Frank the Tank’s BlogPoll Week 2 Ballot, Football Parlay and Open Thread – 9/10/2010

Posted: September 9, 2010 in Big Ten, Chicago Bears, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, NFL Football, Sports
Tags: ,

Well, as evidenced by my BlogPoll ballot this week, I’m setting forth a complete mea culpa on both Boise State and TCU.  Granted, the Virginia Tech defense on that last Boise State drive had more potmarks than an Edward James Olmos side profile, but it was undoubtedly an incredible display of leadership by Broncos QB Kellen Moore.  Now, do I think that Boise State deserves to be in the national championship game as an undefeated team?  I’ll be honest – it would be difficult to rank Boise State over an unscathed SEC, Big Ten or Big 12 team with the strength of those conferences this season.  However, there’s no reason why an undefeated Boise State team should get jumped by a one-loss BCS conference school.

Looking ahead, we’re jumping into one of my favorite weekends of the sports year: a full boat of marquee college football games on Saturday, the start of the NFL season on Sunday, baseball pennant races getting serious (or in the case of the White Sox, getting killed off – gawd I HATE the Twins), the US Open finals (with hopefully a Federer-Nadal matchup on Sunday) and even some quality golf here in Chicagoland with the BMW Championship.  (I attended last year’s tournament in Cog Hill, which seems like 8 decades ago since that was essentially the last time that Tiger Woods looked invincible and there wasn’t any thoughts of him banging IHOP waitresses.  The day that I went, he set a course record score of 62 with a 9 under par with an insanely massive and adoring crowd following him at every hole.  I’m getting a little frightened that we may start speaking of Tiger in similar tones as Bo Jackson as a freakish “what if” athlete as opposed to Michael Jordan, who completely reached his maximum potential.)  Here are this week’s parlay picks for both college football and the NFL (home teams in CAPS, odds from bodog via Yahoo! and note that the Illinois game is offline since the Illini are playing Division I-AA Southern Illinois):

COLLEGE FOOTBALL

  • Florida State (+7) over OKLAHOMA – I’m very surprised that Oklahoma is giving this many points after looking completely pedestrian in what should’ve been a blood money home game against Utah State last week.
  • Michigan (+4) over NOTRE DAME – The prospects of a Michigan turnaround this season was a bit more convincing to me compared to Notre Dame following last week.  I’ll take the points again in South Bend.
  • TENNESSEE (+12) over Oregon – This looks like a classic Admiral Ackbar “It’s a trap!” line – Vegas oddsmakers seem to be banking on people being smitten enough with Oregon’s 72-0 opening performance that they’ll give double digits points even though it’s a road game in a tough SEC environment with over 100,000 opposing fans.  I’m just taking all of the points that I can this week.

Frank the Tank’s College Football Parlay Record
Last Week: 1-1-1

Illini Games for the Season: 1-0
Overall Season: 1-1-1

NFL FOOTBALL

  • BEARS (-6.5) over Lions – The Bears are probably going to be about a 9-7 team, which means that they aren’t necessarily going to be that good, but they also aren’t going to be as horrible as a growing number of national commentators seem to believe.  I still have some faith in Jay Cutler and am not going to stick a Jeff George label on him just yet.  Having Chester Taylor behind Matt Forte will vastly improve the Bears’ running depth and the defense has the ability to harass opposing quarterbacks with Julius Peppers added to the fold.  Now, the offensive line (or lack thereof) definitely scares the freaking bejeezus out of me and it wouldn’t surprise me if Cutler is decapitated by week 3, so that’s kind of a negative.  However, is that enough to dissuade me from my belief that we can at least pound Detroit at home?  Heck no.
  • Colts (-2.5) over TEXANS – There’s no franchise that has collectively wreaked more havoc (AKA fucked me) over the past 5 years on my game picks and fantasy football rosters than Houston.  I’m staying away from them until further notice, especially when Indy is involved.
  • Ravens (+2.5) over JETS – Oh, how I love virtually everything about Rex Ryan.  I love how the world found out via Hard Knocks that he’s exactly like his caricature on Kissing Suzy Kolber.  I love his speeches here and here.  (Just once, I would love to hear Lovie Smith call the Bears a “fucking slapdick team”.)  I love this in-depth piece about him that’s going to run in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.  I love his family lineage as the son of Buddy Ryan, who is the architect of the 46 defense and the defensive coordinator of the ’85 Bears.  However, I don’t love the amount of hype heaped upon a team that went 9-7 last year and definitely don’t love the QB play of Mark Sanchez (20 interceptions compared to 12 TDs last year).  Plus, Ray Lewis and the Ravens defensive unit has a mountain of bulletin board material from its former defensive coordinator.  So, I really like taking the points here since I believe Baltimore is winning this game straight-up.

Once again, feel free to use this post as an open thread for the weekend’s games.  If you want to talk about conference realignment, please continue the discussion on the Big Ten Division-palooza post.  Have a great weekend!

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

Advertisements
Comments
  1. duffman says:

    Thanks frank, I was hoping this would be up before the Auburn / Mississippi State game to see what you thought about Auburn pregame.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Franks Poll,

      after realignment (hence UNL is now B 10)

      Big 10 = 6 = tOSU, UNL, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU,UM
      SEC = 5 = Bama, Gators, LSU, Arky, UGA
      ACC = 4 = Miami, Va Tech, FSU, Ga Tech
      MWC = 3 = Boise State, TCU, Fresno State
      Pac 10 = 3 = Oregon, USC, Utah
      LC = 2 = UT, OU
      BE = 1 = WVU
      Ind = 1 = ND

      I think you may be right on the closeness of Wisconsin and Iowa after looking at both schedules. Both have to go to tOSU, but Iowa gets PSU and Wisconsin @ home. If Iowa drops one to PSU, but turns around and beats Wisconsin it still keeps them close.

      I might put Auburn as the dark horse, as they get Clemson, USC, Arky, LSU, and UGA all @ home (road trips to UK and Ole Miss are certainly winnable) and only Alabama away as a threat (and Auburn has an OPEN week before this game).

      I keep looking at an undefeated Boise State and an undefeated TCU, and then look at their schedules and have to think any power conference with a 1 loss record prior to CCG’s should get bumped up ahead of them. I am not saying that Boise State or TCU are bad teams, but I think of horse racing and the Triple Crown.

      Sure a horse may win the Derby, but then has to run again against a fresh horse in the Preakness or Belmont. If the Belmont and Preakness were limited to ONLY horses that had run in the Derby, it would be much more fair in terms of true competition. If the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, and ACC can slug it out week after week and then not rewarded for the battle of surviving their conference, what is the point of playing better teams week in and week out?

      Like

      • Art Vandelay says:

        Ohio State plays @Iowa and @Wisconsin, not the other way around.

        I agree with you about Auburn being a dark horse, but their defense looks horrendous. They gave up almost 400 yards of offense to Arkansas State, and then should have lost to the powerhouse Mississippi State last night.

        If only Mississippi State’s quarterback had as much arm strength and accuracy as your average high school JV quarterback, they win the game. He was terrible, and kept missing wide open receivers.

        Like

        • StvInIL says:

          MissStateU should have won that (Home) game. It was not just the passer but the catchers. They were both mediocre in crunch time. I think it would have made things a bit more interesting in the SEC.

          Like

  2. Tony says:

    Dude-
    Where’s your Illni pick?

    ~TK~

    Like

  3. Phil says:

    OT- but since this board was so interested in expansion I thought I would share some Big East news. Evidently the BE has asked Villanova to decide by the end of this year whether they want to move up to the FBS and become the BE’s 9th fb member.
    Let’s see, they could take UCF (large school in a good travel and recruiting area), ECU (decent team with good fan following but not much growth potential) Memphis (has money behind them and located in a fanatical fb area, even if their following isn’t huge) or even think out of the box and offer TCU and Houston as a Texas pair.
    Instead, they offer a small private school that drew 7500 fans on the way to winning a FCS championship and (since Temple has the Linc locked up) would at least for the short term probably play their games in an 18,000 seat MLS stadium.
    All I can say as an RU fan is, JUST SHOOT ME NOW!

    Like

    • Vincent says:

      It doesn’t matter as long as all of those Big East football conference schools continue to play Trilby to the basketball-oriented Svengalis in the Big East office.

      Take Rutgers (with Maryland), Big Ten; absorb Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Connecticut, ACC; grab West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida, Big 12 (c’mon, UT, you want a pipeline to Florida recruiting, right?). Just rescue these fools from Providence purgatory.

      Like

    • @Phil – Just saw an article on that. I’ll link to it in the Big Ten Division-palooza post in a moment.

      Like

    • Jake says:

      I understand how that could solve some problems for the Big East – they get a ninth for football without adding another basketball school. But as a TCU fan, that prospect angers me to no end. We’ve been kicking ass at the FBS level for a decade now, but some FCS team can make the jump and INSTANTLY get into an AQ league? Shoot me first, then shoot Phil.

      Like

  4. M says:

    From Fanhouse (http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/09/09/pickin-on-the-big-ten-week-2/)

    “It was tempting to call for the upset here, but I just don’t see it happening. Southern Illinois 28, Illinois 24.”

    I’m pretty sure that’s a typo, but it still amuses me.

    As far as the picks, I like FSU as well. I actually think the Oregon line is fair; that game could easily get out of hand. Basically, you’re saying that you think Oregon’s victory over UNM is overvalued, but FSU’s over Samford is legit.

    I’m definitely rooting for Michigan to win. Anything that prolongs the RichRod era is a good thing.

    Like

  5. Pariahwulfen says:

    I hate to say it, but just by picking a game that involves the Texans allows them the opportunity to wreak havoc upon your picks.

    Like

  6. loki_the_bubba says:

    Michigan, Notre Dame and Fresno should not be ahead of Houston. Unfortunately their game tonight is late so most people won’t stay up to see them put 80 points on UTEP.

    Like

  7. HerbieHusker says:

    add

    Like

  8. Art Vandelay says:

    Frank,

    I’m going to bring up some qualms with your poll.

    Texas did not look good at all. As of right now, they are not a top 5 team.

    Same with Florida. The Miami(OH) controlled the line of scrimmage for 3 quarters. I do think they’ll eventually come around, but should be at least 2 places lower.

    LSU didn’t look good against a team missing half its starters. I understand that it’s a weird situation, and UNC may have played better than they are, but if LSU’s defense isn’t good, and it DID NOT look good against the Tar Heels, they are in serious trouble. Their offense won’t be better than mediocre. All in all, I don’t think they’re a top 25 team, and more than that, they certainly don’t deserve to advance 2 places after their uninspiring performance last week.

    Like

  9. Playoffs Now says:

    Long interview with Texas AD Deloss Dodds with lots of nuggets and confirmation of some speculation. Some excerpts:

    http://buzztap.com/link.jsp?id=2221250&cid=440

    …if Notre Dame ever needed a new conference home for football or its other sports, Dodds would do everything in his power to make it the Big 12…

    …”Notre Dame was worried about getting decimated to where they were sitting without a conference,” Dodds said of the Irish during realignment in June. “And I told Jack, ‘Come on down. Keep your football. Come on down.’

    “I don’t necessarily want to see the Big Ten go to 16. They want Notre Dame. If they can get them, fine. If they can’t get them, fine.

    “If Notre Dame wants to be an independent and something happens to the Big East, I’ve told Jack, ‘I will fight for you to be a part of this conference in some form or fashion.’ I think it would be good for them, and I think it would be good for us.”

    Sources told Orangebloods.com during realignment that Dodds, at one point, proposed Texas and Notre Dame simply form their own conference and extend invitations to others. But Dodds said nothing should be read into recent football scheduling announcements involving Texas, Notre Dame and BYU…

    …”There may be a new world out there, but it’s not in my lifetime,” Dodds said when asked if Texas, Notre Dame and BYU might be angling toward their own conference at some point in the next decade…

    (REALIGNMENT)

    …”It was a good drill, a good exercise,” Dodds said. “I thought it was educational. Good for our staff. I thought we ended in the right place. We seriously looked at doing something different. We didn’t do that by choice. We did it because it was being dictated to us by others.

    “Our goal from the beginning was to keep the Big 12 together, and we did…

    …There were things that began to nag at Dodds as the moment got closer for Texas to decide if it was going to leave the Big 12 for the Pac-10.

    “There were a lot of little things,” Dodds said. “I talked to Larry about our exiting fees, whatever they were going to be – $20 million or whatever it was. And the clout we’d take to the Pac-10 was huge – about $200 million in new revenue – big upside for them, obviously for us, too.

    “And I talked to them about helping pay our exiting fees with the money from our new TV contract over a period of three years. Part of it, some of it. And they came back with they would loan us the money. We can loan ourselves money. That was a bit of a surprise…”

    …”Oklahoma couldn’t separate from Oklahoma State. And Kansas couldn’t separate from Kansas State…”

    …Some sources very close to the situation have told Orangebloods.com if Texas A&M would have been in agreement with Texas to join the Pac-10 that the Pac-16 would already be formed.

    Dodds confirmed to Orangebloods.com that A&M athletic director Bill Byrne was telling Texas throughout the developments that A&M would stick with Texas. But ultimately A&M was prepared to go to the SEC, an option Texas was not willing to consider. In the end, both schools stayed together in the Big 12.

    “We were not dealing with A&M, and I don’t mean that in a bad way,” Dodds said. “We were dealing with Texas and where we needed to be. They were dealing with whatever their plans were. Bill (Byrne) told me they wanted to stay with Texas and stay in the Big 12. That’s where Bill and I were in our conversations, but we made our decision based on us.

    “Oklahoma, I will say this, was very, very solid. Very good.”

    Dodds said the Pac-10 “would like to have had Texas and Texas A&M.” But Dodds was quick to add:

    “This was about where we wanted to be, not about where someone else wanted to be. I don’t know where they were. I think in the end, whatever happens, Texas and A&M will always be together. I don’t see that ever changing.”

    NOTHING BUT 10-6 VOTES

    One of the things that began eating at Dodds about possibly joining the Pac-10 was that even though Texas was leading the way for a projected $200 million in new revenue for the Pac-10, conference votes in the new Pac-16 might have all been lopsided in favor of the 10 schools already out west…

    …DODDS SEES STABILITY

    Dodds sees the Big 12 thriving because the TV money will be there over the short-term and long-term…

    …When Nebraska and Colorado opted to leave the Big 12 in June, ABC/ESPN could have reduced its payout to the Big 12 by $20 million ($10 million per school) because of a clause in its contract with the conference. But to help hold the Big 12 together, ABC/ESPN decided to keep paying the remodeled, 10-team league based on the 12-team formula, thus immediately increasing the 10 members TV payout.

    “Dave Brown (an executive at ESPN) and I had conversations through all of that, and the bottom line is ABC/ESPN doesn’t want to lose the Big 12,” Dodds said.

    “They don’t want us to go to the Pac-10. They’ve got business reasons to keep us where we are and committed to keep paying what they’re paying with or without the championship game, Nebraska and whoever…

    …”A&M will be fine, although I don’t know what their appetite is,” Dodds said.

    Dodds reiterated this week Texas will not accept the offer initially made by Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor. “We are not in that game,” Dodds said.

    “There’s no instability in my mind,” Dodds added. “We’re going to get to where we’re going to get and the money is going to be fine. Over the long haul, we’re going to make as much money as anyone in the country, so I’m not eaten up by it today or tomorrow. The future of Texas and the future of the conference is sound financially, and that’s what I’m comfortable with.

    “We’ve got an ABC deal sitting at 2016. That’s going to be huge (when it’s renegotiated). Fox, ABC, NBC, Comcast could all bid. The Fox deal is now (up for bid next year), and the ABC deal is then…”

    …Dodds also indicated if the SEC decides to add schools that ABC/ESPN, which has a $2.25 billion deal with the SEC that expires in 2022, would not redo that contract…

    …Dodds said the only thing that could shake things up again is if the Big Ten or Pac-10 go to 16 or more schools.

    “As long as the Pac-10 or Big Ten don’t go to 16, I think the SEC is pleased as punch to be at 12,” Dodds said.

    On the future of the Big 12, Dodds said, “I think we’re in great shape. Who knows what’s going to happen. The money is going to be good. The geography is good. Good for kids. If the Big Ten goes to 16 or the Pac-10 goes to 16, 20 or 30, then it changes the world, and we’ve got to change the world. I just think the federal government gets real interested if we go to 16-team conferences.”

    …He said Texas has addressed the lack of having that potentially high profile game by scheduling the likes of BYU, Notre Dame and USC in coming years.

    “The conference championship game going away is a good thing,” Dodds said. “Three schools voted against that conference title game in the beginning and it was Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.

    “We were the ones playing in it all the time. And it was our fans who were paying $150 for tickets that created revenue split 12 ways. It was backwards…

    …Dodds said too much is also made of the fact the Big 12 has unequal revenue sharing. In the Big 12, the more you are on television, the more money you get to keep. Dodds said if all the schools in the Big 12 were making the kind of investments Texas and some others are making, he’d be for equal revenue sharing. But that’s not how he sees it.

    “We’ve got a bond payment of $15 million per year,” Dodds said, referring to the financing the athletic department pays for all the improvements its made. “But other schools have bond payments that are zero.

    “What Tech has done and Oklahoma State has done are unbelievable. And Kansas did it the right way and grabbed it by the horns (upgrading facilities). But the equal revenue sharing is so miniscule in the grand picture. Nebraska didn’t say anything about revenue sharing when they announced the Big Ten. They were ahead of the curve on that…

    …The Longhorn Network will be launched in 2011, according to Dodds, and may even have a “soft start” later this year.

    Dodds wanted it clear the school is putting up no money to launch this network. All the financing will come from IMG and whichever cable partner is selected to operate the Longhorn Network. The financial partners would recoup their investment and pay Texas an amount that Dodds estimates to be around $3 million annually – an amount that could grow depending on its success.

    “We are not going to own anything or have an investment in it,” Dodds said.

    He is hopeful the programming on the Longhorn Network will include one football game and “some number of basketball games…”

    …Dodds said “there are three entities” (cable companies) looking at operating the Longhorn Network, including “a leader in the clubhouse.”
    “The one we are looking at, walks in with 500,000 subscribers the day we turn the key,” Dodds said…

    …”I would like to see it as a way the university brands itself. On the academic side, the network would be a great way to promote the academic side of the university. It would be a great way to build the relationship between faculty, staff and athletics.

    “It’s just got a lot of parts to it that are very positive. It’s not exclusively athletics, probably 20 percent of the programming would be centered around the university and non-athletic programming.

    “It could be anything we want to make it, but it’s got to be something people want to see. So we have to cater to the appetite of those we want to be subscribers…”

    …”I think OU and Missouri want their own,” Dodds said. “That’s somebody else’s business. It doesn’t change anything we’re doing.”

    Like

  10. Playoffs Now says:

    Omaha claims NE has tried to schedule Boise St, offering 2 for 1, Lincoln only, and finally home and home, but the holdup is Boise asking $1 million to play in Lincoln.

    http://omaha.com/article/20100908/SPORTS/709089803/0

    If this is basically true, I have to give NE lots of credit for trying to schedule Boise.

    Like

    • Jake says:

      That article is garbage. He says they’re paying Idaho $800,000, but they won’t fork over $1,000,000 for the much more interesting match-up with Boise? I don’t buy it. If Boise’s willing to go to VT, I doubt they’d hesitate to visit Lincoln. Something else blocked that deal.

      But yes, UNL’s non-conf. scheduling has improved dramatically since Osborne took over. Good for them. Fresno, Washington, and @Wyoming next year is a decent line-up considering what they have waiting for them in the Big Ten in 2011.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now says:

        One rumor is that NE offered home and home but insisted that the first game be in Lincoln and didn’t want a high buyout penalty for the second game.

        If true, I could see why Boise would be gun shy after being burned by the Utah and BYU ditching the MWC they’re joining. Not to mention NE playing TX in Lincoln this year but dropping the 2011 Austin game.

        Which begs the question, if NE has a 2011 OOC opening, are they ducking TX or is TX refuse to schedule them OOC since they left the B12? I could see either being the case. Chip Brown should ask about this…

        Like

        • @Playoffs Now – I’m fairly certain that neither Nebraska nor Texas really wants to deal with each other so quickly with a non-conference arrangement. It will take a few years before either side would even consider it (and that may be the case for everyone else left in the Big 12). The open 2011 date for Nebraska coinciding with when they would’ve played Texas if the Big 12 had stayed intact is a pure coincidence – that old Big 12 schedule has been effectively torn up completely.

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Agreed. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nebraska “ducking” Texas. And Lord knows that if I’m defending Nebraska… 🙂

            As it was, Texas already had to move one OOC from 2011 bcause it was overbooked after the move to a nine-game conference schedule. Converting Nebraska into a conference game would have required rescheduling another long-scheduled OOC game.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            HH,

            best post of the day!

            🙂

            Like

        • RedDenver says:

          Nebraska has a pretty tough schedule in 2011 and 2012, so they’re definitely not adding UT. And UT criticizing other teams’ non-conf schedules is the pot calling the kettle black. When was the last time UT left the state of Texas for a non-conf game? Ohio State is the only game I can thing of over the past decade.

          Like

          • schwarm says:

            I seem to remember them escaping @ UCF a few years ago.

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Six of the last ten seasons Texas played OOC outside of Texas. The villain you want in that regard is Florida.

            Like

          • Playoffs Now says:

            When was the last time UT left the state of Texas for a non-conf game?

            Less than a year ago.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Over the last decade? OSU, Stanford, Arkansas, North Carolina, Wyoming, Central Florida, Tulane.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            A little off-base with that comment about UT ooc-Pre-Big 12 years, OU was in Dallas but that was pretty big ooc. Other road games (from schedules I have handy):
            83 Auburn (Bo Jackson)
            84 Penn St.
            85 Stanford
            86 Missouri
            87 Auburn
            89 Colorado
            90 Penn St.
            91 Mississippi St.
            92 Syracuse

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Upcoming UT OOC games:
            @UCLA
            @Ole Miss
            @Maryland
            @Cal
            @BYU
            @USC
            @Notre Dame

            Like

          • bullet says:

            To fill in the gap-road games 93 to 00 out of state
            93 Colorado, Louisville (both ranked)
            94 Pitt
            95 Hawaii, Notre Dame(ranked)

            Big 12 years
            96 Virginia (ranked)
            98 UCLA (ranked)
            99 Rutgers

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Yeah, Florida’s the definitely the school you should look at for never playing OOC outside their home state. The last time they played an OOC game outside Florida is nearly 2 decades ago: 1991 at Syracuse. Heck, except for a game against Miami and the annual series against FSU, they haven’t ever left Gainesville to play an OOC game in about 2 decades.

            Like

      • @Jake – The deal for the Boise State-VT game was that the Redskins actually paid both teams to appear, with Daniel Snyder and his minions pocketing all of the ticket sales. VT got $2.3 million and Boise State received $1.2 million.

        http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/258592

        Like

        • Jake says:

          Sounds like it worked out well for everyone. But the point remains – Boise wasn’t afraid to go on the road to play a tough opponent, and if the Huskers will pay $800,000 for Idaho, why would they balk at $1,000,000 for Boise? Sounds like a pro-Huskers writer was trying to weaken Boise’s case while making Nebraska out to be the hero, and he didn’t really think it through before he wrote that piece.

          Like

          • Hank says:

            depends. did the Idaho deal include Nebraska playing a road game? If not agreeing to a game at Boise would represent an additional cost as Nebraska would be giving up a lucrative home date as well.

            Like

          • RedDenver says:

            Keep in mind the NU does NOT want to pay Idaho $800k. That deal was made by the previous AD who has since been shit-canned.

            Like

          • schwarm says:

            @Hank – to play in a small stadium in a region with very few alumni and very few potential recruits.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            $200k is still $200k. Some schools have paid the $1.0 million, but UNL apparently doesn’t want to.

            Like

        • Vincent says:

          Did Snyder do likewise for the upcoming PSU-Indiana game at FedEx?

          Like

      • schwarm says:

        2 x $1,000,000 plus a return trip to their small stadium. Not the same as one off.

        Southern Miss is getting a two for one deal from UNL, not sure what their payoff is.

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          In a two for one the payoff is the one trip in this case to Hattisburg. Southern Miss isn’t getting any money from Nebraska.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Usually not the case. Generally, each home school pays the visiting school something, even if it’s home-and-home, to defray travel costs. Of course, if it’s a home-and-home, it’s just a cash-flow issue. In a 2-for-1, though, I expect the team getting the one less home game to be compensated for at least 1 game.

            Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        What incentive does Nebraska have to schedule Boise State though? From Nebraska’s perspective, they have a sellout streak dating back to 1962 that hits 306 games (I think) tomorrow.

        I think Nebraska was just worried about setting a precedent with other FBS schools it deals with or will deal with in the future. If you show you are willing to pay a guarantee of $1 million your $600,000 games may turn into $700,000, etc. The football program at Nebraska pretty much funds the entire athletic department and several academic programs at the University. Skimming off a million here or a million there adds up.

        Like

  11. Jake says:

    Frank – thanks for coming around on TCU. But you put the Longhorns ahead of the Frogs? Unless you think Rice has made some dramatic improvements, UT doesn’t deserve a top-5 ranking at the moment.

    Anyways, go Nittany Lions tomorrow – the sooner (and more frequently) SEC teams lose, the better.

    Like

    • Bamatab says:

      I probably wouldn’t place any high dollar cash on PSU in the game tomorrow. Not saying that they can’t win, just saying that I wouldn’t be betting the house on it (next year maybe, but not this year). Oh yeah…Roll Tide Roll!!!

      Like

  12. MIRuss says:

    Frank,

    Comment on the Poll: Until week 4 and we have seen some “better” games, I think it’s tough to get any real perspective. So right now, it looks like it should. However, I would never be hesitant to drop someone (like Florida) like a rock after the performance they put in last Saturday. My guess is SFU gives them a hell of a game and Skip the giant killer just might pull a rabbit out of his hat….

    Like

  13. StvInIL says:

    I think it too soon in the season to put either UT or UF in the top ten. Both have lost long time starting QB and that is a significant adjustment to make. Yeah I know colt followed up that guy now at Tennessee Titans.

    Like

  14. M says:

    Has any BCS conference ever had no ranked teams? The Big East looks like it’s trying.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Just saw the OT and some replays of earlier-WVU got lucky tonight. They were down 2 TDs in 4th and had 98 and 96 yard drives. On the 1st drive, 2 of their players were clearly holding a Marshall player in the end zone. That gets called and its a safety. Almost lost fumble 1st play of OT. Just before their FG, WVU throws a Marshall player and doesn’t get a penalty. Then Marshall misses their 39 yarder by a foot.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Marshall also fumbled when up by 15 near WVU’s goalline. Also, they were playing an idiotic prevent defense when their 4-man rush had worked so well for them before.

        Like

    • Tom says:

      I forget the exact year, but Wisconsin played Stanford in the Rose Bowl. Stanford came into the game ranked somewhere between 20-25, and they were the lone Pac 10 team ranked. They lost and presumably fell out of the poll to finish the season. Not sure, but I believe that the top 25 must have been sans Pac 10 at some point that season, I want to say 1999?

      Like

  15. Bamatab says:

    Dang Frank, you moved LSU up? I know that Alan may not like this, but any team that is as talented as LSU is, has absolutely no business letting a team that has been HEAVILY decimated by suspensions (as UNC is) back into the game after being up by so much after halftime. The hat (and Chavis their DC) almost let UNC win that game. As a matter of a fact, UNC should’ve won it if the receiver hadn’t dropped the ball in the endzone. LSU’s coaching will probablylose a couple of games for them this year. JMHO

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Bama,

      do you think USC can take the SEC east?

      Like

      • Bamatab says:

        They looked good today, and as of today I would say yes. But in the end it all depends on if UF can get their act together.

        UF looked out of sorts for their first game and a half. The only reason they turned it on in the second half today was because USF kept shooting themselves in the foot.

        USCe looked good both running the ball (that Lattimore kid is for real) and playing defense. If Garcia plays well and doesn’t cost them any games, USCe will definitely have a chance to win the SEC east.

        Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Bama – I’m guessing after the carnage of “Monster Saturday”, LSU could end up in the top 12 today, in the coaches’ poll. As far as I’m concerned, only Alabama, Ohio State and Oregon have distinguished themselves so far.

      LSU has some serious QB issues and an OL that is not dominant. The skill position players are as good as anybody’s, and the defense is better than last year’s squad. Is LSU really a top 15 team? In most years, the answer would be no, but this year, they may be a top 10 team, just because somebody has to fill the poll slots behind Bama, tOSU, Oregon, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Boise & TCU.

      Regarding the UNC game, LSU was in a no-win situation. With 11 minutes left in the game, LSU SHOULD have been up 37-10, but a touchdown was called back due to a bad holding call. I’m not bitching, that’s just part of the game. But what following was an intentional grounding play that knocked LSU out of field goal range, punt, and then a UNC 97 yard pass for a touchdown. After that play, all of the oxygen was sucked out of the LSU side of the stadium. UNC had a seasoned QB, a team with some pride, and nothing to lose. I give as much credit to UNC as I do blame to LSU for not stepping on their neck when they had the chance.

      Additionally, UNC’s 2nd team is better than Utah State’s, Kansas’, James Madison’s, and South Dakota’s 1st team.

      Like

      • M says:

        There’s a group of teams (LSU, Florida, Texas, USC, WVU) that haven’t exactly been impressive, but at least they haven’t lost. It’s hard not to move these teams up, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in them.

        Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        New Coaches’ Poll is out.

        http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/usatpoll.htm

        SEC: #1 Bama; #7 Florida; #12 LSU; #13 Arkansas; #15 Auburn; #16 South Carolina.

        Big Ten: #2 Ohio State; #10 Iowa; #11 Wisconsin; #20 Penn State; #22 Michigan.

        Big XII: #4 Texas; #8 Nebraska; #9 Oklahoma; #25 Mizzou.

        Pac-10: #6 Oregon; #18 Arizona; #19 Stanford; #24 Cal (note – USC is ineligible from receiving votes in the Coaches’ poll).

        MWC: #5 TCU; #14 Utah.

        WAC: #3 Boise St.

        ACC: #17 Miami.

        Big East: #21 West Virginia.

        C-USA: #23 Houston.

        Like

      • Bamatab says:

        Alan, I was just suprised (if I’m reading the delta correctly) that frank moved them up from the delta standpoint after the UNC game. I could see leaving them stand pat, but after being up by so much and then letting UNC almost beat them in the end with basically a 2nd string defense (and I agree that UNC’s 2nd string is better than those other’s 1st string) seemed a little much. Now do I think that LSU has top 10 talent, definitely. LSU’s talent level is probably on par with any team. I do have a concern with their coaching though. But with that said, I do think they will probably finish somewhere in the top 15 when all is said and done. I was just confused has to why the delta was up by 3 after that performance, that’s all.

        Like

  16. jj says:

    Put this one in the bank. ND – 30, UM – 20.

    Like

  17. bullet says:

    VT sure took a dive for losing in the closing minutes by 4 to your #3 team.

    Like

  18. Paul says:

    Michigan’s defense is not Top 25 caliber. I suspect that you will be making a downward adjustment of UM next week.

    Like

    • Paul says:

      I’m right about the defense but was wrong about the downward adjustment. Denard Robinson is unreal. Any other QB and UM would have been smoked in that game today.

      Like

  19. cfn_ms says:

    Since we’re also taking about lines:

    Really like Duke +6 @ Wake. Also like:

    Stanford -6 @ UCLA
    BG +17 @ Tulsa
    Ohio St -8.5 vs Miami

    I also liked Colorado +10.5 @ Cal, but now that it’s down to 10 I’m less into it. IMO that’s a 7-10 point Cal win.

    Like

  20. metatron says:

    I think your estimate of the Bears is based on blind optimism and callous indifference towards the Lions.

    I think the Bears can win (but I’d bet on the Lions), but there’s no way this will be a blowout either way. I’m sure this will come down to the wire.

    Like

  21. duffman says:

    Frank,

    with your love of all things trojan and USC, would it be fair not to vote for them at all this season? if they are getting sanctioned, I think you would be justified in not ranking them. sorta the old having your cake and eating it to!

    😉

    Like

  22. yasha says:

    C’mon, Frank… Pockmarks, like chicken pox

    Like

  23. StvInIL4NW says:

    OMG a herendous loss to South Dakoda! 41 – 38.
    Caught the last 8 minutes. I don’t believe tim brewster was on the choping block list. Things have changed.

    Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      StvnIL,
      Brewster has been on the chopping block list, at least here in MN. AD Maturi gave him a one year (this year) extension at the end of last season… The bowl game last year saved his hide… Only makes it one more year of the same old for us fans though.

      I was at the game… What a beautiful day! The stadium is awesome, the atmosphere was awesome… The game… notsomuch.

      The Gopher’s gameday coaching is downright awful. South Dakota was using their athletic QB on a lot of roll-outs… The Gopher ‘D’ always seemed out of position. They also ran several screens successfully.

      Offensively, the Gopher’s were off and on… several drops by receivers, and a few bad throws by Weber (Weber’s two fumbles didn’t help either).

      The most stunning thing to me though, was late in 4th Q when Gopher’s were driving… had 4th and 1… Jon Hoese (FB) has never been tackled for a loss… Gopher’s choose to run an outside toss play instead of Hoese up middle… 1 yard loss, SD ball, no points… At this point, in my eyes, game was over.

      Brewster has proven he can recruit (decently)… I am no coach, but I do know that you have to make adjustments if things aren’t going your way… Under this regime, adjustments either aren’t made, or they’re made too little, too late…

      Hope, Maturi has the intelligence to know that this guy needs to go, and he needs to hire an up and coming winner… We Gopher fans are getting tired of losing in football…

      Like

      • StvInIL4NW says:

        I don’t want to missjudge the man but he claims #5 is the best athelete on the team. Well he has been short changeing you UM fans for at least a year if thats the case. I would have him do everything includeing sell tickets at the gate. But mosely spell Weber as often as possible as he gets ready to take over that job. Weber peeked in his sofmore year and without ED to catch for him, I’m afraid he has been exposed.

        Like

        • mnfanstc says:

          StvInIL,
          I think Weber has Culpepper syndrome… Without a stud wideout (think Decker, think Moss), he can’t just toss the ball up and expect receptions. Without a stud wideout, he struggles to read the defense and find open targets.

          Weber may have a decent arm, but he holds the ball too long. He is either being severely pressured, sacked, or the receiver is covered by the time he tosses the ball.

          RedDenver… I think I am seeing what you’re sayin… the defense either didn’t make adjustments, or waited to make them til after they had been beaten on the same plays several times… too little, too late…

          You mind sending Pelini up this way to right the ship?? 😉

          Like

      • RedDenver says:

        Nebraska fans would like to welcome all Gopher fans to the “Cosgrove is the world’s worst defensive coordinator” discussion. I believe most Badger fans have lost interest in the discussion, but there may still be a few around.

        Like

  24. duffman says:

    Frank,

    You may need to rethink Boise State!!!!!!!!

    I have been watching the Va Tech vs JAMES MADISON!!!! game (Via ESPN 360)

    suffice it to say, Va Tech should not have been ranked in the top 50 based on the performance!! If it helps, I wish Va Tech was on IU’s schedule if this is how good they really are! WOW!

    Got the ND vs UM game on TV

    Like

  25. zek33 says:

    HOLY CRAP, VaTech looked like they were cruising down the field, and then a huge fumble, so still down 5 but JMU has the ball.

    After this Virginia Tech outing against James Madison, I’d take any 1 loss Big Ten/Big 12/SEC champion over Boise State, even if VaTech wins today.

    And if it’s a loss, I think the championship window is shut because Virginia Tech should fall out of the top 25 with a loss, and even with a win they should fall 5+ spots…

    Boise State needed VaTech to pretty much win their next 11 games, not this kind of disaster right after the Boise State game…

    Like

    • zek33 says:

      Who’d have thought the wheels would come off the Boise State bandwagon so fast. Yeah you’ll still have clowns like Wetzel and Forde supporting this rubbish, but comeuppance tastes sweet.

      I told my brother jokingly last week, “what happens if VaTech loses their next 11 games, how hot will that Week 1 Boise State win look?”

      Who’d have thought the game of the week would be over by 3pm? (Although Penn State could score a bigger win tonight over Alabama in terms of title implications and perception…)

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        In other words, James Madison has doomed Boise State’s chances of reaching the BCS title game, and the Dukes weren’t even on the schedule.

        This just in: The Big East has retracted its football offer to Villanova, and instead will ask JMU to join the conference.

        (Is JMU over VT the biggest FCS over FBS win since App State won in Ann Arbor?)

        Like

        • zek33 says:

          In terms of the effect it’ll have on perception of VaTech and Boise State and the ACC, I’d say this is as damaging as Appalachian State.

          This single loss could determine whether Boise State has a shot at the NC; that’s how big this one game is happening so quickly after Boise State-VaTech. And the ACC took a gigantic hit (combined with that GaTech outing), that one can’t be underrated.

          Next, we see what FSU and Miami can do. But these past 2 weeks have been pretty bad for the perception of the Big East and the ACC. The ACC was supposed to be climbing back, but it looks like that’ll have to be postponed.

          I mean where is Boise State’s strength of schedule now? It must be among the bottom 10 in the FBS after this…

          Like

          • zek33 says:

            I mean, Beamer ball isn’t supposed to lose like this, and an 0-2 start on top of that when they were the preseason pick to win the ACC? It’s as big a deal in that sense.

            But in fairness it has been happening a lot. FCS schools are getting paid and they’re starting to win some of these games…

            But a preseason top 10 team losing to an FCS school in week 2 is still a shocker no matter how you slice it…

            Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        I’m not convinced at all that the wheel shave fallen off the Boise bandwagon.

        Unless there is a new standard, of which I was previously unaware that defeating a team which subsequently loses to a 1-AA team automatically DQs you from playing for a championship (a standard to which no other team is held, and understandably so), I remain convinced that an undefeated Boise (assuming the same sort of seasons Boise has had in recent years) will still be ahead of any one-loss team at the end of the season. That’s what a majority of the media want to see, and that’s the story they’ll be pumping out, week in and week out.

        This loss does hurt Boise’s chance, and probably quite considerably, if Boise is trying to emerge from a group of three or more undefeateds to play in the championship game.

        Like

        • M says:

          Consider it this way: Why should Boise State be in the BCS Championship Game over James Madison? They both have the same big win (@VT) and play no one of merit the rest of the season.

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Oregon State begs to differ.

            I think, when people get too wrapped up in this who-beat-whom type of analysis, that people forget the subjective element of the poll of looking at teams with your own eyes, after years of watching football, and seeing which teams look damn good, no matter who they’re playing. Boise passes that test in my eyes quite handily.

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            That’s entirely a fair statement, but the only issue I’d take with it is two things 1) no one will watch Boise State after that Oregon State game and 2) the computers are 1/3 of the decision, and they don’t care how the teams look; they care about the match ups…

            Like

          • M says:

            JMU looked like world beaters today.

            Also, Oregon State is unranked and 0-1. I honestly think that a 1 loss BYU or TCU might get in over Boise.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @zek33:

            I would disagree with your statement that “no one will watch Boise State after that Oregon State game” because Boise, very wisely, once again has that weeknight-heavy schedule (four weeknight games, including the last three games, all on ESPN) which will give them the exclusive national spotlight when they’re playing.

            @M: Oh, that’s just crazy talk!

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            No M, BYU isn’t in the discussion after today, but TCU still is.

            I do think TCU being undefeated would be ranked higher than Boise State because the quality of TCU’s MWC opponents passes the smell test with the way the MWC has gone up against the Pac-10, etc.

            Being undefeated is the only way to stay in the discussion unless you’re a Big Ten/Big 12/SEC champion this year. Those are the only 3 conferences where a 1 loss team could get into the title game barring some kind of crazy year…

            I do think Boise State would be higher than a 2 loss SEC champion so we won’t see any 2 loss teams.

            Within a few weeks, I think we could see the issue become whether TCU passes a 1 loss Big Ten/Big 12/SEC champion, and I think the answer will probably be yes. The only question is whether 2 of Ohio State/Wisconsin/Iowa or Alabama/Florida or Texas/Nebraska/Oklahoma will go undefeated…

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I agree with Brad Edwards that an undefeated Boise will get the nod over any 1-loss team other than a 1-loss SEC champ. I’m unconvinced that that should be the case, though. As I mentioned before, I think that Alabama is championship contending material, but the rest of the SEC this year isn’t any better than the Big12 sans Texas or the Big10 sans OSU or the Pac10.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Richard,

            Do you have a link for that Brad Edwards piece? I can’t find it and it might be helpful for me over at BON. And did he say/write that before or after VT’s loss?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Musburger mentioned during the PSU-‘Bama game that that was what their resident nerd–ahem, resident guru thought.

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            Yeah Richard, that’s pretty much how I see it.

            And you have to credit Nick Saban for helping to beat the drum on that consistently this weekend.

            With the VaTech loss playing into that kind of mentality and the current media sentiment of the SEC’s overwhelming dominance, I think only a 1 loss SEC team would get the nod this year over the BCS busters.

            No 1 loss Ohio State or 1 loss Big 12 champion is likely to get a shot over Boise or TCU depending on which of the two is ranked higher…

            All of this of course is why I’d love to see a Big 12-Big Ten match up if only to see the media indignation at the SEC CCG not being a de facto semifinal as it’s been the past couple years.

            Like

          • Jake says:

            After this, Boise has to worry about getting passed by TCU. They’ll probably stay ahead of the Frogs in the human polls, but the computers will be unforgiving once that WAC schedule kicks in. If only New Mexico and Colorado State weren’t so god-awful, we’d pass the Broncos for sure.

            Like

  26. jj says:

    GODDAMN IT!

    Like

  27. zek33 says:

    Well the Pac-10 could join the ACC and Big East among the list of conferences with no national title contenders today with Oregon losing to Tennessee.

    It’s crazy that the Pac-10/ACC/Big East are already also rans in the discussion in only the 2nd week…

    Like

    • Jake says:

      Oregon won, 48-13. Still very much in the title race.

      Like

    • cfn_ms says:

      Given that there are zero losses between:

      Oregon
      Cal
      Stanford
      Arizona
      USC

      how is the Pac-10 an “also ran” in the title discussion in only the 2nd week? Of the perceived Rose Bowl contenders (plus USC), only Oregon St has lost so far (though admittedly USC has looked decidedly mediocre).

      Like

      • zek33 says:

        Because the rest start too low in the polls.

        It’s not that easy to rise to the very top of it all, although a lot of teams will start losing.

        Oregon is the only one that’s really in the title hunt right now.

        If Oregon loses, it’s hard to see anyone else getting to the #1 or #2 ranking.

        Of course it is early so you never know how these things will work, but it’s hard to start unranked and then get to #1 or #2, even if you run the table.

        Like

        • zek33 says:

          Although I will give you that Arizona and Stanford could probably do it. Arizona beating Iowa would probably push them close to the top 10.

          Like

  28. loki_the_bubba says:

    Rice 32
    North Texas 31

    …just saying…

    Like

    • StvInIL4NW says:

      Thats great loki. The wildcats are coming to town looking to eat some chiken. But owl will do. ;- )

      So who on Rice looks for real right now Loki. I can tell you the wildcats will have troble finding a 100 yard rusher out of their running backs but the QB Persa is the real deal.

      Like

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      This upcoming week is as good as it gets being stuck in Texas, with the Wildcats coming to Houston and Da Bears coming to Arlington. Look for me; I’ll be the drunk guy in Purple and Orange and White and Navy Blue, with 20 of my friends flying in from around the country. Gonna be one helluva party weekend.

      Like

    • Jake says:

      Congrats – the Owls now have a firm hold on the No. 9 spot in the Dave Campbell’s Texas Football Power Poll. Maybe you can even move past the Miners for the 8 spot.

      Like

  29. M says:

    Someone must have realized this before me, but the Pac-10 and the Big Ten now share a border at CO-NE. The Big Ten is the only BCS conference to border every other BCS conference.

    Like

  30. Playoffs Now says:

    You’d think Notre Dame would know how to throw a Hail Mary…

    What’s up this year with the tearaway helmet?

    Rather disappointing day given how many games had great potential. But hey, at least it is real football.

    Anyway, why do a Top 25? Without a playoff, only 2 beauty contest slots matter. So IMHO, here are the contenders:

    1) Boise St – VT hurt their case but it is laughable self-serving BS to act like that suddenly eliminates them or they aren’t one of the best in the country. So I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, since that’s exactly what AL or FL would have been given in the same position by the media dolts and half-informed Coach’s Assistant’s Pollsters.

    2) Ohio St – finally look to be the real deal, though I’m not yet totally convinced.

    3) Alabama – Might be the best, but the SEC hasn’t looked impressive and who’s to honestly say that they’re better than Oregon, OU, Ohio St, or Boise? No SEC free pass from me! Do not forget the panicked mass of confusion they were in January until Colt was knocked out of the game.

    4) OU – I’m not about to forget Utah St, but they do have an experienced QB and FSU is decent.

    5) Oregon – As with virtually every contender this year, they could be a product of smoke, mirrors, and urban myths of program names. But nonetheless, a great start.

    6) Texas – Actually looking better than I expected with a rookie QB, but still untested. Any chance of them making it to the faux-title game will probably be because of the very weak field of contenders this year. Only reason I have them 6th is because I’m having trouble justifying anyone else above them and seriously question if a few of the teams above them should be. As in I wouldn’t be shocked to see TX finish the season ranked anywhere between 1 and 25.

    7) TCU – Love the Horned Frogs and hope they make the beauty contest, but realistically I still have too many doubts and the path may dead end too early.

    8) Iowa – Yeah, maybe. I hope they win the B10+, but believing they’ll go undefeated just seems like believing that this time Lucy really won’t yank the ball away.

    9) Utah – Pitt game too tight at home, but every team this year will have flaws.

    10) SoCal – Really have trouble stringing enough together to look like a champion.

    11) FL – Frauds. But never underestimate the media’s SEC free pass, so if they win the SEC CCG in this weak year nationally, you could see the media vote them in with 1 or 2 losses.

    12) NE – A trendy pick, but c’mon. They’re improved, but almost certainly won’t end up top 2 (which is what we are talking about.) Rebuilds rarely jump all the way to the top in just a couple of years.

    13) WI – Good enough to mention, I could be underrating them (but don’t think so.)

    14) S.Car – ditto, but see NE.

    15) Stan – Nice, but not top 2. I’d say they had a better Heisman candidate last year, but given the joke that vote has become based on trendy media circle jerks, who knows.

    16) MI – Surprisingly good, but its early and its Michigan.

    17) LSU – No. Except the suspect officiating in the Vandy game suggests that the conference is again going to do all it can for their current star programs of AL, FL, and LSU. Just like last year, though S.Car will also be carried as long as they are undefeated. So like FL, LSU might possibly sneak in with 2 losses.

    Don’t fixate on specific rank #, but rather their relative strength of chance of ending up in the supposed Top 2 in the very hazy view from just 2 weeks of observation (that’s an awkward sentence.) Top 11 have the best shot, while one of the next 6 could conceivably pull off a Cinderella miracle.

    Thus I can’t see any other team with any real shot of making the 2 spots in the MNC game. Stupid system.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Eh. It’s dependent on how many undefeated teams there are, but if everyone else has at least one loss and you’re undefeated and in a power conference or (maybe) MWC or are BSU, you’ll go as well.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      BTW, the Trojans are inelgible (except for the AP beauty contest title).

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Boise St. as #1? Better put the bottle away before you post……..

      Like

    • MIRuss says:

      Dude – Boy’s State is SO OVER at this point…You can’t beat the only top 25 team that you’ll play and have them lose to a DII school. That just doesn’t sit well with any voters, regardless of how well you play against Our Sisters of the Poor and the Sandlot Gang.

      Thank you, Hokies….

      Like

  31. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    We had several discussions over the Summer about how the SEC TV contracts worked. Here’s the SEC TV lineup for last weekend and this upcoming weekend.

    Thur. Sept. 9 Auburn at Miss. State ESPN 7:30 ET
    Sat. Sept. 11 Georgia at South Carolina ESPN2 12:00 ET
    Sat. Sept. 11 South Florida at Florida SEC Network 12:21 ET
    Sat. Sept. 11 Penn State at Alabama ESPN 7:00 ET Sat. Sept. 11 Oregon at Tennessee ESPN2 7:00 ET Sat. Sept. 11 LSU at Vanderbilt ESPNU 7:00 ET
    Sat. Sept. 11 La.-Monroe at Arkansas (Little Rock) FSN 7:00 ET
    Sat. Sept. 11 Western Kentucky at Kentucky CSS 7:30 ET
    Sat. Sept. 11 Ole Miss at Tulane ESPN Classic 9:00 ET

    Sat. Sept. 18 Arkansas at Georgia ESPN or ESPN2 12:00 ET
    Sat. Sept. 18 Vanderbilt at Ole Miss SEC Network 12:21 ET
    Sat. Sept. 18 Alabama at Duke ABC 3:30 ET
    Sat. Sept. 18 Florida at Tennessee CBS 3:30 ET Sat. Sept. 18 Clemson at Auburn ESPN 7:00 ET
    Sat. Sept. 18 Miss. State at LSU ESPNU 7:00 ET Sat. Sept. 18 Akron at Kentucky FSN 7:00 ET
    Sat. Sept. 18 Furman at South Carolina Inst. PPV TBD

    Like

  32. Richard says:

    Did ESPN sell off slots/games to CSS & FSN? Does the “SEC Network” syndication scheme only feature 1 SEC game a week?

    Like

  33. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Richard – yesm ESPN sells the games to FSN & CSS. If the game isn’t sold, then the school can do a PPV. The SEC Network usually gets the #3 or #4 game.

    Here is a list of SEC Network affiliates for last week’s Florida/USF game.

    http://www.secsports.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kp8beSg5G0Q=&tabid=480&mid=2555

    Like

  34. Bamatab says:

    Here is a post on a VT board by a BIG Tennessee booster (Roy Adams) in regards to UT being a possible candidate in Big Ten expansion before the Oregon/UT game this weekend.

    This guy was in the middle of the whole Abert Means incident that got Bama put on probation a few years back. Because of his involvement in the case, and Phil Fulmer being a “secret witness”, this guy was out in front of that story and was calling the events (along with Bama’s punishments) before folks a Bama even knew them (and he was right 99% of the time).

    Now this guy does have a reputation as having a very big mouth and I’m not sure on how much UT would allow him to be in the know on this subject (since secrecy would be of utmost importance). But in this post, Adams claims that Tennessee is trying to get into the Big Ten. He claims that the Big Ten is willing to consider it if Kentucky comes along with them. Now I personally find that hard to believe with everything I read concerning the Big Ten’s insistance on AAU status and a large research program. But since they are willing to over look ND not having AAU status nor a large research program, I’m wondering if they would over look Tennessee (I personally doubt it myself).

    Since you have to be a member of the Scouts site, I’ll cut and paste it along with the link.

    http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=191&f=2577&t=6324363&p=1

    Tennstud
    Member
    4 posts this site
    Ignore this Member
    Send Private Message
    Posted: 9/7/2010 12:12 AM

    Re: Sad day for BCS teams.

    ——————————————————————————–

    We’ll lose by 40-50 points, win probably only 6 games, but go to a bowl. Tennessee’s elite status in college football expired many years ago; we haven’t been to a BCS bowl in 10 years. Even though we have 6.3 million in Tennessee, only 16 % are AA, and they mostly live in and around Memphis, in West Tennessee, 400 miles from Knoxville. Cotton was NOT grown, planted, cultivated, picked, or ginned within 150 miles of Knoxville and we are in the SEC where cotton was cultivated over vast stretches of Georgia, SC, Alabama, Fla, and Louisiana. Don’t tell anyone that AA’s are the best college football players, Boise State withstanding! We are no longer a factor nor will we be a factor because of demographics, in the SEC and college football. We are in the bottom of the SEC with Ark., Ky, and the MIss. schools; just the facts! And congrats on your great win over us in the bowl!! You all have a program; we don;t, unfortunately for Tennesseans!
    As a long time, avid, UT fan, our one and only hope is to change conferences. There is little or no interst in the Big East, the ACC’s academic credentials preclude us, so our one and only hope is the Big Ten. The Big Ten has publicly proclaimed that the changing demographics-population growth in the South-makes them look south toward future expansion of their conference. Contact, conversations, have evolved between most influential UT folks and the Big Ten but they want Ky to come with UT. Ky, because of it’s long and great history of bb domination in the SEC, is most reluctant. UT’s only hope for footbal sucdcess is to exit the SEC but the Big Ten’s demands that Ky come with us is holding up most serious consideration. They want Florida, but Florida has NO interest!

    Last edited 9/7/2010 12:37 AM by Tennstud

    Like

    • Hank says:

      wow. I don’t know if I would have made it to the Big Ten talk. His comments about AAs is very Jimmy the Greekish.

      re UT in the Big Ten his reasoning doesn’t sound in tune with Big Ten thinking, at least as far as we’ve speculated. If the ACC’s academic credentials preclude UT, I doubt that, why wouldn’t the Big Ten’s? And the idea that the Big Ten wants Kentucky for its basketball flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Expansion is about growing revenue and football is the route for that. The way basketball is set up the revenue potential is limited regardles of how prestigous Kentucky would be.

      Like

      • Bamatab says:

        Yeah, his comments are borderline racist for sure. He is also a little “essentric” to say the least. Pictures of football recruits and him in his hot tube used to find their way to message boards quite often. He was good friends with Logan Young (who was the Bama booster that was involved in the Albert Means case) and they both bragged publically (usually when drunk) about buying players for their respective schools.

        He is correct about the demographics of east Tennessee though. Because of that, UT has to recruit on more of a national stage than what you would expect from a state of 6 million plus people. But I’m still confused on how joining the Big Ten helps that issue.

        And I agree with you about his reasoning of why the Big Ten would consider them. I thought the Big 10 academics was on par with, is not higher than the ACC’s. And being a basketball school didn’t work in Kansas’ favor, so why would the Big Ten care about UK’s basketball program.

        I just posted it because this guy is a big time UT booster, but he is “essentric” to say the least, so take what he says with a grain of salt.

        Like

      • Cliff's Notes says:

        I would be surprised, but not shocked, when the chips are down, if The Big Ten really went for Kentucky and Tennessee over an East Coast expansion. The names of Kentucky and Tennessee mean more to the college football world than Rutgers, but who knows. Both schools own their respective states, even with Louisville, Vandy, and Memphis around.

        They weren’t really studied by this blog, but I’d be curious to see how well Kentucky travels for football (we know they travel as well as anyone for basketball), and also Tennessee. As well, I’d like to see the demographics and the tv ratings for these schools. Especially as compared to the non-Notre Dame competition, such as Maryland and Virginia

        And how does Missouri feel if The Big Ten skips them again for two more schools that border their state? Missouri would then border five Big Ten states.

        Like

      • Eric (ohio1317) says:

        If this is the way the Big Ten goes, I’d expect a further separation of the athletic conference from the CIC. You could have Tennessee and Kentucky join the Big Ten, but not give them automatic invites to the CIC.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        If you are looking for demographics, KY and TN aren’t growing a whole lot faster than the B10 states. VA, NC, GA, FL are the rapidly growing southern states.

        Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Alright, now there’s a fun rumor!

      So, remember that rumor that a while back the B10+1 got an unexpected inquiry for membership from an outlier? And could the rumors about Vandy actually have been about TN?

      Yeah, some of it doesn’t pass the initial smell test, but it isn’t entirely unbelievable. I could see TN approaching the B10+? and Delany politely listening and running what if numbers. KY makes a a geographically logical addition with the fb fan support but isn’t a threat to the real fb powers. KY basketball is a huge pull that might add enough critical mass for basketball to generate relevant amounts of revenue. Bball may not matter for most conference expansions, but with the B10+? attempting to shift paradigms I wouldn’t assume that Delany couldn’t find a way to make plenty of dough if the conference significantly bulks up its number of Bball top brands. Enough base hits for KY might surpass, say, an academic triple for Rutgers.

      The ACC academics statement may simply be inferring that the ACC doesn’t want to expand and thus hasn’t given TN the time of day, while perhaps the B10+? has at least appeared open for discussion. I still suspect that TN’s academic rep would prevent them from getting enough B10+? votes, but then we all thought that Stanford and Cal would never even consider Okie St or TTech. (Very different situations between a conference driving expansion and a conference desperate not to be left behind, but absolute conclusions aren’t always accurate.)

      BTW, how comfortable would the conference presidents be with adding 2 schools that have a long history in the first tier of outlaw programs?

      So if the B10+2 just added KY and TN and stopped at 14, would the SEC necessarily go past 12? Would they settle for aTm and WV or MO?

      Would the relative star power of TN fb and KY Bball (and TN Bball ain’t too shabby) make adding academic stars but onfield duds Rut and MD or VA and MD a net profitable package? TN isn’t the athletic/TV home run that NE was, but TN & KY together are.

      Does KY & TN lead to GTech and FSU instead?

      Are we certain that 16 is the upper limit?

      Even if the TN talk went nowhere, perhaps this blowhard alum was leaked to in order for TN to get more leverage in negotiations with the SEC over some issues. Though that would seem to run the risk of backfiring into TN becoming the SEC’s MO.

      So how strong was that rumor that the conference presidents said “Don’t bring us another NE” (academically)? Because otherwise TN fb, KY bb, MD, and Rut does have some logic to it, or even TN, KY, Rut, Syr or Pitt.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        I made a post back on the expansion blog about UK

        Like

        • Playoffs Now says:

          Probably best to post it here, since almost nobody bothers to go back and read the old threads for updates, especially since a new post can get buried in the middle of a thread.

          Anyway, I’m not a basketball fan, but wouldn’t the addition of KY, TN, VA, and MD make the B16 the best bball conference?

          Would the presidents go for TN and KY if Vandy was included as a package, perhaps with either Rut or MD? 2 TV stars and cash cows, 2 academic stars.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Vandy wouldn’t bring anything athletically/financially, and that’s still the biggest consideration.

            Like

          • Jay says:

            Basketball is irrelevant.
            Why would these schools want to leave the SEC anyway? Isn’t that a pretty profitable conference? I don’t think UT football is enough of a game-changer to warrant the Big Ten going past 12 or stepping outside of its academic and traditional comfort level.

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            I can’t see anyone, even Vanderbilt leaving the SEC.

            Vanderbilt is a southern school. It’s not going to join the Big North.

            Big Ten has to focus on the Northeast. There really aren’t any other options.

            The only “southern” school that I see maybe ever contemplating it is UVA since they’re in north VA which is very different from the rest of the south nowadays.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Depends on goals. Tennessee likely thinks it it is at a disadvantage to the other SEC powers (UF, UG, ‘Bama, LSU, Auburn) when it comes to recruiting, but would be at an advantage to the Big10 schools.

            In any case, if culture is a consideration, Miami would be comfortable in a Northern conference as well. I don’t think culture is that big a deal to university presidents, however.

            Like

          • Vincent says:

            Have Kentucky and Tennessee get back to the Big Ten when they secure AAU membership. Perhaps they then might be selected as #15 and #16 after Rutgers and Maryland, which have more to offer the Big Ten from a purely academic and market perspective (and good all-around athletics). That’s the Big Ten’s chief priority, now that it has a football brand name (and, consequently, a conference title game) for #12.

            Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      If you’re the SEC, you’ve just been done a favor in this scenario. You get rid of moderate to bad football properties and get free reign to invite two good football properties into the fold.

      There’s no way the Big 10 touches schools of UT or UK’s academic standing. Especially with basketball sanctions looming at UT and UK almost assuredly around the corner.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        What “good football properties” could the SEC invite? In terms of prestige, FSU, Miami, VTech, UNC, and TAMU aren’t better than Tennessee. Only Texas and maybe Oklahoma are definitely better. Granted, adding VTech, UNC, or TAMU would open up new territory (with a lot of recruits) to the SEC, but losing Tennessee & Kentucky wouldn’t make the SEC more attractive to those schools than it is now.

        Like

        • Playoffs Now says:

          Say you’re Delany and you want MD and VA markets as part of your 16, but the ACC is happy and tight at 12, tough to break up. TN has approached you with interest and KY may be available. One option would be to again approach MD and VA, stating that the B10+ is going to 16 and they are taking KY and TN. The SEC down at 10 will surely go to 16 and now have the ability to get into the Texas market (aTm) and still offer Tobacco Road to come as a solid block of 5 (maybe even 6 if aTm is forced to stick with TX.) The odds of the SEC gutting the SEC are high, and if we take Rutgers and Syracuse instead, you (VA and MD) could be left to a permanently weak leftover conference and much lower revenues. If the SEC offers Duke, NC, NC St (and perhaps WF) to bring along a few others and grant them sufficient voting strength in conference matters, are you sure they’d bring you instead of VTech, FSU, or VTech?

          Now let some of that talk leak out and up and down the info chain. If the ACC looks to be raided, the Carolina schools may start to plan to look out for themselves, creating cracks in the conference. Could be a path to adding KY, TN, MD, and VA, but it could also be a path to getting Duke and NC to seriously negotiate with Delany. Duke, NC, VA, and MD would be a great addition for the B10+, if the state of N.Car was satisfied with NC St going to the SEC. Or perhaps Duke, NC, NC St (close to AAU status) and either VA or MD?

          Like

          • Playoffs Now says:

            Should read:

            “…are you sure they’d bring you instead of VTech, FSU, or GTech?”

            Like

          • Richard says:

            If I was Delany, I’d prefer NCSU (with UNC, Virginia, & Maryland) instead Duke. Duke is much better academically and in basketball, but NCSU has the edge in football and football TV viewers; and football drives the bus. Allowing NCSU to go to the SEC splits NC; taking UNC and NCSU locks up NC.

            Ideal may be Maryland, UNC, Duke, and NCSU (Virginia is a much smaller school than VTech, so whoever has VTech would have the upper hand in Virginia). Not sure that can be pulled off, though.

            Like

          • Vincent says:

            You are making some rather surprising assumptions:

            * That the Big Ten is really interested in Kentucky and Tennessee. The former is closer to West Virginia in academics than it is to a Big Ten school. The latter is better academically, but still a wash with Nebraska (and without AAU membership).

            * That the SEC, if raided, would rebound by enlarging all the way to 16 members.

            * That the SEC would be interested in all of North Carolina’s “big four” (Wake? In the SEC?). If the SEC did pursue a school in North Carolina, it would go after UNC first (though I doubt the feeling would be mutual; it’s sort of a Tobacco Road Texas in its desire to be alpha dog), then go after State.

            * I could possibly see the Big Ten going to 16 with Maryland, Virginia, UNC and Duke, but all things being equal I sense Delany would probably prefer Rutgers over Duke as member #16. It better fits the Big Ten model than Duke and gives you the NJ/NY market the Big Ten covets. If you have UNC, Duke (and State, were it ever to reach AAU status) becomes superfluous.

            Like

          • Playoffs Now says:

            I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea that football is 100% and basketball 0%, since bball offers so much more live inventory and over a longer season. Seems like bball offers more potential to maximize the BTN cash cow. Fb may be king, but bball and synergy may be tiebreakers.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            I still say duke and wake could be the orphans. UK and the terps is an interesting combination. Kentucky and Maryland have had much back and forth between athletics for quite some time. Both in coaching and office staff. would be an interesting pair. if the story is true it said the big 10 was interested in UT bringing UK, NOT UK bringing UT! I find that the most interesting nugget of all.

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            Playoffs Now; the last 2 Big Ten additions were Penn State and Nebraska. The last 2 SEC additions were Arkansas and South Carolina.

            100% football and 0% basketball. Basketball is just icing if the school has a good basketball program.

            Like

          • @zek33 – Yeah, if I were to re-do the Big Ten Expansion Index, I’d probably have to remove basketball entirely from the discussion. (That hurts as I’m a big hoops guy that has had an affinity for schools like Syracuse for a long time.) I always knew that football would be the dominant factor, but the way that Kansas was kicked around when it looked like the Pac-16 was going to form was a mortifying display of how little basketball is taken into account.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @ zeke;

            Basketball had value in the past. And Arkansas won an NCAA championship shortly after joining SEC. But I agree that now it seems to be ignored.

            And that is a warning to the conferences. There is so much inventory available all the time in basketball. That wasn’t always the case. The conference tourneys and NCAA tourney expansion, of course, cheapened the regular season over the course of time, but that wasn’t the only factor. The one and dones and professionalization of the play and officiating hurt. You don’t have key players staying 4 years and you don’t have as distinct a difference in playing style from the pros as you used to. When colleges compete directly with the pros, they lose. College football is very different from the pros. Even if the talent level isn’t the same, IMO, its more exciting and fun to watch.

            Like

          • @bullet – That last point is very interesting because you could also arguably flip that around. At least from my experience, college football fans generally still watch the NFL, so there’s a fairly high crossover between fans. That’s not necessarily the case for college basketball and the NBA, which seem to have two distinct audiences. I personally follow both college basketball and the NBA pretty closely, but I seem to encounter people who either know a ton about college hoops and nothing about the NBA or vice versa a whole lot more than those who only watch one type of football.

            The nature of football (whether college or pro) is that every game has a sense of urgency. Even with the playoffs in the NFL, there’s still a feeling that every regular season game has impact since each game is 1/16th of the season, which is the equivalent of 10 MLB games or 5 NBA games. This sense of urgency is heightened even further in the college game with only 12 regular season games and no playoff system. So, the very structure of the football season makes it compelling television compared to other sports, and with ever-expanding entertainment and cable channel options, the extra audience that the average football game draws on TV is magnified and commands a much greater premium.

            Like

          • @bullet- Further to my previous comment, here’s some very interesting demographic information from the TV ratings of the major sporting events over the past year:

            http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010/08/demo-reel-how-major-events-did-in.html

            Note that there are definitely big differences between the makeup of the audiences of the NBA Finals compared to the Final Four. Interestingly, the NBA Finals audience skewed much younger – the lower percentage of 18-49 adults for the Final Four was in line with the stereotypically older-skewing World Series while the NBA Finals had the youngest skewing audience of any of the major sporting events by a substantial margin. There were some demographic differences between the BCS and the NFL postseason (the NFL skewed slightly younger with some more minorities), but it wasn’t nearly as pronounced as the differences between college basketball and the NBA.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I can’t see the Big 10 considering UK because of the academic aspect and the recurring recruiting issues. UNL at least had AAU and, despite their fondness for players who had no business in a 4 year college, they also have done quite well at producing academic all-Americans and graduating their players.

            From an athletic $ standpoint, UK would be fine. They would not be a top tier fb program, but their fan support makes them reasonably valuable, especially for tertiary rights. And UK basketball is probably the most valuable basketball property in the country. But schools like Rutgers and Maryland have a bigger upside potential.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @ Frank.

            Very interesting demographics.
            Doesn’t really answer who watches college basketball, except they aren’t likely to be AA or Hispanic and most are not 18-49. If they are over 49, that’s not a good sign for the college game. If they’re under 18, that doesn’t help with the beer commercials.

            I remember a Longhorn sportswriter in the Houston paper talk about how much more he liked pro football because of the talent of the athletes. To me, that disparity is what creates more big exciting plays. Instead of a jump ball where the talented pro receiver beats out the equally fast cornerback for a TD, you have a back or receiver who is faster than the defense blowing by everyone.

            And of course, college players haven’t had any strikes or lockouts like fb and baseball. The strike that cancelled the World Series really reduced my interest in baseball. As a kid, I remember one year where I either watched on TV or listened on the radio to about 140 of the Reds games. I always watched the All-Star game, but haven’t seen any of it in about 5 or 6 years. So it has dropped from my favorite sport to behind college & pro fb, college & pro basketball.

            Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        You lose all credibility when you describe UT as a moderate to bad football property.

        Like

    • I know I’ve been accused of stoking various realignment rumors, but when I see a Vol booster claiming that Tennessee and Kentucky are looking to leave the SEC and that the Big Ten is actually INSISTING on Kentucky in a package deal, it could only mean that peyote sales are going quite strong in the land of Dixie. I’m not exactly sure what Kentucky brings for the Big Ten that Kansas wouldn’t have brought (and KU is an AAU member), but I digress as this could only be defined as whack.

      Like

      • jj says:

        @ frank.

        I was thinking the same thing. Mizzo & Kansas are more attractive to me than KY & TN.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          FWIW:

          For as bad as their football is, UK can still sell their football stadium out (#22 in the nation) – 487,156 ==>> For comparison Iowa (who had a great season) was 491, 499, meaning last year UK would have been tied for 5th place behind only Michigan, PSU, tOSU, and Wisconsin!

          Missouri = 384,719

          Kansas = 303,488

          the same can not be said for missouri or kansas

          in short you get the elite MBB + strong football support for a weak football team, which would be much better on paper than kansas. You also solidify the IU vs UK rivalry, which has no equal in kansas. I know you are up in chicago, but where I reside the IU / UK thing is a big deal.

          If it really is about money, then UK has a much stronger football value than either missouri or kansas (and would be no threat to Michigan or tOSU). Keep in mind it is ONLY a 3 hour drive between tOSU and UK, and a straight shot down I – 75 from the maize & blue to the blue & white (5 – 6 hours). For a way out thought, If the Big 10 added UK, are they thinking a ND add? look at the map of Kentucky and Indiana. If both were in the Big 10 I could see a neutral site game in Lucas Oil. The old Big 4 was IU, ND, UK, and UL. I know this is out of the box, but there is a previous history there.

          Like

        • StvInIL says:

          But neither are undiscovered country with the addition of Nebraska. I think there is a triangle between Lincoln , Iowa City and Champaign that will bring some of those television sets to the BT out of past connections to Nebraska and curiosity and regional appeal. Tennessee would be an addition in terms of TV sets and to a lesser degree Kentucky as well.

          Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          “Mizzo & Kansas are more attractive to me than KY & TN.”

          Tennessee 6.3 million people
          Missouri 6.0 million
          Kentucky 4.3 million
          Kansas 2.8 million

          That’s Wikipedia’s numbers (2009 estimate).

          The fact that St. Louis and Kansas City both have a few professional sports franchises likely keeps Missouri from having as much support for its university as Tennessee and Kentucky. As Duffman points out, there’s a lot of support for their athletics.

          Neither school would be politically tied to another school the way Kansas is to Kansas State. Any move, however, would be hugely controversial.

          I could see either school being interested in the Big 10 for the Academic boost, but I doubt they would move because they feared recruiting against the rest of the SEC.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Yeah, from a purely athletic & financial standpoint, I’d definitely take Tennessee & Kentucky over KU and Mizzou.

            Like

      • M says:

        Cmon Frank, we haven’t had a decent rumor in weeks. If this were the off season, this comment would have gotten a whole separate article.

        It’s more legitimate than half of the rumors discussed here in that an actual person with connections to the program is making the case, putting it above Vanderbilt, Maryland, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, North Carolina, Florida, Texas A&M, USC, Boston College, UConn, Georgia Tech, and Miami. If this blog isn’t for crazed half informed speculation, I just don’t know where to turn.

        Like

      • Vincent says:

        If Kentucky and Tennessee are seriously considering ditching the SEC, something that would stun me, I propose another alternative for them: the conference now known as the Big 12. UK and the Knoxville UT would complete a fascinating new Big 12 north with Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas and Missouri (which borders both Tennessee and Kentucky). KU and UK are two men’s basketball “brand names” (with an on-court rivalry over the years) and Tennessee adds a strong program to the Big 12 North and a women’s basketball “brand name.”

        True, there is the risk that the SEC would then try to replenish itself by taking Texas A&M, but Texas could then slip its new buddy Brigham Young into its place.

        Again, I’d be shocked to see Kentucky and Tennessee leave the SEC for the Big 12 (as an Arkansas defection would be), but if Vols fans really feel they have successful long-term football future in the SEC, they might be crazy enough to look into it.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          The problem is that the Big12 wouldn’t provide them with the money and TV exposure that the SEC offers. The Big10’s really the only alternative if they decide to change conferences and don’t want to take a step down in competitiveness as they’re the only conference that can match or even exceed the SEC in payout & TV exposure.

          Like

  35. Hank says:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5RI7FGghuJwGA9jIbSyphFiQ0vQD9I70MOO0

    Big Ten Network making money because of fan wishes
    By DAVID MERCER (AP) – 7 hours ago

    CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — One of Kay Monigold’s first big headaches when she bought a small cable TV business in Illinois and Indiana in late 2007 was a startup cable channel specializing in Big Ten sports.

    The Big Ten Network wanted her Avenue Broadband Communications Inc. to pay what Monigold will only say was “a lot of money for my little company” and make it available to virtually all her customers. She quickly learned she had to do it.

    Die-hard sports fans who were also her customers demanded that she give them Indiana and Illinois basketball — and many of their games were only to be found on the new network.

    “We were in the basketball season in December of 2007, and we were losing customers. At that time we concluded that we needed to launch it,” she said.

    The Big Ten Network introduced itself just before the football season started in 2007. Outside of live football and basketball games with teams not quite attractive enough for ABC, ESPN and others, its earliest programs made some viewers scratch their heads — unpolished studio shows with few big names and heavy doses of old, taped games.

    Well, the network has come a long way since then.

    Neither the conference nor the Chicago-based cable network publicly talk about their finances, but, according to the Sports Business Journal, three years after it went on the air the network is delivering close to $70 million a year to the Big Ten.

    With other conferences including the SEC, Pac-10 and Big East, and even the University of Texas, all talking about potentially forming their own networks, the Big Ten Network is a model for — and some might say the envy of — big-time college sports around the country.

    “They have connected a lot of the dots and they are very powerful,” said Christine Plonsky, who is senior associate athletic director at the University of Texas and the school’s point person on its push to create a Texas-only channel.

    Why?

    Multiply Monigold’s unhappy customers out over millions of households across the Midwest, plus Big Ten fans spread out around the country and, in a nutshell, you can see why the network works and, some experts say, is just getting started.

    Cable companies pay the network, on average, 36 cents a month for every subscriber, according to the SNL Kagan, a firm that tracks media business financials. Last year, there were almost 42 million subscribers generating $182.5 million for the network. It brought in $21 million in other revenue, mostly from ads.

    According to Kagan, the network turned a 30 percent profit in just its third year, and should hit $272.9 million in revenue and a 36 percent profit in 2012.

    Fans, even a relative handful of them, give sports networks like the Big Ten channel real power, Kagan senior analyst Derek Baine said. The 36 cents BTN is paid is actually small compared to some sports channels.

    “Most of the regional sports networks get two to three bucks per set per month because you’ve got these rabid fans on there, and if they don’t get their sports networks, they’re going to drop,” Baine said.

    And they pay, no matter the season, no matter the programming and no matter whether they’re watching or not.

    “I’m having to pay the same amount that I did when basketball season was still going on,” Monigold said in early summer, when the Big Ten’s lineup is dominated by archived football and basketball games and minor sports wrapping up their seasons.

    In fact, even during football and basketball seasons, not that many people tune in to the network when it isn’t showing live football and basketball and sports news shows, according to Nielsen Co. ratings. Airings of past football and basketball games and live or taped current sports such as volleyball or wrestling regularly draw no more than 1,000 households in the Big Ten’s biggest markets — and often fewer than that.

    Mark Silverman, president of the network since it began, said the network is slowly adding higher-quality programs, including “Big Ten Icons,” a weekly show hosted by legendary college football broadcaster Keith Jackson.

    Silverman says that in addition to the fans, and Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany’s idea that a network devoted to just one conference would work in such a big way, he had another tool in his belt that made Big Ten Network an early success.

    While the conference owns 51 percent of the network, Fox Cable Networks owns 49 percent, and at the time the network launched, Fox and DirecTV had a common owner, News Corp. DirecTV carried the Big Ten Network from day one, giving those cable customers a place to go if their cable outlet didn’t carry the network, and giving the network leverage in what were often difficult negotiations with the larger cable companies, as well as the smaller companies like Monigold’s Avenue Broadband.

    “It was really just this great combination of assets,” Silverman said. “It really just enabled us to succeed.”

    The network’s success and the money it generated have led every other major conference that didn’t already have some plan for its own TV to start drawing one up.

    The SEC and ACC have their own programming carrying the conference brand on ESPN and Raycom, respectively.

    But others look to follow the Big Ten.

    Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott has made clear he intends to start a network at some point, and said in interviews this summer that he’d like it showcase higher-level games than those featured on the Big Ten Network. Right now, ESPN/ABC and Fox Sports Net hold the rights to its football games and FSN owns the basketball rights, but those contracts expire next year.

    Eight of the Big 12 schools met this summer to talk about the potential for their own network. Networks now own the rights to football and basketball games, but negotiations on new deals are planned for next year.

    Neither Big 12 nor Pac-10 officials responded to requests for comment for this story.

    Whatever the Big 12 schools do, they’ll do to a large degree without Texas, which has worked for several years with a company called IMG College toward its own network.

    Just what that network will offer is a question mark. Texas football and basketball rights are part of the deals the conference has with ESPN/ABC and Fox.

    “I can tell you right now IMG College is now projecting a lot of this without live games,” Plonsky said, adding that there may be an opening for the school to hold onto the rights to a live game or two in future negotiations.

    Plonsky says Texas looks to the Big Ten model for some ideas — she says she’s known Delany for years and, at his request, talked to network staffers early on about her own experience working on televised Big East basketball years ago. She adds that football will have to be a heavy presence, even if most of that comes in the form of highlights and news.

    With more than 450,000 Texas alumni around the country and an audience for just about any team wearing UT’s burnt orange, “I am very confident that this will become a reality for us,” she said.

    Silverman won’t handicap the odds of the other conferences succeeding.

    But he admits that he has a hard time imagining the Big Ten Network without one of the conference’s powers like Ohio State.

    “That’s just not the way the conference works — I would imagine that would have caused issues,” he said, noting that a big reason his network works well for the conference is that the schools — from top dogs Ohio State and Michigan all the way down to Indiana and Purdue — share the money equally.

    And that model, he said, is something that clearly not all conferences can follow.

    “It’s not a one size fits all,” he said. “Some are going to find it may be something for them to explore, and others are going to find that maybe it’s not.”

    Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

    Like

  36. M says:

    So everyone’s heard the “Why does Rice play Texas?” quote from JFK’s speech. The less well-known quote is from Rice’s coach: “I sure wish he’d said, ‘Why does Rice play New Mexico State?'”

    http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/jfk-why-does-rice-play-texas-because-its.html

    Like

  37. mushroomgod says:

    Forget TN and UK. Not going to happen. Back to reality.

    I see two issues with further expansion…..

    If MD is added, Wis. can’t be moved back to the west because the east is too weak

    OSU
    PSU
    RU
    MD
    IU
    PUR
    ILL

    MICH
    NEB
    WIS
    IOWA
    NW
    MSU
    Minn

    However, if Pitt is added, as I expect, Pitt carries enough football umph, imo, to make that move, although the east would still be weaker.

    Also, I think scheduling issues may presently prevent going to 14. With a nine game 6-3 format, with 1 protected non-divsion rival, you only play the remainder of the non-division schools once evry 3 years. If the BT were permitted to go to a 5-4 format, with 1 protected intradivision foe, you’d still play everyone at least once every 2 years. Intra divsion, you’d play 1 team every year, and the remainder every 5/6 years. As I understand matters, the NCAA currently requires schools to play all intra-division teams every year. Could see the BIg 10 requesting a rules change………

    Like

  38. StvInIL says:

    It actually would be OK if the East was a little weaker. Absolute parody may not be possible. No more than your left limbs being as strong as your right limbs. Even so tOSU and Penn State are perennial conference contender types. Pitt absolutle sounds like a fit but the situation all things considered do not bode well for Pitt. One might also wonder how open armed PSU is to Pitt? There was a time when Pitt was it.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Absolute parody is certainly possible. Parity is a little harder to acheive. However, I’m of the opinion that shifting Wisconsin northwest would actually make the conferences more even; right now, I feel the SE division is stronger than the NE. Even though Iowa has overacheived relative to potential, and PSU & Illinois have underacheived relative to potential, in the recent past, going forward, OSU has inherent advantages over Michigan, PSU has inherent advantages over Nebraska, Wisconsin has an inherent advantage over Iowa, and even Illinois has an inherent advantage over NU.

      Like

  39. Playoffs Now says:

    (Oops, let’s try again with just 1 link to avoid the moderation lag.)

    To say that basketball means nothing to expansion because KS had a rough go this summer is silly. KS’ albatross was being virtually tied to KSU politically. Plus the P10 only had 6 slots which it wanted to fill with CO and whatever would lure TX. No room for KS, though recall that the whole P16 fell through when TX backed out after the commish still tried to substitute KS for OK St. So obviously KS did hold value in expansion (with a much weaker football history and attendance compared to KY.) KS (and KSU) also attracted interest from the BEast and MWC.

    I don’t recall anything from Delany or the conference suggesting that basketball wouldn’t be a factor. Yes, football, academics, and markets are the primary drivers with the most weight, but not the only relevant variables in their decision matrix. ‘Basketball means nothing’ seems to be a circular urban myth around here.

    Do I think it likely that KY and TN will end up in the B10+? No, but I do believe there have been preliminary discussions, at least on TN’s part. Certainly would be plausible as initial basic due diligence for the B10+.

    As for academics, ARWU has KY ahead of KS, ND, MO, and Syr. Let’s revisit the 2009 total scores:

    http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp

    Total scores work out to:

    WI = 46.7
    MI = 43.8
    IL = 42.4
    MN = 40.4
    NW = 38.7

    Duke=37.1
    MD = 34.1
    TX = 34.0
    NC = 33.4
    VB = 33.0
    PSU = 32.5
    Pit= 31.7
    Rut= 30.4
    FL = 29.8
    OSU= 29.1
    PU = 28.5
    MSU= 25.5

    aTm= 25.2
    VA = 24.6

    Calculated:

    IU = 24.4
    GT = 22.9
    IA = 22.7
    GA = 19.6
    NCSt=19.5
    Mia= 19.2
    VTec=19.0
    TN = 19.0
    FSU = 18.2
    ISU= 17.4
    NE = 16.8
    Cin= 16.8
    CT = 16.2
    LSU= 15.9
    KY = 15.2
    UHou=15.1
    KS = 15.0
    ND = 14.9
    MO = 14.8
    SCar=14.5
    USF= 13.6
    UCF= 12.7
    WkF= 12.1
    Syr= 11.9

    I don’t have the research rankings, but if someone can add them it would be interesting to compare. I seem to recall that TN had a Med school reported separately (like TX.)

    USNews is not as kind to KY, but we’ve pretty much considered it the weakest of the major rankings.

    As to AAU, if the B10+ could get it for ND, they probably have just as good a shot at getting it for KY, TN, FSU, Mia, or CT. Some argue that the lack of AAU might be overcome by ND’s $ gain to the conference. If so, then it is also possible that what KY and TN could enable as part of a package might have a similar effect on the presidents’ votes. Perhaps not so much for KY’s basketball as for the entire package that KY and TN could lure.

    So while KY’s chances for the B10+ would be iffy, they would be no more so than MO’s (and note the similar fb attendance with only a slight recent bump in on the field success for MO.) I also seem to recall that IU might be wanting KY the way IL wanted MO. Might be a factor if Delany has to horse trade for votes on an expansion package.

    Finally I go back to the TN booster’s comments about the B10+? wanting FL. Perhaps the conference’s interest (if true) in TN and KY was as a package for FL, GA, TN, and KY, with TN being the only one of those to show much or any interest.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      So if the B10+ became the B16 with KY, TN, GT, and FSU, would it be considered a successful expansion? I say, yes, and big time in the public’s perception. Would the conference presidents vote for it? At first glance I’d say tossup leaning no. But GT is AAU, FSU pursuing it, and if TN really is chasing the B10+ then strengthening academic rep and the CIC has to be primary reasons to justify breaking such longstanding SEC ties. We’ve already been over all the reasons the state of Florida would be a tempting prize for the conference.

      Would KY, TN, FSU, and Mia be judged a successful expansion? Again, yes for the public as a whole, and probably more so than KY-TN-MD-VA (or VT,) KY-TN-MD-Rut, or any combo of eastern schools that doesn’t include ND. KY-TN-NC-Duke (or NC St) would also likely be viewed as a bigger gain than an eastern 4-pack w/o ND.

      Of course the academic view of these combinations would be different and can’t be dismissed. But the key point is that KY and TN might indeed have value to B10+ as part of the package they could bring.

      Without ND or TX, the biggest expansion win at 16 for the B10+ involves luring schools from the perceived very tight and unlikely to break ACC and SEC. Sounds like Delany may have run at FL and no package could get them, but could KY and TN be key to cracking the ACC?

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        Without ND or TX, the biggest expansion win at 16 for the B10+ involves luring schools from the perceived very tight and unlikely to break ACC and SEC. Sounds like Delany may have run at FL and no package could get them, but could KY and TN be key to cracking the ACC?

        Please explain to me why Kentucky and Tennessee — unless they are strictly flirtations instead of invitations — would help the Big Ten gain access to the ACC. I have to believe that from Delany’s perspective, he’d prefer adding Rutgers and Maryland in a 14-member scenario, and RU, UMd, UVa and UNC in a 16-team, non-ND scenario. UK and UT are from comparatively less affluent states, aren’t quite up to Big Ten academic snuff, and have too much athletic baggage to meet Big Ten criteria.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          vincent,

          Yow went from UK to MD, Mullens (Oregon’s new AD) went from MD to UK, Bryant and Claiborne both went from MD to UK. There are other connections, but it has been my understanding MD and UK have been friendly on the athletic side for ages. Not so sure about the academic side. I think back in the 80’s when Steve Jobs had the NeXT computer (the current Apple OS) both UK and MD were the academic sites they were involved with. Not sure if it was a joint effort, but I remember being surprised that they were the 2 biggest sites at the time.

          I am guessing UK is much closer in travel distance to Big 10 schools (IU, PU, UM, MSU, tOSU, Northwestern, and Illinois) and if the Big 10 raided the ACC I could easily see that MD is at the edge of the ACC conference (and maybe the most unhappy with not being an equal to the NC schools). In a weird way I could see a UK + MD pair quite easily (you are only picking off 1 team from each conference). With MD and UK you get pro catholic populations (remember MD had the first diocese – from england – in america and Bardstown was the first diocese formed in america). Louisville and Cincinnati both have large catholic populations. could this be an end run for the final run at ND? Maybe UK + MD = 14, then RU + ND = 16?

          Like

      • Richard says:

        UK, Tennessee, FSU, and Miami would get sports fans salivating. Whether the academic issues can be worked out is the main question.

        First and foremost, it’s an athletic conference. It’s clear that the Big10 would look the other way in academics for ND (and Nebraska), but not for Mizzou. Tennessee, FSU, and Miami are similiar to Nebraska (except for not being AAU. . .yet). Kentucky has its basketball going for it (and geography).

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Ted Strickland is a UK grad, depending on how this election turns out, he has UK ties.

          Beverly Purdue is also a grad of UK and UF

          UK + MD + UF + UNC = Big 10 at 16 (for an out of the box thought)

          Big 10 would have UNC & UK in basketball, UF in football, and MD overall.

          Like

        • Vincent says:

          First and foremost, it’s an athletic conference.

          But it’s an athletic conference that values academics more than any other in the BCS (the ACC might be an exception, but it hasn’t bonded academically the way the Big Ten has). If athletics was the be-all and end-all to the Big Ten, Oklahoma would likely be a member today. AAU membership — and a commitment to boost its research — complemented Nebraska’s football “brand name.” And as overall academic/athletic/research/market fits, Rutgers and Maryland make infinitely more sense to the Big Ten at #13 and #14 (now that it has its football title game, the prime force behind selecting Nebraska as #12) than Kentucky and Tennessee do.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Oklahoma is a fair bit lower on the ARWU ranking than Tennessee (which is in the same tier as Nebraska). While Tennessee could become AAU some day with some day, there’s no chance of Oklahoma joining within my lifetime. OK also has a smaller population.

            Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Why do you believe there have been “preliminary discussions” between the BT and UT and UK??? For crying out loud, The only thing I’ve seen is 1 looney tune post by 1 disgruntled UT fan to the effect that he WISHED UT would go to the BT.

      Like

  40. Hank says:

    http://www.fangsbites.com/2010/09/michigan-notre-dame-becomes-most.html

    (no full paste Hopkins)

    “Michigan-Notre Dame game became the most watched Fighting Irish telecast in 16 years”

    “The game was also:

    The most-watched Notre Dame on NBC game ever featuring two unranked teams
    The third-most watched Michigan-Notre Dame game ever on NBC (10.1 million, 1994; 7.3 million, 1992)
    The twelfth most-watched Notre Dame on NBC game ever”

    the value of brands I guess

    Like

    • zek33 says:

      Plus the ridiculous amount of buzz that Michigan has been getting after that UConn game.

      The ratings were already high for ND’s first game due to Kelly.

      Combine that with Michigan’s win over UConn and ESPN talking about Denard Robinson for a full week, and you knew it was going to be huge.

      Like

      • Hank says:

        Plus the ridiculous amount of buzz that Michigan has been getting after that UConn game.

        right because the game certainly didn’t live up to the buzz.

        Like

        • StvInIL says:

          Amazeing! I would not want to take anything away from DR that he rightfully deserves, but I am reserved about his gaudy statistics. Both Uconn and ND are still question marks. So I am not overly excited. Lets check back in on this after another 2-4 games. We will have a better idea of who all three teams are after that

          Like

          • Hank says:

            I’m a Michigan fan but I’m not really saying anything different. Fwiw we expected the offense to be good, not quite this good, and they have lived up to it. But its not all Denard, although a lot of course. The offensive line is a lot deeper and experienced and playing very well so far.

            I said before the season and it has been shown so far that the secondary and the kicking game were going to produce a lot of stomach acid.

            I think the offense is going to continue to show good numbers even if not quite this extreme at one position. The season will be determined by how well the defense matures.

            Like

          • R says:

            The next three games are UMass, Bowling Green, and Indiana. Better check after 6-8: Michigan State, Iowa, and Penn State! He is exciting to watch, but if you are an M fan, you must be concerned over his long term health. Do any of you M fans think Forcier will leave soon?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            If RichRod is smart, he’d play DR sparingly against these 3 teams. Heck, in the first 2, Michigan should be able to win just by pounding it up the gut with an I-formation.

            Like

          • Cliff's Notes says:

            I have plenty of concerns for UM. Robinson’s health is one of them. How the O-Line blocks and the tailbacks run against better defensive fronts is another. The kicking game is another. And the incredibly thin depth in the secondary scares me the most. Seriously.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      I pointed out here last week how ridiculous all the ESPN hype was. Why ESPN was working to promote an NBC broadcast, I really don’t understand.

      Like

      • @bullet – For better or for worse, the average SportsCenter watcher is interested in seeing stories about Notre Dame (and teams like the Yankees, Lakers and Cowboys) just because of who they are. So, at least in the case of ND and other marquee teams, ESPN is going to hype them even if NBC is carrying the broadcast.

        Now, once you get past that elite tier of teams (Ohio State, Michigan, USC, major SEC schools, Miami, etc.) that the public is just naturally always interested in, there’s a much higher correlation between ESPN’s hype and whether ESPN is carrying the game. On the flip side, there are definitely sports leagues that get marginalized because they don’t have ESPN coverage (namely the NHL and Mountain West).

        Like

        • bullet says:

          IMO the Big 12 and Pac 10 still get marginalized for selecting Fox Sports back in the mid-90s instead of ESPN. Although you could argue its just ESPN being part of the east coast bias.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          From a personal standpoint, I guess I understand the subway alumni. If people follow a sport they like to pick winners who they have a link to. So ND is (was) a winner and the Irish and Catholics have a link.

          Growing up in Kentucky before the Bengals, people followed the Packers, Browns, Giants, and for me, the Colts. Didn’t know any Falcon, Cardinal, Bear, Lion, Steeler, Eagle or Redskin fans. Not coincidentally all those franchises were lousy at that point in time. All those teams were relatively the same distance. The Colts were winners and Johnny U. went to Louisville and Tom Matte to Ohio St. So that was enough of a connection. When Joe Thomas came in as GM and benched or traded all the players (even the young ones like Bubba Smith) in order to get a 1st draft pick to start the franchise from scratch (as he did with the Vikings), I lost my connection and switched my allegiance to the Bengals. He apparently weakened the allegiance in Baltimore quite a bit also and they headed off in the middle of the night to Indianapolis.

          Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        bullet – ESPN’s College Game Day has originated from SEC sites when CBS carried the game on several occasions. I’m sure they feel like if they pump up the sport, they help themselves even if they don’t carry every game . . . just about 80% of the games.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Indeed. Other than the MWC, ESPN gets to broadcast the top teams of every conference to some extent, and even though NBC shows all ND home games, virtually every ND away game is shown in the ESPN family.

          Like

  41. Eric (ohio1317) says:

    Tennessee, Kentucky makes a ton of sense if you can a) convince them (probably not) and b) get around the academics (not easy, but not impossible if they are willing to separate the CIC from the athletic conference).

    It gives you two name brands, maybe not quite as big as Nebraska, but at the very least close (if you add in basketball). It also gives you two states which care a lot for college athletics. The northeast even if you are successful is unlikely to ever follow college sports anywhere near the same as the Midwest/south and this gives you two more very solid states. In a lot of ways, it makes more sense than the northeast.

    With that said, the regional tie is something I actually think of as a strength, and UK and UT are very much rocking that foundation.

    Like

  42. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Mike B – the first reason is that riots would ensue and the fans/alums of UTn and UK would burn down their respective campuses before they would let the administrations consider leaving the SEC.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I don’t think UK fans would be in favor of it, but they would hardly burn down their campus. Kentucky has more ties to IN and OH than any of the SEC states, except for the fact that it is a southern state.

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        Kentucky is not a southern state. It’s a yankee state.

        Like

        • CGE says:

          Texas is not a western state. It’s a trailer trash redneck state.

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Oh, that really stings.

            Like

          • jj says:

            michigan is a canadian providence, i can’t understand why we’re part of america.

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            CGE, I am from Minnesota… you obviously have not set foot in Texas.

            Texas is not south, east, or west… It is just plain Texas… probably as many rednecks that reside up here in Minn (maybe myself included) as in Texas…

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            @mnfanstc
            You are correct about Texas. Different parts of the state are close to other sections of the country. East Texas is the edge of the South. Far SE Texas is the edge of cajun country (cities like Beaumont don’t sound French for no reason). Dallas and north are the edge of the great plains. Get west of the Pecos and you are in the old west. San Antonio and south is almost Mexico.

            But ask anyone and they’ll say they are very Texan.

            (And the redneck trailer trash in Ohio can put anyone to shame)

            Like

          • CGE says:

            Yes, Texas has many parts. The trailer trash redneck part is the part that uses the term “Yankee” – and that includes people from urban areas who want to relive the Civil War. If you don’t understand the term, it’s what you call “The War of Northern Aggression.”

            Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Loki – I know several native Kentuckians and don’t know of one that considers him or herself a Yankee . . . no that there’s anything wrong with that.

          Like

        • duffman says:

          loki,

          they are a border state

          they sold hemp (canvas, rope, etc) and horses to both sides. They have ties to both the north and south to this day. A big chunk of my family are in Kentucky, and a big chunk are in Indiana (the ones in Indiana migrated from Kentucky when they opened up the state). Both the Kentucky side and the Indiana side are basketball folks (remember kentucky and indiana are to basketball as texas is to football on the high school level, and below).

          Many folks on here think of Kentucky as the folks they see on TV sitcoms and images. They forget that Louisville and Cincinnati (3 counties in northern kentucky) are much more urban than the national media portrays the state. Sure there may be pockets of folks in rural eastern kentucky, but they are the MINORITY not the MAJORITY of the state. Remember I went to UC, and have many ties to Cincinnati and southern ohio. Many of the folks across the river in northern kentucky came after the civil war and do not see the world through yankee or confederate eyes. just an observation.

          If you are bored use google earth to look at northern kentucky and louisville to get an idea what it looks like if you have not been there.

          Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Bullet – did you really think I was serious? Its not like Knoxville and Lexington are Detroit.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          @ Alan
          I understood your exaggeration. Relatively speaking, you are probably right about Knoxville. I just think in Lexington the reaction would not be so visceral.

          @ Loki
          Kentucky may have stayed in the union, but in the 1860 election they voted for the Constitutional Union Party which favored the union and not war. They did not vote for Lincoln or Breckinridge who were both raised in Kentucky. More Kentuckians fought for the North than the South, but more Kentuckians fought for the South than most of the Southern states. I believe they were 4th in supplying troops to the south, maybe even 2nd behind Virginia. Kentuckians are definitely southerners in speech, manners and culturally. They were just unionists (coincidentally, so were the people in Knoxville and east Tennessee). Now economically, they have more ties to the midwest

          Like

        • jj says:

          Cincinnati is southern for crying out loud. KY is a southern state. End of story.

          Like

  43. zek33 says:

    Honestly guys, Tennessee and Kentucky would both be voted down. You guys really think Michigan/Northwestern, etc. would vote for this?

    These guys are academics. Nebraska has AAU and posts decent research $ numbers that should grow faster as they put together their Innovation campus and start driving more $ towards that effort along with the CIC benefits of collaboration.

    Tennessee and Kentucky are not Big Ten states. They’re SEC states. Neither is a great fit with the Midwest although Kentucky is an okay fit I guess.

    The East coast is a much better fit culturally with the Midwest than the central south.

    Rutgers/Maryland/Virginia/North Carolina are what the Big Ten would want if we’re looking for large state schools that dominate their states or would give us a stronger footprint.

    Florida is the only school the Big Ten would consider from the SEC, and Florida doesn’t want to be a random outpost when it has a great thing going in the SEC due to control over its local rights.

    If we expand without Notre Dame, I’d bet on Rutgers/Maryland, it’s hard to see anywhere else that you’d get large state universities that dominate their states that would be willing to join. Those two are the only ones other than Missouri that are on the board.

    And Maryland/Rutgers give you way better markets than Missouri, since you’d have D.C. and NYC targeted with games at FedEx and New Meadowlands as well as the fact that they’d have great synergy with Penn State (and the rest of the national brands) due to alumni base, etc.

    Otherwise, we’re just not going to expand for the sake of expansion. There’s no impetus to go to 14.

    Nebraska fits really naturally into the Big Ten. Rutgers and Maryland do as well to some extent.

    Tennessee does not. Maybe Kentucky does, but they have no football clout nationally even though they do a terrific job of generating $ from their stadium and they dominate their state.

    But you want to go to the alumni and good recruiting grounds.

    That’s New Jersey and Maryland which have a ton of Big Ten alumni NYC/D.C. as well as great high school football going on as well as solid growth.

    And getting those two states makes it a lot easier to target the rest of the east coast even if you don’t expand more. You’re right at the doorstep of VA/NC even if you don’t go there. You’re right at the doorstep of NY even if you don’t go there.

    I’d argue that the only two possible options are to wait forever for Notre Dame/Rutgers, or to go for Maryland/Rutgers.

    If both of those fail, I guess the backup would be to go Pitt/Rutgers or to not expand.

    Like

    • Vincent says:

      Go with Rutgers and Maryland first — the two surest bets outside of Notre Dame for the reasons cited above — then wait out to see what happens a) with ND, and b) with a post-Maryland ACC. If the former works out for the Big Ten, see what is then the most likely candidate for #16. If it’s the latter, and Big Ten membership enables Maryland to strengthen in both academics and athletics with the ACC being weakened (despite a likely influx of a few Big East newcomers such as Syracuse or Connecticut), then UVa and UNC might choose to follow suit.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Zek33 – UTn and UK wouldn’t get voted down because they wouldn’t apply. No school would leave the SEC for any other conference, just as no school would leave the Big Ten for any other conference. No SEC school is unhappy with being a member of the SEC.

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        You’re probably right. (Someone will no doubt cite Georgia Tech and Tulane, but those were for different reasons at vastly different times than now.) It would take a genuinely colossal scandal or something to that extent to persuade Kentucky and Tennessee to leave the SEC.

        Like

      • zek33 says:

        Yeah Alan, that’s how I see it.

        I don’t know why people are entertaining these fantasies.

        The Big East and the ACC are the targets.

        The Big East has 1 school with a lot of potential value and then some that are probably not valuable enough to chase.

        The ACC has a lot of valuable schools that may consider leaving but may not. We just don’t know how these discussions would go until they actually happen.

        Of course all of this may never come to pass because Delany may decide he doesn’t want to expand without ND.

        If it was up to me though I’d go with Maryland/Rutgers since that’s the best way to unlock Penn State’s value as well as the value of the alumni bases in D.C./NYC as well as recruiting grounds and large new markets for the BTN.

        I really don’t see anything else out there that would automatically justify a move to 14 and be good fits for the conference.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          if it were to happen, and I say a big if, but I feel the UK + MD is not near as crazy as you guys are projecting.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Kentucky is a SOUTHERN state in outlook and culture. The state song references happy darkies working the fields. That’s not by accident.

            UK basketball is the dirtiest basketball school in history. UK is to basketball what Oklahoma is to football. They do not know how not to cheat.

            Add in the fact that 90% of those hilljacks would have NO interest in joining the BT.

            Pass.

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            Expansion is about targeting big markets, namely NYC/DC etc.

            You can make a much better case for Georgia Tech or Miami than you can for Kentucky.

            Kentucky is great as a brand in the state of Kentucky but it doesn’t do anything for the Big Ten other than that. It doesn’t move the dial in NYC or D.C. or anywhere else on the east coast where the alumni are.

            The goal of future Big Ten expansion is likely to be synergy with Penn State in terms of delivering the east coast.

            Barring ND/Rutgers, the second best option is probably Maryland/Rutgers, and the third best option is probably Pitt/Rutgers.

            The next phase of Big Ten expansion is going to be all about NYC/DC just like the last one was. Nebraska helps deliver NYC/DC and anywhere that there’s college sports fans.

            Rutgers and Maryland do that by virtue of location and the fact that they dominate their states as well as they can. Taking them is a bet that they could better deliver them in football in the Big Ten. It makes it easy to deliver the big brands to those cities, which will make it far easier to extract value.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            mushroomgod,

            are there 2 of you on this blog?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Frank’s demographics post explains some of the issues with basketball schools like UK and KU. Low in 18-49 category means unattractive to advertisers. Very low minority viewership is not good long term.

            Like

  44. duffman says:

    some thoughts on UK

    (grouped from multiple posts for simplicity)
    I will state 2 bias points up front:

    a) I am basketball fan first so I have a bias for basketball schools.
    b) The thought of IU and UK in the same conference for football, basketball, and soccer makes me happy 🙂 (yes getting the media away from UNC vs Duke, and back to IU vs UK would be good for the Big 10 as a whole).

    football: #22 in attendance for a school with a historic sucky program, that last year would have finished #5 in attendance in the Big 10. They already have plans on the drawing board to expand their stadium, which when finished, would make it the 4th largest (even after the UNL joins the Big 10). 3 hours to tOSU and IU (having long football rivalry with IU already on the books), and easy driving distance to PU, NU, MSU, UM, and Illinois. In one of Franks earliest posts he discussed teams that could sell tickets year after year. UK has done this without being good (sells tickets and no threat to tOSU and UM).

    basketball: The elite program in basketball (UCLA and tobacco road both needed Indiana boys to bring credibility to their programs 😉 ) with a rivalry with IU and an ability to sell out Lucas Oil when playing there (IU and MSU). The past spring an estimated 120,000 people descended on Nashville for the SEC basketball tourney for a venue that had only 15,000 – 20,000 seats. If you are an Izzo fan, then you will remember the “nosebleed bowl” that had roughly 80,000 for a non conference regular season game! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketbowl

    money & media: UK is an IMG school, as are tOSU, UM, UNL, and ND (fwiw: prior to the ISP buyout UK, UT, and UF were the only IMG schools in the SEC) and here is a quote on IMG.

    “TWI, IMG’s television division, is the largest independent distributor and producer of televised sports, managing a library of more than 150,000 hours. TWI annually produces and distributes 6,500 hours of original programming to more than 200 countries covering 200+ sports, and also has involvement in digital sports and entertainment.”

    IMG also owns The Collegiate Licensing Company, which had UK in the #8 spot in the country at the EOY 2010, for comparison in 2010 the following schools were below UK:

    (8.) University of Kentucky
    (9.) The Pennsylvania State University
    (11.) University of Notre Dame
    (12.) University of Tennessee
    (14.) University of Nebraska
    (16.) University of Wisconsin
    (17.) The University of Kansas
    (18.) University of Missouri
    (22.) University of Illinois
    (28.) Purdue University
    (29.) The University of Minnesota
    (37.) Syracuse University
    (40.) University of Maryland
    (41.) Georgia Institute of Technology
    (43.) University of Virginia
    (45.) University of Pittsburgh
    (53.) State University of New Jersey – (rutgers)
    (68.) Northwestern University

    Like Nebraska (another small population state) the fanbase outside the state is greater that the states small population would indicate. This is evidenced in media and merchandise demand.

    according to Forbes:

    UK had the #2 most valuable team (when they had their worst coach, and UNC won the title) last year. My guess is they will be #1 next go round now they are back in the spotlight.

    UofL #3, KU #4, Illini #5, IU #6, tOSU #7, SU #8, Wisconsin #12, MD #13, UT #16, Minnesota #17, #18 Pitt, #19 MSU (yes I was surprised to see Izzo so far down the list)

    8 of the SEC teams are in the Forbes for football; #5 BAMA, #6 UF, #7 LSU, #9 UGA, #12 USC, #13 UT, #14 Auburn, and #17 Arkansas (my guess is UK is just out of this ranking)

    so if money and media matter UK brings a top 5 basketball value, and a top 25 football value. My guess is very few schools can make that claim, and most of them are probably in the Big 10 or SEC. I also note that most of the top 10 football “brands” play in cities without pro football teams. In addition to new “tangible” footprints, the UK “brand” brings a large “intangible” footprint.

    research: While when I was young UK was a party school, so were IU, and tOSU (while this maybe hard for the younger folks on here to believe, I was at all 3 and can say I saw this firsthand 😉 ). That said UK is not the school of my youth 🙂 The current president of UK has the following background:

    A well-known inventor / entrepreneur who earned a BS – UK 68′, SM – MIT 70′, EE – MIT 71′, and PhD MIT – 73′ (all in electrical engineering). Todd studied at MIT thanks in part to a fellowship from the Hertz Foundation following a personal encouragement from Edward Teller (the father of the hydrogen bomb). He returned to UK in 1974 and served as an electrical engineering professor until 1983. He sold his first company to Hughes Aircraft in 1990, and his second company to IBM prior the becoming the president of UK in 2001. In 2005 he was the force behind the top 20 by 2020 with the following mission statement:

    “We aspire to be among the top research institutions in the United States, recognized for our world class programs and preeminent research. As a doctoral, research extensive institution with a commitment to the discovery and generation of new and significant knowledge, the University of Kentucky can become one of the most productive public research universities in the nation, equipped for the new realities of the 21st century.”

    The point being, that if the Big 10 is looking to the future, UK appears to be headed in the direction of research as well as athletics. Yes, 2020 is a decade away, but they have a plan in place, and appear determined to move toward it.

    politics: The governor of Ohio and North Carolina are both UK alumni, and as was pointed out earlier, a certain senator from Kentucky is one of the most powerful folks in Washington. As was stated earlier UK (and MD) are “single” schools so you get their congressmen by adding a single school (UT / TAMU, UVA / VT, UNC / NC State, KU / KSU) without having to add the other school.

    As a side note: On the comments about UK being “dirty” from a witness to the IU situation I offer the following observations;

    a) Some schools are “blessed” and some are not. How IU could get such sanctions for phone calls and texting while Duke has a NCAA trophy when a player on the team admitted under oath to getting money from an agent is beyond my comprehension. Former players for a well know basketball power out west said they were making more at the college than they could in the pros and they still have their trophy case in order. I firmly believe all schools bend / break the rules at some point. In my lifetime it has seemed like the smaller market schools always get the harsher penalties. I take most tales of cheating with a healthy dose of “nobody” has totally clean hands.

    b) While I can not speak for the current or former UK coach, I can for Tubby and his son Saul. I have met both, and have found both to be excellent men. If someone told me there was widespread cheating at UK while he coached there, I would be most skeptical. I would guess the same would be true when Pitino was there as they were coming off the Sutton problems.

    c) As for their current coach, I have no idea, but something on PTI has stuck in the back of my mind. Unlike football, basketball has “one and dones” so why would a kid risk millions in the pros, if they only play one year. In football if you get a redshirt, you could be in college for 4 – 5 years so the temptation is probably much greater. If I am the tan one or izzo, and can get the players who will stay and play, am I really worried if UK has a revolving door?

    Like

    • duffman says:

      sorry meant to copy this from Playoffs Nows post!

      WI = 46.7
      MI = 43.8
      IL = 42.4
      MN = 40.4
      NW = 38.7
      Duke=37.1
      MD = 34.1
      TX = 34.0
      NC = 33.4
      VB = 33.0
      PSU = 32.5
      Pit= 31.7
      Rut= 30.4
      FL = 29.8
      OSU= 29.1
      PU = 28.5
      MSU= 25.5
      aTm= 25.2
      VA = 24.6

      Calculated:

      IU = 24.4
      GT = 22.9
      IA = 22.7
      GA = 19.6
      NCSt=19.5
      Mia= 19.2
      VTec=19.0
      TN = 19.0
      FSU = 18.2
      ISU= 17.4
      NE = 16.8
      Cin= 16.8
      CT = 16.2
      LSU= 15.9
      KY = 15.2
      UHou=15.1
      KS = 15.0
      ND = 14.9
      MO = 14.8
      SCar=14.5
      USF= 13.6
      UCF= 12.7
      WkF= 12.1
      Syr= 11.9

      Like

    • Vincent says:

      From an outsider’s perspective, it appears some Kentucky boosters have an overly significant influence on athletic policy — both for good and for ill — probably more so than is the norm in the Big Ten. It seems in many ways similar to Auburn, a school the Big Ten wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Kentucky’s problems seem mostly limited to basketball rather than a problem with the whole institution. And they aren’t at the top in major violations like Auburn and Texas A&M. SMU and Wichita State are up there, but I imagine they have both changed their ways.

        Like

      • rich2 says:

        I am with Vincent, if the Big Ten were to add UK and Tenn, you might as well admit Auburn and I’ll add Arizona State.

        Accept Kentucky and Tennessee? I cannot fathom how large you expect the marginal revenue to be from their inclusion into the Big Ten vs. MD and RU. 360 million? It better be at least that much — and yet it can’t be.

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Well Duff, you seem to have quite the thing for UK….I’ll only respond as follows:

      1. As far as attendance goes, there’s not much to do in Kentucky. It’s either go to the game or go to a dentist, and the latter’s not happening…..

      2. To the best of my recollection, UK’s been on probation 6 times. The best team they ever had was involved in one of the most infamous NCAA scandals. You’re right about Tubby — he’s an upright guy. That’s why they ran his ass out of town on a rail. Hiring scumbag Cal is a very public demonstration that they won’t even pretend to be interested in running a clean program. UK belongs in the SEC where theior cheating is expected and tolerated.

      3. UK is culturally a SOUTHERN school. 90% of their fans and alums don’t want to be in the BT. There have been polls on that very issue….

      4. Nebraska was a big reach academically foir the BT. UK is to Nebraska as Nebraska is to Iowa, MSU, or IU. UK is also not an AAU (sp?) school…so it’s not happening.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        Thanks Mushroomgod, I think were done here.

        Like

      • duffman says:

        shroom,

        I still think a MD / Rutgers / Pitt / UVA (if ND does not join) is my basic view on where the Big 16 will shake out in the end. From a strictly academic view this group puts the Big 10 in a solid position, while expanding the footprint east. Nothing has really changed my position about what should happen, and if most of the folks on this blog were running the show, my guess is academics would be the top dog issue.

        That said, most of this debate from back near the beginning of the year have centered on the “what ifs” of conference realignment! I have tried to factor in politics and the cash grab back into the equation. I feel there is nobody on here that doubts the football value of Nebraska, yet many have said their academic side was “in need of help” to put it nicely. Nebraska was admitted to the AAU in 1909 and I must wonder if they would be admitted today as many other institutions have probably passed them since. Georgia Tech just getting in versus Nebraska being in for quite some time does offer some stark contrast inherent in a system based on when admittance was gained.

        My point in being less likely to discard UK is based on their FOOTBALL and basketball numbers, coupled with their geographic proximity to the Big 10 footprint. If they are as committed to research as they appear to be, then I am trying to project where they will be in 10 – 20 years. We believe Nebraska will be a football value well into the future, is it so hard to see the same in Kentucky? I said long ago that there is more value in predicting what your competition will actually do as opposed to what you want them to do.

        look at it from a math equation:

        UNL football + UNL basketball = x

        UK football + UK basketball = y

        If, x > y
        Then choose x

        If y > x
        Then choose y

        While KU was available in the last realignment (with AAU status just like Missouri), both were left hanging while UNL was added. This is not us just sitting in our armchairs debating, as it already happened!

        Using the past as a predictor of future values then I see it as follows:

        UK football + UK basketball is >

        Mizz football + Mizz basketball

        or

        KU football + KU basketball

        My basic point in this discussion is that UK has a viable football value! It is greater than all but a handful of D1 football schools in the whole country, and that coupled with its basketball value may put it even with UNL or ahead of it as a combined unit. UNL has great football numbers, but no corresponding basketball numbers. UK has surprisingly good football numbers, but also has stellar basketball numbers. This fact alone is why I am not discarding them from the discussion. I have not put them over MD / Rutgers / Pitt / UVA, but leave them around as a true “dark horse” in the race. If it helps, I would put them somewhere between the top and the bottom if the list looked something like this:

        ND
        MD
        Eastern school / ACC school mix
        UK
        Missouri
        Kansas
        UC
        UL
        WVA

        Coaches come and go, but true “brands” have long term values that outlive the lives of individual coaches. If UNL has already shown the value of athletics vs academics in the realignment debate, can someone tell me why UK should not be on the said radar with tangible financial data based on athletics?

        a) their current coach is a cheat
        b) they’re a southern school
        c) they’re a bunch of hillbillys with bad teeth
        d) other non financial “stereotype” of UK

        As none of the above bring hard economic data to the table! This blog is a great place to debate, and look at multiple possibilities. Even tho I tend to agree with Alan that the odds of UK or UT in the Big 10 is a long shot at best, I am willing to look deeper into the numbers than to just dismiss them based on non financial “feelings”. This seems counter intuitive for a conference that is supposed to be making smart decisions.

        I am not Delany, but I would bet my bottom dollar that with the research available to him he probably has a “working list” with data on the top 50 – top 100 schools in the nation in terms of hard data. Sure Auburn or Washington or Clemson may not be on his “top” list, but it would not surprise me in the least if he does not have detailed research on each of them. It is the smart, long term thing to do!

        If folks are intent to say no to UK, at least do the research to see where they rank in the financial side of things in the athletic side of the equation with such schools as:

        UNL
        MD
        Rutgers
        UVA
        UNC
        Pitt
        Missouri
        KU
        ND
        etc..
        and rank them based on current Big 10 members

        Maybe I am wrong, but at least I am open to debate!

        Like

        • Richard says:

          You bring up a good point about KY’s geography. Big10 ADs have said that being able to roadtrip to a conference game is a plus to their fans, and Lexington is closer to more of the Big10 fanbase than Lincoln, Happy Valley, or the Twin Cities. Plus they have a strong brand despite being a basketball school.

          From a purely athletic & financial standpoint, I think more sports fans would be excited about KY and TN than Maryland & Rutgers. Plus, academics can be improved.

          One big advantage to pulling in KY, TN, RU, and Maryland is that no conference gets killed off, yet every conference surrounding the Big10 is weakened (assuming doing so doesn’t prompt the SEC and ACC to merge) and the center of gravity of the Big10 stays firmly in the midwest. The Big10 would have expanded in every direction possible (east, west, and south; north is Canada). However, 16 seems unlikely in the near future. I think we’ll see them stop at 14 for a long time.

          Like

          • StvInIL says:

            academics can be improved.
            The troubling part about some of the schools in question is that if this is true why haven’t they up till now. I don’t believe there is a will. I believe some would be glad to take the positives that the Big ten have to offer and continue to take in terms of football or basket ball championships. Some of these places need a complete overhaul in the administration to change the mind set.

            Like

          • Vincent says:

            If the Big Ten chose to go south to accompany Rutgers and Maryland in a theoretical expansion to 16, I think it would prefer to have Virginia and North Carolina than Kentucky and Tennessee, institutions that are every bit as southern as UK or UT but better fit the Big Ten academic and athletic model. (I’m not saying UVa and UNC would be easiere to pry than Kentucky and Tennessee, just that Charlottesville and Chapel Hill have more cachet in Big Ten eyes than Lexington and Knoxville — and UVa and UNC have far more diverse out-of-state student populations than UK or UT do.)

            Like

          • Richard says:

            UNC beats both KY & TN, but would it be possible to get any combination of NC schools? I actually think KY+TN is more likely than getting any combination of NC schools, though the chances of either are slight.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          I think culture is a very important factor in BT expansion. I would hope so anyway.

          Maryland is a bit of a stretch. A little bit southern. But it is nothing like Kensucky. They are in their own little world.

          In addition, UK’s athletic culture is one of corruption. They cheat in every way possible, both large and small. That does not fit the BT model.

          I’ve said that MD is a long-shot, but worth looking at. I don’t think VA is a viable option. That is the heart of the Confederacy. It’s a blue-blood rich southern white kid university, ala Duke, that has very little in common with the huge public universities of the Northeast and Midwest.

          Like

          • Hank says:

            culture is important in BT expansion. uet its clear we were interested in Texas and that is a very different culture from the Big Ten.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I gather you’ve never been to southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (outside metro St. Louis)? Culturally, they’re the same as Kentucky. Unsurprising, as many natives there can trace their family roots to Kentucky.

            The athletic culture is a definite concern, however.

            Like

          • Michael in Indy says:

            “Sure. We cheat. Catch us.”

            -Scott Van Pelt on University of Kentucky basketball fans

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            Maryland is a bit of a stretch. A little bit southern. But it is nothing like Kensucky.

            Louisville is slightly Midwestern but I agree. Maryland is more of a 21st century Maryland. Kentucky Mosley a Kentucky of a by gone era.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Do Minnesota and Wisconsin fit the “Big 10 model”?

            I guess Kentucky fans are a lot smarter than MN or WI fans since they aren’t on this list. They haven’t been caught as often.

            http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/sports/la-sp-0611-ncaa-sanctions-chart-20100611

            Like

          • Michael in Indy says:

            I have a couple of friends who live in Northern Kentucky, working in Cincinnati. I once asked if they thought the area was more southern or midwestern. They admitted that Cincinnati and much of N. Kentucky is definitely more Midwestern in character. But they also told me that Kentucky “is not in the Midwest.” One of them even said, “I could not live in Ohio.” Maybe it was not out of a dislike of the Midwest but rather something to do with taxes or lower crime rates or whatever, but maybe it was a southern pride thing.

            My point is that Kentucky may have a lot of economic resemblances to the Midwest, but the people identify strongly with the South. I would conclude that Kentucky’s presence in the SEC is extremely important to the people in that state. It’s analogous to Notre Dame’s determination to remain independent rather than join the Big Ten; giving up independence would be unthinkable.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Michael

            That was what my Mother told my Father when they were moving to Cincinnati. She did not want to live in Ohio. She wanted to be in Kentucky in the South.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Hank, the BT was interested in TX because of the $$$$. UK is not UT in that respect.

            Michael, you said it very well. UK to the BT would never be a fit. As Duff has pointed out, there are lots of reasons UK fans and alums SHOULD be interested in the BT. However, due to the high incidence of inbreeding there, they do not have a clue. They would never be happy and there is no good reason to force it. Unlike the UT and ND cases, where $$$$ would overcome such reservations).

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            bullet—The list is only since 1953…and get back with me when Minn or Wis retire and hang in the rafters jerseys of playings convicted of criminal point shaving and banned from the NBA for life………

            Like

    • StvInIL says:

      Duffman,

      To your credit you have actually open my eyes a bit on KY. And you came with some numbers. Problem is, “I’m just not feeling Kentucky”. And I don’t think the people of Kentucky are feeling the Big Ten. Perhaps if they were more open and in fact exuberant about the deal. It’s just not hot and sexy. It’s a kiss from an ugly cousin.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        StvInIL,

        let me open your eyes to what I see all the time:

        a) go to google earth (so you can get a picture map)

        b) go to Vevay, Indiana then go across the Ohio River to Gent, Kentucky, then follow 42 North heading to Cincinnati till you see the big power plant (big pile of coal makes it easy to see)

        c) go to Georgetown, Kentucky and look at the auto plant there.

        d) go to Louisville, Kentucky and look how many homes in their MSA are in Indiana.

        e) go to Cincinnati, Ohio and look at how many homes in their MSA are in northern Kentucky.

        f) look at a map of IN, KY, and OH – now draw a line from Indy to Columbus, Columbus to Lexington, Lexington to Indy. Now look and see what turns from SEC to Big 10.

        Now ponder this, because I have been seeing it for decades now. The coal that came from Kentucky to fuel the automobile business in the past in Michigan is now being generated at home (shorter distance means cheap power, and factories consume lots of power). Many auto suppliers have migrated south to be closer to cheap energy because it lowers the cost of production. Kentucky has historically had some of the cheapest energy rates in the US. The steel mills in Pennsylvania are being rebuilt on the Ohio in Kentucky.

        I agree, UK may not be sexy, but it is growing not shrinking, and it has a built in economic advantage in cheap energy! Lots of corporate HQ’s in Cincinnati and Louisville to add to the Big 10 corporate sponsor fold!

        a) I agree, Big 10 fan base may not be hot for UK

        b) I agree UK fans may not be hot for the Big 10

        I know many of the bloggers on here probably have never been near the borders of IN, KY, and OH, but I have and see a much different perception being able to see things live with my own 2 eyes. Again, not saying UK is on the front burner, but I would not just say no right off the bat either.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Toyota is in Georgetown, Ford is in Louisville and Corvettes are made in Bowling Green. Interesting fact, all 3 FBS schools in Kentucky have African American head football coaches right now. Kentucky also had the 1st African American player in SEC fb.

          Having lived in all 3 states (KY, IN, OH), there are cultural differences(there are a fair amount between IN and OH), but economically Kentucky is much more tied to the midwest. Cincinnati is the big city in the area, while for most of the SEC, its Atlanta.

          Like

        • aps says:

          A lot of people in the 1930’s and onward migrated out of Appalachia (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, southern Ohio, Indiana, Illinois) to the major cities of Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago, etc for work in factories.

          A long time joke in Columbus is about the 3Rs in Kentucky and West Virginia. In Kentucky it is Reading, Riting and Route 23. In West Virginia it is Reading, Riting and Route 33. A lot of people in central ohio have roots in West Virginia and Kentucky.

          Like

        • Michael in Indy says:

          Let’s not blow out of proportion the significance of economic characteristics in urban areas to how Southern or Midwestern an area is.

          Birmingham was built upon as a major steel producer. Economically it’s a lot more like Pittsburgh or Cleveland than Memphis or New Orleans, but Birmingham is not in the least a Midwestern city.

          Like

        • StvInIL says:

          Duffman, You said;
          Duffman- go to Louisville, Kentucky and look how many homes in their MSA are in Indiana.
          StvInIL-Yes that’s true. I think a while back I went into some details about regional differences even within the Midwest when trying to tell PSU guy that regional identities do matter. Some of the areas you mention I would call the MidSouth. A term rarely used but fitting. These are somewhat gray areas of identity but often more Southern culturally than Midwestern, I think.
          Dorfmann- Many auto suppliers have migrated south to be closer to cheap energy because it lowers the cost of production.
          StvInIL- I think the migration is all about cheap labor and right to work states in this case. Southern (Republican) Politics at work. It is virulently anti union.
          Duffman- Lots of corporate HQ’s in Cincinnati and Louisville to add to the Big 10 corporate sponsor fold!
          StvInIL- sounds like an opportunity that these corporations should embrace then. But if they don’t care, they don’t matter. At least, the opportunity does not matter then.
          Duffman- Kentucky has historically had some of the cheapest energy rates in the US. The steel mills in Pennsylvania are being rebuilt on the Ohio in Kentucky.
          StvInIL-Again this is a political and geopolitical factor. The best thing about an abundance of energy is not how many homes it warms and lights , though that’s a good thing, but in how many Industries it supports that provide jobs. Our nation has a love affair with exporting industry and jobs overseas. They move south then to Mexico then to China/India. The common denominator is cheap labor, low/no environmental costs and high profits. So I don’t look at your argument as one that has much weight as you do.
          Duffman my fried, I think our glasses are at the same place but one is half empty and the other is half full on this matter. I am excited about the addition and potential over time of a Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers. I am lukewarm over Kentucky being a Big Ten member. This not a He!! No, it’s I don’t think so. For me Kentucky probably would need a few more Duffmans’ to warm me up to this proposition.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            StvInIL,

            As I said early on I think MD / Rutgers / UVA / Pitt are the adds (if ND says no). My basic point was that UK was not a far reach if KU / Missouri / Syracuse / etc. were in the mix as well. The probability of UK in the Big 10 is slim to none. My point in the exercise has been (like pretty much every other school I have discussed on this blog) to step back and take away “feelings” and look at tangible numbers. Since my stomping ground for the majority of my life has been southern indiana, southern ohio, and upper kentucky (the area around Cincinnati and Louisville) I have seen massive changes to these areas the past 20 – 40 years (starting in the late 70’s and early 80’s).

            In the spirit of good debate I have tried to keep personal choices civil. If I prefer Wisconsin to Minnesota, Michigan to Ohio State, IU to PU, or any other combination between rivals in and out of the Big 10 I have not been overly critical to the point of name calling (okay maybe U$C 😉 ) but you get the point. I agree with your comment above in your overall assessment, but might amend it as follows:

            “I am lukewarm over Kentucky being a Big Ten member”

            This in not a Hell Yes!

            This is not a Hell No!

            This is an I don’t think so, but based on numbers and courtesy, I put them in the speculative pool and a subject of debate as any other school in the realignment conversation. I have been to IU vs UK games in person in both football and basketball and watched good games where both sides played hard. While I may choose to root for schools north of the Ohio River, it does not mean I would vilify those south of it. It is after all just a game.

            I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. I am aware that this is a pro Big 10 board, but that it is read by people OUTSIDE of the Big 10 world. As others are reading, I am trying not to have their thoughts biased by this limited interaction into thinking that all Big 10 fans are “snooty”, “bitter”, etc. Why feed negative outside perception of the Big 10 to those outside when it is so much easier to show the opposite side of open minded folks engaged in intelligent debate.

            It is not always about how you see yourself, as how others who do not know you, see you. 😉

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            Duffman, If I sounded overly negative, I would like to apologize for that. I am interested and supportive of dialog that gets to answers and or the truth. If my Comments were overly colored by my own experiences and did not have a base in truth, again I apologize. I do not believe that my opinions are uninformed but I am willing to question my own assertions when presented with good data.
            Oh by the way, you said. “all Big 10 fans are “snooty”, “bitter”, etc.” the answer to that is yes some are ( I wont say which) and no I do not find bitter. In terms of academics, it may be warranted in terms of athletics’ its boorish. Once again, just my opinion.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            StvInIL,

            from the quote:

            “As others are reading, I am trying not to have their thoughts biased by this limited interaction into thinking that all Big 10 fans are “snooty”, “bitter”, etc. Why feed negative outside perception of the Big 10 to those outside when it is so much easier to show the opposite side of open minded folks engaged in intelligent debate.”

            I was not implying the Big 10 is, as I was looking at it from how those “outside” the Big 10 “think” it is. My point was be warm and engaging because other outside the Big 10 may be watching.

            I am never happy when the “bottom end” of UM and tOSU fans hammer each other on a site like ESPN, because it is there for others (Pac 10, BE, ACC, SEC, etc to see) to see. I am old fashioned and prefer to be an ambassador that a “$%#^&**@##” type fan. If UM and tOSU are recruiting the same kid, I will support their choice and not complain about it, as at least the kid is still in a Big 10 school. My apology if I did not convey that better in the previous post.

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            I like your style duffman but unfortunately you hit the two schools I was thinking of right on the head. I was not saying to be mean spirited. It just is true for some that I have met. And with their impressive history, I can see how some can indulge in such. Again I speak from my experience and with no malice. Others are more than welcome come and see our conversations. I would rather them judge us real than phony. A good reason that I continue to visit this site though is that the guys on the blog are good guys. Even the ones from outside the conference footprint have been good. There are things to be learned and shared here. I will agree though that we would not want things to deteriorate into some provincial claptraping. I think we are lucky here to have an intelligent group of contributors as opposed to a bunch of juvenile carnival barker’s types.

            Like

    • zek33 says:

      When I think of New South, I think of Virginia and North Carolina.

      When I think of southern cities that would fit well with the north, I think of Atlanta and Miami.

      Those are really your only choices if you actually look south.

      I know people talk about Virginia and North Carolina as if they’re married to the south, but that’s nowhere near as true as it may have been just 10 or so years ago. Those states are in the midst of great change, and I’d say they’re beginning to look a lot more like Maryland than Georgia.

      Obviously, UNC is tied to the ACC by the fact that it likes having its own fiefdom, so there’s no reason to become a random southeast outpost for the Big Ten.

      But I think the cultural fit would work on the east coast for the Big Ten from North Carolina up to New Jersey. I see those areas just fitting together more naturally with the Big Ten based on the population changes and where demographics are going for those regions in the future.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        I might throw Austin in with Miami and Atlanta. Probably the only town in TX that I would oddly enough.

        Like

      • Michael in Indy says:

        Throw in Charlotte and Raleigh, too. They’re still distinctly southern cities, but they have people living there from all over the country, and in the case of Chapel Hill, all over the world.

        Like

  45. Hopkins Horn says:

    A question for the Tankers out there.

    By fluke of circumstances, I have a slight chance of having an opportunity to have a brief introduction/conversation with UT President Powers next week. The odds are slim, but certainly better than none.

    If such a conversation arose, I would naturally try and get the topic turned towards realignment. In the ideal world, I’d actually get him to agree to speak with me for an interview with BON. But much more likely is that I’d get just one or two shots to ask a specific question or two.

    If this came to pass and I had the chance to ask one question, or maybe two, in the natural course of conversation in what would be a friendly, semi-private setting? What would you ask? What would you want to know?

    Keep in mind that whatever question or questions I’d get to ask would have to be the type of questions which Powers would feel comfortable answering to a complete stranger who might publish whatever he’d say, so it would be unrealistic to ask him to reveal any deep, dark secrets which might be out there. (For example, I’d love to ask him whether the phrase “Tech Problem” came as a quote of what he said, but one could imagine that such a question would only illicit a completely politically correct answer, so there’d be no real point asking this question in anything short of a formal interview setting.)

    So any suggestions?

    Like

    • jj says:

      Ask him if he thinks you’re sexy. that’s a good icebreaker.

      just kidding. that sounds cool. have fun.

      Like

    • duffman says:

      Hop,

      In all seriousness something like why did UT go with IMG, and break from the Learfield ties the rest of the conference maintains? It is a simple question that appears to have nothing to do with realignment, but could say much about future realignment based on his answer! I am willing to bet my bottom dollar IMG will be the driving force behind the Longhorn Television Network. 😉

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        “Learfield ties the rest of the conference maintains” is a slight stretch. ISU, KSU, MU, OU, OSU, A&M, and Tech are Learfield schools.Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas are all IMG schools.

        IMG has been working on the Longhorn network with Texas, but the schools are going to go with the company they think will give them the better deal. It is interesting that three of the bigger brands in the conference from the marketing perspective are the IMG schools.

        Like

    • StvInIL says:

      Horn,
      (a) Ask him what specific type of changes in the college football would give the university of Texas reasons to start looking outside the Big 12 conference once again for a new affiliation? (b) is there any possible way that they go that way alone?

      Like

    • M says:

      I have tons of questions for him, but most are difficult to phrase in a way that he might answer with something other than political pablum. I’ve starred the ones that I think fit that problem. The others are just information I would like to know.

      What is the relationship with A&M? How real was/is their threat to go to the SEC? How much did that affect Texas’ decision?

      *How many football games will be on BevoTube?

      How much were academic ramifications considered in conference choice? Were academic representatives consulted?

      How real was the political pressure to stay?

      How sincerely was Texas considering the Pac-16? What was the key part of sinking that deal (buyout money, imbalanced tv deals, maintaining Texas network, political pressure, extra-political pressure from networks or other schools)? Was the decision primarily due to the powers at the school or to forces outside the school?

      *Where will Texas be in 10 years?

      *What do you think the advantages and disadvantages of the decision were?

      I actually really like this last one. He can’t really say “There were no disadvantages to this choice” because they obviously seriously considered the move and I would like to hear him describe what he thinks the drawbacks are, even if they are cleaned up a bit.

      Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      I seem to recall that TX will be one of the lead schools in the next round of BCS negotiations. So my question would be along the lines of:

      “Will TX push for some sort of playoffs, perhaps 1 or 3 games in January between the winners of the BCS bowls?”

      Since TX and Dodds have long been in favor of a playoff, under the current setup of conferences the answer should be pretty simple. However, if in the back of his mind he expects the conference picture to be substantially different a few years from now, he might have a complex answer hinting at upheaval.

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      “Why does Rice play Texas?”

      Like

    • zek33 says:

      I would ask him about where he sees Texas’ place in the ever-approaching superconference era.

      If conferences do make a move over 12 (namely the Big Ten), would Texas feel obligated to react? Namely, would Texas ever be a first mover out of the remaining Big 12 in the future?

      Would Texas feel obligated to react if say the SEC tried to move on A&M if Beebe’s numbers don’t work out perfectly due to the monetary issues their AD is having, or is Texas confident that the current Big 12 is stable?

      Would there be a situation where they would give up Bevo TV for a conference network, such as an equity stake, or is that not a consideration in the future?

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I do think Dodds & Powers have both answered the last one. They both said it was not a sticking point. What was a sticking point was giving it up without compensation.

        Like

  46. bullet says:

    Kennesaw State, a new Division I Atlantic Sun school in suburban Atlanta became the latest school to announce it was going to try to start a football team. The President with adviser Vince Dooley (former UGA coach and AD) announced they will aim to start the team in 2014. Georgia State in Atlanta started one this year.

    With regards to Frank’s “think like a president,” it was interesting that the board of regents wasn’t notified. When asked about their reaction, one said, “I hope he didn’t set a date.” Sounds a little like the Penn St. deal where the Big 10 Presidents didn’t bother to talk to the ADs (and probably not regents either).

    The AJC article listed 6 schools that started football this year-Georgia State, Lamar (Texas-Southland conference), Lindsay Wilson (KY-NAIA), Notre Dame College (OH-NAIA), Pacific (OR-Division II) and South Alabama.

    Like

  47. jj says:

    For all the northerners out there and general expansion nuts, PSU announced today, I think, that it is going D-I in hockey and plans to build a 6-8K arena.

    Interesting bit is that it will be independent to start.

    I know you all don’t think BB counts and I don’t agree with that. I happen to think that hockey even counts b/c it is (1) programming; and (2) a way to be the “all sports” conference.

    Like

    • jj says:

      i love the current leagues, but a b10 league would be pretty cool. it would also put a crimp on ND if the CCHA lost MSU, UM, OSU.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        It certainly won’t hurt to have a big ten hockey league. Collegiate hockey, and I don’t follow it is such a disjointed situation. Many schools see it as something that there is not enough interest and is too expensive to do as a sport, although there are many collegiate clubs. More stuff under the BT banner will aid programming. I actually watched a couple of BT hockey games last year and I can only watch hockey in Olympic time, and playoff time if at all. I watched because it was a live event available on the BTN.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          StvInIL,

          you know UK has a hockey team, and Rupp Arena is equipped for hockey games! 🙂

          Like

        • mnfanstc says:

          Only challenge would be that a Big 10 hockey league would seriously change the power balance in Div 1 hockey. Over the last few years the WCHA has been pretty dominant (it includes Minn and Wisc). Michigan and MSU have won championships out of the CCHA. If you remove the Big 10 teams from these other conferences, it could derail overall competitiveness. Heck, in Minnesota alone, there are 5 Div 1A Hockey teams (3 of which are in WCHA). Some of these smaller schools depend on rivalries with the big schools (i.e. Minn, Wisc). As a college hockey fan, I would miss the true rivalry games between Minn and North Dakota, and Minn/St Cloud St… Personally, I think some of these schools would either shut down their programs, or revert back to D-3 (since their really is no D2 hockey).

          From the money side… Men’s Hockey is #3 for athletics income for the U of Minnesota.

          Like

          • jj says:

            mnfanstc

            i think it could be done ok, the ccha and wcha could merge. there is enough talent to go around. i would hate to see those teams go away. do we want bemidji? you betcha!

            Like

          • jj says:

            N Dakota hockey is insane dude. I was lucky enough to get out there a few years back. out of control. seriously.

            see that duffman? i’ve been to grank forks and cincinatti! cinci may as well be mobile alabama to those guys.

            Like

          • jj says:

            N. Dakota hockey is awesome. i was lucky enough to get out there a few years back.

            Duffman – cinci may as well be mobile alabama to the people in grand forks! it’s like visiting scandinavia, but on a giant plain.

            Like

          • zek33 says:

            As others have mentioned though, even if you have 20 Big Ten games, you still have 14 non-conference games. You could probably at least set up a bunch of home-home with the WCHA and CCHA.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            If there’s $ to be made by the BTHL, which seems to be the case, I can’t imagine it not happening. You have to feed the beast (the BTN).

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            It is really cool to see some (college) hockey fans on this blog/in Big 10 country, thanks for the posts… maybe it could work…

            JJ—I always have loved it when the ND fans would throw “rats” (aka gophers) out onto the ice… I think the Sioux fans have no great love for Golden Gopher hockey. 😉

            One error to correct, actually 4 MN teams in WCHA, with Bemidji State likely to be admitted at some point (maybe exchange one or both Alaska teams),

            Like

    • zek33 says:

      Well they don’t count in terms of expansion which is focused on football $ expansion.

      But you can bet your $ they count in terms of filling the BTN’s inventory.

      It’s hard to understate the importance of a Big Ten Hockey Conference on the BTN.

      A 6 team conference would give each school 4 games against every other school. So each school would play 20 Big Ten hockey games or a total of 60.

      Adding Illinois and Indiana would mean that almost all of the footprint was in a BTHC (other than Purdue/NU/Nebraska/Iowa), and you’d have 8 teams playing 3 or 4 games against every other school, which would be a dramatic increase again.

      Right now the BTN televises 10 games and streams 20. That’s a dramatic increase in inventory in either the 6 team BTHC (double) or the 8 team BTHC (probably triple or quadruple), and we’re talking all the big markets across the footprint accounted for…

      And a Big Ten Hockey Tournament/Championship would bring in even more $…

      So I’d look for this to be the first step. If Illinois and Indiana add teams, then you’d really be able to maximize the situation from a scheduling and inventory standpoint for the BTN.

      But this is not a reason for expansion per se. Expansion has to focus on football and footprint and national impact.

      Basketball and hockey are nice ways of growing the pie outside of the context of expansion…

      Like

      • zek33 says:

        And as others have stated: there’s no way Penn State is starting a team without assurances that it’s going to get a lot of home-and-homes with other Big Ten teams.

        While the other teams have their own rivalries with smaller programs, those are likely to end up somewhat lessened in the shuffle. Penn State is going to want to be sure it’s going to get Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State/Wisconsin/Minnesota rolling through town a lot.

        Like

      • jj says:

        hell. i just thought of this one, but Nebraska could move its Omaha program over to Lincoln and bam – 7 teams, just like that.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        As an IU fan, I can’t really imagine IU going D1, although I wish it could happen. Reasons:

        1. No significant hockey tradition in southern Indiana, and Indy’s never been much of a hockey town.;

        2. Ho addiquate facility. And no $88M sugar daddy like PSU came up with.;

        3. Title 7(?) means you’d have to add a women’s team as well….and hockey is an expensive sport.;

        4. IU just doesn’t have the budget to throw money at a hockey program ala OSU and PSU.;

        5. If they did go D1, the odds of being competitive with natural hockey Us like UW, Minn, Mich is low.

        Like

    • jj says:

      One more bit of news from Barry A. With apologies to Horn, I got this off some MN website.

      t seems that a Big Ten men’s hockey league is inevitable.
      “I don’t know the logistics — how long it takes to get out of a league, all of that — but I sense that we will move in that direction,” UW athletic director Barry Alvarez said Thursday.
      Carefully measuring his words, Alvarez said more will be known Friday when Penn State officials make a “significant gift and facility announcement” and next month when he said the matter will be on the agenda at the Big Ten meetings.
      “There’s going to be Big Ten hockey,” assured a source with intimate knowledge of the process, adding that 2014-15 is the target point for introducing the new league although he said “it could happen sooner than that.”
      Billionaire Terry Pergula, a Penn State alumnus and lead donor for the initiative, apparently was adamant about the formation of a Big Ten league once the Nittany Lions fully upgraded their men’s hockey program from the club level.

      Like

  48. loki_the_bubba says:

    UT-San Antonio and Texas State make presentations to the WAC membership committee.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/utsa_texas_state_officially_on_wac_radar_103016944.html

    Like

    • bullet says:

      If you check the link about UTSA on WAC radar at the bottom of the article, Benson says they now may make invitations in 60-90 days. Previously they were looking at the Spring.

      Like

      • R says:

        As Karl ‘lots of options’ Benson, dips into his deep bag of bullshit to dig out UTSA. He should stick to what he does best; sue departing universities!

        Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          I actually think UTSA could do OK as a WAC-level school. Rice, Houston, SMU, and TCU each have to share a metro area with an NFL team and another FBS school. San Antonio is a very large city currently without any major football. I believe UTSA would do fine selling tickets to locals.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            They might, but they have a long way to go to be ready. They don’t start playing fb until next year and haven’t really done much in other sports.

            I think Texas State, however, will be a disaster. Its less than 30 miles from UT’s campus and in the Austin metro area. Yet they are moving ahead with expanding their stadium to 29.5 k.

            Like

  49. zek33 says:

    I thought Vincent would post this, but here it is. Story about Maryland’s lack of a football rival…

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-football-0916-20100915,0,1888974.story

    Or even Penn State, which dominated Maryland continually until the schools’ last meeting in 1993?

    Maryland and Penn State have a natural connection in that both schools recruit heavily in each other’s states. There’s plenty of fan interest — at least from Maryland — about resuming the games.

    Penn State said the schools had discussions several years ago, but no agreement was reached and nothing appears forthcoming. “I have not spoken with anyone at Penn State since taking over as [athletic department chief financial officer] in May of 2008,” Maryland’s Randy Eaton said in an e-mail Wednesday. “I would never say anything is dead, just that nothing is currently on the radar.”

    Lack of a football rival could create some case for movement, especially since this is all football driven…

    Like

    • Vincent says:

      Maryland and Penn State didn’t face each other during the Jim Tatum years, a time when Maryland likely would have dominated the series. Penn State certainly would become a rival were Maryland to go into the Big Ten, but I sense Rutgers would become the Terrapins’ annual season finale.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        Ok Vincent, time for some trash talk. Let here you (Maryland) guarantee a victory over Rutgers should they be in a conference finally?

        Like

      • zeek says:

        Vincent, I mentioned earlier on another thread that a 14 team Big Ten with OSU-Michigan in the final week actually makes scheduling easy.

        The final week would be (shift Illinois west, add Rutgers and Maryland to the East):

        OSU-Michigan (crossover 7th teams)
        Other 6 in west: Nebraska-Iowa, Illinois-Northwestern, Minnesota-Michigan State.

        Other 6 in east: Penn State-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue, Rutgers-Maryland.

        That tends to be why I think it’s way easier to move Illinois to the west regardless of who is added. It facilitates rivalries for the final week.

        Like

  50. bullet says:

    @ Frank re: your twitter comment

    I used to prefer the idea of a 16 team playoff with around 8 conferences getting autobids and the MACs/Sun Belts having to earn it. And I still prefer it to bowls. However, I’ve come around to preferring a smaller group. Partly, because its more likely. Partly, because 1st round would interfere with either finals or Christmas holidays for 16 teams & their fans. But also, because only 4 to 8 schools have any realistic chance of winning 3 or 4 straight games at that level of competition. And the more rounds, the more likely the best team has a bad day and gets knocked out.

    I prefer a 10 team playoff with a couple of play-in games in order to be more inclusive than an 8 team, at least as long as we have 6 autobid conferences. 6 autobids, 3 wildcards, top other champ (as long as they meet criteria-s/b looser than the current rules for BCS bowls-maybe top 25). I actually thought of an almost identical proposal to the MWC’s before they came up with theirs (10 teams, top 8 are in playoff, other 2 in 5th bowl), but the last bowl would sink in importance and the BE/ACC and occasionally the other conferences would be very unhappy when relegated there.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s