said?
“I don’t disagree with this, but not really that on point.”
Of course it is. If you discuss the potential improvement of the ACC, you also need to provide context. What are the other conferences likely to do in that same period? It’s relative position that matters.
LikeLike
“But you didn’t similarly analyze how well the B10, B12 and SEC might be doing by then. You seem to assume the status quo for everyone else but big improvement for the ACC. While that’s possible, how likely is it?”
As likely as any other scenario gaming ten years into the future.
“He said 2024. The current ACC deal extends through 2027. That’s why I asked why ABC would give them a raise. Should ABC take all the risk and the ACC gets all the upside?”
Because if the ACC is doing that well, it will have a sense of what it will expect in future TV deals. If there is a big payoff coming in 2027, that its three years away won’t be much of a downside relative to potential penalties/litigation costs incurred in leaving.
“I disagree. He finished it by asking: Who do they add? He wasn’t asking about the null result.”
The answer can be nobody. Its as plausible as any other option, and his hypo did not exclude such a result.
“So why didn’t you consider the cycle for the B10 or anyone else but the ACC?”
Don’t see a reason to. For the ACC to rise, its not a requirement that the B1G or anyone else fall in any significant degree. There is room for both FSU and Alabama and OSU in the Top 4, for example.
““A decent part of the ACC’s weakness is UM and FSU drastically underperforming for almost 10 years.”
Underperforming compared to what? Their historical highs, all achieved under one coach in FSU’s case? Neither was any good before the 80s.”
Both FSU and Miami have potential to return to highs reached in the 80’s and 90’s, meaning competing for and winning more than one national title. It might not be EXACTly returning to past success levels, but its close enough in my book. If FSU doesn’t have 15 consecutive top 5 finishes, but wins 3 national titles, I’d say its matching past successes. Similarly, if UM wins a 2 titles, it will be less than 5 in 20 years, but nobody is going to seriously say it has not returned to prominence because it won less than 5. If you want to quibble with my words based on this, then you quibble with them–I don’t really care.
“But if the top teams win more, how can the next tier also win just as much if not more? Don’t FSU and Miami have to beat them more consistently to achieve what you said?”
Never said this. And the SEC had 7 teams with 9 or more wins in 2012 & 2013, and had 7 schools in the top 25 in both years..The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,
“Of course it is. If you discuss the potential improvement of the ACC, you also need to provide context. What are the other conferences likely to do in that same period? It’s relative position that matters.”
No I don’t. Because if the ACC has great success on the field overall, not necessarily against particular conferences, it very well might be more stable 10 years from now than it was over the last few. The goings-on in the B1G east or west won’t change that all that much.
Remember, ten years ago, the ACC was the aggressor, widely considered to have fortified itself for the future. Matching FSU and Miami! Gaining Miami and Boston TV markets! Another national brand in Va Tech!. To quote Lee Corso, “Not so fast, my friend.” Ten years is an eternity, and there is no more or less plausible within a general realm of reasonable possibilities.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“As likely as any other scenario gaming ten years into the future.”
I highly doubt that. Got any supporting evidence (historical precedents, etc) or math?
“Because if the ACC is doing that well, it will have a sense of what it will expect in future TV deals.”
“The answer can be nobody. Its as plausible as any other option, and his hypo did not exclude such a result.”
I think he implicitly did exclude it, mostly because it may be by far the most likely scenario but it’s not interesting to discuss.
“Don’t see a reason to. For the ACC to rise, its not a requirement that the B1G or anyone else fall in any significant degree.”
Football is a zero sum game. For the ACC to rise, someone else has to fall to make room.
“Both FSU and Miami have potential to return to highs reached in the 80′s and 90′s, meaning competing for and winning more than one national title. It might not be EXACTly returning to past success levels, but its close enough in my book.”
So yes, you expect them to both return to their historical peaks. They are called historical highs for a reason. The historical norms for them are much closer to their recent performance. Anyone has the potential to return to their peak, sure, but it’s never likely.
“But if the top teams win more, how can the next tier also win just as much if not more? Don’t FSU and Miami have to beat them more consistently to achieve what you said?”
“Never said this.”
You said:
Consider: If FSU, Miami, and Clemson all become and remain consistent top 15 teams, and VaTech is a consistent top 25 team, then ESPN/ABC will be quite interested in giving them a bigger deal and possibly co-brand a network (like with the SEC).
Combined with a potential L’Ville rise back to a consistent top 25 team, along with any number of other ACC schools that have had success and could easily do it again (GT, Cuse, Pitt)
That’s 3 consistently top 15 teams and 2-5 consistently top 25 teams. Teams don’t stay consistently in the top 15 if they don’t beat the top 25 teams they play regularly. So who are those teams beating to stay top 25? The answer has to be OOC teams, which is where this comes back to me pointing out you analyzed the ACC in isolation. Someone else has to be slipping to make room for this many ACC teams.
“And the SEC had 7 teams with 9 or more wins in 2012 & 2013, and had 7 schools in the top 25 in both years.”
And the bottom half of the SEC was winless against the top half.
“The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,”
The SEC is richer, more focused on football and has better fans than the ACC by far. Until this recent stretch, CFB had never been so dominated by one conference. Suddenly the ACC is going to replace them as the greatest conference of all time? And all without anyone else slipping?
“Because if the ACC has great success on the field overall,”
Great success against who? Why wouldn’t the lack of success of their opponents be relevant?
“Ten years is an eternity, and there is no more or less plausible within a general realm of reasonable possibilities.”
That’s ridiculous. Of course there are more and less probable possibilities.
LikeLike
““As likely as any other scenario gaming ten years into the future.”
I highly doubt that. Got any supporting evidence (historical precedents, etc) or math?”
No. because its a potential scenario. Not saying it will happen, saying it could happen.
““Don’t see a reason to. For the ACC to rise, its not a requirement that the B1G or anyone else fall in any significant degree.”
Football is a zero sum game. For the ACC to rise, someone else has to fall to make room.”
Hence, I said “to any significant degree.” Not everyone has to fail, some merely need not have quite the same level of success.
““Both FSU and Miami have potential to return to highs reached in the 80′s and 90′s, meaning competing for and winning more than one national title. It might not be EXACTly returning to past success levels, but its close enough in my book.”
So yes, you expect them to both return to their historical peaks. They are called historical highs for a reason. The historical norms for them are much closer to their recent performance. Anyone has the potential to return to their peak, sure, but it’s never likely.”
I do expect them to get close to their historical highs. Yes. But I didn’t know why they were called historical highs, so thanks for the lesson.
“That’s 3 consistently top 15 teams and 2-5 consistently top 25 teams. Teams don’t stay consistently in the top 15 if they don’t beat the top 25 teams they play regularly. So who are those teams beating to stay top 25? The answer has to be OOC teams, which is where this comes back to me pointing out you analyzed the ACC in isolation. Someone else has to be slipping to make room for this many ACC teams.”
Ok. So? I have no idea who will beat who any more than I do who will beat who in the upcoming NFL season. But some teams will win and some will lose. And for the OOC teams, its only a relatively few number of games spread around many power and lesser conferences. Not wholesale vanquishing of other conferences. A win or two here and there vs each conference.
““The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,”
The SEC is richer, more focused on football and has better fans than the ACC by far. Until this recent stretch, CFB had never been so dominated by one conference. Suddenly the ACC is going to replace them as the greatest conference of all time? And all without anyone else slipping?”
So? Where did I say the ACC would replace them as the dominant conference? All I said is that its possible the ACC might have a very good stretch in the next ten years and not be vulnerable to poaching from other conferences. This somehow equates to supplanting the SEC as the dominant conference?
And on the SEC, its also not guaranteed the SEC will maintain its historic level of success.
“That’s ridiculous. Of course there are more and less probable possibilities.”
Not when projecting 10 years out in anything.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“No. because its a potential scenario. Not saying it will happen, saying it could happen.”
You didn’t just say it could happen, you said it was at least as likely as any other scenario. That’s why I asked if you had any support for the claim. Nobody disputed it was a possible scenario.
“Hence, I said “to any significant degree.” Not everyone has to fail, some merely need not have quite the same level of success.”
For the ACC to move from #5 to #1/2, other would need to fall considerably. It could be spread around to everyone or be focused in one or two leagues, but it would require a significant degree of slippage for it to happen.
“I do expect them to get close to their historical highs.”
Why? Do you have some data that you think suggests that, or is it just a guess?
“Ok. So?”
So it’s pointless to say one conference will change significantly over 10 years and not take into account how that change would impact the rest of CFB. It’s important to the discussion of the ACC’s stability where the other leagues stand at the time.
“I have no idea who will beat who any more than I do who will beat who in the upcoming NFL season.”
But you know the ACC will win more. They play the SEC a lot OOC, so are you expecting that to be where the new ins come from? Is it bowl wins? Early OOC games?
“And for the OOC teams, its only a relatively few number of games spread around many power and lesser conferences. Not wholesale vanquishing of other conferences. A win or two here and there vs each conference.”
Which is more than you’ve said before. So you’re saying everyone else will slip a little. At least that’s a position that might explain the ACC being more stable.
“So? Where did I say the ACC would replace them as the dominant conference?”
When you quoted the SEC stats as proof that the ACC could achieve it.
And the SEC had 7 teams with 9 or more wins in 2012 & 2013, and had 7 schools in the top 25 in both years..The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,
“And on the SEC, its also not guaranteed the SEC will maintain its historic level of success.”
Of course they won’t. But you’re predicting the ACC to match it in several ways.
“Not when projecting 10 years out in anything.”
Yes, even then.
LikeLike
“Why? Do you have some data that you think suggests that, or is it just a guess?”
Of course its a guess–its a plausible guess, but like all predictions of this nature, its a guess. Do I know UM and FSU will return to those highs? If I did, I’d have already placed my wagers in Vegas. But Its not an outlandish that both FSU and UM are capable of major success with multiple national titles in the next ten years.
“But you know the ACC will win more. They play the SEC a lot OOC, so are you expecting that to be where the new ins come from? Is it bowl wins? Early OOC games?”
Again, I do not know the ACC will win more. All I said it was a plausible scenario that its teams could win more.
“When you quoted the SEC stats as proof that the ACC could achieve it.”
Nope. Cited those stats only to show that half the teams in a 14 team conference can be in the top 25 and/or have at minimum 9-win seasons. Not comparing the two conferences. Purely illustrative.
“Of course they won’t. But you’re predicting the ACC to match it in several ways.”
Nope. Not predicting. Saying its plausible.
““Not when projecting 10 years out in anything.””
Nope. Projecting 10 years out is a fools errand. Just outlaying a plausible scenario to show that it plausible that the ACC might not be the ripe, easy target for other conferences in 10 years time than it appears to be now. Not saying it will happen.
LikeLike
For the ACC to rise to #3 among conferences, much less go to #1 or #2, there would have to be a major cultural change by several of its schools — particularly the four in North Carolina that still largely treat football as a prelim for hoops. Don’t see that happening. It would easier for the SEC to reach such heights in men’s basketball than for the ACC to do it in football.
LikeLike
Not predicting. Saying its plausible.
I’d say your “plausible” is at the outer edge of believability. About half of the ACC teams are capable of being in the top 25 in their good years. Your scenario requires quite a few of them to do it all at once, and that is exceedingly unlikely. It’s rare that every team with the potential to be good, is actually good in the same year. Beyond that, as Brian said, for someone to win big, others have to lose.
In a list of the top 10 likely responses to the original question, your scenario would be about 20th. If you want to call that plausible, go ahead.
LikeLike
My main point is we assume that what exists in 2014 will be the case in 2024. Time will tell what actually happens. 10 years in college football is an eternity.
But I don’t think its on “the outer edge of believability” to think the ACC might get better in football over the next ten years to an extent that its able to prevent a raid on its membership by other conferences.
By way of illustration, 10 years ago, the SEC was nowhere the dominant force it is now (its undefeated champ was excluded from the BCS title game for a 1-loss Oklahoma squad, after all). Now, its unthinkable that an undefeated SEC champ would get passed over for any one-loss team, such is the esteem the conference is held in, based on its historic run of success (6 of 8 BCS championships!). But like all things, success is cyclical, and so is failure. Certainly, sitting now looking into the future, the SEC is poised to continue its level of success, but the future could very well crush it just the same (a recruiting scandal here, Saban wanderlust/a Zook-ean replacement there, post-Spurrier reversion for USC, another bad UF coaching hire, Sumlin can’t maintain success post-Manziel). How thinks look in 2014 is not how they will actually be in 2024.
I don’t know the specifics because I don’t have a crystal ball. But to me, It would be folly to say ACC success will come (if it comes at all) at the expense of X teams and Y conference(s)–I do not have a crystal ball or a sports almanac from the future left behind by some whippersnapper. But the simple idea is that as time plays out, the ACC could very well improve in football in ways foreseen and unforeseen, It does not depend on trying to prove the future, only to say that trying to prove the future has been the ruin of many a person, and to consider all possibilities. That’s my point.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Of course its a guess”
It was a serious question. You could have been extrapolating from some recent trends you thought were relevant (SEC fading, ACC improving, impact of the oversigning changes, a renewed focus in FB in the ACC, whatever).
“But Its not an outlandish that both FSU and UM are capable of major success with multiple national titles in the next ten years.”
Many would say it is outlandish. For them to win 4+ titles, other people can’t win them. It’s also really hard to have both teams at that level (not impossible, just hard). Before, it was Miami on top in the 80s and then FSU passing them in the 90s. The big change from then is that they are now in the same conference. It remains to be seen how that might change things when both are elite.
“Again, I do not know the ACC will win more.”
In this scenario you do. But you didn’t seem to think about where those extras win came from and how that impacted things.
“Cited those stats only to show that half the teams in a 14 team conference can be in the top 25 and/or have at minimum 9-win seasons. Not comparing the two conferences.”
Not true. You said:
The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules right after giving the SEC stats.
“Just as easily” in that context means you are directly comparing the ACC and SEC and there abilities to produce those stats. SInce no other conference has ever been close to producing those sorts of numbers year after year, it’s a hefty claim for this scenario.
“Saying its plausible.”
Actually, you said it’s just as likely as any other scenario.
“Nope. Projecting 10 years out is a fools errand.”
People do it all the time. Relying on it to always be accurate is silly, but clearly some predictions are more likely than others.
“Just outlaying a plausible scenario to show that it plausible that the ACC might not be the ripe, easy target for other conferences in 10 years time than it appears to be now.”
I don’t think it’s a ripe target now. Even without the GoR, I don’t think they’d lose anyone at the moment. It did get them a raise and ND on board, though.
LikeLike
““Of course its a guess”
It was a serious question. You could have been extrapolating from some recent trends you thought were relevant (SEC fading, ACC improving, impact of the oversigning changes, a renewed focus in FB in the ACC, whatever).”
Fair enough. I interpreted tone in the comment differently.
““But Its not an outlandish that both FSU and UM are capable of major success with multiple national titles in the next ten years.”
Many would say it is outlandish. For them to win 4+ titles, other people can’t win them. It’s also really hard to have both teams at that level (not impossible, just hard). Before, it was Miami on top in the 80s and then FSU passing them in the 90s. The big change from then is that they are now in the same conference. It remains to be seen how that might change things when both are elite.”
Its just one plausible scenario as many. I dont think based on recent success on the field and recruiting that its outlandish for FSU and UM to be perennial top 10 teams with some titles between them over 10 years. But that’s a point on which reasonable people can have differing assessments of the possibilities..
“Again, I do not know the ACC will win more.”
In this scenario you do. But you didn’t seem to think about where those extras win came from and how that impacted things.”
Nope. All I said is they could win more, or that its plausible its teams could win more. And I cannot specifically identify where they may come from (if at all). But that I can’t identify it does not mean it cannot potentially occur. By way of example, its plausible that OSU will be a 2 loss team this coming season without having to firmly state to which teams it will lose, as that accounts for the “Any Given Sunday” principle that anything can happen on the field. Maybe they lost at MSU and in a conf title game. Maybe they get upset by Va Tech and lose in a bowl game. Or they win out but lose in conf title game and bowl game. I have no idea. But its still plausible OSU loses two games this season. Same principle applies here.
“Cited those stats only to show that half the teams in a 14 team conference can be in the top 25 and/or have at minimum 9-win seasons. Not comparing the two conferences.”
Not true. You said:
The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules right after giving the SEC stats.
“Just as easily” in that context means you are directly comparing the ACC and SEC and there abilities to produce those stats. SInce no other conference has ever been close to producing those sorts of numbers year after year, it’s a hefty claim for this scenario.”
Nope. All I stated was that if one conference can do it, another conference can do it. Which was responding to a prior critique as to the number of teams that can be good at one time. Was illustrative only for the number of teams. That it was using stats from a 14 team SEC was necessary because its (until this July) the only other 14 team conference. “Just as easily” was referring to the math/number of teams, not making a firm comparison.
““Nope. Projecting 10 years out is a fools errand.”
People do it all the time. Relying on it to always be accurate is silly, but clearly some predictions are more likely than others.”
Relying on them to ever be accurate is silly. Few, if any, 10 year projections have any actual value. Even the government’s economic projections 10 years out, crafted by some of the best and brightest economists out there, have little actual predictive value and are almost entirely political documents. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-you-should-ignore-economic-forecasts/) (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/bad-economic-forecasts-are-like-bad-weather-men-they-leave-us-out-in-the-cold/)
Yes, I’m comfortable predicting Earth’s continued existence in 10 years. Same with gravity. But predicting the relative ranking of collegiate athletic conferences is fun for a bull-session, but its ultimately a total crapshoot.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“All I stated was that if one conference can do it, another conference can do it.”
No, that isn’t all you stated. You claimed the ACC could do it just as easily as the SEC. That’s the part I take issue with, not whether or not it could happen.
“Relying on them to ever be accurate is silly.”
Except we’re talking about the relative likelihood of these outcomes and it’s a zero-sum game, not the economy. Clearly (to the rest of us, at least) some outcomes are more likely than others.
LikeLike
“All I stated was that if one conference can do it, another conference can do it.”
No, that isn’t all you stated. You claimed the ACC could do it just as easily as the SEC. That’s the part I take issue with, not whether or not it could happen.
Nope. The quote you misinterpret is “The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,” Its not a direct comparison with the SEC as much as a simple truth that a 14 team conference can have 7 teams wining 9 or more games. It can happen. It was a response to your critique about how I named virtually all ACC schools, so I used the only presently-existing conference to show that the math does actually allow for 7 schools with 9 or more wins in a year.
“Relying on them to ever be accurate is silly.”
“Except we’re talking about the relative likelihood of these outcomes and it’s a zero-sum game, not the economy.”
Nope. Even then, its pure silliness. Same applies to projecting the best NFL teams 10 years from now, or the best MBB teams. It may be a fun diversion to make/argue them, but predictions 10 years out have no actual value.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“The quote you misinterpret is “The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,””
Except you removed the context. “Just as easily” is a comparison to something. In this case, it was the SEC based on the previous sentence.
“Its not a direct comparison with the SEC as much as a simple truth that a 14 team conference can have 7 teams wining 9 or more games. It can happen. It was a response to your critique about how I named virtually all ACC schools, so I used the only presently-existing conference to show that the math does actually allow for 7 schools with 9 or more wins in a year.”
We were discussing how likely the scenario was. Nobody claimed it wasn’t possible. But I (and probably others) think the SEC had/has several advantages that would make it very hard for the ACC to duplicate their feat. Therefore, the ACC couldn’t do it “just as easily” as the SEC, especially in the next decade.
14 team league with 8 conference games:
7 schools would need to go 5-3 or better in conference. Roughly half of their conference games would be against each other, so that’s 13-13 in 26 games. They’d need to go 50-8 against the teams that don’t win 9 games plus all OOC games (4 SEC rivalries, 5 ND games, any other AQ match-ups, etc) which is certainly possible. But that would require a major drop off in performance by the other AQ schools versus the ACC.
The SEC did it in 2012-3, but only managed 6 of 12 in 2005 in the last decade (just looking at teams going 5-3 or better in conference).
“Even then, its pure silliness.”
Except it would often be fairly accurate.
“Same applies to projecting the best NFL teams 10 years from now, or the best MBB teams. It may be a fun diversion to make/argue them, but predictions 10 years out have no actual value.”
Teams change status much more quickly than conferences do, generally.
LikeLike
““The quote you misinterpret is “The ACC can just as easily have 7 teams winning 9 or more games in subsequent years, and possibly more depending on OOC schedules,””
Except you removed the context. “Just as easily” is a comparison to something. In this case, it was the SEC based on the previous sentence.””
Context was there, and was explained again in the following sentence.
“”Its not a direct comparison with the SEC as much as a simple truth that a 14 team conference can have 7 teams wining 9 or more games. It can happen. It was a response to your critique about how I named virtually all ACC schools, so I used the only presently-existing conference to show that the math does actually allow for 7 schools with 9 or more wins in a year.”
“We were discussing how likely the scenario was. Nobody claimed it wasn’t possible. But I (and probably others) think the SEC had/has several advantages that would make it very hard for the ACC to duplicate their feat. Therefore, the ACC couldn’t do it “just as easily” as the SEC, especially in the next decade.””
Nope. Was referring solely to the math when stating “Just as easily.” As I’ve stated several times.
“14 team league with 8 conference games:
7 schools would need to go 5-3 or better in conference. Roughly half of their conference games would be against each other, so that’s 13-13 in 26 games. They’d need to go 50-8 against the teams that don’t win 9 games plus all OOC games (4 SEC rivalries, 5 ND games, any other AQ match-ups, etc) which is certainly possible. But that would require a major drop off in performance by the other AQ schools versus the ACC.
The SEC did it in 2012-3, but only managed 6 of 12 in 2005 in the last decade (just looking at teams going 5-3 or better in conference)””
So:
1) Its plausible for a conference like the ACC to do it, especially if some teams improve and sustain success,
2) Would require only a drop off in performance by schools playing the ACC, AQ or not.
3) Just as the ACC over the last 10 years was overall lackluster, the SEC over the last 8 or so is hot, and burning hot the last two seasons–historically hot, likely unsustainable over an entire decade. Whether the ACC or another conference, or all conferences benefit equally, is unknown. But nothing is static, and the ACC has some football programs that can plausibly rise up.
“Even then, its pure silliness.”
Except it would often be fairly accurate.”
Which is almost never. As is the case with here.
““Same applies to projecting the best NFL teams 10 years from now, or the best MBB teams. It may be a fun diversion to make/argue them, but predictions 10 years out have no actual value.”
Teams change status much more quickly than conferences do, generally.””
Except that conferences consist of teams, and conference status can change as almost as quickly as teams do (maybe slight lag in conference rep vs team performance, but not much).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Was referring solely to the math when stating “Just as easily.” As I’ve stated several times.”
Saying it doesn’t make it fit what you wrote. Maybe that’s what you meant to say, but it isn’t what you actually said.
“1) Its plausible for a conference like the ACC to do it, especially if some teams improve and sustain success,”
Nobody has ever claimed it wasn’t possible. Feel free to drop that strawman any time.
“2) Would require only a drop off in performance by schools playing the ACC, AQ or not.”
As well as the bottom half of the ACC failing to maintain parity. And all the non-ACC teams falling off a cliff in performance.
1983-2002 (the FSU/Miami peak) ACC OOC W% for the top 7:
SEC – 0.492
B10 – 0.578
P12 – 0.640
B12 – 0.721
Past 10 years:
P12 – 0.167
SEC – 0.387
B12 – 0.458
B10 – 0.500
Your scenario calls for them to go 50-8 or better against OOC and the bottom of the ACC. That’s 0.862. Give them 5 easy games apiece (35-0), and they still have to go 15-8 or better against competitive teams.
“Except that conferences consist of teams, and conference status can change as almost as quickly as teams do (maybe slight lag in conference rep vs team performance, but not much).”
Team movements tend to cancel each other out to some degree (conference games being zero-sum games). That’s why the conferences change place more slowly.
LikeLike
“Saying it doesn’t make it fit what you wrote. Maybe that’s what you meant to say, but it isn’t what you actually said.”
We’ll agree to disagree on this.
“1) Its plausible for a conference like the ACC to do it, especially if some teams improve and sustain success,”
Nobody has ever claimed it wasn’t possible. Feel free to drop that strawman any time.”
I’m not claiming its possible, I’m stating its plausible. No strawman present in my arguments.
“Your scenario calls for them to go 50-8 or better against OOC and the bottom of the ACC. That’s 0.862. Give them 5 easy games apiece (35-0), and they still have to go 15-8 or better against competitive teams.”
Which I think is plausible. Reasonable minds can differ on this.
“Team movements tend to cancel each other out to some degree (conference games being zero-sum games). That’s why the conferences change place more slowly.”
To some degree, but thats only intra-conference (obviously, someone has to be crowned a conference champion).
Inter-conference, it can change rather quickly, both up and down. For example, the B1G would, in my opinion, basically reestablish itself on the field with just one solid bowl season (especially with a winning record against SEC teams + a Rose Bowl win). One year’s worth of relative parity will help greatly in the following season (in poll rankings, prestige, etc, and not cause an undefeated B1G team to face questions about a lackluster conference schedule casting doubt about the teams quality, like what OSU was facing this past season.
LikeLike
I got a question for those who assume that the ACC will be the same in a decade. It has come to my attention that prior to the additions of ND and Lousiville that the ACC contract had ‘look ins’ in the tv contract in 2017 and 2022. To my understandings those look ins are points in the contract when the ACC can bring the contract up and request more money based on more recent numbers (wins, tv numbers, etc). Does this change the ACC equation? And I don’t know if those look ins were removed in the most recent contract but assuming they werent
LikeLike
Can you link to articles on the look-in provisions for the ACC?
LikeLike
Your understanding is wrong. The contract always had look-ins. Most of them do. The ESPN president explained what the “look-ins” meant in an article a couple of years back. It means the two get together and figure out if they can do something better that makes more money for BOTH of them. Most of the ACC’s increase in average value when they added Pitt and SU was due to things “done better.” They extended the length of the contract 4 years, added Friday night games and gave ESPN the naming rights to the ACC basketball tourney.
LikeLike
Wainscott, Having laptop problems and once I get my new one I will try to get you those links. I’m now looking at this from spouses computer.
Bullet, I won’t lie to you. I am not as knowledgeable as you on this it seems. I first heard about look-ins from the Dude when he stared going on about look in’s in the Big 12 and talking about money increase which made me curious as to if any other conferences had them. I found out that the ACC does, but I couldn’t track any from other conferences. I assumed that a look in was something used to update the contract to keep it up with the numbers from what little I have found one them.
LikeLike
Slive talked about look-ins as they were expanding. I’m sure most long term media contracts have something similar to make sure they are satisfying their intent and meeting expectations. That may or may not mean changing compensation, but it does indicate it isn’t doing a complete new deal.
LikeLike
“Saying it doesn’t make it fit what you wrote. Maybe that’s what you meant to say, but it isn’t what you actually said.”
We’ll agree to disagree on this.
“1) Its plausible for a conference like the ACC to do it, especially if some teams improve and sustain success,”
Nobody has ever claimed it wasn’t possible. Feel free to drop that strawman any time.”
I’m not claiming its possible, I’m stating its plausible. No strawman present in my arguments.
“Your scenario calls for them to go 50-8 or better against OOC and the bottom of the ACC. That’s 0.862. Give them 5 easy games apiece (35-0), and they still have to go 15-8 or better against competitive teams.”
Which I think is plausible. Reasonable minds can differ on this.
“Team movements tend to cancel each other out to some degree (conference games being zero-sum games). That’s why the conferences change place more slowly.”
To some degree, but thats only intra-conference (obviously, someone has to be crowned a conference champion).
Inter-conference, it can change rather quickly, both up and down. For example, the B1G would, in my opinion, basically reestablish itself on the field with just one solid bowl season (especially with a winning record against SEC teams + a Rose Bowl win). One year’s worth of relative parity will help greatly in the following season (in poll rankings, prestige, etc, and not cause an undefeated B1G team to face questions about a lackluster conference schedule casting doubt about the teams quality, like what OSU was facing this past season.
LikeLike
Posted in wrong thread. See above.
LikeLike
If AAU elitism wasn’t such an issue and no GoR then I would like to see KU and OU invited as #15 and #16. One football and one basketball power to shore up the B1G West and give UNL some old Big 8 company. Probably by then the ACC would be secure.
Another possibility is UT, FSU, ND, UNC, UVA, GT, DU, SU, UL, WVU break off to form their own conference. That would be a solid grouping of schools, assuming NCSU and VT join the SEC. To those ten, I’d probably add TT, BU, Clemson, Miami.
Remnants of B12, ACC and AAC form another conference:
W: TCU, KSU, ISU, oSu, UH, Memphis, (Rice, SMU or Tulane)
E: Pitt, Cincinnati, UConn, BC, Navy, UCF, USF
Wake would be SOL but then not many would miss Wake, right?
LikeLike
If AAU elitism wasn’t such an issue and no GoR then I would like to see KU and OU invited as #15 and #16. One football and one basketball power to shore up the B1G West and give UNL some old Big 8 company. Probably by then the ACC would be secure.
Even ignoring the AAU issue, KU doesn’t add a major market, and they’re terrible in football. They’re great in basketball, but the Big Ten already has a very strong basketball league and isn’t hurting for another king in that sport.
LikeLike
Then again, on the strength of its MBB program alone, its among the schools mentioned now, and among the shorter list of schools actually reported in previous expansion eras. But losing AAU would be a big blow to KU’s hopes of a B1G invite (which are not that great, even if they are mentioned as possibilities, based on the B1G’s eastern focus nowadays).
LikeLike
There’s a hot rumor going around Shreveport that the Advocare V100 Bowl will once again be known as the Independence Bowl and the new sponsor will be Duck Commander. That’s the duck call/clothing line of the A&E Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson family.
Before he made a name for himself on the TV show and by making homophobic and racial slurs, Phil Robertson grew up about 20 miles north of Shreveport and was the starting QB (ahead of Terry Bradshaw) at Louisiana Tech.
LikeLike
Glad about the news of it going back to the Independence Bowl and as far as sponsors that’s a pretty good one in my book.
LikeLike
Eric – don’t get me wrong, it’s great news for the Independence Bowl. That bowl needs money and attention and Duck Commander brings both.
LikeLike
The B1G should jump in when the current tie-in agreememt expires and acquire not only the bowl-tie in, but also a neutral site early season game for the western teams (e.g. UNL, MN, IA). Shreveport at least doesnt have the drawback of its main university tenant (e.g. Memphis-Liberty Bowl) being a dark-horse conference-expansion candidate.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind – During the season, Independence Stadium host high school games on Thursdays, Fridays, and some Saturdays. When LA Tech gets a big name school to do a 2 for 1 with, it uses Independence Stadium. Recently, Tech has hosted Miami and A&M in Shreveport. Grambling also plays an HBCU classic on occasion. Otherwise, its free most of the season.
Shreveport also has a thriving riverboat casino business. You are more than welcome anytime to come down and lose some money.
LikeLike
“Shreveport also has a thriving riverboat casino business. You are more than welcome anytime to come down and lose some money.”
But, but … I have a system, Alan. It’s guaranteed.
LikeLike
Brian – all the better reason for you, specifically, to come to Louisiana and gamble using your “system.”
LikeLike
I’ve already explained why the B10 will not have a permanent neutral site game far from home (the kings and princes want 7 games, so any game from home will be precious while the others can’t bring enough fans for a neutral site game to be worthwhile).
Furthermore, hold it in a run-down stadium in nowhere Louisiana where virtually no alumni are?
Um, yeah.
LikeLike
Also, if you looked at where the B10 has bowl tie-ins, it’s in big cities (or at least cities) where there are at least some alumni and recruits and fans can fly to.
LikeLike
I think realignment will end very soon.
Big 12: Cincinnati & Memphis
The American: Army (football-only) & UMass
At that point, I don’t think you’ll get much more chaos, Mountain West should add Wichita State in all sports except football and I think the Sun Belt Conference would officially invite Liberty in all sports, because they have a great athletic budget with a really competitive baseball team.
After that, I would suspect just non-FBS conferences would expand with the Big East adding Richmond & Saint Louis while the Atlantic 10 would sit at 11 members and could possibly shock everyone with the addition of NJIT who has been decent under the pressures of being the loan independent basketball program.
I also think the WAC is on its last knees, I think the West Coast Conference is planning on making a move on the University of Denver and Grand Canyon University. At that point I would suspect the remaining members scattering to join a new conference especially New Mexico State which has a pretty solid basketball program.
LikeLike
I can’t think of any good reason why the Big XII would add Memphis.
LikeLike
I can’t think of good reasons why the Big 12 should expand at all.
But Memphis fits geographically, has perhaps the strongest basketball program among G5 schools in the east and has the best potential to have a strong program in football. They’ve drawn 40k when they were mediocre and they are the only FBS team in the western half of the state and are a long ways from Knoxville. If they could ever get the right coach, they could sell out the Liberty Bowl.
LikeLike
Yes, if Memphis (or Tulane, for that matter) were consistently good in football, they would have some real value for the B12.
LikeLike
They’d need to demonstrate sustained success against top competition before getting an invite, and right now they are nowhere near doing that.
LikeLike
Well, of course.
Then again, if the B12 were building a conference network, one or both would have additional value for the various markets served. Similar to a Rutgers. But absent that, consistent on-field success is the only consideration.
LikeLike
And no one out there other than BYU has had consistent success.
LikeLike
I’m not considering Boise as they are just too far west.
LikeLike
It’s not the direction or distance (once you’re on the plane…etc.). If the salt lake, the center of LDS, SLC’s population and BYU all be in Idaho they would be just as attractive.
Boise St doesn’t bring anything but on field success (in a non BCS conference). BYU brings millions of followers through their religious affiliation, and because of that a more national brand.
LikeLike
What rumors are there about the WCC adding Denver and Grand Canyon? That move would surprise.
The Pro’s of the move would be – two Christian universities in probably the best two available west coast markets. WCC would have three teams in SoCal, four teams in (roughly) the Bay Area, and one team in each of Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona, It would get BYU and Gonzaga into Denver and Phoenix and could potentially help with the WCC’s TV deal
Perhaps they would pair San Diego and Grand Canyon (Phoenix) as travel partners and then BYU and Denver. That makes more sense than BYU-San Diego as current travel partners.
Portland-Gonzaga
St.Mary’s-Pacific
San Fran-Santa Clara
LMU-Pepperdine
San Diego-Grand Canyon
BYU-Denver
However, the Con’s are: Denver and Grand Canyon aren’t exactly marquee programs – the move would water down the conference. With adding two more teams to the schedule, you risk losing out seeing some of the “bigger” match-ups among BYU, Gonzaga, and St. Mary’s and replacing them with BYU-Grand Canyon and Gonzaga-Denver.
And, even if you add the Denver and Phoenix markets, we’re not talking big TV money. But, perhaps it could become a Big East-lite type of conference. It would be worthy of 2 or 3 NCAA bids most years and the extra revenue from the Denver and Phoenix markets might make it worthwhile….??
Regarding the WAC on its knees, Denver plays in the Summit league, so the WAC would lose only one team if Grand Canyon bails – leaving 8 teams. Not sure that kills the WAC.
LikeLike
You assume Grand Canyon, a for-profit school new to major athletics, has any relevance in the Phoenix market.
LikeLike
Gonzaga and BYU have way more market power in Phoenix. I don’t know what kind of TV ratings WCC basketball gets in its current footprint, but outside of Gonzaga and BYU, I assume it’s insignificant.
Does adding a school actually located in Phoenix (or Denver) help in any way with TV ratings or distribution? Will Root sports show more WCC games in Phoenix and Denver if the two potential targets are added?
LikeLike
You are probably right on that count about GCU. Any private school a la DePaul/Loyola would struggle in that land of transplants and near-mandatory ASU attendance. Thunderbird School of Management ( a mid-tier MBA program with some renown in hospitality/service circles), or a undergrad college birthed out of Brophy High School would probably have more local cache.
At least somebody shares my opinion about U of Memphis, although I’ve come around to see Tulane as a reasonable alternative re the Big XII.
LikeLike
At the WCC level, markets are not going to matter as much, as the states and money pot is much lower. Plus, WCC almost all religious schools, and I think all private schools. I think a school like Seattle Univ would make more sense (and I understand SU is a former WCC member). TV footprint does not matter as much–WCC is not building a conference network or looking for a massive pay-day for MBB tv rights.
LikeLike
Grand Canyon is coached by “Thunder” Dan Majerle, what more relevance do you need?
Also, can anyone explain why Denver left the WAC to join the Summit while UMKC left the Summit to join the WAC? It’s like the schools themselves aren’t even sure which conference is supposed to be more prestigious.
LikeLike
If I was in certain Army circles, I would wonder why any quantity and/or level of athletics should be exempt from this coming reality: http://news.yahoo.com/budget-cuts-slash-u-army-size-smallest-since-182937281–business.html
LikeLike
ACC Championship Game will stay in Charlotte through the end of the decade.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10510739/acc-championship-game-stay-charlotte-2019
LikeLike
Rutgers athletics got $47 million subsidy from the university last year, $37 million of that is direct institutional aid (as opposed to student fees, etc…).
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/02/23/rutgers-university-athletics-subsidy-jumps/5761371/
LikeLike
Story Highlights
The external subsidy from the school is the largest seen for a Division I public institution
The subsidy provided more than half of the athletic department’s budget in 2012-13
But they have no choice but to continue to sponsor 27 sports. I mean think of all the “free” publicity they generate! Plus, last year they finished second to last amongst AQ schools in the Directors’ Cup. If they add just a couple more sports then they will have their budget spread so thin they are certain to Bearcats and take the title.
LikeLike
frug,
“But they have no choice but to continue to sponsor 27 sports. I mean think of all the “free” publicity they generate! Plus, last year they finished second to last amongst AQ schools in the Directors’ Cup. If they add just a couple more sports then they will have their budget spread so thin they are certain to Bearcats and take the title.”
You’d have a better point if they weren’t about to get a huge increase in conference payout. In addition, joining the B10 should increase their income form other sources like donations and ticket sales. The subsidy was much smaller in 2012, but this year they spent some money to prepare for entering the B10 knowing that they could make it back over time. They also had that coaching disaster in hoops.
“I would say 85 percent of that increase in total subsidy is related to the one-time expenses or extraordinary items that occurred in 2013,” Purcaro said. “The majority are related to conference change, termination of the Nelligan Sports Marketing Agreement, or the events from this spring with the Mike Rice and Tim Pernetti (settlements). Those make up the majority of the increase.
…
Rutgers President Robert L. Barchi said earlier this month he expects the athletics department to be financially independent within the next six years, shedding the need for institutional support once it begins receiving the full share of the Big Ten’s per-school distribution in 2020.
“I think it is still a reasonable goal,” Purcaro said. “All these financial results were known when president (Barchi) issued his statement following the settlement with the American Athletic Conference. Honestly the release of the NCAA report really doesn’t have any effect on this overall plan. As he said, and it remains an accurate statement, that there are these one-time expenses incurred by the university that will put us in position to be more self-sufficient after the transition period to the Big Ten is complete and once the athletics department receives its full share of the Big Ten Conference revenue share. We have a transition plan, and once we get there we’ll be in good position.”
Barchi said the university projects that over the next 12 years the increase in revenue from moving to the Big Ten will approach $200 million. While the Big Ten is reportedly set to distribute more than $25 million to each of its member schools this year, Rutgers received $9.5 million in direct NCAA/conference distribution aid last season.
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Since 2005, RU has had almost $240M in subsidies. If they can be breakeven by 2020, the extra subsidy this year was worth it.
LikeLike
In reverse order
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Since 2005, RU has had almost $240M in subsidies. If they can be breakeven by 2020, the extra subsidy this year was worth it.
You’re assuming they couldn’t have achieved the same goal by spending much much less. After all, the Big Ten isn’t adding Rutgers because of their rowing team.
Rutgers President Robert L. Barchi said earlier this month he expects the athletics department to be financially independent within the next six years, shedding the need for institutional support once it begins receiving the full share of the Big Ten’s per-school distribution in 2020.
A. He can expect whatever he wants, that doesn’t mean it will happen.
B. He is defining independence as the elimination of direct institutional support. Notice he said nothing about state subsidies or student fees.
“I would say 85 percent of that increase in total subsidy is related to the one-time expenses or extraordinary items that occurred in 2013,” Purcaro said. “The majority are related to conference change, termination of the Nelligan Sports Marketing Agreement, or the events from this spring with the Mike Rice and Tim Pernetti (settlements). Those make up the majority of the increase.
Even without the one time increase, Rutgers still had one of (if not the) most heavily subsidized AD’s of any AQ school.
You’d have a better point if they weren’t about to get a huge increase in conference payout. In addition, joining the B10 should increase their income form other sources like donations and ticket sales. The subsidy was much smaller in 2012, but this year they spent some money to prepare for entering the B10 knowing that they could make it back over time. They also had that coaching disaster in hoops.
See above.
LikeLike
Also, I don’t give them a pass for the Rice and Pernetti situations. The school created those problems themselves.
LikeLike
Obviously there is some dysfunction going on at Rutgers. Otherwise, there is no reason to keep a 50% winning Bball coach after you see the videos of his behavior during practices. I am not defending the behavior, per se, but if that coach had just won a NC or got to the FF, maybe you put up with/try to rehabilitate, etc. But this was not a good coach.
It was a no-brainer to fire his ass and get a better coach.
Clearly, some dysfunction at Rutgers.
Further, the new AD is a complete liar. She is a 100% liar and horrible. She’s an embarrassment to the B1G and Rutgers.
Again, clearly, some dysfunction at Rutgers.
That being said, the facts are that there have been a number of one-time expenses, the B1G $$$ will start arriving and the Rutger’s ADept. will be less reliant on subsidies.
Beyond that, what else is there to say?
LikeLike
frug,
“You’re assuming they couldn’t have achieved the same goal by spending much much less. After all, the Big Ten isn’t adding Rutgers because of their rowing team.”
Note that I was only talking about the extra expenses last year to help prepare for the B10. I’m not saying they should have had 27 sports all along. On the other hand, part of what makes them a fit for the B10 is a broad athletic department, not a bare minimum one like other conferences often have.
Beside, I don’t believe that should be a purely financial decision. Many presidents believe college athletics is part of the education for their students (opportunities to play, experience new things, mingle with other students, etc). If it is, then the school subsidizing it to some degree makes sense. Most B10 schools are lucky enough not to have to subsidize, but they had large sports programs before that was true.
“A. He can expect whatever he wants, that doesn’t mean it will happen.”
They don’t say things like that without decent projections to base it on.
“B. He is defining independence as the elimination of direct institutional support. Notice he said nothing about state subsidies or student fees.”
Many schools use student fees to support sports. Since they all get free tickets, why shouldn’t they be supporting it?
“Even without the one time increase, Rutgers still had one of (if not the) most heavily subsidized AD’s of any AQ school.”
Yes, but I didn’t say I was supporting that.
“Also, I don’t give them a pass for the Rice and Pernetti situations. The school created those problems themselves.”
You don’t have to, but don’t use the numbers from the one year they have those one-time costs as an example of how much they spend on sports. Your point is better made looking at the subsidies in previous years.
LikeLike
+100 to Brian’s post.
LikeLike
RIP legendary writer, director, actor and native Chicagoan Harold Ramis
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-harold-ramis-dead-20140224,0,2259309.story
LikeLike
RIP.
In Ramis’ honor, I think the Reply part of the thread should be reserved for only YouTube clips from his movies.
I’ll get the ball rolling:
LikeLike
I’ve been waiting on Ghostbusters 3 for better than a decade and Egon was always my favorite character.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24455630/breaking-down-the-buzz-illinois
An article about IL football. Basically, everyone agrees they need to be better.
LikeLike
http://www.footballperspective.com/estimated-dvoa-ratings-from-1950-to-2013/#more-18034
Wanna know the best team in NFL history?
LikeLike
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2014/historical-dvoa-estimates
Note that if you incorporate actual DVOA for the years it is avaliable, the ’91 Redskins come out as the greatest team ever and the ’05 49ers as the worst.
LikeLike
Only 11 of the top 25 on that list won the Super Bowl/Pre SB Conference Championships.
LikeLike
(in that particular year).
LikeLike
http://tracking.si.com/2014/02/23/notre-dame-prince-shembo-lizzie-seeberg/
What a tragic story this was (and still is).
LikeLike
Texas potentially selling beer at football games, if test sales at other UT sporting events go well:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1613716
LikeLike
Big numbers for Syracuse vs. Duke II:
(UNC-Duke had 2.3 mil viewers)
LikeLike
As a comparison, that’s about the same as the Rice-A&M football game.
Barely beat the Minny-SU Texas Bowl.
Beaten by the Cincy-UNC Belk Bowl.
LikeLike
1) Great numbers for a MBB regular season game.
2) Also higher than Notre Dame vs Stanford, Texas v. Baylor, MSU vs. NWU, and a number of cherry-picked CFB games.
3) No one disputes CFB is on average, more popular and higher rated than MBB.
LikeLike
Relative to anything else that ESPN could air at that date/time, that is pretty good.
Rutgers/ND only had 600k more for the Pinstripe Bowl.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Exceeded Penn State v Michigan in football on October 12.
Exceeded USC v Notre Dame the next weekend.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24456578/report-michigan-under-investigation-for-response-to-2009-rape-case
The DoE is investigating MI over a title IX complaint related to the alleged Gibbons rape case.
LikeLike
http://statenews.com/article/2014/02/feds-probe-msu-for-sexual-assault-misconduct
They’re also investigating MSU. WTF, mitten state?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24456701/ncaa-officials-discuss-limits-to-full-contact-football-practices
The NCAA has been meeting with health officials to discuss limiting full-contact practices.
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/25/fwaa-nff-grantland-rice-super-16-poll/
The FWAA and NFF will combine to form a new poll for next season.
The poll will be known as the “FWAA-NFF Grantland Rice Super 16″, named for legendary sports writer Grantland Rice. It will be voted upon by 36 voters, 26 from the FWAA and 10 from the NFF. The poll will rank the top 16 FBS teams and will be announced weekly on Sundays, with the final poll to be unveiled on Dec. 7.
LikeLike
Friday night Big Ten football games?
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/report-big-ten-discuss-potential-friday-night-games-174658535–ncaaf.html
LikeLike
Only in mid November, when the HS playoffs have narrowed down to quarters or semis. That would probably leave only the two Fridays before Thanksgiving. There’s also that weird time in late September that most of the North Suburban high schools (NSL, Central Suburban, MSL) play on Thursday night. Maybe U of I, NU or another north-suburb kid besotted B1G school can have a game the next night.
LikeLike
Supposedly they’d be once every 3-4 years per team if it happens, but many schools will vote no. You can’t bring in many recruits for a Friday game since they’ll be playing HS games. HS coaches would throw a fit in several states if this happens because it will undermine their attendance. Schools won’t want the disruption on campus all day, and they probably wouldn’t cancel classes like some southern schools do. They said no to Thursday nights before for that reason. It’s one thing to do it on Black Friday afternoons, but I think TV would have to pay a whole lot extra to persuade most B10 presidents to agree to this.
The source article linked in yours was this:
http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/andy_baggot/andy-baggot-ok-with-badgers-football-on-friday-night/article_bd77ea13-8616-5f58-a212-a795a60a6ce4.html
It also mentions night games late in November. I think that has a much higher chance of passing, especially if the host school still has the right to refuse.
LikeLike
Oh I agree that most states (Ohio, MI, WI, others) would be very disappointed (to say the least) if this came to pass. If there are Friday night games, it’ll be reserved for only certain schools and held in states where there is less emphasis on friday night football and a desire for additional exposure (Maryland, Minnesota, Indiana or the schools that come to mind off the cuff, but those states might have a stronger high school football presence than I am aware of). But yeah, for the reasons you listed, I don’t expect this to pass.
But the sheer fact that its even something Delany is soliciting feedback on is remarkable.
I think Saturday night B1G games throughout November is a foregone conclusion (at least for some teams). To quote Howard Schnellenberger, “The only variable is time.”
LikeLike
When TV deals come around, he solicits opinions on a lot of ideas. Often the same ideas come up over and over just in case feelings have changed (as they have with night games).
I think seeing the NFL move to more Thursdays just affirmed the presidents’ decision to not play during the week. The NFL has also mentioned Friday night play off games. How long until they consider a Friday night game during the season?
LikeLike
” How long until they consider a Friday night game during the season?”
Prohibited by federal law. See the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. No pro game can be televised nationally if it occurs within 75 miles of a high school football game and starts or is playing after 6pm Friday. If the NFL wants a regionally televised game, it can play on Friday night. Prohibition runs from September to December (I think, could be off on the range). NFL NFL could legally play a nationally televised game on Black Friday (say, 1230pm kickoff), and I’m somewhat surprised it doesn’t.
NFL won’t advocate for any changes to this law, because it’ll invite changes it does not want (blackout rules, simulcasting games, etc…).
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Correct. Colleges have the legal flexibility to schedule Friday night games during high school football season in a way that the NFL doesn’t.
I honestly don’t find it too outlandish that the Big Ten is at least considering the prospect of this. Thursday night has become much tougher for colleges to compete on because of the NFL, so Friday night is now the most desirable non-Saturday time slot to offer up. Who knows if ESPN or Fox will throw a bunch of money at the Big Ten (or the BTN could get higher carriage rates) by instituting a Friday night package. Note that while Ohio and Western PA might have very strong high school Friday night lights cultures, it really isn’t the same in many other parts of the Big Ten region (i.e. the Chicago area). Note that the Big 12 has been playing Friday night games lately and the high school football culture is as strong in Texas as it is anywhere else.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I honestly don’t find it too outlandish that the Big Ten is at least considering the prospect of this.”
I do.
“Note that while Ohio and Western PA might have very strong high school Friday night lights cultures, it really isn’t the same in many other parts of the Big Ten region (i.e. the Chicago area). Note that the Big 12 has been playing Friday night games lately and the high school football culture is as strong in Texas as it is anywhere else.”
If OSU, PSU, MI and MSU are strongly against playing on Fridays (and maybe some western teams, too), what’s the point? No network wants to pay extra to get more IN and IL games. The B10 turned down Thursday night money before.
LikeLike
If OSU, PSU, MI and MSU are strongly against playing on Fridays (and maybe some western teams, too), what’s the point?
Spreading out the inventory, so that fewer B1G games stomp on each others’ time slots.
LikeLike
“If OSU, PSU, MI and MSU are strongly against playing on Fridays (and maybe some western teams, too), what’s the point?”
What Marc said.
“No network wants to pay extra to get more IN and IL games.”
IU-UMD on Friday night would draw far better than anything else the BTN would be able to put in that time slot (there are only a handful of B10 hockey games on BTN before January & basketball doesn’t start until November).
Plus, there will be a ton of OOC games early in the season now with 14 schools. I can see IU, Minny, UMD, and Northwestern all scheduling an OOC home game on Friday night.
LikeLike
Also,
“The B10 turned down Thursday night money before.”
Thursday night games disrupt classes the next day for players, band members, cheerleaders, and student fans. Friday night games don’t.
Personally, I’d like the B10 to hold 2 Black Friday games. Maybe one in the east among whoever of PSU/RU/UMD play each other the final week that year.
I also think that (especially in September, with the glut of OOC games and the weather being warm or at least OK even at night), the BTN should schedule a 6PM game and a 9M game (eastern time) each Saturday. The 9PM game would have to be played at a school in the central time zone (so 8PM local time at any of the western schools west of PU).
LikeLike
I think most coaches would be totally against the Friday night games. The one thing they want to sell is game day atmosphere and you can’t do that when the recruits are playing at the same time as the B1G school. Official visits without the game day environment is much less appealing for recruits.
For schools with large stadiums now you are asking their fan base to possibly take time off from work so they can make the trip for the night game.
I also think ratings for Friday night games wouldn’t be that significant relative to the traditional Saturday slots. Just a guess though.
LikeLike
“I think most coaches would be totally against the Friday night games. The one thing they want to sell is game day atmosphere and you can’t do that when the recruits are playing at the same time as the B1G school. Official visits without the game day environment is much less appealing for recruits.”
We’re talking about 1 home game at most for any school. You don’t have to schedule official visits for recruits every home game. Also, night games tend to have a more electric atmosphere, at least in the B10, from what I’ve seen.
“For schools with large stadiums now you are asking their fan base to possibly take time off from work so they can make the trip for the night game.”
The schools with large stadiums won’t be scheduling Friday night home games, so this is a moot point.
“I also think ratings for Friday night games wouldn’t be that significant relative to the traditional Saturday slots. Just a guess though.”
It’s Friday night vs. little else on TV vs. Saturday vs. a bunch of other games.
LikeLike
Also, from here:
http://cfbmatrix.com/ov-closing-rates-january/
“Official Visits tie directly into recruiting and so closing rates are very interesting. The most interesting part is closing rates and success on Official Visits are much higher AFTER THE SEASON IS OVER. In fact, monthly closing rates are lowest in August and go up every month nationally until the February signing date.
I know that idea run contrary to all you season ticket holders that think you make a huge difference when official visits happen during game days, but the bottom line, based on the numbers, is kids see way past a loud stadium and all more than that emotional experience goes into their decision process.”
LikeLike
Some of the traditional powers will not want to play on Friday nights, but some of the lesser B1G programs will definitely see an opportunity to get some extra publicity/national airtime (IU, Minn, NWU, IL, RU, UMd come to mind). Rutgers and UMd have all played at home on Thursday nights, so playing on Friday nights shouldn’t pose much of a logistical issue (only a recruiting one).
LikeLike
Oh I see. Once every 3-4 years for each school.
So maybe 2-3 Friday night games a year. Always Northwestern/UMD/RU/IU/PU/Illinois/Minny hosting and OSU/PSU/UMich/UNL/MSU/Wisconsin/Iowa visiting.
LikeLike
Frank:
Friday night football for the P5 conferences in 2013 consisted of 2 B12 OOC games (both Aug 30) and 2 P12 conference games (Nov 1 and Nov 15). All the other B12 and P12 weekday games were on Thursday. AAC played most of the Friday games. That may change with the better NFL competition on Thursdays.
LikeLike
Wait, didn’t the Pac TV deal call for 4 Friday games a year?
Anyway, I could see 2 Friday OOC games (1 the first week by a king/prince and 1 later by a non-king/prince) and one conference game (always non-king/prince hosting king/prince).
LikeLike
The ACC had a Friday night game as well.
The B10 could offer games Thursday that first week, for what that’s worth.
LikeLike
“The B10 could offer games Thursday that first week, for what that’s worth.”
I thought they do have games the Thursday night in late August already.
LikeLike
This past season, both Indiana and Minnesota played on August 29, 2013, a Thursday night. IU, Minn, and OSU (vs, Marshall) all played on a Thursday night in early September (Thursday before Labor Day) back in 2010. (http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-treading-lightly-into-thursday-night-football-games/)
But the Thursday night before Labor Day competes only with holiday travel and the last week of preseason NFL football. I’d be very surprised if the B1G decided to have any Thursday night games up against the NFL regular season juggernaut.
LikeLike
Agree that Thursday games after the first week are very unlikely, though due more to disruptions of academics and fan inconvenience.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Spreading out the inventory, so that fewer B1G games stomp on each others’ time slots.”
Except the network will want good games on Friday night if they’re paying a premium. If most/all the major brands refuse to do it, what value is there? How much premium would TV pay if the package is mostly IN, PU, NW, IL, etc? It’s different if they’re just talking about another dumping ground for BTN games and they don’t mind many schools opting out.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Thursday night games disrupt classes the next day for players, band members, cheerleaders, and student fans. Friday night games don’t.”
Both disrupt campus the day of the game which is something many presidents have mentioned when discussing the issue. How do you get everyone on campus without disrupting classes? How can staff and employees get home? Where do people park, since most schools turn normal campus parking into football parking? How do you deal with the rush hour traffic combined with game traffic (an issue for OSU and some others)?
“Personally, I’d like the B10 to hold 2 Black Friday games. Maybe one in the east among whoever of PSU/RU/UMD play each other the final week that year.”
Obviously Black Friday is a special case, as is the Friday before Labor Day (the B10 plays that Thursday night, too). It’s the Fridays in between that are the issue.
“I also think that (especially in September, with the glut of OOC games and the weather being warm or at least OK even at night), the BTN should schedule a 6PM game and a 9M game (eastern time) each Saturday. The 9PM game would have to be played at a school in the central time zone (so 8PM local time at any of the western schools west of PU).”
I don’t know the contract restrictions (did they get totally eliminated?), but I agree it makes sense for the BTN to use more windows. I’d like to see overlapping windows all Saturday (all ET – 12, 2, 3:30, 5:30, 7/8, 9).
LikeLike
Richard,
“We’re talking about 1 home game at most for any school. You don’t have to schedule official visits for recruits every home game.”
No, but most schools do because kids vary in when they can visit. Also, schools want to show off their environment on gameday. Usually night games are for the bigger games, when you really do want visits.
“The schools with large stadiums won’t be scheduling Friday night home games, so this is a moot point.”
When did that get decided? I think everyone else was treating this as a discussion of doing it across the board (once every 2-3 years for each school). If it’s an optional proposal, that’s better. There are still the issues of competing with HS games and people having to leave work early, though.
LikeLike
BTN.com has an article and a poll about it.
This is my concern:
The Big Ten is leaving a lot of money on the table sticking to a largely traditional TV scheduling format of Saturday games. The league should schedule a package of attractive Friday games, and put the product on the table for networks to bid on, and go from there.
The kicker: EVERY Big Ten school has to take part. That means Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska have to play a Friday night home game. You can’t make Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue and the like play more than once at home on a Friday night. If the entire league is going to benefit from a Friday night package, then the entire league has to accommodate and be flexible.
That’s very different from throwing a couple of games on BTN which seems to be what some people were thinking.
LikeLike
” If most/all the major brands refuse to do it, what value is there? How much premium would TV pay if the package is mostly IN, PU, NW, IL, etc?”
Major brands don’t have to host Friday night games in order to play Friday night games.
And I disagree with Dienhart on fairness. OK, all schools should appear on Friday night an equal number of times, but they don’t have to host an equal number of times.
Last year, Clemson, VTech, Texas, Miami, Oregon, and OU all played weeknight games after the first week and before Thanksgiving. None of them hosted.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Major brands don’t have to host Friday night games in order to play Friday night games.”
They might refuse to play them, too. The HS coaches will pressure them to not do it. The presidents will prefer not to lose part of a school day for people. The fans that travel don’t want to miss work. Unless ESPN was throwing a lot of cash at them, I think the brands would likely say no.
I’m not saying the schools that want to do it shouldn’t be allowed to, just to be clear. I just don’t see the financial value. Would schools do it just for the coverage?
“And I disagree with Dienhart on fairness. OK, all schools should appear on Friday night an equal number of times, but they don’t have to host an equal number of times.”
And that’s why I would like to hear more about what Delany is discussing. It could be a few games amongst those who want to, an equal number for everybody but you don’t have to host, or equal across the board. Those are 3 very different plans.
LikeLike
I’m generally against B10 games on Fridays. I find it funny that people would complain about loss of traditions in CFB and, yet, few say a peep about playing on weeknights. CFB to me has been synonymous with Saturdays, the last day of the week when families and friends can get together and watch a game and be passionate without worrying about going to work the next day.
I’m more supportive of Saturday nights, as we can then spread out the games better and not have games interfering with each other. The problem is space. Who would air a B10 night game if ND has a night game and ABC decides that Florida State gets more face time?
Getting a little nervous about all this.
LikeLike
ND has a night game something like twice a season.
LikeLike
So, on one hand, you bemoan the loss of CFB traditions, but are ok with Saturday night CFB games, a non-traditional timeslot for CFB games.
“Who would air a B10 night game if ND has a night game and ABC decides that Florida State gets more face time?”
A UND home game would be on NBC, and ESPN is required to show a specific number of B1G games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. There would be room for B1G schools, especially since ESPN gets to select more prime matchups to air in the first place. The downside for ESPN is that the deals with B1G/ACC/SEC don’t really afford much flexibility to adjust schedules in season (except for changing/mirror-ing games among its three main channels. No conference will let a game slated for ABC be shifted to ESPNU.) So if it wanted to move FSU to ABC, it would have to be a game that already would have been on ESPN or the Deuce.
LikeLike
“The downside for ESPN is that the deals with B1G/ACC/SEC don’t really afford much flexibility to adjust schedules in season (except for changing/mirror-ing games among its three main channels. No conference will let a game slated for ABC be shifted to ESPNU.)”
Where do you get that info? The B10 primetime games are set in stone, but my understanding is that ESPN can choose which SEC games it wants to show in primetime on ESPN & ESPN2 as the season goes along and it has tremendous leeway on when/where to show ACC games.
LikeLike
Info comes from ESPN and TV coverage maps. A game on ABC in NYC, for example, may be on ESPN2 in New Orleans. (See: http://espnmediazone.com/us/files/2013/08/CF_Sept21_maps.pdf , scroll to the last page).
Also, when schedules are announced, networks are not necessarily set in stone. See http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/04/espn-six-2013-big-ten-football-games-prime-time/
I spoke a bit broadly, however, because as Alan pointed out above, the SEC cannot have a home game on ABC (because of CBS). So there is limited flexibility. Nonetheless, ABC has space as of now in November at night because of the lack of November night B1G games.
LikeLike
Right. B10 primetime games are set in stone before the season begins, and ESPN can’t show SEC games on ABC or opposite CBS in the afternoon slot. Other than that, they’re pretty much uncontrained, however. Plenty of B12, ACC, and Pac games to choose from for the ABC primetime slots they want to fill.
LikeLike
The times for B10 primetime games are set in stone and the channels are restricted. However, no other conference has that arrangement with ESPN (thank the clout of the B10).
ESPN most definitely can (and do) put FSU games on ESPNU. Their Idaho game last year was, for instance.
LikeLike
Richard – beginning this season, ESPN can show SEC games during the CBS afternoon window.
The SEC Network will show three games every Saturday in the noon, 3:30p and 7p Eastern windows. If all the carriage agreements haven’t been worked out, ESPN could put premier games on the SECN, rather than the mothership.
CBS gets the first pick almost every week. I think ESPN gets the first pick for one week. Very few games are pre-selected before the season be either network. Most games are picked as part of a 10 or 6 day window. After the CBS pick, ESPN could put any game on at any time on any of its channels. ESPN cannot make an SEC team move a home game to a Thursday night. I only recall Miss State, Vandy, and South Carolina (off campus stadium) playing Thursday home games.
LikeLike
Alan:
I don’t consider SECN to be part of the ESPN family of networks just as I don’t consider the BTN to be part of the Fox family of networks.
In any case, CBS still has exclusivity on its window when it comes to national networks.
LikeLike
Richard:
SECN and LHN have one, single owner. ESPN. How are they not part of the ESPN lineup of channels?
BTN is half owned by the B1G, and if no contract extension is executed by the end of the current contract (which Fox anted up for the additional five year option) it becomes wholly theirs. P12N is wholly owned now. These two are actual conference networks. The others (and probably ACCN too, if it arises) are just different expressions of the standard media contract sold to competing media corporations.
LikeLike
ccrider55:
I would argue that BTN, SECN, and LHN are specialty networks, and get few, if any, prime matchups. Not programmed with the same care, concern, and strategy of games on broadcast networks or ESPN/ESPN2.
BTN, for example, works to guarantee one primetime game for each B1G team each season; broadcast/ESPN/ESPN2 couldn’t care less about increasing exposure for lackluster teams. LHN doesn’t exactly get its pick of Texas games to air. SECN will not be broadcasting premier SEC games like the Iron Bowl or Alabama-LSU.
So while in a corporate/legal sense, they are part of a larger family of networks, they have different missions and are programmed accordingly.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
Their mission doesn’t differ. That ownership will try to make money for itself. If putting marque matchups on the U or SECN will make more money that’s what they’ll do, unless constrained by contract. If the LHN promotes UT it isn’t because of an inherent desire, but is because it serves ESPN’s purpose (to make money). And that was served by blocking the P16. What would they be paying those 16 teams? Divide the UT payment by 16 – it’s a bargain to block far higher costs even while it looks like a Bevo Bozo on their books.
LikeLike
Obviously, the overall goal is to make money. That’s a given. The issue is how that money is made. That’s where the missions differ, as LHN, SECN, and BTN do it by promoting the conference (or team) and, for SECN and BTN, showcasing games that otherwise would not be non TV (or some ESPN Plus plan or something else). ESPN/ESPN2 do it by showing the best games/best teams/biggest names to the widest possible audience. That’s the difference in the missions.
As for the LHN, I’m not convinced its serving ESPN’s interest as much as ESPN signed a contract and probably cannot escape it without paying as much or more as continuing with the network. Definitely serving UT’s interest, though.
LikeLike
wainscott – the very first game on the SECN will feature two pre-season top 25 teams with the Aggies visiting South Carolina.
I would expect a few other big games to be scheduled for the SECN each season. If TWC and Comcast are holding out on carriage, I would expect plenty of A&M, South Carolina and Tennessee games to be aired on the SECN.
LikeLike
@Alan,
But even those are not the top shelf games. UT still has a ways to go to get back to competing for a division title, and a&m has to replace Manziel/Evans.
Definitely doing this for carriage purposes, and will definitely strategically assign games to the network in states where cable companies are holding out. But I don’t see ESPN giving the second best matchup in a given week to the SECN when it could be on ESPN/ESPN2 and to a much wider audience. Then again, folks in Knoxville want their games on tv, whether playing Alabama or Chattanooga. And most SEC states have that level or loyalty.
My point is Its not the quality of the games, per se, as much as the teams playing.
Also, that Vandy-Temple SECN game is the real point of conference networks. I have no idea where that would be other than on SECN. the U? ESPN3? Aurora Public Access’ CFB Today with Wayne and Garth?
LikeLike
wainscot – I don’t think the SECN will get the Iron Bowl or Bama/LSU either. Both of those games rarely fall to ESPN. But A&M/South Carolina is the best all SEC matchup of the first week and second best matchup ESPN controls.
The other SEC games that week featuring P5 or quality G5 opponents are:
Arkansas at Auburn
Clemson at Georgia
Bama v. West Virginia in Atlanta
Ole Miss v. Boise State in Atlanta – Aug 28
LSU v. Wisconsin in Houston
I think South Carolina v. A&M was the right and easy choice. Even though Auburn was the BCS runner-up and should be in the top 10, Arkansas is and will continue to be horrible for the next couple of seasons. Clemson v. Georgia will probably be a 7pm kick-off on ESPN. ABC will probably buy the LSU/Wisconsin game for an 8pm kick-off. ABC will probably buy the Bama/West VA game and air it in the 3:30 Eastern window.
Week #2 will be interesting from a programming standpoint. The best game is Ole Miss at Vandy. All the rest are rent-a-wins.
I do believe that some weeks the SECN will get quality matchups that the BTN would never get. There will be other top 25 matchups aired on the SECN.
LikeLike
@Alan:
All fair points.
I could also see matchups getting doled out as much, if not more, for business/carriage reasons. I’d expect a healthy diet of Tennessee if Tenn cable companies resist. Same in Mississippi with Ole’ Miss, Houston with a&m, Coverage is probably assured in Alabama and Louisiana. At least for the first year or two, anyways. Then it would probably be in a more equal rotation with ESPN/2. Though, since SECN won’t be national (ie not on basic digital) outside the SEC footprint, I’d still be surprised if it got 2nd or third pick after CBS on a regular basis. But with three games most weeks, and 5 the opening weekend (including Vandy-Temple and USC vs. a&m), it’ll get some good games just on the number of good SEC teams alone.
LikeLike
“So, on one hand, you bemoan the loss of CFB traditions, but are ok with Saturday night CFB games, a non-traditional timeslot for CFB games.”
1) Saturday nights still fall on Saturdays. It doesn’t have to be every week. It could be a match-up between football powers or a non-power hosting against a power.
2) What would playing on weeknights after August make the B1G different from the MAC, MWC, AAC, ACC, etc.?
LikeLike
Saturday night games are a very non-traditional timeslot for CFB games. They happen to be more convenient for casual tv viewers and fans not attending games.
I don’t think its wise for the B1G to play on Thursday night (impact on school and fans aside, not smart to go head to head with the NFL). Friday night doesnt bother me too much, but then again, I like Saturday night games. And football in general. Played at just about any time of day.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Saturday night games are a very non-traditional timeslot for CFB games.”
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/805700-64/story.html
In the north, yes. LSU first played one in 1931 and has averaged more than 5 per year since 1960.
LikeLike
“What would playing on weeknights after August make the B1G different from the MAC, MWC, AAC, ACC, B12, Pac, SEC, basically everybody else in college football?”
Fixed.
LikeLike
Brian – the only LSU games that haven’t kicked off at night were moved to comply with TV contracts. The LSU fans are probably the only fans in the country that groan when a national broadcast television company (CBS) comes to town.
If you’ve never witnessed the spectacle of Tiger Stadium for a big-time night game, read the quotes at the bottom at the article Brian linked.
LikeLike
Richard,
“What would playing on weeknights after August make the B1G different from the MAC, MWC, AAC, ACC, B12, Pac, SEC, basically everybody else in college football?”
Fixed.
But we all know that Tuesday and Wednesdays have exceusively been for the non-AQs. Thursdays are the most prestigous weeknights, but they still aren’t that desirable to the presidents without a big check. There are a lot more Thursday games than Friday games, especially for the AQs, which tells you something about Friday nights.
Besides, I’d think most fans would have an order of preference for B10 TV changes:
1. More Saturday night games
2. November Saturdays night games
3. Weeknight games
Until they get #1 and #2, why would people expect or push for #3?
LikeLike
I think all things being equal, we’d all just prefer Saturday games. They’re the best for fans both at the stadiums and at home.
However, Delany wouldn’t be gauging interest in Friday games if all things were equal. The Big Ten would likely be able to get tier 1 prices for tier 2 games for a Friday night package. For instance, Illinois-Ohio State is typically a middling game for a normal college football Saturday, but potentially an excellent one for a Friday evening that ESPN or Fox would be willing to pay a material amount of extra money for. And look, I’m not expecting to ever see a Friday night game in Columbus, Ann Arbor or State College. This is more suited for schools like Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana and Purdue to get more exposure if the Big Ten goes down this road (which I’m not convinced that they will).
LikeLike
@Frank:
I agree with you, and would volunteer Minnesota, Rutgers, and UMD to your list.
@Brian:
LSU’s evident strong preference for night games is not necessarily representative of the South. Its still nontraditional overall, with LSU as the main outlier.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yes, what I think Delany is focusing on is maximizing the value of the middle tier of games. The top 3 or 4 games per week are easy – they’ll get great Saturday time slots on ABC/ESPN and/or Fox and top dollar will be paid for them. The bottom 2 or 3 games per week are also easy since they’ll go to the BTN. It’s the middle 1 or 2 games where the value still might not be maximized – up to this point, they have been placed on an outlet like ESPNU or being sharing time slots with other Big Ten games where the BTN would need overflow channels. Those games really don’t do much for ESPN or Fox if they’re on Saturday, but I could see them being very interested if they’re Friday games (just as networks are willing to pay for even the crappiest NFL games no matter what day of the week they might be on).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I think all things being equal, we’d all just prefer Saturday games. They’re the best for fans both at the stadiums and at home.”
It doesn’t sound like it from what I’ve read. It sounds like a number of people want games several days per week for their TV viewing pleasure. People that attend games want Saturday games. Presidents want Saturday games. Traditionalist fans want Saturday afternoon games.
“However, Delany wouldn’t be gauging interest in Friday games if all things were equal.”
We’ll never know how serious he is about the idea, or if he’s just throwing it out there to confirm his current opinion of the idea. It’s sort of like having expansion discussions. Bringing something up doesn’t always mean you’re really serious about it.
It’s possible a network or networks has broached the idea recently, picking Friday because of the recent NFL move to takeover Thursdays. But there’s a big difference between doing this for BTN to have more slots and doing it to make big bucks from ESPN/other.
“The Big Ten would likely be able to get tier 1 prices for tier 2 games for a Friday night package.”
And they risk making tier 2 games feel like tier 3 games because they’re on Friday night.
“For instance, Illinois-Ohio State is typically a middling game for a normal college football Saturday, but potentially an excellent one for a Friday evening that ESPN or Fox would be willing to pay a material amount of extra money for.”
Would OSU and the other big boys agree to do this, though? The OH HS coaches will apply massive pressure to fight this. The traveling fans won’t want to miss work. The presidents won’t want to do it, requiring a big check to make them say yes. Are these sorts of games worth that much to ESPN/other? I have no idea how much they’d offer for a Friday night package.
“And look, I’m not expecting to ever see a Friday night game in Columbus, Ann Arbor or State College. This is more suited for schools like Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana and Purdue to get more exposure if the Big Ten goes down this road (which I’m not convinced that they will).”
Honestly, I think it’s best suited for that tier of teams playing each other. They’re big enough names that even casual fans have heard of them, but they need the exposure more than the bigger brands. Maybe the night game aspect even helps them draw more fans.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“LSU’s evident strong preference for night games is not necessarily representative of the South. Its still nontraditional overall, with LSU as the main outlier.”
But it is traditional to LSU fans and people in the state of LA. And other southern schools have played a decent number of them. AL first hosted one in the 40s, for example. WV has played almost 100 night games since 1980.
LikeLike
Had to get the rural electrification program going before night games were possible in certain regions. 😉
LikeLike
Brian/Wainscott – not only are night games at Tiger Stadium tradition, but day games are sacrilege in our temple.
LikeLike
This blind adherence to “tradition for tradition’s sake” is complete nonsense. College football has been continuously changing since it was invented. Why pick some arbitrary date in the past, and declare it as the point from which nothing is allowed to change? By that argument, there still wouldn’t be a forward pass, the starters would play both ways, there would only be 9 games in a season, the Big Ten wouldn’t send its non-champions to bowls, and I could go on.
That doesn’t mean every proposed change is a good idea. But if it’s a bad idea, you need better reasons than just, “Traditionally we didn’t do that.”
LikeLike
Tradition = stability/history.
To change tradition should require very strong reasoning. Lacking that the status quo should remain.
LikeLike
I think the issue is though how to define “tradition”. Its an amorphous term, capable of taking on any meaning for any argument.
Even defining it as stability/history does not really narrow it down, because as Marc pointed out, history shows the continuous evolution of CFB from bastardized Rugby to the modern game, along with the evolution of media coverage, fan attendance, players, and so forth.
LikeLike
Exactly: to most people, “tradition” = “the way it was when I first became a fan,” and therefore, pretending like it had always been that way, when it actually hadn’t.
Then, some people will selectively choose from the rubble of abandoned traditions, those they’d like to see restored, ignoring the many changes they might have agreed with.
So, for instance, an Ohio State fan might lament the fact that the Illibuck Trophy is no longer contested every year, while being just fine with the fact that OSU plays 12 regular-season games per year, rather than 9 or 10.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t mind reinstituting sub limitations. It would re emphasize the value of wider skill sets. It would also offer a reduction in costs. How many scholarships would be necessary if only 15-18 players were used in a whole game?
LikeLike
I live in an area designated historical. And even though its a very old neighborhood, the historical group basically tries to preserve everything the way it was in the 70s. That’s history to them.
Some adherence to tradition is bad. People who suggested the A&M bonfire was unsafe were ignored. Eventually 12 students tragically died because of tradition.
In some places, they like night games more than the traditional day games.
LikeLike
And limited subs would also force players to be smaller on average, reducing injury risks. I think Saban with his rule changes is admitting his giant specialized linemen can’t make it against a quick pace.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Then, some people will selectively choose from the rubble of abandoned traditions, those they’d like to see restored, ignoring the many changes they might have agreed with.
So, for instance, an Ohio State fan might lament the fact that the Illibuck Trophy is no longer contested every year, while being just fine with the fact that OSU plays 12 regular-season games per year, rather than 9 or 10.”
Isn’t that exactly the sort of behavior you want? They choose the best things from the past to keep but allow changes to other things. You don’t have to want to keep everything the same forever to talk about tradition being a reason to keep doing certain things.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think Saban with his rule changes is admitting his giant specialized linemen can’t make it against a quick pace.”
Really? I think every school in the country would like to match his success over the past few years. I think he’s a defensive coach and doesn’t like the huddle at the line method that several of us have decried here.
LikeLike
Brian:
I disagree. His concern is to slow play down. He’d have the same proposal if every team that hurried snapped as soon as they got to the line. We may have discussed offshoots of the hurry to the line, looking for the new plays call from the booth, but his proposal doesn’t address that, other than making a very few of them delay for a second or two.
LikeLike
@Brian
He’s starting to lose to less talented quick offense teams. Texas A&M, Auburn. He can see that its going to be more difficult for his way to work so he’s trying to change the rules. He’s already talked about recruiting some smaller lineman. He actually had his best success during a down period for SEC QBs. Now they are starting to get more good ones.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I disagree. His concern is to slow play down.”
I think that’s two sides of the same coin.
“He’d have the same proposal if every team that hurried snapped as soon as they got to the line.”
Would he? Almost every college QB would stink at that, so I don’t think he’d be that worried. It’s when they get to make play call adjustments that he really gets upset.
“We may have discussed offshoots of the hurry to the line, looking for the new plays call from the booth, but his proposal doesn’t address that,”
This is where I 100% disagree with you. The proposal absolutely addresses it by making the offense give him a chance to sub on every play without risking a quick snap for a man advantage play. We’re never going to agree on this.
“other than making a very few of them delay for a second or two.”
If that’s all it did, why are so many people up in arms about it?
LikeLike
bullet,
“He’s starting to lose to less talented quick offense teams.”
He’s lost 4 games in 3 seasons. How many schools would prefer that to their results?
“He actually had his best success during a down period for SEC QBs. Now they are starting to get more good ones.”
Are they? A bunch left after this year. AL, UGA, LSU, SC, MO and TAMU all have to find a new starter. Only AU returns theirs of the top teams. Maybe 2013 was the fluke more than the previous years were.
LikeLike
So, for instance, an Ohio State fan might lament the fact that the Illibuck Trophy is no longer contested every year, while being just fine with the fact that OSU plays 12 regular-season games per year, rather than 9 or 10.”
Isn’t that exactly the sort of behavior you want? They choose the best things from the past to keep but allow changes to other things. You don’t have to want to keep everything the same forever to talk about tradition being a reason to keep doing certain things.
I am suggesting a distinction between people who actually have good reasons for what they prefer, and those who merely say, “It’s tradition!!!”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I am suggesting a distinction between people who actually have good reasons for what they prefer, and those who merely say, “It’s tradition!!!””
And some people believe that is a good reason for some things.
LikeLike
Change always is and should occur, but I think there is a good general rule to look to when considering it:
-The longer something has been in place, the more reluctant we should be to change it. –
This doesn’t mean never consider changing somethings, but football and things well beyond football (including big societal issues)work well for a reason. You can very easily throw something out of whack that will gradually hurt more and more (which is worse than immediately hurting) and which isn’t always easy to put back together.
Example: On this Friday nights issue, it’s likely that TV will always pay more if there is a Friday night game. Let’s say they go to it. If fan experience and indirectly fan intensity drops because of that move, it’s likely to be more gradual though. This will result in less revenue in other ways and in the long term maybe even in TV values. Since any move up would also be gradual though, the short term benefit is to keep the Friday games though since the networks continue to pay extra in the short term for them (and because dissecting the exact reasons for decline in fan intensity is difficult).
Note: I’m not saying that’s what will happen with Friday night games, but using it to show it’s difficult to predict the effects of changes on long standing traditions and any of those changes should be done with a great amount of caution.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This blind adherence to “tradition for tradition’s sake” is complete nonsense.”
Tradition is important to a lot of people. It’s something you can share across generations. It binds people together. It connects the present to the past. Most people also like to have a few things in their lives that don’t change much. I won’t even bother to expand on the religious tradition.
“College football has been continuously changing since it was invented.”
And some of those changes have been readily accepted while others weren’t.
“Why pick some arbitrary date in the past, and declare it as the point from which nothing is allowed to change?”
Nice strawman. Who here has declared a date from which nothing may change?
“That doesn’t mean every proposed change is a good idea. But if it’s a bad idea, you need better reasons than just, “Traditionally we didn’t do that.””
The comments above are full of reasons why this may be a bad idea. We also haven’t heard much of anything about the upside. How much more would somebody pay for this, and how many games for each team would be in the package?
LikeLike
Tradition is important to a lot of people.
True, but what people call “tradition” is really just an arbitrary point in the past that the speaker happens to have liked —- usually, the state of the game when they first became a fan.
“College football has been continuously changing since it was invented.”
And some of those changes have been readily accepted while others weren’t.
Eventually, they’re either abandoned as bad ideas, or are accepted because the objectors die out.
LikeLike
“Eventually, they’re either abandoned as bad ideas, or are accepted because the objectors die out.”
Or they come back around, championed by the change for changes sake crowd. 🙂
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“True, but what people call “tradition” is really just an arbitrary point in the past that the speaker happens to have liked —- usually, the state of the game when they first became a fan.”
Sometimes, yes. But sometimes it isn’t. After a certain length of time, that arbitrary point is long enough ago that the thing in question is a tradition by now. OSU didn’t always play MI in late November, but they have since 1934. Is 70 years long enough to be a tradition or is that too arbitrary? Can we at least establish some sort of criterion that if a thing has been happening for X years (or happened for X years before recently changing), it is actually a tradition? Because that’s what tradition means.
“Eventually, they’re either abandoned as bad ideas, or are accepted because the objectors die out.”
Sometimes objectors change their minds if an idea proves to be better than they thought, such as having upsides that weren’t apparent before the change.
LikeLike
You know, politicians who promote bad ideas often use such arguments, such as “Change” and “opponents are standing in the way of progress”.
Something to think about.
LikeLike
Apparently, in 2003, the Little Brown Jug was moved from Saturday to Friday night due to a conflict with the ALCS (at the Metrodome)
The game ended up being sold out and televised nationally (Minny blew a 4th quarter lead and lost to UM) (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_24243439/gophers-football-10-years-ago-michigan-changed-everything)
Of course, contrast the news now with Delany’s quote back in 2003:
“The Conference and the Administrators Council regret having to reschedule football games to a Friday night,” Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said. “The Big Ten continues to support the protection of Friday night as a traditional high school football playing date. We also understand the negative effect that this change will have on our teams, their travel parties and fans. This result was considered to be the most feasible of several unattractive alternatives.”
http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/092403aaa.html
LikeLike
Further update: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-delany-night-games-spt-0228-20140228,0,3418136.story
“So much for those Friday night lights.
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany told the Tribune on Thursday the conference is not seeking to play more Friday night games, with the exception of the day after Thanksgiving. Friday night games on Labor Day weekend, before some schools are in session, will continue.
In addressing TV negotiations that are slated to begin in 2015, Delany said the conference is emphasizing increasing night games on Saturdays in November.
“We’re looking hard at more prime time,” he said. “We’re looking at many, many issues — 100 issues.
“We’re trying to enhance the (TV) package, but the notion that we’re playing Friday nights — I don’t think it will happen while I’m here. There are much higher priorities.””
Bottom line:
1) A second Black Friday game seems like a lock–maybe even a primetime Black Friday game (would be a great time for MSU/Penn State/Maryland/Rutgers — PSU, UMD, RU, & MSU rotate opponents that last weekend)
2) November primetime night games are a definite.
LikeLike
Not sure about a primetime Black Friday game, and if there is one, UNL-Iowa makes more sense. I think that any game played in Happy Valley should be played in the daytime (driving through those mountains late at night when it is snowing or sleeting in late November does not sound safe at all).
However, I certainly think there should be a 2nd Black Friday game. I nominate PSU vs. a rotation of RU/UMD/MSU.
LikeLike
I agree, NE/IA is likely to be the biggest of those games. However, both those schools require fans to drive along way for the game. They might prefer an afternoon (3:30) game to make it easier for people to get home. PSU@RU/UMD/MSU might make a decent night game.
LikeLike
Also, in 2007, NWU played at Ford Field vs. Eastern Michigan in something called the “Collegiate Clash.” (http://www.nusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/101507aaf.html)
LikeLike
Update:
(Delany’s contract is through 2018)
LikeLike
However, Delany’s 65 or so. He could help negotiate the next TV deal and retire before the first Friday night game is played after the first week.
LikeLike
I doubt he would parse his words that way. If he negotiates the deal, I think he’d include that as happening while he was here. Maybe if expansion to 16 happens and an adjusted deal is needed, but probably not until the new deal ends otherwise.
LikeLike
NCAA officials may limit the number of full-contact practices in-season.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24456701/ncaa-officials-discuss-limits-to-full-contact-football-practices
Seems kind of silly, like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic..Limiting the number of full-contact practices in a full-contact sport will overall not really protect players to any significant degree, even if its good PR. An inherently violent sport predicated on sacrificing one’s body to stop someone from advancing with the football–and to block for said person advancing with the ball– will remain inherently violent and dangerous until the very core of the game is changed. Whether there are 1 or 2 or 3 (or more) full-contact practices in a given week won’t change that simple fact.
LikeLike
Well it actually might. IMO it’s likelier to have an impact than effectively banning HUNH.
LikeLike
In my opinion, injuries is a PR-created cover for the real goal of banning HUNH, something defensive coaches are having trouble defending right now. But this ignores the cyclical nature of football, how popular strategies ebb and flow, and how offenses have an advantage until defenses catch up, at which point the next innovation takes the CFB world by storm.
See generally: http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/Hood-Sabans-whining-change-HUNH-12480 and http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/2012/idaho-state/up-tempo-offenses-rising-in-college-football/article_bc7a8db1-a69c-5326-bc5f-ac0905f654a3.html
LikeLike
Is it a fake concern for these coaches? Probably. Is it an actual medical concern? Probably.
LikeLike
Just as probably not.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Just as probably not.”
That’s not what the experts say. They worry about the number of plays because linemen basically get head hits on every play. The number of hits is a key factor for brain trauma. They don’t all have to be hard hits, either.
They also express worry about fatigue injuries because they know that tired players use bad form and bad form leads to things like head hits. Tired bodies also can’t protect themselves as well as fresh ones.
They haven’t said this sort of rule change is the solution, but you’re just wrong to say it’s just as likely not to to be a concern. See the article I linked below.
LikeLike
Opinion, whether or not it sounds logical, is just that without evidence that takes all the factors during a game into account, not merely injuries/plays.
I remember when one boxing body shortened to 12 rounds. Austensibly it was for safety reasons (was it after Mancini/Kim?). Surprisingly after the change it was noted that most fatal or debilitating boxing injuries occurs in the first three rounds, before fatigue reduces peak punching power.
LikeLike
I read the article you posted below. In your copy-paste job, you left out a critical passage:
“In the meantime, none of the concussion experts in this story suggested the NCAA or conferences should implement dramatic rules changes like the one proposed by Bielema. They don’t yet have data to quantifiably conclude that hurry-up offenses are an issue.
“That’s part of the problem in this area right now,” said Dr. Micky Collins, director of the Sports Medicine Concussion Program at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “There’s so much discussion and so much concern, I’m worried decisions will be made that are knee-jerk decisions that could cause harm if not made on solid scientific evidence.” As an example, he pointed to the Pac-12’s recent initiative to reduce allowable contact in practices. While driven by “phenomenally good” intentions, there’s not yet evidence to conclude that the benefits of less frequent hitting in practice outweigh the potential harm done by reducing players’ opportunities to hone tackling techniques so important to in-game safety.”
Despite all the concerns mentioned in the article, none of those experts suggested adopting the rule, even with their theories, hypothesis, and worries.
LikeLike
Is it a fake concern for these coaches? Probably. Is it an actual medical concern? Probably.
Tackling is an even greater cause of injuries. Play flag football, and the number of injuries would go way way down.
Studies have shown that a disproportionate share of injuries occur on kickoffs and punts, so eliminate those plays. Replace kickoffs with an auction system. Eliminate punt returns and make the fair catch mandatory.
Those are the kinds of proposals you’d see if injuries are what these coaches really care about.
LikeLike
Totally agree with Marc.
Would add that the size of the players, and allowing 19 year old lineman standing 6′ 6″ to carry about 100lbs above what is considered the upper range of normal on the BMI index chart is a much greater health issue–and one that’s actually documented–than consecutive plays without substitution. Indeed, weight caps, enforced with gameday weigh-ins, would do much more for player safety than the proposed rule. But Saban probably would not support that, seeing that he likes his lineman big and bigger. (11 of 14 OL’s as listed on the 2013 Alabama roster were over 300lbs; one was 6′ 0″ 313lb, one was 6′ 6″ 385lb.) On defense, 10 of 11 DL’s were 280lbs or above. Those are big men supporting more weight than their bodies were designed to. That’s an actual documented medical concern.
If you don’t take my word, take the word of the doctor in the bottom of the Mandel article posted previously:
“Still, Nauman does see one potential health benefit to hurry-up offenses.
“My sense from watching teams like Oregon is they’re running so much, that their linemen aren’t super massive guys,” he said. “From an overall health perspective, that’s probably a lot safer long-term than having some of these enormous 370-, 380-pound nose tackles. They probably do have healthy cardiac functions, but as soon as they stop playing their knees are done, they have all sorts of health issues later on. I’m not sure people should be trying to get that big. Hurry-up offenses could at least curtail that a little bit.”
Also, Mandel notes in his Mailbag this week:
Yet to this point, the most extensive research I’ve seen on the topic is from Dave Bartoo of CFBMatrix.com, who charted plays per game and starts missed to injury for every conference from 2009 through ’12. During that time, the Big 12 had both the most plays and the fewest missed starts; on the surface, this seems to debunk the whole argument from Nick Saban, Bret Bielema and Troy Calhoun.
(he goes on to mention how number of plays is an incomplete stat and that there’s still no proof of causation. because its not the number of plays, but the number of consecutive plays without substitution, and there is no evidence of more injuries in frenzied situations.)
Link to the Study mentioned: http://cfbmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140226/acc-rules-proposal-college-football-mailbag/#ixzz2uX2li37U
LikeLike
Link to Alabama’s 2013 roster:
http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/alab-m-footbl-mtt.html
Link to BMI index chart:
LikeLike
@Brian: which experts? I haven’t seen any medical expert say publicly that # plays or pace of play is positive correlated with injuries. If some medical experts have indeed said this I’d be interested to see a link to it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Opinion, whether or not it sounds logical, is just that without evidence that takes all the factors during a game into account, not merely injuries/plays.”
As they pointed out, there are so many variables and so few games that it’s very hard to do a valid study to isolate each variable, especially with the range of human responses to the same hit.
They know that more hits to the head is worse than fewer hits. They know linemen get hit in the head on basically every play.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130711/hurry-up-offense-safety-concerns/
At the most basic level, a team with an up-tempo offense runs more plays over the course of a game than one with a more traditional scheme, thus creating more opportunities for injuries. … That discrepancy is troubling to researchers like Talavage and Nauman, whose findings show that the cumulative effect of hits from practices and games on players — particularly those most prone to contact, such as offensive and defensive linemen — can be dangerous.
Style of play is also known to be a risk factor for certain types of head injury:
… However, Steven P. Broglio, director of the University of Michigan’s Neurotrama Research Laboratory, published a study last year that correlated head injuries with a team’s style of offense.
Broglio’s researchers spent a season measuring the number of head impacts on both a traditional run-first high school team in Illinois (it attempted just 8.8 passes per game) and a pass-first team in Michigan (25.6 attempts per game). Not surprisingly, players on the Illinois team — with its abundance of bunched-up formations — sustained 50 percent more head impacts over the course of their campaign. However, players in the more spread-out passing offense endured, on average, higher-magnitude hits, due in part to running backs’ and receivers’ abilities to accelerate more quickly before impact.
The problem is that there are lots of different injury types to consider, and probably conflicting results in terms of how to minimize each type. But if you consider life-threatening and brain injuries to be the top concern, and I assume everyone does, then you have to look at how to reduce the number of blows to the head. Fewer plays does that. Passing more does it too, but with the tradeoff of harder impacts for the non-linemen. How do you balance the number of hits versus the intensity of hits? Science doesn’t know yet. How do you value linemen versus non-linemen?
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I read the article you posted below. In your copy-paste job, you left out a critical passage:
…
Despite all the concerns mentioned in the article, none of those experts suggested adopting the rule, even with their theories, hypothesis, and worries.”
I explicitly stated that before the excerpt I quoted.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Tackling is an even greater cause of injuries. Play flag football, and the number of injuries would go way way down.”
Poor form when tackling is the cause of brain injuries. Removing tackling makes it a different sport.
“Studies have shown that a disproportionate share of injuries occur on kickoffs and punts, so eliminate those plays. …
Those are the kinds of proposals you’d see if injuries are what these coaches really care about.”
Gee, if only they’d consider rule changes on kickoffs to make them safer. Oh, wait. They’ve been doing that for years.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Would add that the size of the players, and allowing 19 year old lineman standing 6′ 6″ to carry about 100lbs above what is considered the upper range of normal on the BMI index chart is a much greater health issue–and one that’s actually documented–than consecutive plays without substitution.”
BMI charts are crap for athletes. An athlete can have 5% body fat and be obese by BMI due to muscle. Being fat is bad for them. Lifting weights isn’t.
“Yet to this point, the most extensive research I’ve seen on the topic is from Dave Bartoo of CFBMatrix.com, who charted plays per game and starts missed to injury for every conference from 2009 through ’12. During that time, the Big 12 had both the most plays and the fewest missed starts; on the surface, this seems to debunk the whole argument from Nick Saban, Bret Bielema and Troy Calhoun.
(he goes on to mention how number of plays is an incomplete stat and that there’s still no proof of causation. because its not the number of plays, but the number of consecutive plays without substitution, and there is no evidence of more injuries in frenzied situations.)”
We already discussed that article. Even the author of it admits his conclusions are basically meaningless because he doesn’t have enough data or the right type of data to reach valid conclusions.
LikeLike
“Poor form when tackling is the cause of brain injuries.”
Unfortunately using that hard shelled weapon perched above the shoulders is a very effective way to deliver a blow or dislodge the ball. Only when flagged is it “poor” (ie. discouraged) form. But that takes us back to the improved helmet design discussion.
LikeLike
“Being fat is bad for them. Lifting weights isn’t.”
No, carrying excessive pounds for your height is bad for you, regardless of whether its muscle or fat or a combination. Especially for the heart.
“We already discussed that article. Even the author of it admits his conclusions are basically meaningless because he doesn’t have enough data or the right type of data to reach valid conclusions.”
Nobody has enough data, which makes any rule change relating to game pace wholly premature, especially when predicated on the idea of “player safety”.
LikeLike
“Studies have shown that a disproportionate share of injuries occur on kickoffs and punts, so eliminate those plays. …
Those are the kinds of proposals you’d see if injuries are what these coaches really care about.”
Gee, if only they’d consider rule changes on kickoffs to make them safer. Oh, wait. They’ve been doing that for years.
Exactly. Nailed it. Those were changes targeted at a comparatively dangerous part of the game.
There is no evidence that the 10-second rule does that. It’s just a fake by coaches who’ve had trouble defending the no-huddle.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There is no evidence that the 10-second rule does that.”
Nobody has ever claimed there was evidence to support it, so who are you arguing with?
LikeLike
Brian:
Those who have proposed the change are doing so saying it addresses a safety concern. Whether they claim evidence or not does not mean you are unable to dispute/refute whether this rule addresses that claim, real or imagined.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Those who have proposed the change are doing so saying it addresses a safety concern.”
Which it does. Their concern might be misplaced, but that’s a different discussion.
“Whether they claim evidence or not does not mean you are unable to dispute/refute whether this rule addresses that claim, real or imagined.”
Sure it does, because the other side doesn’t have evidence either. They say they’re concerned and you have no proof that they aren’t. You also have no proof that their concern is misplaced, but it might be since they don’t have proof either.
LikeLike
“Which it does. Their concern might be misplaced, but that’s a different discussion.”
Therefore rebutting the false assertion that there is a defined safety need that the rule change will rectify. Neither is there a defined need (something necessary to formulate an effective change), nor evidence that this proposed change would be the solution and not an agrivator.
“Sure it does, because the other side doesn’t have evidence either.”
The other side doesn’t need evidence. They aren’t asking for a change. If they share a concern then do studies and reach reasoned conclusions, then act on those conclusions. Until then we be doing change for the sake of change, something you advocate…?
LikeLike
I mean, Nick Saban’s own words from September reveal the real reason for the rule, and its not safety related:
“Alabama Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban hasn’t been a fan of the hurry-up, no-huddle offense, but that doesn’t mean he won’t eventually give it a try.
“It’s something we’re going to look at. I think we’ll have to,” Saban told ESPN.com on Thursday. “I think we need to play faster and will have to do more of that going forward. The only reason we haven’t done more of it to this point is that our guys seem to play better when we don’t [go fast] just because it’s been our style and we’ve had reasonably good success moving the ball and running the ball.
Nick Saban isn’t a fan of the hurry-up offense because it takes defensive coaches out of the game. “All you’re trying to do is get lined up [on defense],” Saban said. “… The offense kind of knows what you’re doing.”
“The thing I wonder about is that if you play offense like that, then that’s how you practice. You have to practice like that, so how do you really ever coach defensive players? If a guy doesn’t play the right technique, you’re going up and telling him and showing him how to play that block or whatever.
“But, hell, they’re running another play.”
Within five years, Saban said 80 or 90 percent of the teams in college football will be running some version of a no-huddle, hurry-up offense.
“”Unless they do something to slow them down, which they should, we’ll probably be doing the same thing,” he said.
Saban hasn’t been a fan because it’s advantageous to the offense by taking the defensive coaches out of the game.
“All you’re trying to do is get lined up [on defense],” Saban said. “You can’t play specialty third-down stuff. You can’t hardly scheme anything. The most important thing is to get the call so the guys can get lined up, and it’s got to be a simple call. The offense kind of knows what you’re doing.”
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9730914/coach-nick-saban-rule-tempo-offense-alabama-crimson-tide
if Saban really believed in the safety rationale, he would refuse on principle to even consider running the hurry-up offense.
The safety concerns are the justification because only safety-related rules can be adopted in an off-year, such as this. Otherwise, proposed rules would have to wait until next year.
LikeLike
Nobody has ever claimed there was evidence to support it, so who are you arguing with?
You said, “Is it an actual medical concern? Probably.”
That came across, to me, as a claim that there is evidence. What else would the word “probably” mean?
LikeLike
crider55,
“Therefore rebutting the false assertion that there is a defined safety need that the rule change will rectify.”
Which nobody here has ever tried to argue. Clearly the proposal has no evidence to support it.
“Neither is there a defined need (something necessary to formulate an effective change),”
Well, I’d say preventing head injuries is a defined need.
“nor evidence that this proposed change would be the solution and not an agrivator.”
There’s no evidence to show this would be an effective way to prevent them, agreed. Nobody has ever claimed there was such evidence.
“The other side doesn’t need evidence.”
You said:
… does not mean you are unable to dispute/refute whether this rule addresses that claim, real or imagined.
I said they need evidence in response to that. To refute something takes evidence (by definition). I wasn’t claiming they need evidence in order to not support the rule change.
LikeLike
Ok. I see what you’re saying. I poorly worded what I meant. By refute I intended that those opposed were simply saying there is no evidence that fast play causes more injuries, or that enforced slowing is the antidote. The opposition’s “evidence” is the lack of evidence. If that makes any sense
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“That came across, to me, as a claim that there is evidence. What else would the word “probably” mean?”
Probably means an informed opinion, like the doctor in the article I quoted, thinks it’s likely. OL get hit in the head on essentially every play (there is evidence for this). More hits to the head is bad, even if they aren’t all major impacts (there is evidence for this). More plays means OL get hit in the head more often (simple math). Connecting those dots, it’s probably bad for OL.
Could other factors (other positions get a different effect, looking at more types of injury, tiredness of defenders means they hit less hard, whatever) make it a wash or a negligible effect? Possibly. That’s why they need evidence.
LikeLike
OL get hit in the head on essentially every play (there is evidence for this). More hits to the head is bad, even if they aren’t all major impacts (there is evidence for this). More plays means OL get hit in the head more often (simple math). Connecting those dots, it’s probably bad for OL.
What you’re basically saying, is that as football is inherently dangerous, the less of it you play, the fewer injuries will occur. I certainly cannot argue with that.
But there are many ways to play less football. For instance, play 12-minute quarters. Or don’t stop the clock after first downs. Or keep the clock running continuously when games get out of hand.You could probably think of a dozen other ways to stop the clock less often, or to re-start it more often, in order to shorten the game.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Ok. I see what you’re saying. I poorly worded what I meant. By refute I intended that those opposed were simply saying there is no evidence that fast play causes more injuries, or that enforced slowing is the antidote. The opposition’s “evidence” is the lack of evidence. If that makes any sense.”
Fair enough.
I propose we consider the topic wrapped since the rule change isn’t going to pass this year anyway. If it gets proposed next year, hopefully they’ll have some evidence or suggest a different change (although they don’t need evidence in a regular rule change year).
LikeLike
They are supposed to consider ONLY safety related rule changes this year. They do more typical rule changes only every 2 years. So they violated all kinds of procedures to try to slip this through.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What you’re basically saying, is that as football is inherently dangerous, the less of it you play, the fewer injuries will occur. I certainly cannot argue with that.”
Especially for linemen, yes. It’s less clear with skill players as on many plays they may not get touched while others they get hit multiple times. Linemen really need a separate helmet design with a bunch of extra padding over the forehead area (from the crown to the facemask).
“But there are many ways to play less football. For instance, play 12-minute quarters. Or don’t stop the clock after first downs. Or keep the clock running continuously when games get out of hand.You could probably think of a dozen other ways to stop the clock less often, or to re-start it more often, in order to shorten the game.”
Yes. I certainly cannot argue with that. That doesn’t argue for or against this particular change, though. I happen to like the ancillary benefits that this change would provide (defensive subs and prevent the quick snap cheap play threat) without impacting the offenses that much. Most other changes to shorten the game would have a much larger impact on the game overall.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They are supposed to consider ONLY safety related rule changes this year. They do more typical rule changes only every 2 years. So they violated all kinds of procedures to try to slip this through.”
Agreed 100%.
LikeLike
New college football poll this fall: http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/25/fwaa-nff-grantland-rice-super-16-poll/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
From pollster.com
“POLL SHOWS VOTERS WATCHING LESS LIVE T.V. – A new survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R) and Global Strategy Group (D) and commissioned by Google and digital consulting firms Well & Lighthouse (D) and Targeted Victory (R) finds voters “ditching live television in favor of streaming shows and movies on their smartphones or tablets. Emily Schultheis: “Other than watching live sports, almost a third of voters — 29 percent — said they had not watched any live TV in the past week. That figure is even higher among younger voters: Among 18- to 24-year-olds, 43 percent didn’t watch any live TV over the past seven days, and 40 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds said the same. It’s also higher among key demographic and ideological groups: Thirty-eight percent of self-identified independents said they hadn’t watched live TV in the last week, as did 32 percent of moderates and 36 percent of Hispanic voters…The poll is further evidence of a shift in the way voters get their political information — and suggests that campaigns that advertise only on broadcast TV will miss important and growing swaths of voters.” Results are from a telephone poll of 800 likely voters surveyed January 25-28, 2014, with 30 percent of interviews conducted with voters on their cell phones.”
LikeLike
So our sports programs will be flooded with political ads in the fall of 2016?!?!????
LikeLike
ESPN will carry three games today:
The Hillary Clinton Pac 12 championship game and
The SEC championship game brought to you by Jeb Bush.
The ACC crazy like a Foxx championship game sponsored by North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx.
Fox will carry:
The Green Party Jerry Brown Big 10 championship game.
LikeLike
And of course the ccgs are in December, but they will move them up a month to generate more TV ad $s and cash in on the political season.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130711/hurry-up-offense-safety-concerns/
Experts tend to agree with Saban and Bielema’s general concern about playing faster, but admit there isn’t any proof (yet). That isn’t to say they support the rule change, just the concern about more plays meaning more injuries.
“I think it is a very legitimate concern to the extent that there truly is an added fatigue factor,” said Dr. Randall Benson, a professor of neurology at Wayne State University who testified before Congress about traumatic brain injuries in football. “When guys are fatigued they tend to use poorer technique, which can lead to having one’s head in the wrong place, putting them at risk for concussions and subconcussive hits.”
At the most basic level, a team with an up-tempo offense runs more plays over the course of a game than one with a more traditional scheme, thus creating more opportunities for injuries. Louisiana Tech, then coached by early hurry-up adopters Sonny Dykes and Tony Franklin (both now at Cal), ran 87.8 plays per game last season, compared with 64.1 by Alabama and 66.1 by Bielema’s Wisconsin team, respectively. That discrepancy is troubling to researchers like Talavage and Nauman, whose findings show that the cumulative effect of hits from practices and games on players — particularly those most prone to contact, such as offensive and defensive linemen — can be dangerous.
“For us the main thing is, 10 percent of kids will get concussions, but 50 percent will show changes in the way their brain behaves that is almost equivalent,” said Nauman. “I’m not worried just about the defense, I’m worried about the linemen on both sides that might take 70 hits in a game. We’re looking at somewhere between 60 to 90 hits to the head per week is all you want to take.”
Researchers have consistently found that it’s not just the number of hits that contribute to brain trauma, but the magnitude of those hits. That’s why all those who were interviewed for this story stressed the risk that comes with fatigue-induced breakdowns in technique. A player who does exactly what he’s been taught by his coaches — blocking with hands, form-tackling — should minimize the number of high-impact hits he sustains to the head.
However, linebackers and defensive backs worn down from chasing receivers all over the field are more inclined to lunge with their head. Exhausted linemen may default to a head-on bull rush rather than using their hands. “We would anticipate these issues become more problematic the more fatigued you are,” said Talavage.
“Guys will do whatever they have to do to prevent touchdowns and will hit what they can how they can,” said Benson, who added that the pass-heavy nature of many hurry-up offenses also plays a factor. “… Linebackers and D-backs are forced to cover more receivers, which means more running and more fatigue. Receivers are asked to go over the middle and on short routes in seams which makes them vulnerable to high-velocity, high-impact hits by defenders.”
Keep in mind, any attempts to correlate tempo with a greater risk of injury is speculative at this point. No known study has been conducted. However, Steven P. Broglio, director of the University of Michigan’s Neurotrama Research Laboratory, published a study last year that correlated head injuries with a team’s style of offense.
Broglio’s researchers spent a season measuring the number of head impacts on both a traditional run-first high school team in Illinois (it attempted just 8.8 passes per game) and a pass-first team in Michigan (25.6 attempts per game). Not surprisingly, players on the Illinois team — with its abundance of bunched-up formations — sustained 50 percent more head impacts over the course of their campaign. However, players in the more spread-out passing offense endured, on average, higher-magnitude hits, due in part to running backs’ and receivers’ abilities to accelerate more quickly before impact.
Still, Nauman does see one potential health benefit to hurry-up offenses.
“My sense from watching teams like Oregon is they’re running so much, that their linemen aren’t super massive guys,” he said. “From an overall health perspective, that’s probably a lot safer long-term than having some of these enormous 370-, 380-pound nose tackles. They probably do have healthy cardiac functions, but as soon as they stop playing their knees are done, they have all sorts of health issues later on. I’m not sure people should be trying to get that big. Hurry-up offenses could at least curtail that a little bit.”
LikeLike
Or as a Mailbag question in Stewart Mandel’s column remarks:
I assume Nick Saban and Bret Bielema will endorse size limits on football players at any moment now, right? No offensive linemen over 300 pounds, no defensive linemen over 270 and no linebackers over 240.
— Andrew, Boulder, Colo.
No, but imagine if the coach at some directional school that endures annual 62-7 beatdowns at these teams’ hands proffered this as a counterproposal? Hey, player safety, right?
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140226/acc-rules-proposal-college-football-mailbag/#ixzz2uSakJV9v
LikeLike
http://247sports.com/Article/Ranking-NFL-Draft-as-prospects-with-247Sports-Composite-179447
A look at 2014 draft prospects versus how they were ranked as recruits.
LikeLike
Somehow the fastest WR, and this Belitnikoff winner isn’t among those listed? Thought he was a R2, maybe late R1 probable.
LikeLike
The 3 extra players they listed are all ranked ahead of Cooks based on the NFL ranking list the linked. They only listed 3 more players for each position, so he just missed the cutoff.
LikeLike
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/2014-sec-strength-of-schedule/
For the second year in a row, AL will have the easiest schedule in the SEC. They’re the only ones facing a slate that combined to be under 0.500 last year, also for the second year in a row. Add in the timing of their bye weeks (and/or pre-rivalry cupcake game), and it’s no wonder they win the SEC so much.
LikeLike
Wow, if the Iron Bowl were in Auburn this coming season, Alabama season ticket holders would be getting robbed blind. Even with the Iron Bowl, its not exactly the most enticing home slate for the Tide and their paying customers. And they wonder why Alabama has thousands of empty student section seats.
LikeLike
ESPN Poll: 93 coaches against proposal:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10521862/only-25-128-fbs-coaches-favor-slow-proposal-espn-poll-concludes
LikeLike
http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/ecac/2014/2/19/5426950/2014-frozen-apple-cornell-penn-state-madison-square-garden-november-29
PSU will play Cornell in MSG next season in hockey. Who needs RU for some east coast exposure?
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/26/sec-stadiums-to-turn-up-volume-drown-out-fans-and-bands/related/
Why allow school bands in the stadium if they go in this direction?
LikeLike
Ugh! That Florida guy is going to make UGA like Tennessee. You can barely talk there as they always have the speakers turned up. He’s already wrecked UGA’s ooc schedule.
LikeLike
How I’d schedule the B10:
Intra-divisional round-robin the last 7 weeks with 1 inter-divisional game in each of the last 2 weeks so that nobody gets a bye before the final week (IU-PU rivalry week and 1 the week before that). 6 conference games in weeks 5-11 (7 weeks) during a 13-week season (weeks 6-12 in a 14-week season) with interdivisional games in the first 2 weeks of that block (so that the chances of 2 schools playing each other, then meeting int he title game a few weeks later is remote). Each school gets a bye during that 7 week block. There’s still 1 interdivisonal game per school to fit among the first 4 weeks (5 weeks in a 14-week season). I would allocate them like this:
Week 1: 1 game each on Th, F, and Sat nights.
Week 2: 2 games on Sat.
Weeks 3 & 4: 1 game on Sat.
When a 14-week season, weeks 2-4 will have 1 game on Sat. each (all at night).
I’d offer a first tier package of semi-exclusive (with only the BTN allowed to show a B10 game during that time) Saturday prime time conference games the first 11 weeks of the season + 2 Black Friday games (UNL-Iowa and the 2 of PSU/UMD/RU who aren’t playing MSU).
Offer a 7-game package of 6 Friday night games + the kickoff Thursday game (so each school plays on a Friday once each season, but we can always have the 7 schools with the smallest attendance host the 6 Friday night games (but a king or prince can host the kickoff Thursday game.
None of the night games will take place in late November.
Hold back OSU-UM to be auctioned off.
Re-up with ESPN for their pick of the 2nd tier games (with restrictions) for as much as you can.
With a 9-game slate, there are 63 league games:
13 in the tier-1, 7 in the Friday night package. 1 UM-OSU. 22 games for ESPN (2 per week most weeks, but in the 2nd-to-last, and maybe 3rd-to-last weeks having no night games (and 7 games the 2nd-to-last week), we want ESPN to show 3-4 games that week. 20 conference games for the BTN (each school has to appear on the BTN at least once a year).
During a typical week in conference play, there would be 6 conference games:
1 Friday night, 1 tier-1 Saturday night. 2 on the ESPN family. 2 on the BTN. When conference play begins in earnest, use of the BTN overflow channel should be rare.
LikeLike
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2014/february/30-for-30-will-remember-the-big-east.html
And my DVR is set.
LikeLike
Dantonion getting a (well-deserved) raise:
http://tracking.si.com/2014/02/25/michigan-state-mark-dantonio-raise/
So do his assistants:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140225/SPORTS0202/302250113
Bonus perk: Dantonio gets 25 hours of private plane usage for personal reasons a year, similar to Izzo.
LikeLike
Texas a&m adding to Kyle Field CFB’s largest video screen, still coping with inferiority complex despite having more recent success/heisman winner/playing in superior conference than Texas:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10510997/texas-aggies-video-board-ncaa-biggest
LikeLike
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in-fake-classes-scandal-unc-fails-its-athletes-whistle-blower
Is Businessweek the first major national outlet to cover this UNC academic fraud scandal in depth (it’s the cover story).
That cover is very well done.
LikeLike
Big picture of the cover for anyone who wants.
LikeLike
CNN did a series of articles. Below is one from last month:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-athletes-reading-scores/
UNC is continuing to deny there was a problem and keeps attacking the whistleblower and trying to blame it on one person. UNC ought to be kicked out of the AAU. Their leadership continues to degrade the value of every degree from UNC.
LikeLike
The UNC scandal is actually worse than the PSU scandal. The PSU scandal was basically a series of criminal acts by one guy that did not touch on either the athletic program itself or the academic integrity of the school. The attempted coverup by Paterno and administrative higher ups was another crime which is being sorted out in the courts. The guilty parties were all punished and repudiated by the school.
At UNC, the integrity of its academic programs (which are the only reason for a school’s existence) were directly affected with one entire department and its chair shown to be fraudulent and dozens of degrees unearned. The athletic program was also affected in that athletes who were plainly unqualified (actual illiterates!!) were knowingly recruited and knowingly accepted by the coaching staffs. This is a major NCAA infraction in itself. So where is the NCAA?
There were many calls for the expulsion of PSU from the B1G, with which I disagreed because the administration finally confronted the scandal and took steps to end it. I think it only fair that UNC, a sham university, be expelled from the ACC because the continued coverup and denial aggravates the problem.
Why, pray tell, would the B1G want any southern school, except maybe Georgia Tech or Clemson? Don’t tell me Duke. Remember the phony lacrosse scandal that revealed a corrupt faculty?
LikeLike
If you are going to only read one page of this good 7 page article, read page 3. It shows how majors suddenly shifted in the 90s to Black Studies, Communication and undeclared. Also talks of a football team database of term papers.
Page 6 shows how the #2 guy in the university is going after the whistleblower. One quote from one of the few professors with integrity:
“After Dean’s presentation elicited applause, Frank Baumgartner, a political science professor, got to his feet. He mused aloud about the university’s focusing on Willingham as a form of coverup. “President Nixon went down for denial,” he told his colleagues. In an interview later, he elaborated: “What I heard was stonewalling,” he said. “The university is trying to distract us by going after Mary Willingham when there are much bigger issues here about sports and academics, and they’re not unique to North Carolina.”
LikeLike
If they are going to allow schools to get away with things like fake classes (as they seem to be ignoring the UNC scandal), they should just shut the whole thing down. There’s no longer any purpose for intercollegiate athletics.
LikeLike
I see what your saying, but probably best to steer clear of saying its worse than the PSU scandal, regardless that from the documented evidence, Sandusky was retired at all times and it did not impact the core academic mission of the school. Many boys were molested many times on school property and/or while travelling to school events, and by a former coach with access to university facilities, and nobody cared enough to put a firm end to it. No academic scandal approaches that level of moral and legal failing.
Also, there were not any serious calls for PSU’s expulsion from anyone that actually matters. Random commentators don’t count.
“Why, pray tell, would the B1G want any southern school, except maybe Georgia Tech or Clemson? Don’t tell me Duke. Remember the phony lacrosse scandal that revealed a corrupt faculty?”
God only knows whats lurking underneath at any school anywhere in the country. As bad as Duke handled that scandal, I’m far from convinced any northern school would have handled it much differently.
LikeLike
That said, this UNC scandal is truly insane. Has to be one of the worst academic scandals of recent times.
And despite this, the school is still mediocre in football–they suck, even at cheating.
LikeLike
Reminds me of Craig James talking on the ESPN 30/30 on the SMU scandal. He said SMU wasn’t the only one doing it, just the others didn’t have as much success (a dig at most likely A&M who struggled when James was there and got caught cheating, but possibly TCU who got caught paying a RB in 1984).
LikeLike
That was a great 30 for 30. That and the Miami one were two of the best they’ve done.
LikeLike
“We called it the Trans A&M.”
LikeLike
There were many calls for the expulsion of PSU from the B1G….
Mainly by clueless twits.
I think it only fair that UNC, a sham university….
UNC is not a sham university. Even if you think its athletic department is a sham, there is more to UNC than athletics.
Why, pray tell, would the B1G want any southern school, except maybe Georgia Tech or Clemson? Don’t tell me Duke. Remember the phony lacrosse scandal that revealed a corrupt faculty?
Why, pray tell, does the B1G want Ohio State, a northern school that has been hit with NCAA violations repeatedly? (For those lacking a sense of humor: that’s a joke question.)
I see what your saying, but probably best to steer clear of saying its worse than the PSU scandal, regardless that from the documented evidence, Sandusky was retired at all times and it did not impact the core academic mission of the school. Many boys were molested many times on school property and/or while travelling to school events, and by a former coach with access to university facilities, and nobody cared enough to put a firm end to it.
I don’t think anyone, at any point, actually concluded they didn’t care that boys were being molested. A lot of people failed to investigate adequately, and/or stood idly by because they thought someone else was investigating it adequately. Although not defensible, it’s not quite the same as saying you don’t care.
LikeLike
I said cared enough to stop it. Which implies some care, just not enough to do more than meekly run reports up the flagpole, letting the situation continue.
If they didn’t care at all, they would not have taken any action whatsoever after the 2002 incident in the locker room, when they revoked Sandusky’s campus privileges.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“The UNC scandal is actually worse than the PSU scandal.”
Ummm. Kids got molested in one and it may have been covered up, a university offered sham classes in another. The UNC scandal reaches the core of the university’s purpose, but I wouldn’t say it was worse overall.
“The athletic program was also affected in that athletes who were plainly unqualified (actual illiterates!!) were knowingly recruited and knowingly accepted by the coaching staffs. This is a major NCAA infraction in itself.”
Actually, it isn’t. The players all met the minimum NCAA academic standards (HS GPA in core courses combined with test scores) until I see proof otherwise. There is no literacy requirement in the NCAA manual.
“So where is the NCAA?”
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/08/3352200/ncaa-unlikely-to-punish-unc-for.html
If you’d ever read any articles from NCAA experts, it’s been explained multiple times why the NCAA has a hard time getting involved here. If a fraudulent course is available to everyone and there isn’t proof that the AD was knowingly steering players into it, then that is an academic and not an athletic issue. The NCAA only oversees sports.
“There were many calls for the expulsion of PSU from the B1G,”
Kneejerk reactions, sure. Those died down pretty quickly.
“Why, pray tell, would the B1G want any southern school, except maybe Georgia Tech or Clemson?”
Really? You think Clemson is a bastion of academics? You know exactly why the B10 would want UVA or UNC or Duke or others.
“Don’t tell me Duke. Remember the phony lacrosse scandal that revealed a corrupt faculty?”
Duke is one of the best universities in the nation.
LikeLike
Several people have said the AD steered athletes into those courses. Those courses opened at the last minute and only athletes and one or two others seemed to know about it. The NCAA just, for whatever reason, wants to let UNC get away with it. Maybe Emmert had similar problems at LSU. He certainly had some issues when he was there. Maybe they don’t want to take away an NCAA bb title. Maybe they just don’t want to touch the issue with O’Bannon and unionization hanging over their head. Maybe they’re idiots. Those are all reasonable possibilities. But there being no evidence?
This is the worst academic athletic scandal I can think of. Jan Kemp was trivial by comparison.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Several people have said the AD steered athletes into those courses.”
But it’s all hearsay, isn’t it? No smoking gun emails? That’s not sufficient evidence for the NCAA to do anything. They don’t punish any infraction they can’t prove. People said Cam Newton’s dad took money. People said Manziel took money.
“Those courses opened at the last minute and only athletes and one or two others seemed to know about it.”
Which provides plausible deniability and reasonable doubt. If the academic department is corrupt, that isn’t the AD’s fault and isn’t the NCAA’s problem. It’s an accreditation issue.
“But there being no evidence?”
Actual proof that this is an athletic issue and not an academic one? No. Enough non-athletes got the same treatment to keep the NCAA out of it without a smoking gun.
LikeLike
There are many disturbing things that have been revealed about what has happened at UNC, as well as how they have responded. It’s gotten worse and worse and worse.
But what troubles me the most is the responses from two groups of people: (a) those who support UNC as though it can do no wrong, and (b) those who just want to see bad things happen to UNC.
Now, many UNC supporters are angry and embarrassed about everything. They’re tired of being ridiculed as alumni or as fans; anyone would not enjoy that. But they also know that the criticism of UNC is well-deserved. They’re mad that UNC is scapegoating Mary Willingham. They’re mad about the football scandals that happened under Butch Davis. They’re mad not at Willingham, but rather that the stuff she revealed is true. I’d feel that way, too.
But the much more vocal UNC supporters choose the wrong responses. (1) They say that the media is overblowing the problems. (2) They believe and support the administration the second it calls into question Willingham’s research (which seemed far too convenient). (3) They acknowledge that UNC has done things wrong, but they try to justify what UNC did wrong by arguing that what UNC has done is nothing compared to other schools. (For instance, they’ll point out that those UNC-CH athletes’ poor reading scores were still better than all other athletes in the UNC system.) (4) They deny that the problem is real. All those responses are concerning, but it makes wonder how supporters of other schools would respond if similar problems happened at their school.
Meanwhile, there are many people in this state who are known as “ABC” fans–Anybody But Carolina. They enjoy seeing all this unfold. They want every ounce of dirt at UNC exposed. They would love nothing more than to see people get fired, fans get further embarrassed, UNC lose reputation, and maybe even see it get kicked out of the AAU. I jokingly say these fans want to see Chapel Hill just burn to the ground. The worst ones seem to hate UNC more than they support their own school. Specifically, I’m thinking mostly not of Duke fans, but of NC State fans. Duke-UNC hoops is indeed one of the best rivalries in American sports, but that rivalry is not nearly as personal or as vicious in any other sport, or between the fanbases, as the fire that NC State fans have against UNC. It’s NC State fans who wish the most ill will upon UNC as a whole. What I have found most bothersome is that many actually believe that UNC is the only place where garbage like this happens. They’re so blinded by their hatred of UNC’s arrogance that they fail to see the bigger picture. On a larger scale, the public is being led to believe this isn’t really a college athletics problem, but rather a UNC problem.
LikeLike
Excellent post.
“They want every ounce of dirt at UNC exposed. They would love nothing more than to see people get fired, fans get further embarrassed, UNC lose reputation, and maybe even see it get kicked out of the AAU. I jokingly say these fans want to see Chapel Hill just burn to the ground. The worst ones seem to hate UNC more than they support their own school.”
You could substitute UNC for any major, athletically successful university and have the exact same paragraph. Applies nationwide. Its in no way unique to UNC.
LikeLike
Spartan fans want to see Ann Arbor burned to the ground?
I would not say that.
Boiler fans also don’t want to see Bloomington burned to the ground.
LikeLike
@Richard:
Figuratively? Yes. Literally? No.
Though, I suspect you knew that.
LikeLike
The “burned to the ground” bit is not serious, but most of the rest of it is.
Spartan fans want to see Ann Arbor burned to the ground?
Maybe not exactly that, but something pretty darned close.
Boiler fans also don’t want to see Bloomington burned to the ground.
The intensity of intra-state rivalries is not uniform.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/02/25/3653683/wainsteins-work-for-unc-could.html
They’ve just started another investigation of themselves. They hired the guy that looked into how the NCAA botched the Miami investigation.
LikeLike
Forget about The Ocho, how about The Quince? That’s Spanish for 15. I had to look it up.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/espn-launches-15-college-conference-channels-apple-tv-152305532.html
“ESPN is giving 15 college conferences their own dedicated, national TV channels stocked with live events and on-demand replays – streamed over the Internet, initially to Apple TV and Roku devices.
The sports cabler is launching the new channels through WatchESPN, the service available to subscribers of affiliated pay-TV providers. The 15 new channels aggregate conference-related programming from ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3 and ESPNews, starting with live men’s and women’s college basketball events as well as replays of college football games.
The conference channels at launch are: ACC, America East, Atlantic Sun, Big South, Big West, Horizon, Mid-American, Metro Atlantic Athletic, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Southern, Sun Belt, Southland, and a channel that combines historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that are part of the Mid-Eastern Athletic, Southwestern Athletic and Central Intercollegiate Athletic conferences.”
LikeLike
Interesting who isn’t in the group:
Pac 12
Big 12
Big 10
SEC
AAC
MWC
Big East
Atlantic 10
Conference USA
all who seem to have other contracts
along with:
Big Sky
WAC
West Coast
Summit
Ivy
Patriot
Colonial
LikeLike
3 channels away from ESPN Barely Legal.
LikeLike
ESPN delivers the ACC network.
LikeLike
More details on possible NFL Playoff expansion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2014/02/27/support-growing-within-league-for-adding-two-teams-to-nfl-playoffs/
“One particularly attractive feature could be having a first-round playoff game take place on a Monday night. The league currently seems to favor having two Saturday games, three Sunday games and one Monday night game on the opening weekend of the postseason if the change is implemented, according to a person with knowledge of the deliberations. There are now two Saturday games and two Sunday games on that playoff weekend.”
Still not a huge fan of a Monday night playoff game, but I’ll focus on the good (3 games on Sunday!!). I think ESPN gets an opportunity to bid for one playoff game with the current tv deal signed a few years ago if the playoffs are ever expanded (could be wrong, though).
Question: Would a Monday night wild card game conflict with the CFB title game, or are they in different weeks, or would they only overlap in some years?
LikeLike
It appears that in 2016, there would be a conflict:
“It could be worse in 2016 when Super Bowl L in San Francisco is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 7. Working back from there, the NFL wild-card round in a four-day format would be played Jan. 8-11. The college championship is scheduled that year for Jan. 11 at University of Phoenix Stadium.”
(The author considers a Friday night playoff game when referring to a 4 day format).
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/20140108nfls-push-more-playoffs-could-create-football-logjam.html
LikeLike
Don’t like any of it. The playoffs are too big everywhere. You have a big good regular season only to let 46.7% of the teams get a chance at the championship. I was back and forth on baseball expansion, but ended up siding with it because it put a big emphasis on winning the division rather than treating wildcards as equal (which led to some races where the top two teams didn’t seem to care about who was divisional champ), but outside that, I think these expansion moves are terrible.
LikeLike
The NFL had 12 out of 28 making the post season from 1990-1995 (10/28 before then), before it became 12/32; 12/28 is roughly the same percentage as 14/32 would be. But it is a fine line as you note.
Baseball made the right call adding a 1 game playoff to re-emphasize the benefit of winning a division.
NBA & NHL are jokes.
The bigger issue for the NFL is having 8 divisions will in most years reward an undeserving team with a home game (and even a playoff spot–like 7-9 Seattle a few years back) at the expense of a better team unlucky enough to be playing in a better division.
LikeLike
Eight divisions would be ok if there were at least 64 teams…
LikeLike
Maryland joining Texas in selling booze at collegiate athletic events?
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/campus/article_9295c59c-9f6e-11e3-b3e2-0017a43b2370.html
LikeLike
Syracuse does at the Carrier Dome.
LikeLike
Did not know that.
I thought UWV was the only school to sell booze at on-campus athletic events. Its smart for the schools to monetize what kids/fans will merely do in the parking lot/dorm/frat house before games.
LikeLike
Well, I was way off. Something like three dozen schools do.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20131012-smu-not-the-only-school-wanting-to-boost-school-spirits.ece
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/texas-considers-game-day-beer-sales-louisville-1-210117528–ncaaf.html
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/07/10/good-question-how-many-colleges-sell-beer-at-sports-stadiums/
http://www.footballscoop.com/news/9256-a-look-at-beer-sales-at-college-football-venues
LikeLike
At the West Virginia/LSU game in 2011, they ran out of beer in the visitors’ section.
West Virginia started selling beer in conjunction with eliminating out-passes during the game. My understanding was that fans could come and go as they pleased, often times going back out to the tailgate for another drink. At West Virginia, more beer and less moonshine is probably a good thing from a crowd control standpoint.
No SEC schools allow out-passes. I’ve attended a few TCU games and they allow it.
Do B1G schools allow out-passes?
LikeLike
That WVU story reminds me of my favorite tale of visiting fans and beer:
http://www.cougcenter.com/2013/8/30/4678272/wsu-coug-cougs-fans-auburn-football-bar-runs-out-of-beer
I’m curious about the out-passes for B1G schools.
LikeLike
wainscot – The same thing happened to LSU fans in Seattle a few years ago. One particular bar near the U-Dub campus had been advertising for weeks in Baton Rouge as the official Seattle bar for the LSU Tigers. When I showed up about three hours before kick-off, I noticed all my fellow Tigers drinking unpopular imports and micro-brews. The bar had run out of all domestics and popular imports by noon.
LikeLike
Some B1G schools use to allow pass outs but not anymore. Most just have to smuggle in the booze. Minnesota is now selling beer at their stadium. At Wisconsin there are a lot fans with tickets that never make it into the game because they want to keep the party going outside the stadium. Or people make it in very late. I don’t think it should be as big a deal as some of these school make.it.
I’ve been to Marquette basketball games and they sell alcohol and there has never been any noticeable problems.
LikeLike
But did you clean the place out of these second-tier brews?
Though, the image of Huey Long drinking some microbrew does have ma laughing pretty hard.
LikeLike
Alan:
Down the road from UW (at OrSU) there is a degree program in fermentation science. Micro’s haven’t displaced standard domestics by any means, but they have dented the market.
LikeLike
Wainscott – I was told that by kick-off all the beer, whiskey and vodka was gone.
cc – I’m well aware of the popularity of micro-brews. In south Louisiana, Abita is as easy to find as any domestic. I was just pointing out that three hours before kick-off, there was nothing left to drink.
LikeLike
UC Davis and Apalachian state offer degrees in formulating the nectar of the gods also.
LikeLike
“I was told that by kick-off all the beer, whiskey and vodka was gone.”
Attaboy!
LikeLike
Interesting Q&A with UW’s Chris Petersen:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140227/chris-petersen-washington-huskies/
LikeLike
Other tidbits (courtesy of a slow work day):
UF & FSU extend through 2018: http://tracking.si.com/2014/02/27/florida-florida-state-extend-series-2018/ (Good. Both should extend/restart annual series with Miami, too.)
Pitt cancels Spring Game that entertained only 3,642 fans last year: http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/27/pitt-football-spring-game/ (Pitt football: Catch the Fever!)
Baylor’s new stadium looks very cool: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24457460/baylors-new-mclane-stadium-will-host-pregame-sail-gating
LikeLike
UF & FSU extend through 2018: http://tracking.si.com/2014/02/27/florida-florida-state-extend-series-2018/ (Good. Both should extend/restart annual series with Miami, too.)
Miami and FSU play annually by virtue of having a protected game in the same league.
UF doesn’t want to commit to playing Miami every year when the SEC might go to 9 games. That would leave them with 11 out of 12 games locked in every year.
LikeLike
“Miami and FSU play annually by virtue of having a protected game in the same league.”
Brainfart. My bad.
“UF doesn’t want to commit to playing Miami every year when the SEC might go to 9 games. That would leave them with 11 out of 12 games locked in every year.”
Yep. but one of the fan sacrifices.
LikeLike
Florida’s AD said that if they ever play Miami again it will have to be at a neutral site because the school lost $6 million on the series.
LikeLike
How? Why?
Does he mean compared to 2 patsies at home?
LikeLike
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/09/02/last-game-for-a-while-between-miami-florida/
I can’t find the article that had more details, but this one has some quotes from the AD
Saturday’s game between the 10th-ranked Gators and the Hurricanes in Miami, the in-state rivals might not play each other for a while — at least not in the regular season.
“You never say never, but it’s really, really difficult,” Florida athletic director Jeremy Foley said Monday.
…
“People don’t want to hear this, but it’s the fact of the matter,” he said. “When you take a home game out of here, it cost you significant dollars. … You can’t do that every other year and try to run a sports program at the level we’re trying to run it.
“I think everybody thinks that’s not a big deal. Well, it’s a big deal.”
Florida set aside $700,000 over the last four years to offset the loss of a home game in 2013, Foley said.
The best chance the series has of being renewed — aside from a bowl game — would be as a neutral-site venture, Foley said.
LikeLike
Ok, looks like I may have confused what Florida nets from a home game vs. the gross ticket revenue
According to this
http://espn.go.com/colleges/florida/football/story/_/id/8629371/florida-gators-spending-more-money-nonconference-wins
UF will play only six home games next season because of the game at Miami, but Howard said the school has set aside $750,000 annually in 2010, 2011 and this season to make up for the loss of the $2.5 million.
LikeLike
700K X 4 = 2.8K not equal to 6M.
LikeLike
OK, read your second post.
LikeLike
Fans just need to not show up for the Citadel’s and such that Florida play. UGA hired an assistant AD from Florida and he set up games like that and it is costing UGA with empty seats and lack of concessions. There was an Alabama student quoted as saying it was boring with Alabama destroying everyone. Yet Alabama still schedules a Georgia State in its first year of football or a Georgia Southern. The drop in interest isn’t all about changes in generations.
Fans of schools like that need to hit the schools in the pocketbooks to stop this ridiculous scheduling that isn’t interesting and isn’t competitive.
LikeLike
Personally, I would love for UF to resume its annual series with Miami. I would much rather have a home and home with Miami than a neutral site game against Michigan in Texas and I would MUCH rather see Miami every year than an FCS school.
LikeLike
Seeing my Nittany Lions back on the schedule cannot come soon enough for the Pitiful Panthers. I do not care what the Coach says this is not good when it comes to Recruiting (particularly when competing against Penn State & West Virginia for local recruits).
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/68383728/nebraska-cornhuskers-football-may-need-to-part-with-bo-pelini-to-move-into-the-future
A look at NE’s future.
LikeLike
Good article. Pelini seems to be another Solich (57-24 vs. 58-19 over 6 seasons) down to the identical mediocre recruiting (UNL recruiting wasn’t ever otherworldly under Osborne or Callahan, but both did a bit better than Solich and Pelini). Of course, the last time they replaced a Solich, they got a Callahan, who did worse on the field.
Still, the author’s correct that if UNL wants to win titles of some sort, they need to be unique again (as they were for so long with their power I-option game).
The local talent suggests that going the Wisconsin/Stanford route may be easiest (though Wisconsin struggles to beat teams with a lot more athletes; they rack up those win totals by consistently almost always beating (and beating up) teams with the same amount or less of athleticism).
A flashy offense like Oregon’s or Briles’ is higher risk but also higher potential reward. Could they entice Scott Frost back? He has extensive experience recruiting the West Coast (which UNL has to draw at least 2-3 elite recruits from each year in order to realistically think about winning much).
Briles has deep TX ties. They could borrow Iowa’s playbook, who hired a Texan with a creative playbook (one who actually played at Baylor and went down to TX to get players often) to take them up the football hierarchy.
LikeLike
They could borrow Iowa’s playbook, who hired a Texan with a creative playbook
@Richard – Are you talking about Greg Davis?
LikeLike
Think he’s talking about Hayden Fry.
LikeLike
Yep Hayden Fry.
LikeLike
Then again, if Hayden Fry achieved at UNL what he acheived at Iowa (only 3 conference titles, 3 seasons with less than 2 conference losses, and no major bowl wins in 20 years), he probably would have been run out of town instead of being seen as a local coaching legend.
As a comparison, Osborne had 14, 19, and 9 over 25 years coaching in the same era.
LikeLike
Which is why I think it isn’t a matter of if, but when Nebraska will be back to Nebraska standards. Other than the local recruiting grounds Nebraska has everything needed (expectations, money, facilities, support) and the institutional desire to apply those resources.
LikeLike
“Other than the local recruiting grounds . . .”
That’s big, though.
UNL is sort of the antithesis of Miami (insanely good recruiting grounds . . . and Miami Beach, but virtually nothing else).
The recent national champions have all had all 3 of institutional support/brand, money, and good local recruiting grounds, however.
The last school to win a national title while not being in the top 25 in athletic department revenues was Miami in 2001.
However, the last school to win a national title while not being at least adjacent to states with a bunch of recruits is UNL in 1997 (Tennessee, who won in 1998, and OU, who won in 2000, aren’t talent-rich states, but they abut very fertile recruiting grounds).
In fact, from 2001 on, every school that won the national title has had a ton of money and been in a state that is in the top 11 in producing NFL talent (small-population AL is 11th, but also adjacent to both talent-rich GA and super talent-rich FL).
LikeLike
Nebraska already runs a spread offense (like Baylor or Oregon) except their version contains much more of the power game for life in the Big Ten. So in that sense its unique. Going back to the Solich days I remember pundits talking about how the option game was unappealing to recruits and was directly responsible for the Solich struggles. Scott Frost would have come back for the OC position but Pelini wanted keep Tim Beck there.
I know I’ve mentioned this to you before but (IMHO) Pelini’s biggest problem has been roster management. It has been his biggest weakness and has directly kept them from getting over the proverbial hump. For example:
1) He has refused to over sign which has resulted in him going into fall camp with less than 85 recruited scholarship players. This amounts to an unnecessary self imposed probation. Typically Pelini will give walk on players scholarships to get up to the 85 player limit. If I remember correctly, he gave out more than 5 last year to walk ons. No one loves a walk on more than a Nebraska fan, but walk ons are already on campus. An additional 5 recruited players should have been in the program getting ready. For the record, I’m not advocating for the (unfairly named) SEC style over signing but there is a reason the B1G allows the +3 on signing day.
2) Neglect of positions. For what ever reason there is always a position group or two that doesn’t have the numbers it should. This year DE, where there are three scholarship players returning, one new JUCO, and two freshman for the fall. Nebraska is dangerously close to a complete disaster if the JUCO and the freshman aren’t ready. Last year was LB. The complete inexperience (one junior (coming off lost year to injury) one sophomore, 5 freshman) was directly responsible for a lot of the struggles Nebraska had on defense early in the year. In 2012, it was a lack of defensive tackles that forced Nebraska to start a 240 pound DE at DT in the Big Ten championship game. There isn’t much wonder as to why Wisconsin ran wild.
Pelini and his staff do a lot of things right. I have no issues with their talent evaluation, development, or coaching. I appreciate that they don’t have major behavioral issues and seem genuinely concerned that players go to class. Nebraska isn’t that far off. Bo just needs to make his roster an asset not a liability.
LikeLike
Mike,
“1) He has refused to over sign which has resulted in him going into fall camp with less than 85 recruited scholarship players.”
The B10 doesn’t really allow him to oversign. He can only go over his number by 3 spots and has to provide a written explanation to the B10 HQ explaining how he got down to 85. So unless he’s aware of some upcoming departures that just aren’t public yet, he can’t oversign. Maybe he’s doing a bad job of this, but more likely it’s just how the B10 works. Every school faces this.
“This amounts to an unnecessary self imposed probation. Typically Pelini will give walk on players scholarships to get up to the 85 player limit. If I remember correctly, he gave out more than 5 last year to walk ons.”
Tressel did this too, and he won a lot more than Pelini has.
LikeLike
Brian – I would be very surprised if Tressel was giving out scholarships to walk ons at the rate Nebraska has under Pelini. The point is Pelini has not used his roster as effectively. He has actually undersigned (1 or 2 academic non qualifiers) and neglected positions. Doing both is playing with fire and sometimes you will get burnt.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Brian – I would be very surprised if Tressel was giving out scholarships to walk ons at the rate Nebraska has under Pelini.”
Actually, Tressel was renowned for doing just that.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
From 2002-2010, OSU recruited 180 players (20.0/year). Only NW recruited fewer players in the B10 (170). Nationally, the only others lower were Stanford, WF and GT. Purdue was tops in the B10 at 218, just to give you a range. Auburn was #1 overall at 253. NE had 210 over that period (not all Pelini, I know).
“The point is Pelini has not used his roster as effectively. He has actually undersigned (1 or 2 academic non qualifiers) and neglected positions. Doing both is playing with fire and sometimes you will get burnt.”
I wasn’t arguing your other points, just letting you know that giving scholarships to walk-ons has been done successfully in the B10.
LikeLike
Also, that first comment in the article is terrific:
“Without giving too much away, I have firsthand knowledge of Pelini and his team. While most of this article is dead on, there is one main reason why Pelini hasn’t and likely won’t compete for national championships. It does have to do with recruiting, but probably not in the way that most people think, especially considering Pelini’s national image.
Most people who’ve never actually met him, see Pelini as a crude, brash, hot-headed jerk, which isn’t accurate at all. He is certainly intense, but he is actually very respectful and reasonable. What’s holding him back professionally is that he has extremely high expectations of his players off the field. He does not put up with issues in the classroom or in the community, regardless of how good you are. This is nice because you don’t hear much about Husker players getting into big trouble and the team GPA and grad rates are stellar. However some players are just unable to handle his demands of accountability, which is why you’ve seen a number of players leave the program in recent years. Similarly, Pelini is unwilling to recruit low character guys in the first place, which naturally puts him at a disadvantage.
Many people laud Osborne for being a coach and person of great integrity, but he recruited a lot of, for lack of a better term, thugs. And most people (even most Nebraskans) don’t know it, but he did little to control their actions while playing at Nebraska. Osborne won championships because he had some of the best athletes in the country and didn’t always care if they were beating up their girlfriends or robbing gas stations. In an age of little internet, let alone social media, you could get away with that much easier. Pelini simply won’t take risks on guys like that and it has and will continue to affect his ability to win games.
The question for Nebraska fans is whether they want teams that stay out of trouble and are consistently good, with an outside shot of being contenders. Or do you want teams that have potentially really high highs that may also come with really low lows as well i.e. Penn State, USC, Auburn, Miami, among countless others.
Unfortunately (at least to me), our society brushes of pretty significant transgressions as long as you’re winning enough. So, in that aspect, many see Pelini as failing. But I can honestly say that from the perspective of the players and their families, things have never been better at Nebraska.”
LikeLike
At least one part does ring true:
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209332873
“In Bo Pelini’s six seasons as Nebraska head coach, the Huskers have had 11 first- or second-team academic All-America picks. The 11 academic All-Americans in the past six seasons is the second-most in the country in that time period, trailing only Penn State’s 14 honorees in the same period.”
though
“Spencer Long’s first-team selection gives Nebraska 69 CoSIDA first-team Academic All-America picks, and the additional second-team honorees give the Huskers 107 all-time first- or second-team academic All-Americans in football. Notre Dame is second in the nation with 58 football academic All-Americans.”
LikeLike
I understand that Fox owns 51% and the BIG owns 49%, but what happens after the original contract ends(not sure if that is 20 years). Does the BIG own the whole network? If that is the case wouldn’t their payouts at least double from BIG network.
LikeLike
Depends on how it is being split now. I’d assume it would increase, but not necessarily double. You’d have some new costs and responsibilities to take on.
LikeLike
My guess is that the ownership structure remains the same (51% FOX, 49% Big Ten), but at that point, the contract to show Big Ten games and use the Big Ten names runs out. At that point, the conference could sign those rights to anyone or even create a new network.
Now realistically, unless things change and the Big Ten decides that the time to get out of their own network, the Big Ten Network will remain and re-sign. FOX might have to give up some ownership though in order to get the Big Ten to re-sign with the BTN or else pay extra.
LikeLike
Reverts to full B1G ownership.
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike
See here:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Big-Ten-Could-Reap-$28B-From-Network-Deal.aspx
“News Corp. projects that the Big Ten Network could pay $2.8 billion to the Big Ten Conference over the 25-year life of its deal to operate the channel, according to the media company’s most recent 10-Q federal filing, which provided the first glimpse of its agreement with the conference.
The Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp. has a 20-year contract with the Big Ten, with an option for five more years.”
Operate the network is the key word. Like a contract between an owner of real estate and a building management company to run the building on a day to day basis (collect rent, pay maintenance staff, maintenance costs). The 51% ownership for 25/30 years is so Fox recoups its initial investments before the deal to manage the network expires. The channel will not dissolve when the deal expires.
Or, as 21st Century Fox states in SEC filings, “In July 2007, the Company entered into a contract with the Big Ten Conference for rights to telecast certain Big Ten Conference sporting events through fiscal 2032. The Company will pay approximately $2.8 billion over the term of the contract for these rights.” (http://investor.21cf.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-08-21537&CIK=1308161 “)
The network is a fancy version of the classic tv broadcasting agreements of money for rights to broadcast games.
Also:
“In June 2006, the Big Ten inked a 10-year, $1 billion deal with ESPN that runs through 2017. That contract is for first-tier broadcast rights, for games that air nationally.
For second-tier rights, which are for games not chosen by ESPN, the Big Ten has a 25-year, $2.8 billion deal signed in August 2006 with the Big Ten Network through 2032.
Los Angeles-based Fox Entertainment Group took a 51 percent stake in the Big Ten Network in 2010, with the conference being the largest minority owner.
The conference also has a six-year, $145 million deal with Fox Sports to air the Big Ten football championship game through 2016.”
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20121125/SUB01/311259970/big-ten-expansion-a-money-game
And: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/05/televison-contract-breakdown/
LikeLike
Interesting wrinkle in Bobby Petrino’s U of L contract:
LikeLike
2014-15 Big Ten men’s and women’s basketball pairings have been announced (the women are returning to an 18-game conference schedule for the first time since 2009-10):
Men
ILLINOIS
Home: Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Away: Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue
INDIANA
Home: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Penn State
Away: Illinois, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
IOWA
Home: Illinois, Maryland, Michigan State, Rutgers
Away: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
Home/Away: Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
MARYLAND
Home: Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Away: Illinois, Iowa, Ohio State, Purdue
Home/Away: Indiana, Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers
MICHIGAN
Home: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Away: Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue
Home/Away: Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers
MICHIGAN STATE
Home: Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Away: Iowa, Nebraska, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern
MINNESOTA
Home: Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers
Away: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State
Home/Away: Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
NEBRASKA
Home: Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Rutgers
Away: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Home/Away: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin
NORTHWESTERN
Home: Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Away: Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rutgers
Home/Away: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin
OHIO STATE
Home: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Away: Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers
Home/Away: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
PENN STATE
Home: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Purdue
Away: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern
Home/Away: Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
PURDUE
Home: Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska
Away: Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers
RUTGERS
Home: Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Away: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Home/Away: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
WISCONSIN
Home: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue
Away: Maryland, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers
Home/Away: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State
Women
Illinois
Home: Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Away: Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Home/Away: Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue
Indiana
Home: Illinois, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Away: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Penn State
Home/Away: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Iowa
Home: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
Away: Illinois, Maryland, Michigan State, Rutgers
Home/Away: Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Maryland
Home: Illinois, Iowa, Ohio State, Purdue
Away: Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Indiana, Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan
Home: Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue
Away: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers
Michigan State
Home: Iowa, Nebraska, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Away: Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Home/Away: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern
Minnesota
Home: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State
Away: Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers
Home/Away: Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Nebraska
Home: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Away: Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Rutgers
Home/Away: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern
Home: Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rutgers
Away: Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Home/Away: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin
Ohio State
Home: Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers
Away: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
Penn State
Home: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern
Away: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Purdue
Home/Away: Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Purdue
Home: Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Wisconsin
Away: Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska
Home/Away: Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State, Rutgers
Rutgers
Home: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Away: Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
Wisconsin
Home: Maryland, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers
Away: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue
Home/Away: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State
Looks like a “mirror” schedule with largely regionalized home-and-home pairings.
LikeLike
Have IU HaH with both newbies.
With MSU, UMD (the more basketball-focused school) gets the stronger bball slate. RU got the stronger football slate.
Hmm. Every B10 school gets to visit an East Coast metropolis except Northwestern.
LikeLike
I don’t expect MSU to be too good next season if you take away Payne, Harris & Appling.
LikeLike
MSU has been constantly re-loading for decades. I would be surprised if Izzo suddenly forgot how to replace departing talent.
LikeLike
vp19,
“2014-15 Big Ten men’s and women’s basketball pairings have been announced (the women are returning to an 18-game conference schedule for the first time since 2009-10):
Men
…
OHIO STATE
Home: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Away: Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers
Home/Away: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
…
Women
…
Ohio State
Home: Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers
Away: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
…
Looks like a “mirror” schedule with largely regionalized home-and-home pairings.”
As a Buckeye fan I certainly can’t complain. The big question is how many of those 5 home and homes are locked. I’d be happy to keep 4 of the 5 and let the IA slot rotate. That’s 4 of our 5 neighbors.
LikeLike
I’d lock in two to three home-and-homes geographically…
Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
…and rotate the “extra” games to fill out to 18.
This apparently would be a change in Big Ten policy, which has no locked-in h-and-h for men’s and women’s hoops whatsoever. I don’t understand why Indiana-Purdue, Michigan State-Michigan and such aren’t protected, but then again I’m a relative newcomer to B1G machinations.
LikeLike
Big Ten did full round robin pre-Penn State. Maintained 18 games after PSU joined instead go keeping a full round robin at 20.
See: http://btn.com/2014/02/18/dienhart-the-future-of-b1g-hoops-schedules/
Of note is this:
“A big casualty in this will continue to be even more deterioration of rivalry games. But, Big Ten senior associate commissioner Mark Rudner says it’s up to conference A.D.s to recommend protecting rivalries. And he says Big Ten athletic directors have made no such request.
“Actually, they’ve directed us not to do that as we do in football,” Rudner told Zach Osterman of the Indianapolis Star. “They believe, in basketball, there should be a rotation of teams that you only play one time. Over the course of time, everybody is affected equally.””
LikeLike
vp19,
“I’d lock in two to three home-and-homes geographically…
Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
…and rotate the “extra” games to fill out to 18.”
Some of the rivalries are a little different in hoops. IN/OSU is important to OSU (Bobby Knight, shared border, hoops is big in western OH) while OSU/IL is just another game, for example.
I’d be OK with your plan, but I’m not a huge hoops fan. Duffman probably has more to say on that issue.
“This apparently would be a change in Big Ten policy, which has no locked-in h-and-h for men’s and women’s hoops whatsoever. I don’t understand why Indiana-Purdue, Michigan State-Michigan and such aren’t protected, but then again I’m a relative newcomer to B1G machinations.”
My guess is that there were several driving factors:
1. Nobody wanted to sacrifice games against IU or MSU.
2. None of the rivalries are big enough to make a big difference in TV money.
3. Not everyone really has hoops rivals, so they don’t want locked games.
4. Nobody wanted to get locked games against terrible programs.
Most fans agree it’s dumb not to lock at least some games.
LikeLike
Swung by here for the first time in a week or so to see what people are talking about. I cannot believe you guys are still arguing back and forth for dozens of posts about the B1G raiding the ACC. That ship has sailed, my friends. Apparently FSU was a bridge too far academically and geographically for the B1G, the SEC wasn’t interested in duplicating markets, and FSU didn’t think joining the Big 12 would be an upgrade over the ACC. And UNC didn’t see the appeal of either leaving behind their friends, neighbors, and culture to join the great white north Yankee B1G, but didn’t want to leave the genteel ACC for the rif-raf of the SEC as long as the ACC can hold together. So there was no seismic event to break the ACC apart. In fact, they strengthened their position like never before by adding Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Pitt.
I know lusting after the ACC’s prized parts is a hobby for some of you, but it’s a foolish waste of time at this point. We’ll be old men (if we aren’t already) or dead in the ground before something like that is even possible again, and even if it is odds are it won’t happen.
LikeLike
I know lusting after the ACC’s prized parts is a hobby for some of you, but it’s a foolish waste of time at this point.
I think most of the discussion is about what might/might-not happen, regardless of whether we personally favor that outcome.
We’ll be old men (if we aren’t already) or dead in the ground before something like that is even possible again…
Actually, only the mid-2020s, and the odds are that most people who post here will still be alive then.
You don’t seem to grasp the double-headed nature of the Grant of Rights. On the one hand, it prevents schools from leaving for now. On the other hand, they clearly thought they needed it, so at least some of the ACC’s members must have believed that further defections were a clear possibility.
As long as they believe that, why should we disagree?
…odds are it won’t happen.
Most re-alignment scenarios don’t happen. But if you look back on the history of re-alignment, you’d have to be pretty dumb to believe that re-alignment is finished. The only questions are what and when, not if.
LikeLike
Hope springs eternal, doesn’t it?
I think the odds of the ACC breaking up or losing any key pieces within the next 20+ years is slim to none, but yes, it’s theoretically possible at some point in the 2020s I guess. May as well hold your breath, right?
LikeLike
Also, the B1G and Pac 12 have grant of rights? Are they worried about schools leaving?
But yes, the ACC did lose Maryland. So they do have a memory of losing a school to work with.
Could are there schools who might leave if given the right deal? Who knows? Maybe Pitt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Louisville? Maybe some of them would leave for the SEC or B1G if given the chance. But they won’t be. None of those schools would be worth it on their own. They’re not grand prizes.
I suppose the B1G could decide that Virginia is worth plucking in 2025, and they could take a partner that helps out their markets somewhere… maybe Virginia Tech, Syracuse, something like that. Maybe they can bite off those chunks. But so what if they do? It’s not a game changer. Just a repeat of the Maryland/Rutgers land grab. A real yawner.
The wet dream you’re all drooling over is some crazy scenario where the B1G gobbles up UNC and Duke and Georgia Tech and everything else and invades the south and wins the game of Realignment Risk, but that’s just a crackpot notion that’s kicked around on this forum and not taken seriously anywhere else.
LikeLike
…the B1G and Pac 12 have grant of rights? Are they worried about schools leaving?
I don’t recall the news when tho B1G and P12 agreements were signed. But every sports analyst on the planet thought that the ACC’s GOR was a move to keep the league together.
If you don’t think that John Swofford negotiated the GOR because he was worried about schools leaving, then you need more help than I am able to give you.
LikeLike
I believe the B1G and PAC GOR’s were executed as a strategy leading up to media negotiations. However unlikely a defection from either conference the added guarantee that the content negotiated for in that contract would remain for the full term is of value in negotiation. The ACC GOR wasn’t created to enhance a negotiation but rather the reverse, to prevent defection during the current contract. In the long term it is the same thing. It will strengthen their position for the next negotiation, assuming all the schools renew the GOR long term prior to that negotiation.
LikeLike
Thanks, that makes sense.
As FTT once pointed out, the fact that the ACC and B12 both lost schools they wanted to keep, is a pretty clear indication that they had fundamental weaknesses. One would need to be pretty foolish not to recognize that the ACC has long-term concerns that its stronger neighbors simply don’t have. We aren’t all that far removed from FSU’s refusal to vote in favor of the increased exit fee. If that isn’t a strong indication that the Seminoles were willing to consider better offers, I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
@Marc:
Don’t forget that Swofford had to personally fly to Charlottesville to pitch the GoR plan to UVA. Why would he do that unless he was legit concerned that the school was considering other options? Of course the ACC’s GoR was done from reactive weakness, not proactive strength.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t recall the news when tho B1G and P12 agreements were signed.”
The B10’s GoR started in 1988, the year before Delany joined. I don’t know if that’s right before a TV negotiation or not. The P12 signed one just after Scott joined, probably due to P12N interest.
Click to access BigTenslick.pdf
BTW, here’s a look at TV data for some B10 hoops games back in the early 90s.
LikeLike
@Brian:
Can you link to an article re: the 1988 start of the Big Ten’s GoR? I thought the conference always split all media money equally, going back to radio and early TV, local or national.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Can you link to an article re: the 1988 start of the Big Ten’s GoR?”
The Big Ten and Pac-12 members have signed grants of rights, which basically give all of the television rights from each university’s sports to the conference for a specified number of years. If a member switches conferences, the rights cannot be transferred. The Big Ten has had this arrangement since 1988, the year before Commissioner Jim Delany arrived. The Pac-12 members did so, soon after Scott took office.
“I thought the conference always split all media money equally, going back to radio and early TV, local or national.”
You don’t have to have a GoR to split everything equally. The GoR just formalizes the arrangement. Perhaps they did it knowing they’d be looking into expansion soon.
LikeLike
@Brian:
Thanks for the link.
I read the 1988 GoR as a formalizing the equal distribution of TV revenue for games that previously would not have been televised (rise or cable/Raycom televising many more games locally, etc…). Indeed, the Big Ten as a conference has pooled all TV rights and equally distributed all TV revenues since 1955 (See: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/2013-fb-mediaguide.pdf –Page 3) Probably was a mere memorialization of past Conference agreements but applied to newly-valuable TV rights.
Though, the GoR could also have been a desired precursor to expansion (as you noted), or a required legal formality after the Big Ten re-incorporated in Delaware in 1987.
LikeLike
The GOR has nothing to do with equal sharing. It only assures that those rights will be shared by whatever formula the conference adopts for the length of the grant. The B1G equal partners far predates television and extends to a (although not equal) a gate revenue sharing plan. Googled this up:
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football/
LikeLike
cc
“I believe the B1G and PAC GOR’s were executed as a strategy leading up to media negotiations. However unlikely a defection from either conference the added guarantee that the content negotiated for in that contract would remain for the full term is of value in negotiation. The ACC GOR wasn’t created to enhance a negotiation but rather the reverse, to prevent defection during the current contract. In the long term it is the same thing. It will strengthen their position for the next negotiation, assuming all the schools renew the GOR long term prior to that negotiation.”
All GORs are created to enhance a negotiation, including the ACC GOR. The ACC GOR may have prevented further defections, but I doubt that the ACC GOR would have been signed unless ESPN first agreed to substantially sweeten the ACC’s media payments. There are countless reports that ESPN has committed to either 1) jointly establish an ACC network or 2) increase per team payouts to at least $20M. Given the under-valued status of the ACC-ESPN contract, there was no financial incentive for UVA or UNC to sign a GOR.
Also, the fact that the SEC was able to execute its lucrative media contract without a GOR suggests that their is some concern with membership stability in the PAC and B1G. Compared to the real, recent defections experienced by the B12 & ACC, the risks to the PAC & B1G may have been minor…but either media entities or the conferences understood the these risks needed to be mitigated. USC (via AD Haden) suggested that it would review its options when non-SoCal teams first requested equal revenue sharing. Alvarez stated that admitting UMD & Rutgers was partly a defensive move to ensure that Penn State does not have wandering-eyes.
LikeLike
Pablo,
“All GORs are created to enhance a negotiation, including the ACC GOR.”
Not necessarily. That can be a side benefit and not the main motivation.
“but I doubt that the ACC GOR would have been signed unless ESPN first agreed to substantially sweeten the ACC’s media payments.”
That’s chicken and egg. They way I recall it, ESPN told them they would pay more for conference stability. The ACC signed the GoR to provide that stability and as a result got a raise.
“There are countless reports that ESPN has committed to either 1) jointly establish an ACC network or 2) increase per team payouts to at least $20M.”
There were countless reports about many things in expansion and few were correct.
“Given the under-valued status of the ACC-ESPN contract, there was no financial incentive for UVA or UNC to sign a GOR.”
Sure there was. ESPN paid them more for one.
“Also, the fact that the SEC was able to execute its lucrative media contract without a GOR suggests that their is some concern with membership stability in the PAC and B1G.”
The B10 signed one in the late 80s. Before that, their last membership change was adding MSU in the 50s. After that, they proceeded to add PSU almost immediately and also had talks with ND and UT among others. I highly doubt instability was a driving force for them. Legal reasons were a likely driver, formalizing the revenue sharing principles after the B10 incorporated and before any new members were added.
LikeLike
Pablo:
“…the fact that the SEC was able to execute its lucrative media contract without a GOR suggests that their is some concern with membership stability in the PAC and B1G.”
No, it tells you the value of the sec inventory to the bidders without the guarantee a GOR would add.
The B1G and PAC were able to do their GOR’s with little fanfare as hey were done because of their stability, not as a structure to enforce pseudo stability. They got a few perks and potentials, but not a big new contract. As I said in the long run it is the same, as long as the schools are secure/stable/committed enough to extend the GOR long term well before it is due to expire.
LikeLike
@Andy:
“Also, the B1G and Pac 12 have grant of rights? Are they worried about schools leaving?”
No.
The Big Ten has something like a GoR for TV revenue since the 1950’s. This is a conference that also did, and still does to a lesser extent, share all gate revenue equally (lower cap on revenue shared nowsdays, but principle is there). Not to mention, the conference in the 1950’s, when it was actually run by faculty representatives from each school (hence the former legal name of the conference, the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives) created the CIC, to pool academic resources and get purchasing discounts, among other benefits.
Equal sharing (seemingly socialistic) has been at the core of the conference to a major degree since the 1950’s, and I believe the gate revenue sharing dates back to the early 1900’s. The idea that the B1G’s GoR is somehow a mere defensive mechanism to forestall any raids on member schools is simply contrary to the conference’s history. The only school to ever leave the conference did so due to a change in the universities institutional philosophy which led directly to an extreme competitive imbalance/disadvantage for that school. (Actually, Chicago went from the Big Ten to dropping football for 25 years and now plays in DIII). Its the only conference to never lose a member that still plays at the highest level of collegiate athletics. Thats not a coincidence. The SEC does not have one presumably in part to a free market belief that a school should be able to enjoy the full fruits of its labor/investment, whereas the Big Ten views a conference as the mere sum of its member institutions. Then again, its not a coincidence that the SEC schools realized a financial windfall for pooling its media rights. Between the Big Ten and the NFL, about the only place socialism works in practice is in athletics.
Bottom line:
Anyone who says the B1G or the Pac12 agreed to a GoR out of fear is simply incorrect.
LikeLike
Ahem…
Have you checked where our health care ranks? Even Taiwan whos capitalism makes us look Marxist has a highly regarded socialized health care system.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
I have no idea about Taiwan’s health care system, only that it has 23 million people. Far easier to do something like that for a smaller amount of people. Same applies to athletics (NFL among 32 teams, B1G among 12/14 schools).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But if you look back on the history of re-alignment, you’d have to be pretty dumb to believe that re-alignment is finished.”
Remember who you’re talking to.
LikeLike
ooh, Brian’s melting his boycott of me. Insulting me through surrogates. Before you know it he’ll be obsessively ranting at me for dozens of posts, just like the good old days.
LikeLike
A hobby far healthier than obsessing about the B10 opting for Nebraska over Missouri or bashing the B10’s additions of Maryland & Rutgers.
LikeLike
Not really. The Nebraska vs Missouri thing actually happened in real life, as did the B1G adding Maryland and Rutgers, so it’s worth talking about from time to time. Whereas the B1G adding UNC, Duke, etc will likely never, ever happen, so it isn’t even really worth mentioning at all.
LikeLike
You’re a twat.
LikeLike
Guess that means I hit close to the mark.
LikeLike
The Nebraska vs Missouri thing actually happened in real life, as did the B1G adding Maryland and Rutgers….
Before those moves happened, there were plenty of Internet commentators who insisted that they couldn’t, shouldn’t, or wouldn’t. Obviously, if you talk about re-alignment, you have to expect that a high percentage of the possibilities won’t occur. But some always do.
You also seem to be stuck in the irrational belief that if we discuss something, we necessarily want it to happen, or even think that it will.
As I said above, you must be pretty dumb if you think re-alignment is over, given that, in the history of college sports, re-alignment has been more-or-less continuous. Has there ever been a 20-year period when the membership of all the power conferences—define that term however you want—stayed the same? I doubt it.
I’d say it’s practically guaranteed that, by 2030, at least one of the P5 will have at least one new member.
LikeLike
Where did I ever say realignement was over? I just don’t think that the B1G has a snowballs chance in hell of winning realignment risk, expanding into a Big 20, invading the south, and grabbing up all the best pieces of the ACC. That was always a ridiculous crackpot theory and some of you will never let it die even though it’s obviously dead in the cold cold ground.
LikeLike
Or the fact that many athletic directors and even Jim Delaney have publicly stated they don’t think expansion is over. There opinions carry a bit more weight than yours, andy.
LikeLike
“Asked how he envisioned expanding the Big Ten past 14 schools, he replied: “I can’t. We don’t have any plans. We are not active.”
With Rutgers and Maryland about to join, adding 20 to 25 percent to the “demographic footprint,” Delany said, “we will need extra elbow grease to make everyone feel a part of it. We need to work harder to make them feel welcome.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-delany-night-games-spt-0228-20140228,0,3418136.story
LikeLike
Wolverine, expansion might not be over for some of the other leagues, but it’s over for the B1G.
LikeLike
You say that but the B10’s athletic directors are as vocal as anyone that expansion isn’t likely over. I think it’s inevitable that we’ll see a consolidation of the power conferences and we’ll lose another one of the power five (down from six) in the next twenty years and it won’t be any of the B10, SEC or Pac 12…
B10 and SEC are far more powerful and wealthier than their neighbors in the ACC, Big XII. Unless the B10’s upcoming TV contract isn’t near as high as most project or the SEC Network struggles mightily (very unlikely imo), I find it hard to see members of the ACC, Big XII sitting by while they see their neighbors they are competing with on the football field making far more money…
One issue you never give it’s due in the last round of alignment is the B10 put a massive amount of value on taking away the NYC->D.C. corridor away from the ACC. In doing so, they were able to call the Northeast B10 country, when the ACC largely had control over that region. B10 really values airing Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska football & basketball games on televisions in NYC, Jersey, Maryland, DC.
LikeLike
I think the B12 is more vulnerable going forward. While the ACC lost a charter member in a major market, it gained a university with a better athletic department in the key sports. Not to mention, it is firmly ensconced in the warm bosom of Mother ESPN.
The B12, outside of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas basketball, just does not have the same impact, and has less critical markets. No to mention, any reasonable expansion candidate for the Big 12 does not really equal the schools the conference lost (Neb, Colo, Mizzou are not replaced by TCU as well as, say, Cincy and BYU).
LikeLike
One more thing to keep in mind: Texas would probably more likely to play the Big Ten and Pac off each other than North Carolina would playing the B1G against the SEC, for a few reasons:
* UT isn’t as tied into the Big 12 as UNC is to the ACC.
* UT would be negotiating with the most desperate of the three expansion-minded conferences, the Pac (for obvious geographic reasons), and thus conceivably could extract more concessions from it than UNC could from the B1G or SEC.
* While both are valuable commodities, UT > UNC for the simple reason that Longhorns football > Tar Heels basketball. (That’s what causes so much frustration among some Florida State people; despite having the conference’s most valuable football brand, it isn’t its alpha dog.)
Faced with a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, the Pac may have no choice than to accept inviting the UT/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Okie State bloc . If none of the remaining six members can find refuge elsewhere (assuming the KU/K-State tandem can’t be broken), they could continue the Big 12 by adding Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Central Florida and South Florida.
LikeLike
“Texas would probably more likely to play the Big Ten and Pac off each other than North Carolina would playing the B1G against the SEC, for a few reasons:”
Texas has tried twice already.
“Faced with a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, the Pac may have no choice than to accept inviting the UT/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Okie State bloc .”
The PAC already invited that group in 2010. UT wouldn’t accept the “all in” requirement. I don’t see how taking that group would be caving to an ultimatum, as long as UT is willing to become one of sixteen equals. I actually wonder whether the PAC might be inclined to not offer that a second time. Now there would be a requirement to buy into the equity of the P12N, and somehow UT would need to disentangle themselves from ESPN. Likewise the B1G won’t give UT special treatment, and certainly aren’t going to admit OkSU, TT, and probably not OU.
LikeLike
If the B1G did expand in 15 years or so, and I doubt that they will, I could maybe see Virginia and Syracuse signing on. That would give the B1G a stronger foothold in DC and NYC, maybe.
I just don’t see them moving into the south with UNC/Duke/GaTech/FSU.
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
As an aside, I had no idea that through 2012, Rutgers actually has a historical winning record in football:
634–615–42 .508
I would have guessed it would have had an Indiana or NWU type historical record (around .450 winning percentage).
LikeLike
For many of those years, Rutgers played an ersatz Ivy/Patriot league schedule — from 1946 to 1975, one to four games annually against Ivy teams, plus the likes of Lafayette, Lehigh, Bucknell and Colgate. It didn’t play a full-fledged, consistent big-time schedule until the 1980s (it last faced Princeton in 1980, and its last Ivy foe was Cornell in 1981).
LikeLike
Rutgers athletic department was extremely behind the times. Rutgers never put much emphasis on athletics, especially the revenue sports. It wasn’t till the 80’s that they took their athletic department seriously and invested money into facilities and hired competitive coaches…
I view them not much different than UConn who just started Div I football not long ago.
LikeLike
Except with a much bigger population and much more fertile football recruiting grounds to draw players from.
LikeLike
Agree. I think Rutgers is a likely doormat in the B10 but they have potential to be much more. The issue with Jersey is that everyone wants to leave the state, and it’s not just related to Rutgers and athletics. College kids from Jersey end up all over the country and rarely stay in-state…
If Rutgers hires a terrific head coach who wants to build up that program, that program could become a Michigan State, Iowa caliber program. The in-state talent is good enough to be even better than those two (say Wisconsin) but they’ll always have Penn State neighboring them, who usually plucks a good share of the top talent in Jersey.
LikeLike
Rutgers also worked hard to establish a pipeline from Florida.
I completely agree with Wolverine’s assessment of Rutgers’ likely doormat status and its MSU/Iowa potential.
LikeLike
Oops. I guess you get what you pay for…?
http://espn.go.com/dallas/story/_/id/10528972/cracks-force-closure-60m-stadium-allen-texas
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24460439/liberty-among-4-6-schools-vying-for-12th-sun-belt-spot
Expansion news.
LikeLike
In this is a link to a tweet with a link to a story. Saban’s rule change is DOA (for now anyway).
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24460876/officials-on-substitution-proposal—-lets-wait-until-next-year
LikeLike
The rest of the G-5 conferences should have killed the Sun Belt when they had the chance. This will be the 4th school they have called up in a year. And they saved NMSU and Idaho. If MAC, CUSA and AAC were at 14, there would have been just 3 schools left (out of ID, NMSU, TX St., ULL, ULM, AR St., Troy, S. Alabama). And that despite CUSA calling up 2 schools (Old Dominion and UNCC who just started football this past fall). It would be a lot better splitting the rest of the pie (playoff $ and TV exposure) 4 ways instead of 3 and having 120-125 in FBS instead of 129.
LikeLike
Benson is apparently not content with having presided over the demise of one athletic conference.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10536916/ncaa-gives-swac-automatic-berth-exemption
The SWAC got a waiver to not necessarily send their hoop tournament champ to the NCAA. The reason is they have 4 teams that are ineligible for the NCAA tournament due to APR issues, but they are allowing those teams to compete in their conference tournament. It seems to me that the easier answer is to not let those 4 teams play in the SWAC tournament.
LikeLike
A definite argument, there are some conferences that shouldn’t be in Division I. But I guess we can presume they aren’t offering fictional classes!
LikeLike
Or their players are so dumb they’re failing fictional courses.
LikeLike
From the man who recruited Troy Aikman at Oklahoma:
http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/28/barry-switzer-on-johnny-manziel-id-never-recruit-a-white-quarterback/
LikeLike
Bielema left Wisconsin at just the right time (a year or two away from Alvarez canning him), and won’t be long at Arkansas:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140225/bret-bielema-arkansas-razorbacks/
LikeLike
On the bright side he’ll have more time to spend with his wife.
LikeLike
Wainscott – how was Bielema “a year or two away from Alvarez canning him” at Wisconsin. In six seasons as the HC at Wisconsin, he had a .740 winning pct, went to six bowl games and three straight B1G titles. Alvarez won three B1G titles in 16 years.
Bielema may not make it at Arkansas, but from the outside looking in, you can’t argue with his results at Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Agreed. That’s a bizarre claim by Wainscott.
LikeLike
@Alan:
Its my interpretation based on the following:
1) When he left for Arkansas, nobody was sad to see him go (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1744506-wisconsins-barry-alvarez-says-no-one-is-sorry-bret-bielema-left)
2) The general perception that the 2012 Wisconsin team was an underachieving 5-loss squad that only made the B1G Title game because OSU and PSU were both ineligible (Wisco was 3rd in its division that year), and that he had already been on the hot seat a few years prior (in the season that became his first Rose Bowl appearance).
3)That when Gee made his famous comments calling Bielema a thug and saying he left just before the sheriff, it appears Alvarez was upset only at the description that he called Bret a thug, not that he left just before the sheriff. (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/gordon-gee-claims-wisconsin-ad-barry-alvarez-thinks-195459693.html)
I could be wrong, and maybe he was less one year away and more two years away, but I do not think he was on super firm ground in Wisconsin and he saw an opportunity to make a lateral move to a mid-level program in a better conference that could pay him (and his assistants) much more. But I think Bielema’s unpopularity would have led to him getting Coker’ed or Solich’ed at some point if he had 1 or 2 more underachieving years in Wisconsin.
I don’t dispute that I could be wrong; this is just my outside read of the situation.
LikeLike
Some of my opinions on officiating. I follow a lot of ACC fans on Twitter. One would think that the ACC is biased against every school–even Duke. Gets tiresome.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/alabamas_nick_saban_offers_fir.html
Q&A with Nick Saban about the 10-second rule.
LikeLike
Officials already control pace by when they make the ball ready for play, even delaying until chains are set following first down while everyone on the field is ready.
His questioning if FB was meant to be continuous is irrelevant. It is what it is. He has chosen (as many/most have over the last 40 years) to adopt a methodical style. Now the pendulum is swinging the other way, but that too will change over time as defenses adapt (unless they shortcut the need to).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Officials already control pace by when they make the ball ready for play, even delaying until chains are set following first down while everyone on the field is ready.”
That doesn’t mean all of the officials are ready for every play. These are often older men who have to chase the play and then come back to the proper spot for the next snap. Are they all in place and ready on every play?
“His questioning if FB was meant to be continuous is irrelevant.”
Not really, since the coaches help decide the rules of the game.
LikeLike
RichRod films Speed parody on the proposed rule change:
LikeLike
I think Nick makes a lot of sense here. Could there be safety issues? Perhaps, but I think the bigger issue is competitive fairness. The NFL evidence for the eagles is pretty eye opening how much the officials control pace in that league.
LikeLike
How far are we from controlling results? Or have we already passed that…
LikeLike
I’m not sure Kelly truly implimented the speed game except on occasion. First year, completely different personnel and less than a college traveling squad for the full roster, etc. College v NFL not really comparing apples to apples.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’m not sure Kelly truly implimented the speed game except on occasion.”
Kelly couldn’t implement his system in the NFL. The NFL told him the refs control the pace, not him, and refused to rush the refs to appease him. NCAA refs tend to be pressured to give coaches what they want, like marking a ball ready for play when the refs aren’t even set.
LikeLike
And refs control in college, as I said. If Sabin wants to trim his total roster to under 60, including walkons, and adopt the rest of the NFL rules, then he can ask to have the game officiated like an NFL game.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And refs control in college, as I said.”
You saying it doesn’t make it true. I’ve seen plays where the refs are still moving at the snap and don’t look ready. Saban watches a lot more game film than I do, so he may see that more often than an average fan notices (all 22 shows the refs, TV rarely shows more than a couple).
“If Sabin wants to trim his total roster to under 60, including walkons, and adopt the rest of the NFL rules, then he can ask to have the game officiated like an NFL game.”
Any NCAA coach has the right to present a proposed rule change. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t change how the NCAA operates.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“How far are we from controlling results?”
As far as we’ve ever been. No clock rule controls the results.
“Or have we already passed that…”
Based on Vegas, no we haven’t.
LikeLike
I’m sure the non overturn that cost Seattle playoff advancement to the Jets first year of replay makes the Seahawks question exactly where that game was decided. It wasn’t as a result of the play on the field.
PS: I’m not a Seattle fan. It’s just that game did far more than start me questioning the integrity of the NFL game (Gave up on the NBA decades ago).
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
“I’m sure the non overturn that cost Seattle playoff advancement to the Jets first year of replay makes the Seahawks question exactly where that game was decided. It wasn’t as a result of the play on the field.”
Actually, that was a December game that ultimately cost Seattle a shot at the playoffs (and cost Dennis Erickson his job). There was no replay that year. That play, and the ref’s mistaking Vinny Testaverde’s green and white helmet for a brown football was a main catalyst for replay’s reintroduction in 1999.
See: (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066379/article/mnf-controversy-recalls-1998s-phantom-touchdown) and (http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/jets/post/_/id/16061/testaverde-knows-about-phantom-tds)
LikeLike
Apearently my little grey cells are getting littler and greyer… 😦
LikeLike
As gray as the Seahawks old helmets 🙂
LikeLike
Contrast with what Saban said in September (posted above, but very relevant here)
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9730914/coach-nick-saban-rule-tempo-offense-alabama-crimson-tide
Alabama Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban hasn’t been a fan of the hurry-up, no-huddle offense, but that doesn’t mean he won’t eventually give it a try.
“It’s something we’re going to look at. I think we’ll have to,” Saban told ESPN.com on Thursday. “I think we need to play faster and will have to do more of that going forward. The only reason we haven’t done more of it to this point is that our guys seem to play better when we don’t [go fast] just because it’s been our style and we’ve had reasonably good success moving the ball and running the ball.
Nick Saban isn’t a fan of the hurry-up offense because it takes defensive coaches out of the game. “All you’re trying to do is get lined up [on defense],” Saban said. “… The offense kind of knows what you’re doing.”
“The thing I wonder about is that if you play offense like that, then that’s how you practice. You have to practice like that, so how do you really ever coach defensive players? If a guy doesn’t play the right technique, you’re going up and telling him and showing him how to play that block or whatever.
“But, hell, they’re running another play.”
Within five years, Saban said 80 or 90 percent of the teams in college football will be running some version of a no-huddle, hurry-up offense.
“Unless they do something to slow them down, which they should, we’ll probably be doing the same thing,” he said.
Saban hasn’t been a fan because it’s advantageous to the offense by taking the defensive coaches out of the game.
“All you’re trying to do is get lined up [on defense],” Saban said. “You can’t play specialty third-down stuff. You can’t hardly scheme anything. The most important thing is to get the call so the guys can get lined up, and it’s got to be a simple call. The offense kind of knows what you’re doing.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/10538276/mark-cuban-says-nba-d-league-better-option-ncaa
Mark Cuban thinks The NBADL is a better option for players than 1 and done in the NCAA and wants to make it even more attractive by providing education at nearby colleges. He’d also raise the NBA’s minimum age to 21.
I’m all for his proposal. Get the non-students out of the college game.
LikeLike
Agree, too many kids are only there to play basketball (or football) and have little desire for a degree. Universities have long given scholarships to so-called student athletes who aren’t college material. The situation at North Carolina if you’ve followed closely isn’t particularly rare. A lot of the classes these kids are taking are hardly real classes and some of these athletic departments will do most anything to keep these kids eligible if they are going to help their football or basketball team…
A real minor league system for the NFL and NBA is much needed and the college game would be much ‘cleaner’ for it.
LikeLike
These issues have been going on in college football since, oh, the 1890’s.
LikeLike
A real minor league system for the NFL and NBA is much needed and the college game would be much ‘cleaner’ for it.
Why should the NFL and NBA lose money on creating minor leagues when the colleges are already doing it for them, for free?
LikeLike
Well, Cuban claims the players would be better prepared for the NBA if they came through the D-League rather than college. And if enough players would do it, maybe they wouldn’t lose much money.
LikeLike
“Well, Cuban claims the players would be better prepared for the NBA if they came through the D-League rather than college.”
Maybe so, depends on the quality of the coaching and the competition.
“And if enough players would do it, maybe they wouldn’t lose much money.”
Would take years for this to happen, if ever. And millions in losses. Salaries would have to be high enough for players to pass up the exposure that MBB brings. For salaries to be higher, there would have to be paying fans in the seats and viewers on TV. No player will want to be the guinea pig and pass up playing for a major college hoops program to be a no-name player in the minors. College is where names are made, not the NBADL.
LikeLike
The age limit is subject to collective bargaining, and I don’t think you’d find much opposition from players from raising the minimum age, considering those rookies are the ones who will be replacing voting veterans holding on for one more year. Players will consider those with them at he time instead of the next crop. If there is opposition, its more of the bargaining chip than a truly held principle.
Its the same reason why the NFLPA ultimately did not really challenge the NFL’s desire for a rookie pay scale, because it meant more money for existing NFL players/those voting on the CBA.
LikeLike
It’s a step. If he really wants to be radical, I suggest he look into promotion and relegation.
LikeLike
Also from the soccer world, I seem to remember a suggestion Cuban had a while back. The basic idea was to create a lower level basketball league with the purpose of signing teenagers to professional contracts and later selling them to the NBA for multi-million dollar transfer fees.
Sign a 16 year old phenom to a multi-year guaranteed contract. The kid gets paid to play, while the club provides coaching and an education. When the player is draft eligible, the NBA team can draft him and wait for his contract to expire or negotiate a transfer fee, similar to how they negotiate for players from European clubs.
I think Cuban said he was banned from doing this as an owner of an NBA team, but thought it would be a good idea for someone else to try.
LikeLike
It may be a good idea from a player development standpoint, but I do not think the NBA would actually profit from such leagues/academies.
For starters, the NBA benefits tremendously from the promotional power of college basketball, helping future NBA-ers gain a name and a following before the draft. Such would not be the case (at least nowhere to the same degree) in the NBA D League or some such soccer-style academy.
Second, its not exactly as baseball’s minor leagues roll in dough. There would be little market for any meaningful TV/media rights deal for such NBA leagues, even among lesser sports cable channels, because of the lack of star players and the lack of fan identification relative to long held allegiances to collegiate teams.
I think the goal of removing from the college game players who have little desire to actually be in college is one shared by many, but I think the costs and time it would take to establish a viable minor league system from virtual scratch is prohibitive. Baseball’s minor league system exists because of baseball’s antitrust exception and is primarily an accident of history that has survived through time (hockey’s minor leagues is less robust, but has a similar, if not stronger, system in Canada for the junior hockey).
Bottom Line: The NBA benefits more from the college game than it would stand to gain from the costs it would incur creating an alternative league/academy to develop players, at least in the short and medium term.
LikeLike
The US will never have relegation in major sport. No team owner is willing to risk the loss in value, and it would often violate the current franchise agreements owners have. Besides, Americans outside of soccer fans have no interest in the system.
LikeLike
I agree, relegation/promotion would never fly in the US pro sports. The European soccer powers would like to kill it if they could. If you had a really strong NCAA, you could maybe pull something like relegation off in the college ranks, but given all the Div 4 talk and the power that conferences have, it’s not going to happen.
But I disagree that Americans would have no interest. Once people understood it, I think it would be fun. It adds some drama for teams at the bottom, like a reverse playoff race. A game between two bottom feeders suddenly becomes hugely important, worth millions of dollars.
But if the goal is to make bottom feeders play hard and avoid tanking, then the simpler solution is just to change the draft rules. The NBA lottery isn’t a strong enough disincentive, when one player can make so much of a difference and the odds are still stacked in the losing teams’ favor.
LikeLike
If preventing tanking has become more important than assuring the weakest get a leg up in drafting then try this. Have everyone start with ten lottery balls. Win your division you lose a ball. Number one seeds lose another ball. Every playoff round you win you lose another, perhaps two for reaching the final. At the end everyone is still in but with decreasing odds for the more successful teams. More importantly, the bottom half doesn’t gain by tanking. The numbers were just an off the cuff thought and could be dramatically adjusted.
LikeLike
Logan,
“But I disagree that Americans would have no interest. Once people understood it, I think it would be fun.”
If you think conspiracy theories are too common now, wait until a questionable call keeps the Cowboys in the NFL while the Panthers get relegated. Or the Knicks benefit. Or any other major brand the fans already think the leagues favor gets a benefit.
Besides, fans would hate it the minute their team becomes irrelevant by dropping down. The leagues would hate risking a major brand dropping down. This is one of those “grass is always greener” things.
LikeLike
No team owner is willing to risk the loss in value
How much of that value is from building the team through making the best possible hires vs. from benefitting from a cartel system, where only the franchisee is allowed to do business in a given market?
And that’s not even mentioning the leverage owners have against cities and counties to have the populace finance the construction of new facilities, as if they’re a public good instead of private entities.
LikeLike
“How much of that value is from building the team through making the best possible hires vs. from benefitting from a cartel system, where only the franchisee is allowed to do business in a given market?”
???
How does that matter? I mean, when to comes to fairness, you can say it matters, but when you’re talking about how realistic a change is, it really doesn’t. Owners who benefit from a cartel system won’t suddenly be overcome by a bout of shame and decide that promotion/relegation really is gosh darn more fair.
LikeLike
That’s why any change can’t come from within. It would have to come from without, which would entail pressuring a few owners to flip to favoring pro/rel, at least as a thorn on the side of the status quo. Maybe a sanctioning body similar to the F.A. in England. Which leads me to question people who look at Cuban as some sort of change agent in pro sports. He, just like the rest of the NBA ownership, knew he was buying into the cartel when taking over the Mavericks. Mark will make noise in the media from time to time but won’t stick his neck out too long.
It is going to require a grassroots movement that would be sudden and surprising to the Big Media and cartel owners. I don’t see that emerging in the near future.
LikeLike
Aren’t our sports “cartels”, by definition, immune to outside pressure? Other than the league sinking, shrinking, losing money, and threatening to fail where is this surprise change going to have any traction? The only grass roots movement happening is the introduction of soccer to the sports fans landscape, and we can see how fast, deep, and popular it’s roots are (not) becoming.
LikeLike
Forth Worth Star-Telegram columnist urges the Cowboys to trade Romo to the Texans for the 1st pick to take Manziel.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/03/01/5612933/johnny-football-was-born-to-play.html?rh=1
Counterpoints:
1) Even if the Texans are a win now club, success in the NFL can be had with young QB’s (Russel Wilson, Kaepernick, Cam Newton, Luck, Tannehill, Foles), especially if the Texans, as the columnist suggests, is just a QB away.
2) Cowboys biggest problem is not on the field or its coaching staff. Its Jerry. He’s excellent at monetizing all things Cowboys, bad at actually building a winning club. Romo for Manziel won’t change that.
3) Assumption that Manziel will be a good/great NFL QB (could be, could also be Doug Flutie 2.0).
4) Why would the Texans trade a #1 pick for a 33 year old QB with no measurable record of post-season success?
5) Would Linehan, Callahan, and Garrett actually do a good job developing a rookie QB, especially when Garrett is rumored to be on the hot seat if he has another bad year?
Must be fun times for the Cowboys haters out there.
LikeLike
Craig Bohl could be a sleeper candidate to replace Pelini at Nebraska:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140220/craig-bohl-wyoming-cowboys/
LikeLike
IMHO, a lot of people will have to say no before Bohl gets a look.
LikeLike
I’d imagine Scott Frost would be #1 on the wish list.
LikeLike
Frost would be very popular with the fan base. However, if I was running the search I would limit my choices to experienced head coaches. I would start with successful lower tier P5 and successful G5 head coaches.* Nebraska shouldn’t be a place where anyone learns to be a HC while on the job.
*Yes I know the last established HC Nebraska hired (Bill Callahan) didnt work out, but Nebraska with all of its advantages should be hiring proven candidates not gambling on unknowns. There were (non-football) reasons that Osborne, Solich, and Pelini were hired and Nebraska is very fortunate that it worked out as well as it did.
LikeLike
So there are 4 other football kings in the Midwest besides UNL:
OU, ND, UM,and OSU. Here are the list of head coaching hires by that quartet since 1980 (not counting George O’Leary, who never coached, or Luke Fickell, who was interim):
FBS HC:
Lou Holtz
Urban Meyer
Brian Kelly
Brady Hoke
John Cooper
Rich Rodriguez
Tyrone Willingham
Howard Schnellenberger
Lower division HC:
Jim Tressel
Gerry Faust
AC:
Bob Stoops
Lloyd Carr
Gary Moeller
Charlie Weis
Bob Davie
Gary Gibbs
John Blake
Of the FBS HC’s that you advocate for, 1 is a bonafide success (Holtz), 3 the jury is still out on (with Urban trending up, Hole trending down, and Kelly in the middle). 1 did OK (Cooper) and 3 didn’t meet expectations.
Of the AC’s, 2 are bonafide successes (Stoops and Carr), 1 did OK (Moeller), and 4 didn’t meet expectations.
Chip Kelly had zero HC experience when he took over at UO. He did pretty well. Barry Alvarez had zero HC experience when he took over at Wisconsin. He did pretty well.
In other words, other than to massage your ego, there is little reason to think that an “untested” AC with potential would be a worse hire than a lower-level HC.
Oh, and Bohls is an HC.
LikeLike
Oh, and Gus Malzahn was HC at Ark.St. for 1 year. I guess that’s what’s allowed him to be so successful at Auburn so far.
Jimbo Fisher never held a HC job anywhere before FSU. Amazing that the ‘Noles managed to build a national title winner with a neophyte learning on the job.
LikeLike
$$$ The general problem with B1G schools is $$$. They have lots of it, but are cheap cheap cheap when it comes to coaches and assist. coaches (with about 3-4 exceptions: tOSU, Iowa and PSU. MI pays, but has hired badly.).
If Nebraska ponies up $5 million, they can get who they want. But I doubt Nebraska will ever spend the money.
LikeLike
@Richard – not an ego thing at all. I prefer a proven head coach over a hot coordinator. In my opinion, it involves less risk if the coach is the right fit. If there isn’t a right fit in an existing HC then by all means the hot coordinator needs to get a look.
LikeLike
@BuckeyBeau – I dont think Nebraska will have a problem paying the right coach market rate. An argument could be made that Nebraska is over paying Pelini (I.e no BCS bowls) based off of his performance.
The assistant pool is held down by the fact that Pelini likes to give assistant coaches their first job. If an assistant is proven (i.e. OC Tim Beck at 750k) Nebraska has paid them accordingly.
LikeLike
Mike, I don’t think that being HC at a lower level “proves” much. I’d rather get the guy who can recruit given the circumstances of my school and gameplan with the talent that he can get.
LikeLike
“IMHO, a lot of people will have to say no before Bohl gets a look.”
Why?
LikeLike
Bohl has history with Nebraska and it is not good. He may not WANT to return to Nebraska.
http://kfgo.com/blogs/so-many-opinions-so-little-time/953/let-the-speculation-begin-could-bohl-return-to-nebraska/
“In 2002, the thought of Bohl as Nebraska’s head coach would have been laughable. As Nebraska’s defensive coordinator, Bohl was run out of Lincoln after receiving much of the blame for NU’s disastrous 7-6 season in 2002.”
LikeLike
That is pretty much it. 1) a lot of people still blame him and 2) he may not say yes. As disruptive as changing a HC can be, if I am an AD I want someone who will unite the fan base and won’t (can’t) say no.
LikeLike
Phillip Fulmer is back:
http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/28/phillip-fulmer-etsu-football/
LikeLike
Read this, and imagine its about CFB as opposed to MBB:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140303/bracket-watch-no-1-seeds-duke-syracuse-virginia-wisconsin/?eref=sihp
Regular seasons as seeding exercises. Catch the fever!!
LikeLike
E. Gordon Gee is the new full-time president at West Virginia University.
http://college-football.si.com/2014/03/03/gordon-gee-president-west-virginia-ohio-state/
LikeLike
I wonder what makes him think that WVU is a better school than Louisville or Kentucky (or the rest of the SEC) for that matter.
LikeLike
Because they hired him.
LikeLike
He’d been president there before, so he had some ties to people and the area.
LikeLike
NFL may experiment with longer XP’s:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000330411/article/nfl-might-experiment-with-longer-extrapoint-attempts-in-preseason
Why not make it inverse to the length of the scoring play within the red zone (meaning, score from inside the 1, kick the XP from the 20; score from 20+ out, XP from the goal line)? Rewards longer scoring plays.
LikeLike
Wanger noted a number of other benefits to Fox Sports 1’s launch: added distribution and a younger, more advertiser friendly audience.
He pointed to Fox Sports 1’s distribution as a sign of where Fox Sports 1 is delivering more value than Speed. Fox Sports 1 is in 87 million homes and has signed long-term carriage deals with Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-verse. That’s a healthy increase from the beginning of 2013, when Speed was in 81 million homes.
Wanger also cited viewership and demographic comparisons with Speed that tell a good story for the new channel. Fox Sports 1 has a bigger, younger, more affluent and more diverse audience than the former motorsports channel.
Fox Sports 1 is averaging 292,000 viewers in prime time from its Aug. 17 launch through Feb. 23, a figure that’s up 70 percent versus Speed from a corresponding time period a year earlier. Fox Sports 1’s viewership in the 18-to-49 prime-time demo averages 98,000 viewers, up 96 percent over Speed. The channel’s median age in prime time has dropped by more than three years to 47.7. And the median income of its prime-time audience is up 9 percent over Speed to $60,800.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/03/03/Media/Fox-Sports-1.aspx
For those who say that it was going to fail miserably. Also mentioned are the problems they had attracting an audience during their sports shows. So there’s that. And the fact that it wasn’t going to be easy for casual viewers to break habits during its first year. But if I’m E-Spin, I should be getting nervous. If sports fans are already seeking alternatives to their propaganda now, wait until FS1 and NBCSN start getting actual content.
I’m emailing this article to the Big Ten.
By the way, to the right of that article there’s a tweet saying that NBCSN surpassed 80 million homes for the first time ever.
LikeLike
interesting. some parallels with how the BTN rolled out. slow start, but picked up speed quickly. hope to see further updates.
LikeLike
I don’t think people thought it was going to fail miserably, as much as have a steep mountain to climb before it became a legitimate contender in the battle for viewers and content with ESPN. That will take years, if not a decade or more.
That article points out the in CFB and MBB, the ratings pale to ESPN (and in MBB’s case, to ESPNU). It will take time to change viewing habits and for Fox to learn how to leverage all of tis assets to challenge ESPN’s considerable promotional power (which includes not only TV, but internet, radio, and print–outlets Fox under performs in (web) or has no presence in (radio, print).
Overall, the true test of power is not the number of homes, its carriage fees and channel positioning. ESPN has a tremendous advantage there.
LikeLike
How big a success is “delivering more value than Speed?” That being said, FS1 is clearly more successful than NBCSN (almost matching Speed’s final households), which makes me think that Fox is trying to make their sports network better and Comcast wants an overflow channel.
LikeLike
Disney and Dish TV reach agreement on limiting the Hopper.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/goes-hopper-dish-agrees-limit-230718045.html
Looks like the SECN has locked down Dish.
LikeLike
A few days ago they were saying it would probably take until May for Dish and Disney to finalize their deal. But then this may just be the agreement in principle.
LikeLike
As expected, but not discussed (unlike the SECN which has been mentioned as being agreed to), DISH is also picking up the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
It’s good to be owned by ESPN. Can they fold into the SECN? 🙂 It still has 1/14th the inventory – that’s a lot (8,760) of hours to fill with a single school’s home tier 3 product.
LikeLike
Delo$$ Dodd$ said not too long ago that the SEC Network would make a lot of money, but at the end of the day, each school only got 1/14th of the exposure. Texas is 100%. Longhorn Network was never really about the money for Texas.
BTW, its called re-runs. Look at some of the non-sports cable channels now. PIVOT, BBC America and a lot of others don’t really have that many different shows.
LikeLike
All true…except the real value is in live programming. The SECN will have a number of not necessarily bottom of the barrel matchups. The LHN will have to (as they have) buy the rights to bore than one FB game.
Because ESPN had/has an interest in keeping UT from joining another power conference does not mean the content is as valuable to others, or viewers (especially replays and talking heads). I bought one of the original Sony Betamax in the first year they came out in order to watch the games that my job at the time wouldn’t allow. I never watched more than a few minutes of an occasional game. It became very usefull as a coaching aid, but I quickly realized that sports watched when the outcome is known are not must see TV. In fact, barely watchable if almost anything of passing interest is available at the time.
LikeLike
Well the LHN isn’t getting paid as much as the SECN. I’ve heard $.35 was what they have been trying to get. Reports say the SECN was $1.30 in region.
I can’t imagine Nick Saban allowing cameras into practices the way the LHN does. Not sure it isn’t a competitive disadvantage.
LikeLike
It’s official. SEC announces deal with DISH to provide SECN beginning August 14.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/249610/dish-to-provide-sec-network-nationally-for-august-14-debut.aspx
“The channel will be available to fans and followers of the Southeastern Conference in DISH’s America’s Top 120+ and higher packages across the country. DISH subscribers will also have authenticated access to additional live events scheduled for the SEC Network’s digital platform, with the ability to watch SEC Network content anytime, anywhere on their television, computer, tablet or mobile device.”
LikeLike
Here’s the ESPN press release.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/03/walt-disney-company-dish-network-sign-groundbreaking-long-term-wide-ranging-agreement/
LikeLike
Apparently Dish will be offerening the SECN in their 120+ package nationwide package. Apparently the PacN and the BTN are in the 200+ package. Here is a link to a Foxsport article that discusses it:
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/dish-network-officially-adds-sec-network.php
LikeLike
This is a Clay Travis article, so its pretty much worthless.
Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s not, but you can’t believe anything he says is anything beyond wishful thinking.
LikeLike
From satelitesolutions:
DISH Network packages that also include Pac-12 Network
America’s Everything Pack
America’s Top 120 Plus
America’s Top 200
America’s Top 250
Multi-Sports Pack
And:
DISH Network packages that also include Big Ten Network
America’s Everything Pack
America’s Top 120 Plus
America’s Top 200
America’s Top 250
Multi-Sports Pack
LikeLike
True, normally I don’t trust half of what Travis says. But I figured since he was now writing for Foxsports, that they’d make him present some factual information at least.
Here is a link to the Dish Network channel lineups: http://www.dish.com/entertainment/packages/offers/value/
The BTN and PacN aren’t offered on their normal America 120 package, but are offered regionally (by zipcode) on their 120 plus package (and the 200 packages). They aren’t listing the SECN yet on their channel lineups yet though.
LikeLike
Frankly I don’t care if its on a base package. I’m already getting a higher level to get a bunch of sports channels (and a few other offerings). I’m pretty sure if/when they reach agreement with comcast the SECN will be included in my current package. I do wonder if it would set a precedent – or create a dissed feeling in the PAC, and especially the B1G with their enormous alumni base.
Whatever. ESPN will make money with their new channel, and leverage the LHN in, too.
LikeLike
Uh, the BTN is (the only conference network) on the basic tier on DirecTV.
If they aren’t on the basic tier on Dish everywhere, so be it.
LikeLike
The BTN might be on the basic package in your region, but it isn’t on their first 2 packages in my area. Here is a link to their packages in my area code:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/new_customer/base_packages.jsp
But with that said, DTV hasn’t even picked up the SECN yet, so who knows what DTV packages it’ll will end up on. Neither has Comcast, Time Warner & Charter, which are the biggest cable providers.
LikeLike
Well, since we’ve been mostly going through old territory when not discussing recent news, I thought of an idea for the next blog post.
How about a SWOT analysis done on each of the P5 conferences? I think we may be better informed on where each conference might go if done properly. Many of us, especially when commenting on several of Frank’s posts, allow our biases to influence our opinions. It’s inevitable with the sensitivity of the subject matter. That also means that we ignore factors that may compel us to modify our opinions, assuming we can be honest with ourselves. Easier said than done, of course. 😉
To make it more interesting, if five people volunteer each can do a SWOT analysis, but they won’t get to pick the conference to do the analysis on. Frank could do the honor of picking which conference he/she will do. To save space and time, we could limit to up to six lines under each: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
Obviously, none of us can go inside of the conferences and learn their internal data but we can give a best educated guess based on information that’s already known publicly, as well as external factors that can help or hurt them.
SWOTs can work as well with non-profits as well as business. To give a better idea, I’ll leave this video:
LikeLike
Most of the power five conferences potential to expand usually takes away from another power five conference. That’s why I believe were heading towards another consolidation of power conferences and will see the number of power conferences shrink from five to four in the next round of significant realignment.
LikeLike