There has been a ton of great feedback on the BCS Final Four post with generally positive reviews. Unfortunately, even that proposal might be too much of a change for the powers that be to enact overnight. So, I wanted to throw out a more traditionalist plus-one proposal that might be a bridge to getting to the BCS Final Four (or at least improve upon the current BCS system), which I call the “BCS Bowl Flex System”. It’s a variation of what Slant reader StevenD calls a “semi-seeded plus-one“, where the traditional BCS bowl tie-ins are largely maintained with some teams possibly “flexed” to create one or two de facto play-in games to the national championship (if not outright semifinals). The BCS rankings would then be re-calculated after the bowls are played to determined the plus-one national championship game matchup.
It’s not as clean on paper as the BCS Final Four or an outright playoff, but this type of format does carry a number of advantages, namely that all of the BCS bowls potentially will have an impact on the national championship race again and the Rose Bowl would go back to being exclusively Big Ten champ vs. Pac-10 champ affair.
(Any complaints that this isn’t a playoff and would be an “unfair” system are duly noted. The purpose of this post is to find some changes that the BCS conferences might be willing to implement in reality. Please see the various rules for a realistic college postseason scenario that must be followed in the BCS Final Four post.)
Here is how I would set it up:
THE BCS BOWL FLEX SYSTEM
1. The Rose Bowl will get the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs no matter what – I know that this might be passed off by non-Big Ten/Pac-10 fans as irrelevant/backwards/dumb, but this is a big deal to the powers that be. Nothing will get done in terms of college postseason changes unless the Big Ten is happy, which means that the Rose Bowl and the Pac-10 have to happy, as well.
2. Cotton Bowl is added as a 5th BCS bowl with the Big 12 tie-in – I noted in the BCS Final Four post that the BCS bowls are as elitist toward the non-BCS bowls as the AQ conferences are toward the non-AQ conferences, but this is trumped by the need to have at least 10 BCS bids per year. The seal has been broken – there’s no way that the AQ conferences (and specifically the frequent multi-bid recipients of the Big Ten and SEC) will go back down to just 4 BCS games and 8 total bids. As a result, a more traditional plus-one system is going to need a 5th BCS bowl and the Cotton Bowl is well-positioned as a natural home to the Big 12 champ (especially with its larger proportion of Texas-based teams with the losses of Nebraska and Colorado). I’ll discuss under Rule #6 below how the Fiesta Bowl receives some incentives to actually agree to give up the Big 12 tie-in.
3. Highest ranked non-AQ school receives automatic BCS bid – As I mentioned in the BCS Final Four post, this is the main bone that the AQ conferences can throw to the non-AQ conferences and I can see them actually agreeing to, which is that it can remove the top 12 ranking requiring for that class of schools to receive an automatic bid.
4. Subject to Rule #5 regarding flexes below, the other BCS bowls retain their traditional tie-ins – As a general rule, the Sugar Bowl gets the SEC champ and Orange Bowl receives the ACC champ. However, this is subject to the flex rules below.
5. Except for the Rose Bowl teams (which are set in stone), a highly ranked at-large team may be placed or a team may be flexed from its traditional tie-in to another bowl involving a #1 or #2 ranked team to create one or more virtual play-in games to the national championship – This process will likely seem disjointed and muddy written out, but it’s really not that difficult in practice (so bear with me). The objective is to ensure that any #1 and #2 ranked teams that aren’t playing in the Rose Bowl get to play in bowl games that are as close to being semifinals as possible. That’s no issue with highly ranked at-large teams, who can simply be slotted accordingly without any impact to traditional tie-ins. The real change is that a team that is ranked #3 or lower which does have a contractual tie-in with a bowl can be flexed to a bowl that is tied-in to a #1 or #2 ranked team (even if the #3 or lower team is tied-in to another bowl). For example, let’s say that the SEC champ is ranked #1, the Big 12 champ is ranked #2, the ACC champ is ranked #3 and the Big East champ is ranked #4. The Big East champ will be sent to the Sugar Bowl to create a #1 vs. #4 matchup, which is easy enough because the Big East doesn’t have a tie-in. However, to create the #2 vs. #3 matchup, the ACC champ will be flexed to the Cotton Bowl to play the Big 12 champ. As a result, the Orange Bowl would lose the ACC champ, but would receive a compensatory “flex replacement pick” (which is similar to the replacement pick if a bowl loses a tie-in to the national championship game today and as explained further in Rule #7).
As I’ve said, this doesn’t look very elegant when described as a process in writing, yet it’s fairly straight-forward (I hope) when looking at the 11 scenarios for matchups that would be created depending on which teams are playing in the Rose Bowl:
Scenario 1: No top 4 teams in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. #4
Bowl B: #2 vs. #3
Scenario 2: #1 team in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #2 vs. #3
Scenario 3: #2 team in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. #3
Scenario 4: #1 vs. #3 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #2 vs. #4
Scenario 5: #1 vs. #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #2 vs. #3
Scenario 6: #2 vs. #3 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. #4
Scenario 7: #2 vs. #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. #3
Scenario 8: #3 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. Flex Selection 1*
Bowl B: #2 vs. #4
Scenario 9: #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. Flex Selection 1
Bowl B: #2 vs. #3
Scenario 10: #3 vs. #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #1 vs. Flex Selection 2**
Bowl B: #2 vs. Flex Selection 1
Scenario 11: #1 vs. #2 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: #3 vs. #4
* Flex Selection means that the bowl gets to pick any BCS eligible team that it wants, including those that are otherwise tied to other bowls except for the Rose Bowl participants.
** The reason why Bowl B gets Flex Selection 1 in this scenario is that, in theory, this ought to be a tougher opponent than Flex Selection 2. As a result, Flex Selection 1 should be playing the #2 team as opposed to the #1 team.
6. Fiesta Bowl receives flex preference for #1 or #2 teams that do not have tie-ins OR 1st at-large pick – Now, the Fiesta Bowl isn’t just going to give up a fairly valuable Big 12 tie-in to the Cotton Bowl for nothing. For all of the internal turmoil within the Big 12, it’s still the best conference for traveling fan bases outside of the SEC and Big Ten. I had thought of providing the Big East tie-in to the Fiesta, but from a bowl director’s perspective, this isn’t just compensation. In reality, the best way to coax the Fiesta into giving up its Big 12 tie-in to the Cotton is to provide it with more flexibility. Therefore, it gets two options. First, the Fiesta receives a “flex preference”, whereby it would automatically receive a #1 or #2 team that does not have a tie-in (i.e. Big East champ, non-AQ schools, others that weren’t conference champs). That would enable the Fiesta to “flex in” a team from another bowls in that situation despite not having a conference tie-in. Second, if there is no possible flex preference, then the Fiesta would receive the first at-large large pick (which comes after the flex moves and replacement selections are made), which often results in an extremely valuable 2nd place SEC or Big Ten team.
7. Bowls that lose a team to flexing receive a “flex replacement pick” – As alluded to earlier, this is similar to the replacement pick that a bowl receives if it loses a school to the national championship game today. A bowl that loses a flexed team would receive first dibs on any other school from the conference that it has a tie-in with or can choose anyone from the BCS at-large pool.
8. After flex replacement picks are made, the Fiesta Bowl gets its priority at-large pick and then the bowls pick at-large selections in the order of how high their tie-ins (or in the case of the Fiesta, the rank of its priority at-large pick) are ranked – The goal here is to create one or two other bowls that could possibly have an impact on the national championship race, so bowls that don’t have a #1 or #2 team will pick at-large teams in the order that their respective tie-ins (or in the case of the Fiesta, how high its priority at-large pick) are ranked. To be clear, those bowls aren’t obligated to take the highest ranked at-large teams available – they can take whoever is left from the at-large pool subject to the other selection rules that would remain in place (such as a maximum of 2 schools from any conference receiving BCS bids).
9. BCS rankings are re-calculated after bowl games are finished and national championship game rotates among the BCS bowl sites – After the BCS bowls are completed, the BCS rankings are then re-calculated to set the national championship game pairing. The game would be played one to two weeks after the last BCS bowl is completed using the double-hosting rotation similar today (only that the Cotton is newly included).
APPLYING THE SYSTEM
The interesting thing about this system is that for all of the words that I just spewed out on flexing, it actually doesn’t need to be exercised very often in practice. Simply slotting at-large teams differently than today is 90% of the battle. Here’s how the BCS Bowl Flex system would’ve worked in every year since 2005 (which marks the first season of major changes to the BCS ranking formula):
2010
Rose: #2 Oregon (Pac-10) vs. #5 Wisconsin (Big Ten)
Sugar: #1 Auburn (SEC) vs. #3 TCU (non-AQ/at-large 1)
Orange: #13 Virginia Tech (ACC) vs. Connecticut (Big East/at-large 5)
Cotton: #7 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. #8 Arkansas (at-large 4)
Fiesta: #6 Ohio State (at-large 2) vs. #4 Stanford (at-large 3)
2009
Rose: #7 Oregon (Pac-10) vs. #8 Ohio State (Big Ten)
Sugar: #1 Alabama (SEC) vs. #4 TCU (non-AQ/at-large 2)
Orange: #9 Georgia Tech (ACC) vs. #10 Iowa (at-large 5)
Cotton: #2 Texas (Big 12) vs. #3 Cincinnati (Big East/at-large 1)
Fiesta: #5 Florida (at-large 3) vs. #6 Boise State (at-large 4)
2008
Rose: #5 USC (Pac-10) vs. #8 Penn State (Big Ten)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs. #3 Texas (at-large 1)
Orange: #19 Virginia Tech (ACC) vs. #12 Cincinnati (Big East/at-large 5)
Cotton: #1 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. #4 Alabama (at-large 2)
Fiesta: #10 Ohio State (at-large 3) vs. #6 Utah (non-AQ/at-large 4)
2007
Rose: #1 Ohio State (Big Ten) vs. #7 USC (Pac-10)
Sugar: #2 LSU (SEC) vs. #3 Virginia Tech (ACC/flex)
Orange: #5 Georgia (flex replacement) vs. #13 Illinois (Big Ten/at-large 3)
Cotton: #4 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. #9 West Virginia (Big East/at-large 2)
Fiesta: #8 Kansas (Big 12/at-large 1) vs. #10 Hawaii (non-AQ/at-large 4)
2006
Rose: #1 Ohio State (Big Ten) vs. #5 USC (Pac-10)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC) vs. #3 Michigan (at-large 1)
Orange: #14 Wake Forest (ACC) vs. #8 Boise State (non-AQ/at-large 5)
Cotton: #10 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. #6 Louisville (Big East/at-large 4)
Fiesta: #4 LSU (at-large 2) vs. Notre Dame (at-large 3)
2005
Rose: #1 USC (Pac-10) vs. #3 Penn State (Big Ten)
Sugar: #7 Georgia (SEC) vs. #11 West Virginia (Big East/at-large 4)
Orange: #22 Florida Sate (ACC) vs. #14 TCU (non-AQ/at-large 5)
Cotton: #2 Texas (Big 12) vs. #4 Ohio State (at-large 1)
Fiesta: #6 Notre Dame (at-large 2) vs. #5 Oregon (at-large 3)
The only time that the flex option would’ve ever been exercised was in 2007, where #3 Virginia Tech was flexed from the Orange Bowl to the Sugar Bowl. In terms of ticket sales, that actually granted the Orange a favor as it would have presumably selected #5 Georgia as its flex replacement pick. In all of the other seasons since 2005, the desired matchups were achieved with solely slotting the applicable at-large teams. (I could post the pre-2005 hypotheticals, as they had more examples of flexing, but it’s fairly incredible how bat-s**t crazy the old BCS rankings were when looking back on them. As much as the BCS gets criticized today, at least the rankings over the past few years have generally passed the smell test (with most quibbles coming over a spot or two). The old ranking system, on the other hand, seemed to love teams that didn’t actually win their conferences, particularly from the Big 12.) Thus, a plus-one system featuring top-tier and meaningful games could be fairly easily created without much disruption to the traditional bowl tie-ins.
The BCS Bowl Flex system definitely won’t placate the playoff-supporter crowd in the same manner of the BCS Final Four, but it may be something that’s more palatable to the powers-that-be within the AQ conferences (especially the Big Ten) while upgrading the quality of the BCS bowls back to where they were in the pre-BCS days. Certainly, the return of the “real” Rose Bowl would be a massive plus. A non-AQ school such as TCU also gets a direct shot at the national title game in a season like this one (or can improve its resume greatly in other seasons by getting to beat a top AQ school). Is it perfect? Absolutely not. However, I do believe it would be better than what we have today and it’s easier to sell incremental steps to the BCS conferences and bowls than wholesale change.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Bacon.
LikeLike
2-0!
LikeLike
I love the blog and appreciate the BCS scenario ideas. But there is absolutely no way the Fiesta Bowl ever agrees to that. And the BCS Bowls aren’t letting the Cotton Bowl in just for fairness. Plus the other BCS Bowls aren’t letting the Rose get the B10 and P10 every year while the others get stuck with the non-AQ, BEast, and unranked Notre Dame. Looking at your proposed past matchups, the Orange cannot be happy.
LikeLike
@RedDenver – I agree to the extent that this is a tough sell to the Fiesta Bowl and letting in the Cotton Bowl is easier said than done (as I noted in the BCS Final Four post). What’s interesting is that pre-2005, the Orange Bowl would have been one of the biggest beneficiaries under this system with all of the years that Florida State was in the hunt while the Sugar Bowl (which seems to have received a top tier matchup nearly every year since 2005) would have had to give up much more than it got to take (as the SEC didn’t have the same dominance at the top for the first half of the 2000s). I don’t know if the other BCS bowls can really dictate too much more to the Rose, though – they know that they need the Rose to be included in the system. The flip side is that they have the opportunity to set themselves up for semifinal games in a manner that the Rose Bowl can’t ever do. In a way, it’s almost a hybrid between the current BCS system and the 1990s Bowl Alliance (where the other major bowls had to work around not having access to the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs).
LikeLike
I know it makes geographic sense for the Cotton to get the BigXII if it is allowed to join the club, but wouldn’t it be easier to allow the Fiesta to keep the BigXII tie-in and sell the flex preference to the Cotton? This way the Fiesta doesn’t immediately veto this idea and the Cotton may be willing to go along just to be included.
LikeLike
I agree. It would be a lot easier to convince the Cotton to take the short straw. In fact, I think you could offer the Cotton a BCS bowl without a turn at the NCG (maintaining the four-yearly rotation for the exisiting BCS bowls). Half a loaf for the Cotton is better than none.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Frank,
First, let me say I like your plan. I think this is more realistic for the near future than your previous one.
I’ll take a little credit for throwing out the term “semi-seeded +1” (hereafter, SS+1) a couple of days before StevenD gave his idea (which was different than mine). https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-bcs-final-four-a-new-plus-one-system/#comment-92150
Your proposal is closer to my “mostly-seeded +1” (hereafter MS+1) than my SS+1, though. In fact, your proposal sounds like another step in the path I charted for +1 development. It is a step between a SS+1 and a MS+1.
In my SS+1, all the tie-ins remain and the other teams are slotted in to pair the highest ranked teams possible. In other words, no flexing.
In my MS+1, only the Rose Bowl tie-ins are locked. The top 4 teams outside of the Big 10 and Pac-12 are paired up in “semi-finals” with the locations based on tie-ins. This is just like your flex plan, except I always create two “semi-finals” outside of the Rose.
Some basic questions about your flex plan:
1. Isn’t the tie-in the conference’s to give, not the bowl’s? How could the Fiesta force the Big 12 to stay tied to them? I agree, the powers would want to give them something to keep them happier but I don’t think the bowl has any leverage. If you weren’t implying that the bowl has some power here then just ignore my point, but it sounded like that’s what you were saying.
2. What is your reasoning for not having two “semi-finals” in all 11 scenarios (shown below)? In effect, it would create three “semi-finals.” I prefer this because it provides more data for the polls to correctly pick #1 and #2, especially if both top teams get beaten. It also avoids a #1 vs #2 semi-final (except in the Rose) and should provide 3 great games instead of 2.
Scenario 2: #1 team in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 2/5, Bowl B: 3/4
Scenario 3: #2 team in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 1/5, Bowl B: 3/4
Scenario 4: #1 vs. #3 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 2/6, Bowl B: 4/5
Scenario 5: #1 vs. #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 2/6, Bowl B: 3/5
Scenario 6: #2 vs. #3 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 1/6, Bowl B: 4/5
Scenario 7: #2 vs. #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 1/6, Bowl B: 3/5
Scenario 8: #3 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 1/5, Bowl B: 2/4
Scenario 9: #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 1/5, Bowl B: 2/3
Scenario 10: #3 vs. #4 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 1/6, Bowl B: 2/5
Scenario 11: #1 vs. #2 in the Rose Bowl
Bowl A: 3/6, Bowl B: 4/5
___
3. I like the flex preference as a payoff to the Fiesta, but I’m still unsure how the Fiesta and Orange would react to this. Based on your examples, the Orange always suffers (until the ACC produces a power team again). There may need to be an extra bonus, or rotation of flexing (the next time, the Orange keeps the ACC and the SEC flexes over even if it is rated higher). Maybe ND should be tied in as a bonus?
These sorts of problems are part of why I envisioned the system jumping from a SS+1 to a MS+1. In fact, it might jump to a floating MS+1 where the “semi-finals” rotate among the 4 non-Rose BCS bowls and the tie-ins only apply for the other two games. That way a down conference doesn’t continually punish any one bowl. I am unclear on how committed the Orange really is to the ACC, since that isn’t a historic link (started in 2007).
In summary, I think this is better than your previous plan. I am guessing that they will move even more slowly, and start with an unseeded +1 before moving to a SS+1 (in fact, the bowls could largely implement a SS+1 in an US+1 by how they choose opponents). After a SS+1, they may move to your flex plan or a MS+1 or even a floating MS+1. I think the move to a 4 team playoff (a fully seeded +1) is a long way off. The Big 10 (and probably Pac-12) will fight it.
LikeLike
In Scenarios 4,5,6,7,10,11 there are two top-four teams in the Rose Bowl. So, if we matchup the other two top-four teams in a BCS bowl, then we can have a credible 4-team playoff (although we probably shouldn’t call it that for political reasons). Why then are you intentionally putting the other two top-four teams into different bowls? You say this will created three “semi-finals”, but that doesn’t make sense. The purpose of a semi-final is to decide (on the field) who advances to the final. Your “semi-finals” do no such thing. They leave the decision to the same controversial ranking system we use now.
LikeLike
Creating a 4 team playoff isn’t automatically the goal. Having a system set in advance that will keep more BCS bowls happy and important has real value.
The whole point of “semi-finals” is that the winner is not promised anything. 2 of the 3 winners would advance, but the polls would get to weigh in on which two. That means they can factor in injuries and how teams looked against elite competition (so if the star QB gets hurt in winning the semi, the team doesn’t automatically advance). It also gives non-AQ’s a better chance if they deserve it.
LikeLike
Point 1. I agree with you Richard. The conferences are going with the best deal and if the Fiesta doesn’t pay up, they won’t get it and don’t need compensation. The Big 8 champ went to the Orange Bowl for many years and the SWC champ went to the Cotton. Yet when the Bowl Alliance came around, the Cotton got left out and the Big 12 signed up with the Fiesta. The last SWC champ was Texas and they played in the Sugar against Virginia Tech. The Bowls have power only as long as they are bringing the $.
Other than the Rose, the bowl tie-ins aren’t that strong. Even the SEC/Sugar isn’t that strong.
I could support this sytem (I would be opposed to a pure unseeded +1 which IMO gives worse results than the BCS does now). But in my mind the question is how tied the Pac 10 is to the Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl. Clearly the Big 10 is, but if alone, the rest of the conferences will do what they want. The Big 10 can’t play by itself.
This is a complicated work-around compromise to preserve the traditional Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl and avoid an 8 team system which would preserve it perfectly.
LikeLike
Bullet – the SEC has placed at least one SEC team in 67 of the 77 Sugar Bowls.
LikeLike
The Pac 10 and Big 10 have only missed 2 or 3 years since WWII. Only a couple more haven’t involved the champions.
And how emotionally tied are the fans & admin to the Sugar Bowl? You may not be the best one to ask as I imagine LSU is the most tied. The Sugar is always going to like SEC teams since they are close and travel well. But does the SEC need its champion to go there every year?
LikeLike
Bullet – Historically, getting to the Sugar Bowl was the goal of every SEC team. Tradition counts just as much in the SEC as it does in the B1G or the 12-Pack. But in the early 90s college football shakedown, when the Big East & Big XII formed, the ACC & SEC expanded and the Bowl Coalition started, these conferences and the other bowls realized that to move forward, they were going to have to be willing to occasionally break with some traditions.
The Sugar Bowl still means a lot to SEC teams, but the BCS NCG means more. It just worked out for LSU in 03 and 07, that the Tigers could have both. Note: the BCS NCG is back in the Superdome again next year and LSU should be pre-season top 5.
With all the crying about the sacrifices the Rose Bowl has made in the BCS era, its nothing compared to what the Orange and Sugar have had to endure. Obviously, the Rose always has a January 1 slot, while the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar get moved around to weekday nights.
The Orange has been damaged mostly because it is/was tied to the ACC and Big East, both of whom have been down for the last several years.
The Sugar has been punished because of the SEC’s success by losing five SEC Champions to other bowls for the BCS NCG during the BCS era. Also, for the last three years the Sugar has been stuck with Utah, Cincy and Hawaii.
When the Rose lost a B1G or Pac-10 team, they get Texas or Oklahoma. The first clunker they get is #3 TCU. TCU at least sold their allotment of tickets to the Rose, unlike Cincy and Utah to the Sugar, and several of the Orange Bowl’s clunkers.
Most of the time the SEC replacement is very happy to be in the Sugar Bowl, with the exception of 08 & 09, when the SEC CG was a de facto play-in to the BCS NCG.
The Rose Bowl, B1G & Pac-10 need to realize that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Some sacrifices have to be made if the shared goal is to have a definitive NCG. If getting to that point is not their goal, let the rest of us know, but always getting the best time slot and substituting Texas twice, Oklahoma, and the #3 TCU doesn’t appear to be much of a sacrifice from an outsider’s perspective.
LikeLike
Alan: The Rose Bowl has traditionally had much, much higher payouts than even the other top tier bowls. It’s only in the BCS era when the payouts have been equalized.
LikeLike
I would like to make sure you know that Cincy sold their entire ticket allotment to the Sugar, including leftovers from a fairly apathetic Florida fanbase.
LikeLike
Alan,
Getting the system to a definitive NCG every year is not the Big Ten’s goal. I think Delany has been pretty clear on that.
The Rose Bowl gets special treatment because it is special. It the oldest and best of the bowls. It has always gotten the best ratings. It has the most committed conference partners.
Just because outsiders don’t understand the sacrifices doesn’t mean they aren’t real. It’s just like playoff proponents that don’t understand the BCS would revert to the old system rather than moving to a playoff right now.
LikeLike
Bullet,
How is an unseeded +1 worse than the BCS now?
It provides one more game against top competition for everybody as data. Yes, the results may muddy the picture but that just means that #1 and #2 weren’t dominant that year. That is a team problem, not a BCS problem.
LikeLike
Unseeded +1 is:
1) usually less clear who the top 2 are which isn’t a team problem-its a problem with the system. There are a lot of years where 1 and 2 aren’t clear, but frequently after the bowls, instead of 3 or 4 contenders, you’ve got 6 or 7.
2) gives teams unequal competition in a game that is treated with great importance by the pollsters.
3) can result in 1 and 2 playing and then having the winner have to play another team who might have played someone like UConn.
4) can result in 1 and 2 playing and then still being 1 and 2. Do they play again or do you make #1 play someone else?
To use an argument from playoff opponents, it adds an extra game with wear and tear on the players bodies with no clearer result for the championship, just more $ for the schools.
LikeLike
1. I’m not sure that’s true. For one, any contender that lost their bowl game is out.
2. That’s true with the regular season as well.
3. That’s true with the regular season as well.
4. That’s true with the regular season as well (and it’s very unlikely in either case).
LikeLike
Hello Frank,
Thank you for the site. I have been a fan since Big 10 expansion time.
BUT
I still don’t think you are “thinking like a college president” to quote a wise sage.
Why would a CP do this? This provides no relevent incentive to change.
LikeLike
I think your proposal is excellent; however, I would like to see one modification: if two top-four teams play in a BCS bowl, then the winner should automatically proceed to the NCG. I think it is a mistake to leave this decision to the voters. For example, if a two-loss #4 beats a no-loss #1, I don’t trust the voters to put the winner in the NCG. It is quite possible the voters will prefer a one-loss #2 and a one-loss #3 if they both win their BCS bowls (against lower ranked opponents). If this happens, it will be very controversial. Very.
The main reason for moving to a plus-one system is to reduce the controversy arising from the current method of selecting the participants in the NCG. It would be a pity to retain the controversy by allowing the voters to deny the winner of a top-four matchup a place in the NCG.
In your examples, we get two top-four matchups in 2005, 2008 and 2009. Sending the winners of those matchups to the NCG would avoid controversy and produce a very credible NCG. I don’t understand why we should leave this decision to a questionable voting system. Yes, the voters will almost always send these teams to the NCG, but why give them the opportunity to do something different and cause controversy? Besides, if we expect the voters to send those winners to the NCG, why don’t we simplify the process and just say from the outset that the winners of those games will proceed?
In 2006, 2007 and 2010 your proposal would produce one top-four matchup. Again, I think the winner of this matchup should go the the NCG. However, in those years, there is no clear-cut matchup to use for the second team in the NCG. So, in that case we do need to put the decision into the hands of the voters, but that is the only time we should let them decide.
LikeLike
I’ll second Steven D’s point that the B12 can ultimately choose which bowl it wants for a tie-in, so if the money is there from the Cotton Bowl, I can see a B12 tie-in happening there. The Orange Bowl does end up getting bad matchups in this scenario, but hey, that’s what happens when you tie-in to a conference that produces lackluster champions.
Frank, I think this proposal is better because it is indeed more of an “inceremental” approach, and that’s how things seem to move in BCS-land. However, there is a big consideration that needs to be taken into account: the powers that be want to avoid any setup that gives an 8 or 16-team true playoff any momentum. I think this particular setup would produce a lot of momentum for further playoffs because the Rose Bowl exclusivity part of it creates plenty of scenarios where the post-bowl BCS standings would result in chaos, with more than 2 teams having real claims on championship berths. I think the resulting controversy would raise calls for playoff expansion.
If they are smart, the powers that be will craft the next iteration of the BCS to be as stable as possible. I believe the most stable system is a pure seeded plus-one, with 4 teams making the semis every year. It’s very difficult to generate controversy when you’re arguing over who #4 in the nation is as compared to who is #2, as would happen with a semi-seeded version.
That said, I think you are correct in identifying the Rose Bowl as a major impediment to this, as a seeded plus-one runs into problems such as “is the Rose ever a semifinal host” and “do you pull B10 and P10 champs out of the Rose for the semis.” To the extent that the B10, P10, and Rose Bowl would like to avoid an 8-team playoff, I think it probably makes sense to buy into a seeded plus-one even it it means losing the pure Rose Bowl matchup every once in awhile.
LikeLike
To elaborate further, I don’t think the Rose Bowl can put the genie back in the bottle; the B10 and P10 are not going to give up chances at a national championship in order to protect the Rose Bowl matchup. They had that with the Bowl Coalition and caved.
If some kind of a plus one is going to happen (and I think it will), the Rose, B10 and P10 can push for an unseeded plus one or something like Frank has floated, protecting the B10-P10 matchup.
The thing is, I think those plans are fatally flawed because they will result in probably more “who’s #2” chaos than the BCS has now.
LikeLike
I’m not sure chaos is a flaw. The Rose Bowl caved to the Bowl Alliance because the B10 and P10 wanted to compete for national titles. However, under Frank’s proposal, they get to send their champion to the Rose and also compete for the title. You think public opinion would matter to these folks?
LikeLike
Just wait until a P10 or B10 team gets frozen out of the NC game because the Rose Bowl matchup does give that team as good of a win as the two other “seminfinals.” I can’t see a system with three semifinals having any staying power.
LikeLike
As I said above, I think the winner of a BCS bowl between top-four opponents should automatically proceed to the NCG. However, this should not apply to a matchup between #3 and #4. Obviously #1 and #2 should have priority over the winner of #3 vs #4 (as long as #1 and #2 both win their BCS bowls). Perhaps the best way of phrasing this is: the winner of a BCS bowl between a top-two team and a top-four team should automatically go to the NCG.
In Frank’s 2005, 2008 and 2009 scenarios, he has #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3. I think the winners of those matchups should advance automatically without going back to the voters. The same rule should apply to any #1 vs #3 or $2 vs #4 matchups that might occur in the future.
LikeLike
StevenD,
Why promise a spot to a team that may not deserve it? What if the star QB gets hurt during the win? What if multiple players get ejected for fighting and are suspended for the next game? What if the win was a complete fluke based on a blown call?
I don’t agree that the purpose of a +1 is to reduce the chaos. I think the point is to give undervalued teams a chance to prove themselves against elite competition before choosing NCG participants.
LikeLike
Incidentally, Brian, this is why I objected to Frank’s use of the “+1” label for his proposal earlier this month, which was in reality just a 4-team playoff. I think the sine qua non of a “+1” is that nobody is promised anything: it’s an effort at inserting another layer of high-profile inter-conference season-ending match-ups to increase the size of the data set we’re relying on to determine who participates in the 2-team playoff for the national championship.
LikeLike
Give me playoff, or give me death!!! Death to the BCS!
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
The old ranking system, on the other hand, seemed to love teams that didn’t actually win their conferences
That’s because the computers, which were half the poll and included MOV back then, were using predictive models (i.e. who would win a game tomorrow), not evaluating teams’ “bodies of work,” like today.
LikeLike
Hawkeyes #1 in the Insight Bowl.
LikeLike
Can’t help posting, you’ve put a lot of work into this, but I just don’t like any playoff plan that lets non-conf champions get a shot at it. Why should OSU and ARK get another shot? I also don’t get why a re-run of the BCS is really any better than what we have now. It does nothing to eliminate the beauty contest factor and does not decide anything on the field. It’s not really a playoff. Why can’t there be 2 tiers of BCS branded bowls? Some that feed into a playoff and some that don’t.
LikeLike
1. Ohio State is a conference champion this year.
2. Conference championships are only based on 2/3rds of games played. By requiring a team to win its conference to be eligible, you’re writing off as irrelevant 1 out of every 3 game results.
LikeLike
1. I think each conf can determine it’s champ or participant. If Wisc is the number 1, then that’s just the way it is.
2. I’m cool with that becasue I think it will help the OOC schedules. We could get something like a B10-SEC or B10-PAC 12 matchup, like they do with the ACC. That would be great.
LikeLike
There’s no way you can force the poll voters to ignore non-conference results, and they would penalize schools for losing non-conference games regardless. The incentives would still be the same as you have now — you would just be introducing an additional complication, because you would be suggesting that only conference games “count,” but without any mechanism to enforce such a “rule.”
LikeLike
The polls would, I think, have no bearing on who the conf champs are. Done deal. No one else tells a conf how to pick its champ. The B10’s champ this years is Wisc because the polls say it is. OSU and MSU are “co” champs, but they don’t get the championship prize.
I guess in my view, being champ of one of the 6 top leagues is good enough no matter what. I’m trying to peel some subjectivity out of it.
LikeLike
But as between your conference champions, whatever BCS formula you’re using would be considering all games played, not just conference games played. So you’d be saying that the team must perform superlatively in arbitrary 2/3rds of its schedule to cross the threshold for consideration, but once that threshold is crossed, then all games are considered. This is nonsensical to me.
LikeLike
For seeding purposes, i suppose the ranking would matter. But that’s a far smaller issue than who gets in the door.
LikeLike
JJ, here’s an example:
Team A is dominant, rolling over most of their opponents, finishes 11-1, and soundly thrashes Team B (in a different conference) but loses a conference game to Team C on a controversial penalty. Team C finished 9-3 but goes undefeated in conference. Team B finishes 10-2 but wins their conference.
According to you, Team B gets to play for the national title (and maybe Team C as well in a 4-team playoff), but Team A, which has shown itself to be the better team over the course of the season, has to sit at home and watch a 2-loss team which it destroyed play as well as a 3-loss team maybe play for the national title. Did I get you right?
LikeLike
Richard’s example is precisely why I don’t understand why people get so caught up with winning a conference title in college.
In my experience, people seem to have things almost totally backward. In college sports, there’s a fairly widely-held opinion that if you don’t win your conference title, you shouldn’t be eligible for the national title (as summarized in the silly “if you aren’t best in your league, you aren’t best in the country” trope). Yet I would also say the popular attitude in pro sports is that division championships shouldn’t matter at all, that playoffs should be seeded solely on the basis of record (sometimes even ignoring conference affiliation, let alone seeding incentives for winning division titles). To me, both get it wrong.
LikeLike
Richard – you got it dude.
People want drama, this gets you drama. Win your conference or take a hike in my view.
A wise man once said, “if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry christmas.”
I’m sure there are 10,000 examples of ifs and butts we could come up with we could cook up. If we want a clear metric, conference champ is it. Anything else is a beauty pageant.
You can’t be like, ok Baylor, you win the conference and maybe, assuming TX or OK, don’t have “better” or more wins, you’re in. Go get em! Hardly knute material.
LikeLike
The problem is that there are numerous leagues and 120 schools. Pro sports are hard to compare; even though i’ve done it. I go back to mlb arguments because they are still the most divided leagues. i think the playoff has to be a “tournament of champions” (that’s now trademarked BCS, you owe me when you use it).
LikeLike
jj: Well, heck, if you prefer a system that isn’t fair but produces “drama”, the current BCS system is just as good.
LikeLike
also 2. a giant chuck of those games are already irrelevant.
LikeLike
This is a misconception. People lump them all in to the same boat, but it is meaningful and relevant whether an FBS team beats Delaware as opposed to Delaware State. Yes, they’re both FCS, but the one is a meaningfully greater accomplishment than the other. Similarly, it matters whether you played Akron or Bowling Green — yes, they’re both MAC bottom-feeders, but one is a worse bottom-feeder than the other.
Lumping all of these results together and saying they’re irrelevant denies us a tremendous amount of data.
LikeLike
As the graduate of a school with an FCS program, Thank you!
Moreover, I’d like to add that it irks me how there is somehow more shame in losing to a top-notch FCS team than there is in losing to a bad FBS team. For example, Iowa should have been more embarrassed in losing to Minnesota this year than if they’d lost to Northern Iowa last year; UNI’s ’09 team was waaaaay better than Minny’s ’10 team.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to bag on anyone. I’m just saying, if we’re going to do a playoff, come up with as objective as possible way to do it. You don’t want this thing to bloat into march madness, where, franky 1/3 or so of the teams (mostly mid-level AQ teams; i.e 6th in the B10) do not belong.
LikeLike
My biggest frustration with “March Madness” are the half-empty arenas and dispassionate crowds mandated by “balance” concerns — the size of the tournament is not a problem and I would have no problem doubling it in size (or more).
LikeLike
I agree that it is less embarrassing to lose to a top FCS team than a terrible FBS team — but I continue to think that it is more embarrassing to schedule any FCS team over any FBS team, regardless of their on-field competitive merits.
LikeLike
Adam points out that nearly a third of the games are ooc. I was opposed when the NCAA bb tourney originally expanded beyond conference champs. But in basketball there are more than twice as many games, making it much cleaner who the conference champ is. This year alone there were four three way ties-Big 10, Big 12 South, WAC and Big East. Only in the Big East did one of the 3 beat the other two. We already have the computers using limited data (not allowed to use margin of victory) on a statistically insignificant sample. Sagarin, for one, uses a variant of the Chess ELO system which is considered provisional until 21 games have been played. The only system we have uses a beauty contest in which teams with identical records often get put in ahead of teams they lost to (2000 FSU over Miami, 2007 OU over Texas).
Conference champs is nice in theory, but limits the ability to pick a real national champ and isn’t always fair when you’ve got a 12 game season.
LikeLike
Let’s say the WSox win the AL even though they are not the “best” team on paper. Should they get bounced by, lets say, the RSox just because? It’s the crazy part of college football.
Some years one conf is harder to win than others. That’s just the way it is.
If we’re gonna have a championship and maintain the integrity of the conferences, we gotta figure out a way to limit it. otherwise, its a crazy free for all. I mean isn’t it bizzare if OSU wins the national championship but not the B10? That could easily happen in most of these scenarios. I don’t think a conf championship can be a consolation prize.
I feel like Walter in the Big Lebowski. Am I the only one that cares about the rules around here?! lol
LikeLike
The White Sox play 162 games and the plan here is to have a very limited playoff of 4 teams.
I weigh in on the side of “fairness” over arbitrary conference tiebreaks. In the Big 10 this year and Big 12 in 2007, arbitrary conference tiebreaks determine the conference champ. There will be times like this year where a clear 2nd like Stanford gets in, or 2004 where once beaten Texas or Cal gets in along with unbeaten conference champs, OU & USC. But there are other times where perhaps the best team in the country doesn’t get in because of arbitrary tie-breaks. And its really hard to craft a rule that deals with that.
Such a rule would also discourage conference championship games, since you wouldn’t want your unbeaten champ to get knocked out in an upset. While the Big 12 has gotten extra BCS bids because of their championship game, 3 different teams have been knocked out of the championship game in 13 years, KSU in 99, Texas in 01 (for UNL who didn’t win their division), and Missouri in 07.
LikeLike
No, your OSU hypothetical isn’t crazy. The Big Ten Champion isn’t necessarily the best team in the Big Ten — it’s the team that was the best in the Big Ten Championship segment of the season. But the National Championship is based on the entire season, not any specific segment of it.
LikeLike
You can’t draw an analogy to any pro sport because no pro sport has the collegiate distinction of conference and non-conference games.
LikeLike
Uh, in baseball, they have the wildcard. Teams that don’t win their division go on to win the World Series pretty often.
BTW, the White Sox winning the AL in a playoff would be akin to Oregon winning the Rose Bowl. Sure, the Rose Bowl winner should be allowed to compete for the national title (if ranked highly enough), but why shouldn’t Stanford (say they were #3) not be allowed to play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl and compete for the title if they knock them off?
What if the 3 best teams in the country were all in the same conference? How is it more fair, if you have a 4-team playoff, for #1, #4, #5, & #6 to get the chance to win the national title, but not #2 and #3?
LikeLike
mlb playoffs were better before the wild card.
LikeLike
jj,
This is an improvement over the BCS because teams like TCU get a shot at the NCG. They get a game against an elite opponent to prove themselves worthy to the voters instead of being shut out.
LikeLike
but 5 teams win right? only 2 move up. tell the other 3 it makes sense. i bet they don’t think it’s so hot.
LikeLike
Lots of teams finish the season with a win and only 2 move on. Tell teams like TCU this system is better.
A +1 gives them all a chance. The biggest weakness of the BCS system is a lack of data to make fair evaluations of the quality of the teams. A +1 provides more data, so the selections of #1 and #2 are more likely to be correct.
Again, how is an unseeded +1 worse than the BCS?
LikeLike
It’s not. This probably is better than what we have now, but why stop at better when we can get it right? The teams with the most prestige will still get the votes. If TCU beats the crapola out of UConn or something, they still have no shot.
LikeLike
jj,
You assume people agree on what getting it right is. I never want a playoff, not even a +1. I wish they’d go back to the old system. Too much emphasis is being put on national championships now. People from different regions didn’t used to hate each other like they do now.
Even people who want a playoff don’t agree on what constitutes getting it right.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
I like it, FTT. However, I wouldn’t, if I were the Fiesta Bowl. It’s a small sample size, but it looks like the Cotton would relegate the Fiesta to a second-tier bowl.
LikeLike
Perhaps the Fiesta could be allowed to host a semifinal (or somewhat semifinal) by guaranteeing a #1 or #2 Big East and/or non-AW team a spot in the Fiesta Bowl. For example, the Fiesta Bowl would have been the site of a semifinal between WVU and someone else in the ’07 season if WVU hadn’t choked their chance away.
LikeLike
Maybe in the future it would be best for everyone if the ACC did not have a tie-in to the Orange Bowl. Since the tie-in began, the only matchups to draw good ratings have involved Florida State. That’s far too dependent on one team.
The Orange Bowl deserves better than that. The Orange Bowl used to be, in my opinion, the most prestigious bowl game outside of Pasadena. Consider: Before the BCS automatically rotated the site of the National Championship game, the OB hosted a national championship team five times in seven years: ’97, ’94, ’93, ’91, and ’90. Over the same period, the Sugar and Rose hosted a MNC team twice each, and the Fiesta hosted a NT team just once (with the Citrus Bowl having hosted co-champ Georgia Tech in 90).
Meanwhile, I just don’t see how much objection the ACC would have to giving up a permanent tie-in with the OB. Miami, which travels poorly and has had a ton of success in that game, loves the OB tie-in, but I don’t see why they everyone else cares one way or the other. FSU is about as close to New Orleans as Miami and has about as much history with the Sugar as the Orange. The rest of the league would probably revel in the idea that the ACC champion at least has a chance to play the Big 12 champ in the Fiesta or SEC champ in the Sugar. With the OB tie-in, the opponents have offered sub-par national interest: Stanford, Iowa, Cincinnati, Kansas, and Louisville. Not a single blue-blood program in the whole bunch.
Instead, the OB ought to have first choice of at-large teams, including ACC and Big East teams.
LikeLike
Well, a big part of that was having the Big 8 tie in with a nationally relevant Colorado and Nebraska getting its national championships in the 90s…
All the schools that were relevant in those match ups were in their heyday and none of them are really back fully to their level of prominence.
Colorado, Nebraska, Florida State, Miami, and Notre Dame have all struggled through parts or most of this past decade, so that’s just the cyclical nature of college football. Obviously, I wouldn’t put Colorado with the others, since the others are national brands, but they’ve all had much worse decades in the 00s than in the 90s for the most part.
I just don’t think the Orange Bowl would want to give up the ACC tie in…
Right now, they get to be the prize for the ACC Champion.
Instead, they’d be almost totally irrelevant until the BCS numbers are fully crunched, and then they’d get the first pick of non-champions…
It’s really hard to see them accepting that, since there’d be no tradition in that game as it would be a hodgepodge of match ups.
At least now, they’re guaranteed Florida State or Miami among the national brands, so they’ll take that any day over an uncertain alternative…
LikeLike
The OB would get to claim the ACC champion with its first choice, but it could choose to defer by taking another team.
My other post shows that if the Orange Bowl had the flexibility NOT to take the ACC champ, while using FTT’s BCS Flex rules, it could have had these matchups:
2010: Arkansas vs. UConn
2009: Florida vs. Georgia Tech
2008: Virginia Tech vs. Utah
2007: Virginia Tech vs. Oklahoma
2006: Notre Dame vs. Wake Forest
In 2010, the real matchup, Stanford vs. VT is better matchup.
In 2009, UF vs. GT would have been better than Iowa vs. GT.
In 2008, it’s virtually a wash: VT vs. Utah or VT vs. Kansas.
In 2007, VT vs. OU would have been much better than VT vs. Cincinnati.
In 2006, Notre Dame vs. Wake Forest would have been much better than Louisville vs. Wake Forest.
Granted, the OB still would have gotten ACC teams in four of the past five seasons, but the ACC wouldn’t have been the OB’s first choice.
The ACC also has little reason to insist that the Orange Bowl should be the destination for its champion. It’s barely closer to most ACC schools than the Sugar is, and other than Miami, ACC schools really do not have much more history with the OB than anywhere else. Plus, with an absolute, inflexible tie-in to the OB, the ACC champ is assured it will NOT face a conference champion.
As for the OB’s viewpoint, I think it would love the flexibility to choose teams like Oklahoma, Ohio State, or Texas over most ACC teams.
LikeLike
I’ve heard that the Orange Bowl is trying/has tried to get out of their ACC tie-in. Remember that they don’t have a long history with the ACC, and back in the day, they preferred to take the champion of a conference half-way across the country rather than the champ of the ACC, which is next door.
The Orange may not mind joining the Fiesta as “floaters” that can host a semifinal if 2 teams from the ACC, BE, independents (ND) or non-AQs are involved and get first picks otherwise.
LikeLike
The ACC had an Orange Bowl tie-in against the Big Seven in the 1950s, but it was discontinued after a few years. I think in some ways this is deja vu.
The bowls should just tell the truth to the ACC — until its schools really make a concerted effort to excel in football and quit treating it as an appetizer for its precious basketball, it, like the Big East (another conference that doesn’t understand big-time college football culture), gets no tie-in. Period.
LikeLike
???
It’s not as if the ACC doesn’t _want_ to be a football power–in fact, pretty much all of its expansion has been to upgrade it’s football–it just won’t be able to reach the level of the BigTen or SEC because of the hand its dealt (generally smaller schools than those 2 conferences, and no states that it owns outside of the ACC heartland of NC, VA, & MD).
LikeLike
I agree, Richard. Taking Miami and Virginia Tech was COMPLETELY about football. The fact that it hasn’t worked out as well for the ACC as originally planned doesn’t mean that the conference hasn’t been focusing on the sport. The intent of the ACC is clearly to be a strong football league. For as much as it’s bashed on the field, the ACC is still the clear #3 revenue league behind the Big Ten and SEC, so they did something right.
LikeLike
Keep in mind, the ACC tie-in, if nothing else, keeps the Orange Bowl at the table. If the bowl would be so foolish to drop the tie in, then it just becomes a pure cash grab. If the Peach wants to offer more money to buy into the BCS, the Orange will ultimately be dropped, tradition be damned – just ask the Cotton.
LikeLike
The Cotton didn’t have the facilities. The Fiesta didn’t have a traditional tie-in and became a BCS bowl. Heck, you could argue that the Fiesta because a BCs bowl _because_ they were not tied to a conference.
LikeLike
Actually they did succeed because they weren’t tied. They were able to host a lot of big games because the indies were good and they could invite two good indies to meet. PSU/FSU/Miami/ND were indies and among the very top programs in the late 80s.
LikeLike
My assumption is that the Fiesta succeeded because it brought a big payout to the table. Having those good matchups probably helped. But that was a unique situation. The Cotton’s tie in died. Had it not, I’m sure they would have had a much better crack at the BCS. The Orange should NOT drop its tie-in. Without a tie in, its all about who brings money to the table.
LikeLike
Those good matchups enabled it to offer the big $. The Cotton had a decaying stadium and a history of bad weather and couldn’t generate the $. Now they have a great stadium and the ability to generate $. Weather isn’t going to change.
LikeLike
Michael in Indy,
I wouldn’t just blame the opponents in the OB lately. The ACC champ hasn’t been a draw except VT once. Iowa and Stanford are/were higher rated than their opponents (IIRC).
LikeLike
If No.1 USC plays No.12 B1G champ for the right to get to the plus-1 game while No.2 Alabama has to play No.3 Oklahoma, there will be some gripes.
If you can’t match a 1-2-3-4 in the Rose Bowl, you need to let the 1-2-3-4 team that would normally go to the Rose Bowl move to a bowl where they match up with another 1-2-3-4. Replace them with another B1G or Pac 12 school.
LikeLike
You take away any incentive to agree to the +1 if you try to take away the elite teams from the Rose Bowl. You’ll just go to a 4 team playoff in that case.
LikeLike
Well, flip it the other way around. The higher ranked Pac 12/B1G 10 stays in the Rose, and the lower ranked leaves and is replaced by another top 4 team.
LikeLike
@Frank,
The tweak I would make to your outline would be to reduce the OB’s obligation to take the ACC champ, except when the ACC champ would be eligible to be the host team in one of your scenarios. The Fiesta Bowl would have a similar deal with the Big East AND the top-ranked non-AQ team.
The Fiesta and Orange would alternate every other year who would get the first choice of teams who aren’t in a “semi-semifinal,” if you will.
I agree that the Cotton ought to have the Big 12’s tie-in. The Fiesta wouldn’t like it, but if the Big 12 would rather have its champ in Dallas, there’s not much the Fiesta can do about it. The Cotton makes even more sense for the Big 12 now that there is no more B12 championship game; it wouldn’t have made sense if OU’s reward for winning the CCG in Dallas to be… another trip to Dallas.
One other thing: rematches need to be avoided in bowl games; #1 Florida vs. #4 Alabama in ’08 and #2 LSU vs. #3 VT would have been silly.
This year, under your scenario, the bowls could have been:
Rose: #2 Oregon (Pac-10 champ) vs. #5 Wisconsin (Big Ten champ)
Sugar: #1 Auburn (SEC champ) vs. #3 TCU (top non-AQ)
Cotton: #7 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. #13 Virginia Tech (at-large choice #3)
Fiesta: #6 Ohio State (at-large choice #1) vs. #4 Stanford (at-large choice #5)
Orange: #8 Arkansas (at-large choice #2) vs. UConn (at-large champ #4/Big East champ; I’m assuming common sense prevails and the Orange goes with the team with a small fanbase from the East coast, not the west coast)
2009
Rose: #7 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #8 Oregon (Pac-10 champ)
Sugar: #1 Alabama (SEC champ) vs. #4 TCU (top non-AQ)
Cotton: #2 Texas (Big 12 champ) vs. #3 Cincinnati (Big East champ)
Orange: #5 Florida (at-large choice #1) vs. #9 Georgia Tech
(at-large choice #4/ACC champ)
Fiesta: #6 Boise State (at-large choice #2) vs. #10 Iowa (at-large choice #3)
2008
Rose: #5 USC (Pac-10 champ) vs. #8 Penn State (Big Ten champ)
Sugar: #1 Florida (SEC champ) vs. #3 Texas (at-large)
Cotton: #2 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. #4 Alabama (at-large)
Fiesta: #10 Ohio State (at- large choice #1) vs. #12 Cincinnati (at-large choice #4/ Big East champ)
Orange: #19 Virginia Tech (at-large choice #2) vs. #6 Utah (at-large #3/top non-AQ)
2007
Rose: #1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #7 USC (Pac-10 champ)
Sugar: #2 LSU (SEC champ) vs.
#5 Georgia (at-large; UGA and LSU didn’t play in ’07)
Orange: #3 Virginia Tech (ACC champ) vs. #4 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)
Cotton: #9 Missouri (Big 12 replacement) vs. #6 West Virginia (at-large choice #2/Big East champ)
Fiesta: #13 Illinois (at-large choice #1) vs. #10 Hawaii (at-large choice #3/top non-AQ)
2006
Rose: #1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. #5 USC (Pac-10 champ)
Sugar: #2 Florida (SEC champ) vs. #3 Michigan (at-large)
Cotton: Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. Louisville (at-large choice #3/Big East)
Orange: Notre Dame (at-large choice #1) vs. Wake Forest (at-large choice #5/ACC)
Fiesta: LSU (at-large choice #2) vs. Boise State (At-large choice #4/ top non-AQ)
LikeLike
Some thoughts part I:
1) The Bowl Wars – this season
BIG 10 – Wisconsin (TCU), Michigan State (Bama), tOSU (Arkansas), Iowa (W Missouri), Illinois (W Baylor), PSU (Florida), Northwestern (T Tech), Michigan (MSU) – 8 possible bowl wins
vs SEC 0-0 (4 possible)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (0 possible, the tragedy of this season)
vs Big 12 2-0 (3 possible, congrats Illinois and Iowa!)
vs the “rest” 0-0 (1 possible, MWC)
SEC – Auburn (Oregon), Arkansas (tOSU), LSU (TAMU), Alabama (Michigan State), South Carolina (FSU), MSU (Michigan), Florida (PSU), Georgia (UCF), Tennessee (UNC), Kentucky (Pitt) – 10 possible bowl wins
vs Big 10 0-0 (4 possible)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 0-0 (1 possible, does this seem low for balance?)
vs the “rest” 0-0 (4 possible, 2 ACC, 1 BE, 1 CUSA)
PAC 10 – Oregon (Auburn), Stanford (Va Tech), Arizona (oSu), Washington (Nebraska) – 4 possible bowl wins
vs Big 10 0-0 (0 possible!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 0-1 (2 possible, bad start as only 4 teams got bowl bids!)
vs the “rest” 0-0 (1 possible, ACC)
BIG 12 – Oklahoma (Uconn), Missouri (L Iowa), oSu (W Arizona), Nebraska (Washington), TAMU (LSU), Baylor (L Illinois), T Tech (Northwestern), KSU (Syracuse) – 8 possible bowl wins
vs Big 10 0-2 (3 possible, go wildcats for the sweep!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, again only 1 Big 12 vs SEC matchup)
vs Pac 10 1-0 (2 possible, if Nebraska wins, they sweep the Pac 10)
vs the “rest” 0-0 (2 possible, 2 BE! weird combinations)
2) The Bowl Wars – next season
a) the Big 12 will be the losers, and the Pac 10 and ACC will probably be the winners, as a conference without a CCG will probably fall way down when it comes to bowl invitations (next year could see both the Pac 12 and Big 12 get 6 invites {+2 for Pac 12} ).
b) a possible shift for the sugar bowl (see my comment to frank in part II)
3) Are we about to see the Pac 10 implode in this years bowl games? Auburn can beat the Ducks, and VT / Stanford is a different VT team from early in the season. Nebraska is not bad, so can the Pac 10 go 0-4 this bowl season?
LikeLike
I appreciate the note to the fairness advocates. This system is not designed to determine the best team if there are multiple top teams from outside the cartel. But putting aside my fairness concerns, there is still something that bothers me about this improvement to the BCS system: it still relies heavily on the BCS rankings. In the spirit of making incremental changes, can someone propose something that erodes the power of the voters and algorithm writers? I want to see a system where every player knows at the beginning of the year what they need to do to become champions without needing to score style points.
LikeLike
Do you have any ideas? RPI in basketball is still an algorithm.
LikeLike
4 BCS Bowls take 6 AQ conf champs and 2 others that have to either win their conf championship (e.g. boise) or be a suitable (however) independent (e.g. byu finishes 6 in the BCS). 8 team playoff ensues. The second round can be home games for top 2 teams. Win your conference and you are in. Don’t like dickin around with voters and polls? Join a conf.
Cotton, Cap One, Whatever can become BCS affilaited, just not feed into the championship.
LikeLike
In a sport where there are only 12 games (13 for teams who play in CCG’s or at Hawaii) but 120 teams, it’s impossible to be completely objective. It’s not like the NFL, where each team plays 13 out of 32 teams, not 13 out of 120. The NFL’s system isn’t perfect, either; how preposterous is it for a potential 7-9 NFC West team to host a team that goes 12-4?
Personally, I would be more content with some kind of transparent selection committee. The NCAA basketball selection committee doesn’t always get it right, but at least the committee doesn’t make its decisions under such absolute secrecy.
LikeLike
The funny thing about a 7-9 NFC West team hosting a playoff game is that the one owner probably screwed by the current playoff format more than any other (Robert Kraft, who is the owner of the only 11-5 team to miss the playoffs) is very much in favor of it. “‘I do believe if you win a division, it’s good for your fans to know you will have a home game,’ Kraft said. ‘To win a division, there is a reward and we wanted to keep that.'” http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80789b13
LikeLike
*The 1985 Denver Broncos went 11-5 and missed the playoffs while the 8-8 Cleveland Browns made it.
Anyway, one of the things I appreciate about college football is that the standard for winning a national title is sky-high. No three-loss team has ever won a national title, and two-loss teams have only won one twice in the past 50 years–and that’s a good thing. I do not see how opening up the chance for an 8-4 UConn to win the national title in a playoff system is an improvement. National champions have always been about greatness, not just going on a hot streak.
LikeLike
I get that, but if we are going to a playoff system, you can’t just tell the BEast and their 100s of thousands of fans, tough beans, you had a down year, no one gets in.
LikeLike
I should have said, the only 11-5 team to miss the playoffs in the era of the 12-team playoff format.
LikeLike
In the days before wildcards, the Colts went 11-1-2 in 1967, tied for the best record in the NFL, but lost and tied the 11-1-2 Rams who went to the playoffs with 3 9 win teams.
In the split season strike year 1981 the Reds had the best record in baseball. But finished a 1/2 game out each half season and didn’t make the playoffs.
With that history and being a Colts fan in the 60s, a Reds fan and a Longhorn fan (see 2008), I definitely am not a fan of arbitrary division championships such as split seasons and BCS tiebreaks. Or of arbitrary rules that limit who can and who cannot be in.
LikeLike
I generally agree with you bullet, with a couple of caveats:
1. I think the NCAA’s current rules for playing an “exempt” conference championship game are appropriate. The default manner of determining a league title should be a round robin, because a league should be a meaningful community of teams. If a league is so big that it cannot play a round robin, then it should be forced to make the choice of either subdividing into 2 actually meaningful communities of teams (and matching their champions for the league title) or just playing a straight round robin. It seems inappropriate to reward expansionism for its own sake with the “best of both worlds” solution: add as many teams as you want and contribute to a “rich get richer” system, but not be forced to make any compromises after having done it.
2. I have no problem with special seeding rules for division champions in pro sports — it’s just that the playoff field should be big enough to ensure that all deserving teams make the playoffs every year, without being concerned about whether a few “undeserving” teams qualify from time to time. That is to say, I have no problem with a 7-9 Seattle Seahawks NFC West Champion getting the 4th seed and a home game — but I also think that the Giants and Packers should both definitely be going to the playoffs, too.
LikeLike
I worded that inartfully: didn’t mean that a 12-team league should be either forced to subdivide or else play an 11-game round robin. What I meant was either subdivide, or live with whatever incomplete round robin you can fit into the financial parameters of your league’s business model. Allowing a big league to play an exempt conference title game without subdividing just feels like a best of both worlds, no compromises, rich-get-richer regime which I find distasteful/offensive.
As for the NFL, I am of 2 minds on how I’d like to see the playoffs organized. On one hand, I could see taking the 4 division champs and then the next 4 best teams. Or, you could take the top 2 teams in each division. The latter approach appeals to me in some respects, even if a really crappy team snuck in this year (you could potentially have a 6-10 runner-up in that division), because whoever is getting screwed probably isn’t that good either (is a 9-7 Tampa Bay team really in much position to squawk too much? sure, it’s a lot better than 6-10, but nobody is crying for a 9-7 team).
LikeLike
In college athletics, it will always be impossible for teams to control their own destiny from the outset of the season. But you could always put in place an RPI-like algorithm which is neutral and doesn’t suffer from the biases and preconceptions of the voters (academics all this a “pre-commitment strategy”). That’s what I’d like to see: put in place a formula which is unconnected to opinion polls and just accept the results. But I think the only way that would work would be a fairly large playoff (16 teams minimum), since there would likely be quirky results cutting against the grain of consensus, and you’d want to make sure the field is large enough that everybody with a realistic chance is involved.
So long as we’re committed to a 2-team playoff (which is what the current bowl system is) or something not much larger than that, I don’t think any system that doesn’t rely on opinion polls will get any support from the consuming public.
LikeLike
Some thoughts part II:
Frank, are you looking for a 4 team, 8 team, 12 team, or 16 team playoff in your analysis? Here is some comments and thinking.
FtT point #1:
total agreement!
FtT point #2 & #3:
Frank you never commented on my thought of moving the Sun Bowl (and its history as one of the oldest bowls) to the weekend of the CCG’s for the Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, ACC, etc….. Have the [Big 12 winner play the best non AQ at that time] (with the winner getting the automatic slot in the Cotton Bowl. To me there are 4 bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton – sorry to the Fiesta but they are the “johnny come lately” to the Big Bowl Table. By using the Sun Bowl as a CCG of sorts between the former Big 12 vs best non AQ, you keep the former Big 12 in the media eyes, AND you force the best non AQ to go on the road to prove their regular season schedule is not such a cream puff.
FtT point #4:
Bowls have following tie ins
Rose = Big 10 vs Pac 10 (duh!)
Sugar = SEC vs ACC (it becomes the “balance” to the Rose)
=> Rose = Big 10 vs Pac 12, BTN + PTN, and FOX ties
=> Sugar = SEC vs ACC, ESPN ties
Orange = Big East / Notre Dame vs ??
Cotton = Sun Bowl winner (high probability to former Big 12) vs ??
Fiesta = Non AQ (ND, BYU, Boise State, etc) vs ??
This leaves you with 5 bowl games pitting the top 10 teams in the country against each other. The top 2 play for the MNC!
FtT point #5:
I would add the Sugar, and make the Sugar and Rose the “stone” teams
FtT point #6:
I would would make the Fiesta the non AQ “home”
FtT point #7 & #8:
adjust with above point factored in
FtT point #9:
From the top 10 (the 5 bowls) pick the 2 to play the MNC
I know I keep hammering at the non CCG teams, and the weaker schedule teams, but how else do you propose to make the top 10 slots more “level” but rewarding teams that play tougher schedules. If Boise State or TCU had to play a UTexas / Oklahoma at the same time the rest of the “major” conferences were playing their CCG, it just seems like a fairer way to “balance” the teams overall. I guess I am just trying to figure out why this is not on the table for discussion?
NOTE:
If they followed the BCS final standings formula;
Auburn #1 plays Oregon #2
TCU #3 plays Stanford #4
Wisconsin #5 plays Oklahoma #7 (because Ohio State is #6)
Ohio State #6 plays Arkansas #8
Michigan State #9 plays Boise State #10
instead;
Wisconsin plays TCU
Stanford plays Va Tech (#13, and not in the top 10)
Oklahoma plays Uconn (WHO IN NOT IN THE TOP 25!)
Michigan State plays Alabama (#13, and not in the top 10)
Boise State plays Utah (#19, and not in the top 10)
My point being, if we are to trust in the BCS, why do they not follow it to seed the teams not #1 or #2 in the final BCS poll? If the top 10 is valid, why does the BCS not force them to play each other? can anybody offer a reasonable discussion of this point?
LikeLike
oops, Alabama was #16, not #13 in the final BCS poll
LikeLike
Since the Big 12 has been in 8 of 13 ccgs (only one UNL or CU) and would have been in 10 of 13 (OU-5, UT-3, KSU-1, Mizzou-1) with no ccg, why don’t we just seed the Big 12-2 champ right into the national championship! Then we could just have everyone else play for the other spot.
A championship game does make it harder to get into the championship, but not having one doesn’t mean you play a weaker schedule.
LikeLike
bullet,
sorry, did not clarify better:
weak schedule = teams lie TCU, Boise State
no CCG = former Big 12
not that they are one in the same (but losing the better teams in UNL and CU do not help – not like they were losing ISU and KU in football – which would not really be noticed).
LikeLike
I was also making the point that the ACC has a championship game and in recent years that didn’t mean they were playing a tough schedule.
LikeLike
ACC teams DO play tough schedules:
This year alone:
FSU–OU, UF, BYU
Miami–Ohio State, Pitt, USF
Clemson–Auburn, South Carolina
Georgia Tech–Kansas, Georgia
VT–Boise State
Virginia–USC
Maryland–West Virginia
UNC–LSU
Duke–Alabama
If any of those teams survive their schedule unscathed, plus a CCG, that’s not a tough schedule? Which SEC and Big Ten teams, exactly, are playing these tough schedules?
LikeLike
Mike – shouldn’t Florida, Auburn, South Carolina, Georgia, LSU and Alabama also get credit for playing those ACC schools?
Alabama also played Penn St. LSU played West Virginia. Arkansas played Texas A&M. Tennessee showed up and attempted to play Oregon
LikeLike
LSU definitely deserves credit–I forgot they played WVU this year.
Florida, though, is notorious for weak non-conference schedules. Yes they scheduled USF but have no intentions of playing down in Tampa in return. Alabama schedules a lot like Penn State: one tough game and three gimmies. Georgia’s stepping up a little recently with games vs. OSU and ASU.
But the Pac-10 and the ACC are the only conferences where it’s normal for teams to schedule more than one typical top 25 opponent. In any case, I don’t understand the suggestion that ACC teams play a “weak” schedule.
LikeLike
Mike – I’m not suggesting that the ACC plays weak. I’m with you on that, but to insinuate that the SEC plays a weak schedule is crazy talk.
Here’s a summary of the 6 ranked SEC teams’ schedules:
South Carolina played 11 bowl teams out of 13 games played. Auburn played 9 out of 13, LSU & Bama played 8 out of 12, and Arkansas & Miss St played 7 out of 12.
With 6 ranked teams at the end of the year and 10 bowl teams, the SEC schedule is a meat-grinder by itself.
The bowl-bound OOC list of teams that played those ranked SEC teams include UNC, West VA, Texas A&M, Penn St, Clemson (2), So Miss, and Troy.
Even some of the cupcakes are a little tough to chew.
LikeLike
The ACC does play a tougher ooc schedule than SEC/Big 10/Big 12-except for the fact that they like FCS schools more than the other conferences. I was referring to the in conference schedule, which is what it takes to conquer to get the conference championship. Over the last few years, the ACC has not been as strong as the others.
LikeLike
@Alan,
I think it’s more or less understood that the SEC is an excellent conference. You don’t have to convince me of that. I was talking about the non-conference schedule.
LikeLike
Ohio State and Georgia have agreed to play in September in 2020 and 2021. No details worked out, just an agreement in principal. UGA’s new AD is from Florida and prefers the embarrassingly weak ooc schedule Florida plays, but says that every now and then he will add a good game.
LikeLike
duffman,
The BCS doesn’t arrange anything other than #1 versus #2 for several reasons. First, the bowls are businesses that want the flexibility to maximize their earning potential. If you take away their freedom, they will reduce their payouts. Second, all the big conferences want a guaranteed spot regardless of the team’s rank. Third, strict seeding destroys traditional match-ups and tie-ins. Fourth, you would need all kinds of rules written in to avoid rematches and conference games and how to resolve conflicts.
LikeLike
Good starting point, perhaps the 2nd most likely outcome of the upcoming BCS negotiations. The most likely will probably be adding the Cotton Bowl to the BCS bowl system and preserve 10 BCS slots, use the BCS to pick the 4 wild cards, and then run the BCS after the bowls to pick 2 teams to play in a Plus One semi-faux national title game.
But either or those is just a stalling maneuver and I don’t for a second buy into the notion that “The Powers That Be” are determined to prevent a playoff. TPTB are split in multiple ways with varying agendas and pressure. With potential state bankruptcies/bailouts looming, many state schools will find it difficult or impossible to justify rejecting the big jump in payouts some sort of playoffs would provide. The BCS bowls don’t operate in a vacuum, so some or all of them likely recognize that if can’t substantially increase payouts in the next round they could be left out. Hence the BCS will probably move in the direction of some sort of playoff that incorporates their bowls as the only way to get the $ increase to counter outside playoff proposals (see Mark Cuban’s mischief.)
LikeLike
Which is why I think there is a good chance that the BCS negotiations actually result in an 8-team (legitimate) playoff inside a 12-team BCS:
* 6 AQ champs and 2 wild cards meet in 4 BCS bowls for the first round of the playoffs, BCS rankings pick the wild cards.
* Next 4 highest BCS-ranked teams meet in 2 other BCS bowls
This proposal would:
1) Return the Rose Bowl to a pure B10+2 vs P12 matchup.
2) Add the Cotton Bowl and the potential big money Jerry Jones could bring while keeping him from potentially starting a competing playoff system. Could also potentially raise total BCS revenue by putting a 6th bowl slot up for bid (or potentially rotated among the original 4 BCS bowls as a 2nd game.)
3) Allow changing the BCS limit from 2 to 3 teams per conference, something the B10+2 and SEC are pushing for but some other AQ conferences are wary of at 10 BCS slots, afraid it would reduce their chances of a 2nd BCS team at 10.
4) Theoretically increasing the access for Non-AQ conferences
5) In actuality provide 2 additional BCS slots from which the 6 AQ conferences could increase total revenue to be divided amongst themselves and increase the chances the ACC, BEast, and P12 could get an extra team in.
6) More BCS bowl games and then playoff games = more BCS TV content to put up for bid = fatter TV contract from which to distribute among the same 6 BCS AQ conferences = higher payouts to conferences and schools
Some will claim that the 2 non-playoff BCS bowls would be meaningless and thus undesirable. Um, that would be no different than most of the BCS bowl games now, except for the supposed National Championship (sic) game. See this year’s Fiesta, last year’s Sugar, and most Orange Bowls.
The key to remember is that going back from 10 to 8 BCS teams is highly unlikely, undesirable, and perhaps politically infeasible. Meanwhile an 8 team playoff limits all but 2 participants to conference champions, preserving the importance and viewership ($) of the regular season while keeping theoretical access for no AQ conferences. So if you are going to have one ‘NIT’ BCS games to keep 10 BCS slots, might as well expand to 12, for the reasons above, and reduce the marginalization and image issues of having a single ‘left outside’ BCS game. Participant schools will still have the BCS prestige and money at 12 while the total BCS pot is increased. All about money, and how the AQ conferences can maximize it.
Whether a 5th or 6th bowl is added or instead additional games played at the site of existing BCS bowls (and same for whether the 2nd round is played on campus or at BCS bowl sites) are smaller details with pro’s and cons that can be negotiated. The key is the basic platform of 8 playoff and 12 BCS teams that perhaps maximizes the most revenue to the BCS AQ conferences while best balancing the competing interests and pressure.
LikeLike
This seems very reasonable. We have nits about the 2 wildcards, but this is within reason and I agree with basically all of your points. What team or conf could have a legit beef with this?
The only downside is an 8-4 UConn or something, but if that’s the worst that happens, I think it is pretty good. Think Miracle on Ice, something crazy good could happen. And a bad team isn’t likely to go on a 3 game tear agaist this type of competition.
The natioanl playoff doen’t pick the conf champs so any beefs there can be determined by confs. Each conf deals with its own. Don’t like that a CCG can biff your team?; then don’t have one.
LikeLike
1. 8-team playoff isn’t happening (at least any time soon).
2. No sports anywhere in the world stages 3 consecutive rounds of playoff games at neutral sites, and college football isn’t going to do it either.
LikeLike
1. good argument
2. world cup. 4 rounds neutral site. biggest sporting event in the world.
LikeLike
Yeah, and so are the Olympics. I should qualify that I’m talking about yearly events that have to draw >50K per game.
LikeLike
International events involving national teams generally don’t count. But AFAIK, even international events involving club teams (e.g., the UEFA Champions League) play home-and-home games.
LikeLike
Basically this is Frank’s 1st proposal but with 4 games instead of 2 counting as the playoff.
I don’t believe any of the conferences, probably not even the Big 10, are dead set against an 8 team playoff. I think everything’s negotiable. If the $ are big enough and $ distribution and control issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the Big 6, it can happen.
LikeLike
As to the flex-Plus One Frank proposed, I particularly appreciate that in 2009 it would have likely produced a TX-TCU supposed ‘National Title’ game…
FL exposed Cincy as a fraud, while AL was getting their butts whipped and Saban in a panic until the fluke Colt McCoy injury. TCU would likely have beaten AL, though perhaps not the thorough whipping and exposing that Utah administered to the Tide a year earlier.
Which would have still robbed Boise (and perhaps other schools, how do we really know TX was top 2?) So as usual it all comes back to needing a minimum of 8 teams in a playoff. 6 AQ conference champs, with some years a non-AQ champ or two, and/or some years a wild card or two to make up for extreme controversies in the determination of an AQ conference champion (see 2008 B12.) Otherwise it is all too often just tarnished beauty contest posing, politicking, and perceptions based on circular logic and urban myths.
LikeLike
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!?!
“Nothing will get done in terms of college postseason changes unless the Big Ten is happy, which means that the Rose Bowl and the Pac-10 have to be happy.”
*Amen to that brother. I hate like hell that interlopers come into the rose bowl and devalue what it means to Big Ten fans. Baring a national championship, it’s the goal and holy grail of the season. *
“Highest ranked non-AQ school receives automatic BCS bid”
*A deserving bone thrown to the Non-AQ’s. * Possession is 9/10ths the law. And the AQ’s have the law. They do not feel obliged to bending it or breaking off a piece for the Non-AQ’s. This is an improvement though.*
“Fiesta Bowl receives flex preference for #1 or #2 teams that do not have tie-ins OR 1st at-large pick.
In reality, the best way to coax the Fiesta into giving up its Big 12 tie-in to the Cotton is to provide it with more flexibility. Therefore, it gets two options. First, the Fiesta receives a “flex preference”, whereby it would automatically receive a #1 or #2 team that does not have a tie-in”.
*I once say a movie where an American who traveled south of the border engaged a taxi cab driver for his services. He spoke no Spanish. He simply said, “se habla dinero señor ? to which he answered si, si señor.!
They will understand and take the gratuity.*
“BCS rankings are re-calculated after bowl games are finished and national championship game rotates among the BCS bowl sites”
*Well the only thing I don’t like about this last one is that it may increase the trend of grotesque running up of scores. For some this is becoming acceptable but in reality it just quietly kills sportsmanship.* some of us value it you see. But after these games are played, there should be a reshuffling of the deck.
LikeLike
The only way to eliminate the incentive to run up the score is to eliminate the use of opinion polls. Running up the score influences those far more than it ever did any computer rating system, even before the BCS computer rating systems were told to ignore it.
LikeLike
Frank,
I like this proposal because it definitely allows the BCS bowls to have a direct influence on the national championship, versus your semi-final games in the BCS Final Four. I also think it will ensure that fans will continue to travel to the traditional bowl tie-ins in addition to the BCS championship game. I think that could have been a problem with the BCS Final Four.
There are two areas of concern I have:
1) If a #4 team defeats a #1 team, that #1 team could still end up in the BCS title game. Although that is a current issue today regarding the last day of the regular season, isn’t part of this exercise to take some of the ambiguity out of the system and to better decide games on the field?
2) Your assumption that bowls will take the highest-rated BCS teams in their at-large selections. We both know bowls care about traveling fan bases at TV ratings more than rankings. In 2010, I could see the Sugar Bowl taking #6 Ohio State over #3 TCU or #4 Stanford. In 2009, there is no way that the Cotton Bowl would have taken #3 Cincinnati when they could have taken #4 TCU or #5 Florida.
Now to play devil’s advocate, do you think that the “pseudo-semifinals idea” would be enough incentive for the bowls to take a team from the Big East or non-AQ team versus a highly ranked Big Ten or SEC team?
No system is perfect, but appreciate your insight.
LikeLike
That call was a bad call. But sufficiently within the letter of the rules to provide cover for the officials. If it were me, I would not have called it though. I have seen worst. I don’t think the outcome of the game would have changed. Syracuse had the momentum and the ability to run the ball at will by that time.
LikeLike
I am always frustrated by a notion that the outcome wouldn’t have changed though. The officials have an obligation to get it right regardless of the competitive context. And I expect that the Big Ten officials demonstrate a superlative level of skill and judgment during the bowl season — just like the play of the teams on the field, it is an important opportunity for us to show the quality of the programs we have.
Ultimately, I disagree though — I don’t think it was even within the letter of the rule (let alone whatever amorphous “spirit” the rule may have), and I think it may well be the worst “excessive celebration” call I’ve seen. Some people would hold up the QB who threw the ball after he scored a couple of years ago, but there’s a separate rule that specifically prohibits exactly that act, so I can’t really complain (other than questioning the rule’s wisdom).
LikeLike
You could argue that it was choreographed. That’s the only way I can see it fitting within even the letter of the law. I wouldn’t have called it.
LikeLike
terrible call. Big 10 officials are lousy in the regular season also. One of the reasons I don’t like the NBA. Officials think they are more important than the game.
Big 12 has gotten some tough calls in the bowls. Anyone see that Missouri/Iowa completion overturned? If complete as originally called, Mizzou is down 3 on the Iowa 33 with over 2 minutes left. Instead, Iowa runs out the clock. Announcers thought it was complete the 1st look and then thought it was incomplete the 2nd look and that the replay official made the correct call. I thought he caught it. I didn’t see where it hit the ground or he was juggling it. In any event, it was so close, its the type of call that rarely gets overturned.
LikeLike
To the Big Ten’s credit, I thought that the officiating in the Music City Bowl was strong given the extraordinary circumstances those guys faced. The only major gaffe was missing the obvious personal foul with about 15 seconds left in the game (before UNC ran the draw play), and that is notable, because if they had caught that UNC may well have ended that game in regulation — but all in all I thought that they handled a difficult situation very well.
My frustration with the KSU call is not so much whether it’s bad judgment or not, because I am of the opinion that if the rules were broken they were broken (e.g., I supported flagging the QB who flipped the ball in the air after scoring a few years ago — the rule specifically prohibits that, regardless of how silly that may seem). It’s that I am a person who tries to take the rules very seriously, and I am offended at the deference this call is getting as some kind of technical application of the rule when I do not see how it can plausibly even be construed as a technical violation of the precise language of the rule.
LikeLike
Basically, this call says that if he waved at friends or family in the stands he would be hit with excessive celebration. Even if the interpretation is correct, its absurd.
LikeLike
Adam, actually, in the Music City Bowl, the announcers missed the fact that the guy who delivered the helmet-to-helmet “hit” which wasn’t called had been pushed down by a NC player, and he was basically falling down. The officials made a good non-call in that case.
LikeLike
Don’t have the link, but read an article where a sportswriter asked 6 officials off the record about the call. The verdict was unanimous. Everyone would have called it in the 1st 3 quarters and none would have called it at the end.
LikeLike
Bullet,
That is the worst thing an official could do. If it’s a penalty in the first 3 quarters, then it’s a penalty at the end of the fourth. The rules don’t magically change.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian, and it’d be bogus to flag that at any point in the game. It isn’t even a foul under the actual language of the rule!
This is a good example to me of how the football community (whether fans, officials, coaches, players, or some other segment) allows its subjective impression of how things “ought to be” to trump what the actual rules say. There’s this notion among some that players shouldn’t do anything to call attention to themselves, so when they do it’s unsportsmanlike conduct — without bothering to reference the actual UC rule’s language. Rather like traveling in the NBA!
LikeLike
Adam,
You’re just flat wrong. It was a violation of the rule despite you wishing it wasn’t. Get over it.
LikeLike
What if the NFL had used the BCS joke of a system to determine its champ?
From 2000-9, only 40% of the Super Bowl champions were in the top 2 of the regular season. For the entire 40 years since the NFL-AFL merger, 70% of the 40 Super Bowl champs were in the regular season top 2. Years where the playoffs champ wasn’t in the regular season top 2: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2001, 2000, 1997, 1990, 1988, 1987, 1980, 1974. BTW, there were multiple 3-way ties for best record.
However, in the last 10 years 70% of the Super Bowl champs were in the top 4 of the regular season. For the last 40 years since the merger that rises to 87.5%. Years where the Super Bowl champ wasn’t in the regular season top 4 were 2007, 2005, 2001, 1988, and 1980.
That said, the comparison is strained because the NFL is far more homogeneous:
* Equal number of home and away games
* Balanced scheduling in the NFL and no out of league games, i.e. no Div 1-AA or non-AQ powder puffs
* 16 game season increases final record differentiation
* Far fewer teams in league means a much greater % of head to head and common opponents to increase accuracy of tiebreakers
* Basic statistics show that you’re more likely to choose the actual best 2 or 4 from 32 than from 120
* More mechanisms to support parity, such as the controlled draft and salary cap
* Far more difficult to go undefeated or even have just 1 loss
All of that suggests that using the BCS to choose a top 2 or 4 in will be significantly less likely to produce the same winner as a playoff would in college than in the NFL. Which again suggests an 8-team playoff would be much better in college football.
But getting to 4 or is a nice improvement, as is the 3 or 4 of the Flex-Plus One.
LikeLike
You are making the huge assumption that a playoff determines the correct winner. There is no proof of that. The fact that teams out of the top 4 won the super bowl shows how crappy playoffs can be at determining a champion. Being hot at the end of the year shouldn’t trump being good all year.
LikeLike
excellent point, and why I would love the NCAA tourney to go back to just 16 teams.
LikeLike
Why? Does the guy who comes in second win the marathon because he led for the first 25 miles?
LikeLike
No, but his time for each mile matters. You don’t just take the top 10% of the field and see who ran fastest in the last mile.
LikeLike
🙂
No it doesn’t! Whoever finishes on top wins.
Something about college football = crazy land
Here’s the deal, the superbowl isn’t about being the “best” team; it’s about winning the superbowl, that’s it.
LikeLike
Yes, it does. He doesn’t just have to meet some minimum time to qualify for running the last mile. Every mile counts.
Playoffs largely ignore the rest of the season. Being hot is better than being good. That is why playoffs always have and always will suck, and I usually don’t watch them.
LikeLike
Find us a marathon where the guy who broke the tape didn’t win and was not dq’d and I will buy you a beer.
LikeLike
The whole marathon analogy doesn’t work, because it doesn’t consist of separate competitive units that you must decide how to aggregate. It’s a single competitive unit.
Perhaps a better way of thinking about it is how you decide what team wins a cross country tournament. Is it a team that posts the best aggregate time? Or is it the team that has the lowest aggregate sum of ordinal finishes? The universal convention is to do it in the latter fashion. They each have different policy goals that they embody.
LikeLike
jj,
Show me a CFB team that plays all of their games in one continuous time period and I’ll buy you one.
A football season and a marathon are not the same.
LikeLike
And the reason I think they need in is that it is an objective win this and you’re in rule. Voters cannot take it from you, unless your conf allows that kind of thing.
Isn’t the impetus for a playoff the removal of the voting and politicking?
LikeLike
@Brian its a good point, but at least it is decided on the field where everyone knows what they are playing for. Its a better argument against playoff bloat like the NCAA bb tourney.
LikeLike
I am probably closer to jj than Brian here — I have no problem with playoffs producing a definitive champion, regardless of whether the winner is the “best team,” in part because this is the near-universal convention in all of sports. The issue is ultimately what the teams and fans want to achieve, and that’s winning the playoff championship. Being the best team helps — this is why it’s nice to (say) win the Presidents’ Trophy in the NHL. But it isn’t a must-have; the goal is to win the Stanley Cup, whether with the “best” team or not.
That said, I think these two disagreements are on different tracks. This notion of needing to win your conference title as a necessary condition for winning the national title is really just a separate issue altogether. It presumes that the conference champion is the best team in the conference. It isn’t, but that’s just as true regardless of the league’s championship methodology — whether it’s a true round robin as in the (current) Big East, or a league title game as the Big Ten will soon have. It ultimately comes back to the fact that in college you have the concept of league and non-league games. But schools do not compete for the national championship as members of their leagues; they compete for the national championship simply by virtue of being in NCAA Division I-FBS. The league/non-league distinction collapses in the national championship context. It isn’t a matter of trying to protect the “integrity” of league championships, because they just aren’t relevant to the national title.
In the NFL, every team belongs to a single 32-team league. The conferences and divisions are playoff gateways and scheduling frameworks, but all games count equally in the league standings. By contrast, in college sports all teams belong to two separate leagues: their conference, and the 120-team league that is FBS. Their conference can adopt whatever rules it wants to recognize superlative performance vis-a-vis other conference members, but there is no intrinsic reason why superlative performance there is a necessary condition to superlative performance in the other 120-team league. Unlike the pro sports situation, the conferences are separate leagues, and not subdivisions of the same league.
It’s like the old Big Ten hockey championship. The Big Ten used to award a hockey championship, even though it didn’t have a hockey league, based on the derived standings of the hockey games that Big Ten members played against each other in their actual leagues. A Big Ten team could have won the WCHA title without necessarily winning the Big Ten title. They’re just different.
LikeLike
Bullet,
They play out the whole season on the field, and everyone knows they need to win out to maximize their chances at a title. I fail to see why a playoff is automatically better than the old system or the BCS.
The overemphasis on winning national titles in football is a shame. Even hoops also glorifies making the Final Four, while the losers of BCS games are ridiculed.
LikeLike
A playoff is better because there are no sufficient conditions. The bowl system (whether the BCS or the old system) had fairly clear necessary conditions, but no sufficient conditions. A playoff starts to provide something like sufficient conditions as well. And it is the absence of sufficient conditions which is the real “fairness” objection: nobody is willing to prescribe exactly what the non-AQs have to do in order to be considered (the sufficient condition for them to be eligible for the national title).
I recognize it’s unrealistic and the power conferences prefer the absence of defined sufficient conditions (other than “be one of us”), but that’s what makes it superior in the minds of the sporting public.
LikeLike
I should have said, “A playoff is better because there are currently no sufficient conditions.”
LikeLike
I agree with that. This whole “first loser” talk is crazy. Anyone in a bcs bowl or something similar has a right to be proud of it. It’s like when someone gets the silver in the olympics and they “suck” as if being second best on a particular day is something to be ashamed of.
LikeLike
Reminds me of a debate on the kid’s soccer team in a league where they didn’t officially keep scores. At least one thought kids shouldn’t get trophies-trophies should be for accomplishment, not participation.
I would think any competitive athlete would want a shot at a national championship. There’s certainly a feel good situation about the bowls with 35 winners, but championships are a way to measure. And its done in every other sport on the field.
And maybe a playoff isn’t better every year (see 2005 Texas/USC where only one game was needed), but its better most years and the decision isn’t based on a beauty contest. Teams get a shot to prove it on the field, not in the ESPN announcing booth. Maybe sometimes you would get a Stanford winning instead of an Oregon, but you wouldn’t have Auburn left out as in 2004.
Now if you like not having champions and having everyone feel good, the bowls are your cup of tea.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Every player has a shot at a NC now. Make a hard schedule, especially OOC, and win big every week. How many teams fit that criteria and haven’t played for the BCS title?
I don’t like the bowls for letting more teams win. I like them because they let more teams participate and are better than a playoff.
Why not scrap half the season? Play 6 games for seeding, then start a double elimination tournament (with 8 byes). Six more games gets you down to two 12-0 teams and two 11-1 teams. Make two semi-finals matching 12-0 versus 11-1 and then play the NCG.
After elimination, the other teams could keep playing until the end of the year.
LikeLike
Brian:
The problem is that no system can determine a “best” team. As a wings fan, I can tell you that over the years I have seen them repeatedly have the best regular season and probably the best “paper” team only to lose in the Playoffs. It doesn’t matter who is “best”, it matters who wins in the construct that is established. It takes some luck and breaks; it just does. My point about the marathon is that if you lead the entire way and someone passes you in the final bit, you lose.
I noticed your comment about playing hard and winning everything should get you in. It doesn’t. Google bcs controversy and read the history. Numerous undefeated teams fail to get a shot. And k-state has been screwed repeatedly because they are k-state.
If we did an 8 game playoff with the current 4 bowls and their ties, all conf champs would be in. I just feel strongly that if we go to a playoff, all aq champs deserve a shot. I don’t see how any re-vote is an improvement. If anything, it makes things worse.
LikeLike
jj,
All systems try to establish the “best” team, though, and playoff proponents often claim that a playoff does that. If no system can do it, why jump through so many hoops to get a playoff? The BCS champ is just as likely to be the champ.
—
The Red Wings have certainly spit the bit multiple times in the playoffs. A violent, low scoring sport like hockey is especially vulnerable to playoff upsets with injuries or a hot goalie hurting the better team.
—
The problem with the marathon analogy is that it is one event. It’s more like saying a last second score to win still counts. My problem with playoffs is they are designed to find the hot team at the end of the year. I want the whole year to count more equally.
—
I also mentioned playing a hard OOC schedule and winning big every time.
Undefeated teams left out:
’98 Tulane
OOC = SMU, Navy, Rutgers, ULL, LA Tech
’99 Marshall
OOC = Clemson, Liberty, Temple
’04 Auburn
OOC = ULM, Citadel, LA Tech
’04 Utah
OOC = Texas A&M, Arizona, Utah St, UNC
’06 Boise
OOC = Sac St, OR St, Wyoming, Utah
’08 Utah
OOC = MI, UT St, Weber St, OR St
’09 Boise
OOC = OR, Miami OH, UC Davis, Bowling Green
Color me unimpressed. Note I left off any undefeated team that lost their bowl.
—
How has KSU been screwed? They’ve only won 3 bowl games in the BCS era.
1999 – lost at Nebraska 41-15
2000 – lost 3 games
2002 – lost 2 games
From that, I assume you mean they should have been picked for a BCS game more often. Since only the title game is meant to decide anything, that is an empty complaint to me.
—
If you only automatically include AQ conference champs, how are you making it more fair? The non-AQ champs are usually the ones being left out.
—
I think you are just wrong about a +1 being worse. The non-AQs that are worthy get a chance to prove it and the AQs can’t dodge them (a common complaint amongst non-AQ supporters). The AQs have all year to earn their way into the title game.
Again, schedule hard, win big and you’ll be fine.
LikeLike
Some teams can’t because of their conference. And the big schools won’t play them ooc. And would Auburn in 04 been put ahead of 2 kings, OU and USC? Not likely.
LikeLike
It’s entertainment.
LikeLike
Bullet,
I don’t buy that some teams can’t schedule hard OOC. They may have to make sacrifices (no home and home, lower payouts, etc), but such is life. It’s nobody else’s fault they don’t have a better pedigree, and nobody owes them anything. The big boys have put a lot of time, money and effort into winning 800+ games and don’t need to apologize for it.
As for Auburn, we’ll never know what would have happened if they had a real OOC schedule. That was one of the main criteria used by voters to keep them out, though (USC and OU didn’t play a I-AA team).
LikeLike
“I also mentioned playing a hard OOC schedule and winning big every time.”
As in:
’04 Utah
OOC = Texas A&M, Arizona, Utah St, UNC
Utah and Utah State played every season from 1919 to 2009, and Utah State was a rivalry game.
Texas A&M was 7-5 in 2004, Arizona 3-8, and North Carolina 6-6. But games are set up 5 to 10 years in advance.
Texas A&M was Big 12 champ in 1998, 9-4 in ’97, 9-3 in ’95, 10-0-1 in ’94, 10-2 in ’93, 12-1 in ’92, and 10-2 in ’91. Very tough opponent.
Arizona was 12-1 in ’98, 8-4 in ’94, 10-2 in ’93. Could be tough.
North Carolina was 11-1 in ’97, 10-2 in ’96, 8-4 in ’94, 10-3 in ’93, 9-3 in ’92. Tough, but not quite as tough as Texas A&M.
Unless Utah junked its rivalry with Utah State, the Texas A&M-Utah State-UNC-Arizona out of conference schedule looked as tough as possible in mid-1999. You can’t prevent teams from tanking.
—
Utah ’08? I’m not sure why they scheduled Weber State, except that it was an in-state team. It was a good FCS team, with 10 wins and a Big Sky title that year, but still an FCS team. Utah was supposed to play Washington State that season, but that game was cancelled.
Oregon State was in five bowls during the six-year period from 1999 to 2004. In 2008, Oregon State was the only team to defeat Southern Cal. Michigan was in a bowl every season from 1975 to 2007. Who would have expected that they would go 3-9 in 2008?
—–
“Color me unimpressed. Note I left off any undefeated team that lost their bowl.”
We’re talking about getting the chance to play in the National Championship Game. Bowl games are irrelevant to determining that — nobody knows the result at selection time.
LikeLike
Let’s look at the other teams which went through the regular season undefeated.
Cincinnati ’09:
SE Missouri State, at Oregon State, Fresno State, at Miami OH, Illinois. Oregon State and Fresno State are solid. Illinois made BCS bowls during the 2001 and 2007 seasons, but was usually a weaker BCS conference team.
TCU ’09: at Virginia, Texas State, at Clemson, SMU. SMU was a rivalry game. Texas State is a big problem, as it is an FCS team. Virginia and Clemson, at least, are usually solid teams — and they were road games.
Boise State ’08: Idaho State (FCS), Bowling Green, at Oregon, at Southern Mississippi. Bowling Green had been one of the better MAC teams for several seasons, and Southern Mississippi was a regular bowl qualifier. Oregon’s a good team.
Hawaii ’07. Northern Colorado (FCS), at UNLV, Charleston Southern (FCS), Washington. To quote MAD magazine, “Blecch.”
Boise State ’04. Idaho, Oregon State, at UTEP, BYU. UTEP qualified for a bowl game, which was a surprise; the Miners were usually bad.
LikeLike
With regards to Notre Dame and the NCAA and their explanations for their actions or inactions-“Me doth think they protest too much.”
Sally Jenkins’s take:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR201012303258.html
LikeLike
Your link is bad. Try:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003258.html
LikeLike
thanks for the fix, interesting article. in fairness, it is not just tOSU, but other “brands” as well. They really do play by a different set of rules.
LikeLike
This idea is even worse than what we have now. It basically rewards B1G 10 and Pac 10 and gives them easier paths to the national championship.
In ’07 Ohio State got to play #7 USC instead of #4 OU or #5 Georgia. On paper USC was the easier match up (I believe ‘SC was the best team in the country that year, LSU got way too much love).
In ’06 USC got a chance to play for the national championship even though LSU was ranked higher than them. How is that remotely fair?
In ’05 USC got a tougher match up than number two Texas, on paper at least. That Penn State was terrible and need multiple missed field goals to beat a 5 loss FSU team.
Basically, this rewards B1G 10 mediocrity. If USC ever gets back to the Pete Carrol dominance or Oregon turns into a juggernaut on a year to year basis than any B1G 10 team is guaranteed a semi-final no matter what their ranking is. All it takes for the Rose Bowl to turn into a semi-final is if they have one of the Champions of the B1G 10 or Pac 10 be in the number one or two slot. It’s totally unfair and anti-competition.
Screw the Rose Bowl and their tradition. The two best Rose Bowls I have ever seen were when Texas played Michigan and Texas played ‘SC. I’m sorry Frank, but I will never forgive the Rose Bowl for depriving the nation of a Georgia vs. ‘SC game in ’07. Instead we got an over matched Illinois team get pounded by ‘SC.
I can’t speak for B1G 10 fans, but I can speak for ‘SC and many Pac 10 fans and they don’t really care about the B1G 10-Pac 10 match up. They, obviously, want their champion in there, but they just want to get a good match up no matter where the opponent comes from. I know that ‘SC fans were sick of playing mediocre B1G 10 teams for three straight years.
The Rose Bowl needs to move on. Traditions come as a result of necessity and once that necessity is gone there is no need for it anymore. The whole reason the B1G 10-Pac 10 agreement came about is as a result of convenience. They obviously took a team from the Pac 10 because of proximity and they took a team from the B1G 10 is because there were many alums in the era and the conference had the largest fan bases at the time and that area of the country was much wealthier than the South or Southwest and fans would travel.
It doesn’t matter anymore. Fans from the Big 12, SEC, and some from ACC will travel to the Rose Bowl. You will see this year with TCU in the game, that fans from all over the country will come to the Rose Bowl. Unlike the other bowls, the Rose Bowl doesn’t have to worry about attendance and ratings. Fans will watch it. So they should be solely concerned with getting the best and most interesting match up.
I don’t understand why the other bowls and conferences don’t force the Rose Bowl’s hand and the B1G 10’s hand (I don’t think Larry Scott really cares that much about the Rose Bowl)? If you don’t agree to our rules you won’t get to host the national championship and your teams won’t get to play for the national championship.
I remember when the Rose Bowl and, I think, Jim Delaney said that if Congress interferes with the BCS that they will just go back to old system. It was just a laughable quote and showed how out of touch with reality those guys are. Now that we have tasted some semblance of a formal crowing of a champion (pre-BCS the national championship was purely mythical even more so than now) we aren’t going back. Fans, coaches, players, and the media won’t allow it. A whole generation of players and new coaches have grown up knowing that there is some kind of formal process of determining a champion, no matter how absurd it can get at times.
ADs and coaches won’t allow it. How are you going to be able to tell Bob Stoops, whose team is number two, that they won’t get to play for the national championship because the number one team is USC and they have to play in the Rose Bowl against #14 Illinois?
LikeLike
@PrimeTime,
I hear ya man, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Illinois’ presence in the Rose Bowl that year bothered me too.
But Frank is right about how serious the Big Ten’s protection of its Rose Bowl tie-in is. I’m sure the Rose Bowl people are well aware that their game would get good ratings and sell plenty of tickets with teams from almost any conference. But the Big Ten-Rose Bowl partnership is a good ol’ boy thing. Plus-one CAN’T happen without allowing the Big Ten to keep its Rose Bowl connection. And leave no doubt about it: a plus-one that excludes the Big Ten and Pac-10 won’t work for the same reason the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition didn’t work.
Frank’s ideas are designed to operate within the constraints of the people in power. I HATE the idea that the Big Ten and Pac-10 could get away with an easier matchup, but that’s the only way a plus-one could happen.
LikeLike
I know that the perception is that Illinois was granted a gift by the Rose Bowl in 2007, but the reality is that they were going to a BCS bowl that year no matter what. First, Georgia could NOT have been taken by the Rose even if the game wanted the Bulldogs -the Sugar had contractual first dibs on them as an SEC team and they weren’t going to be given up. I have no idea why so many people think the Rose Bowl “cheated” everyone out of a USC-Georgia game that couldn’t have ever happened. Second, the only choices for the Rose were #14 Boston College, #13 Illinois, #11 Arizona State, or one of either Kansas or Missouri. It certainly wouldn’t have made sense to take a lower ranked worse traveling ACC team or a Pac-10 team to play another Pac-10 team. The Rose could’ve taken a Big 12 team in theory, but then the Orange was almost guaranteed to take Illinois over both BC (another ACC school that was lower ranked) and ASU (poorer traveling and ranked only 2 spots higher than Illinois). If anyone actually takes a look at the final BCS standings and sees who was actually eligible to be picked (as the presence of 3 teams in the top 14 from both the SEC and Big 12 made the number of possible selections limited), taking Illinois in that particular season (especially after just coming off a win against then-#1 Ohio State) was more than reasonable.
LikeLike
I have zero problem with this. If other leagues want to set something up, then do it. Personally, I think it would be great if the sugar could tie In the b12 champ.
LikeLike
PrimeTime,
The fans, media, players, coaches and ADs have next to no say in this. The presidents decide these things, and they are quite serious about going back to the old system rather than a playoff. There is no allowing them to do it, they are the decision makers.
LikeLike
@Brian You are forgetting who pays the bills though. ESPN and ABC.
ABC and ESPN won’t allow it to happen. The amount that ESPN or whoever decides to pay to cover these bowl games will plummet significantly. They can go back, but, only if, they want to take a significant pay cut. Money ultimately talks. There is too much now.
I am pretty confident that we won’t go back to the old system. The only people that would want it is the B1G 10, no one else. There is no way the SEC and Mike Slive would want that. You think Larry Scott and the new Pac 12 would want that. No way. I would absolutely be stunned if we went back to the old system.
LikeLike
I’m not forgetting. The networks pay because fans watch. No matter what system exists, fans will watch. Therefore, the networks will keep paying.
Even the presidents don’t want to go back. They’ve just said they would do that if the BCS is blown up by a legal challenge. I doubt the NCAA will force a playoff on them.
This is why plan’s like Frank’s make sense. They build on the bowl system the powers like while trying to add features the fans want.
LikeLike
Texas being I’m that rose bowl is exactly why beauty contests suck. Mack brown burning the phone lines is not the way to decide things. I cannot recall who they jumped, but it was horseshit. IMHO
LikeLike
@jj – The Rose could’ve taken Cal that year, so it was a double whammy in that the game passed over a long-suffering Pac-10 team. This example can be used by both sides of the Rose Bowl debate, where it’s either evidence of the Rose looking for the best team even if it’s not a Big Ten or Pac-10 school or that this shows that the Rose isn’t as committed to maintaining the tradition as people think, so there shouldn’t be a system built around that tradition. Granted, Texas is a school that every bowl wants. The Rose had complained about having the take Oklahoma previously, so there’s definitely an uber-snob factor applied to any non-Big Ten/Pac-10 team that it will willingly take (as OU is no fly-by-night program).
LikeLike
@Frank I remember in ’04 when the Texas vs. Cal debate came up. The Rose Bowl had no choice, but to take Texas. I think the rule was if you were in the top four of the BCS rankings you had to go and play in a BCS bowl. It’s known as the K-State rule. Texas had to go. That is why Mack appealed to the voters in ’04. He wanted them to jump Texas over Cal so they can be assured of a BCS bowl. The previous season Texas would have gone to a BCS bowl, but because OU lost to KSU in the Big 12 title game and Texas couldn’t go. It was the two teams per conference rule.
In ’98 K-State was ranked number one or two in the country and lost in the Big 12 Championship game to A&M and they dropped to number three but were left out of a BCS bowl.
In regards to ’07 I remember hearing that there was some clause in the BCS where a bowl can release it’s tie in team and allow them to go to another bowl game.
Anyway I hate the current BCS format of 5 games with the double hosting format. It completely dilutes some of the Bowls and assures the Ohio State gets to go to a BCS bowl every year.
LikeLike
PrimeTime,
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597
“5. After completion of the selection process as described in Paragraph Nos. 1-4, the conferences and Notre Dame may, but are not required to, adjust the pairings taking into consideration the following:
A. whether the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years;
B. whether two teams that played against one another in the regular season will be paired against one another in a bowl game;
C. whether the same two teams will play against each other in a bowl game for two consecutive years; and
D. whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans as measured by expected ticket sales for the bowls and by expected television interest, and the consequent financial impact on ESPN and the bowls.
The pairings may not be altered by removing the Big Ten Champion or Pac-10 champion from the Rose Bowl.”
This provision has never been used, and probably won’t since the bowls are run by businessmen more interested in making money than helping out another bowl or the fans.
LikeLike
@PrimeTime,
Larry Scott has to care about the Rose Bowl because he answers to the people in charge of the Pac-12 schools. And there’s no question that those schools love the Rose Bowl.
Think about the celebration after Oregon’s win last year over Oregon State. Fans lifted up the Duck on their shoulders and carried him around the field with ROSES in his arms (or, uh, his wings). This was a far bigger deal to the fans there than, for example, the 2001 Pac-10 championship that sent them to the Fiesta Bowl.
At Cal, they’re still upset about getting passed over for the Rose Bowl in ’04. They most certainly care. I guarantee you that Arizona cares; they’ve been chomping at the bit to get into the Rose Bowl since joining in the late 70’s.
Plus, the Rose Bowl is pretty important to the new members, too. It wasn’t a coincidence that Rose Bowl officials were present at Utah and Colorado when their entrance to the league was announced. For a comparison, even though the Orange Bowl has a great tradition in its own right, the ACC’s tie-in to that game was all but an afterthought for Va. Tech, BC, and Miami when they joined their new league.
LikeLike
Big Ten officiating crew did not acquit itself well at the end of the New Era Pinstripe Bowl. The KSU player’s salute to the crowd simply is not a plausible application of the prohibition on “any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player . . . attempts to focus attention upon himself.” NCAA Football Rule 9-2-1-a-1-d. Although the broadcasters tried to begrudgingly concede that it may have been correct “by the book” because he attempted to “focus attention upon himself,” that is not even an accurate reading of the rule. Regardless of what a player does to focus attention on himself, he must do something that is “delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed.” His salute of the crowd cannot be plausibly interpreted as satisfying any of those 4 descriptors — particularly when the prohibition is on an “including but not limited to” list of exemplary prohibited acts to effectuate the general prohibition on “us[ing] abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engag[ing] in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game.” Nothing the KSU player did could be plausibly interpreted as an effort at “provok[ing] ill will” or “demeaning” Syracuse, and the only thing that has demeaned the “image of the game” is the officials’ willingness to flag his behavior.
LikeLike
The UNC kid just now arguably did something worse (it looked almost like he was imitating an official’s “no firm possession” signal after scoring) on the TD to put them up 17-14, and the Big Ten officiating crew at this game let it slide.
LikeLike
Leaving aside the political machinations, I see some problems with this system. Since it’s not a true seeded semi-final setup, you are still relying on polls. What happens this year, under your scenario, if the following happens: Oregon, Auburn and Stanford all lose. The BCS rankings could show TCU #1, Auburn #2 and Wisco #3. Talk about a can of worms! Many of the computer rankings would probably have Auburn ranked higher than Wisco. I don’t think there is any guarantee that voters would drop Auburn low enough to ensure Wisco would jump them in the BCS rankings. For example, if these results came true, the polls might have these rankings: 1. TCU, 2. Wisco, 3. Ohio St, 4. Auburn.
A similar problem could have arisen in 2007. #1 OSU, #5 Georgia, #4 Oklahoma all lose and who then would play the Sugar Bowl winner for a NC?
How about 2006? What if #5 USC beats #1 OSU, #6 Louisville beats Oklahoma, and ND beats #4 LSU? Should USC play the Sugar Bowl winner for the NC? Why didn’t Louisville get the opportunity to play the #2 or #3 ranked team?
The other seasons seem to produce decent scenarios, but that’s three out of six seasons where a major snafu could have really fouled things up. Would we really want a system that has even the smallest possibility of a team losing its BCS game playing a week or two later for some sort of “national championship”?
Another problem is that the various tie-ins virtually guarantee de facto home games for certain conference champions especially the California schools playing in the Rose Bowl, many of the SEC schools in the Sugar, any Texas school or Oklahoma in the Cotton, and some of the ACC schools in the Orange (especially Miami or FSU). This can’t be a valid set up for a de facto playoff. It simply isn’t fair. The other schools participating would too often face insurmountable disadvantages.
The biggest problem with this system, with all due respect, is that it is TOO complicated. A system that doesn’t guarantee a semi-final set up of 1v 4 and 2 v 3, is pretty much worthless as far as deciding any kind of national champion.
Most of these systems are “hybrid” in that they try to have it both ways. We want to preserve the current bowl system (which rips off most schools) and we want to produce a true champion on the field. Unfortunately, having both is not possible. And all of the scenarios other than a true playoff are less than satisfying.
I would rather go back to the old system before the bowl alliance and all the other iterations thereof. It was something special when the Big 10 and Pac 10 champs knew they were going to the Rose. The Big 8 champs knew they were playing for the Orange. The SEC knew they were playing for the Sugar. The Southwest knew they were playing for the Cotton Bowl. Winning a conference championship was paramount if a mythical national championship came along it was a great bonus. Also, it was great fun when the AP and UPI had different champs. That system was a lot more honest because it didn’t try to tell us it was producing a national champion like this current mess.
I have a couple of wacky ideas. What if we returned the traditional tie-ins to the bowls? And then, rather then a plus-one after the bowls or any other type of post-bowl playoff, we had a pre-bowl playoff. The top four teams would match up the week after the conference championship games; this year that would have been Dec 11. Then the winners play the following week. All four participants can later play in their appointed bowls on Jan 1 or later. You have a national champion and you have your precious bowls.
Another wacky idea: the non-AQ conferences ought to organize their own playoff. Invite any Big 6 conference schools deemed worthy. Fill out the slots that the Big 6’ers would inevitably decline with other non-AQ teams. After the tournament is played out, you declare the winner to be the national champion. It would be just as legitimate a champion as the current system produces.
LikeLike
What happens under the Oregon-Auburn-Stanford lose scenario is there’s a mess. But the current system also allows for messes. Frank’s point is only that a +1 gives another round of data to make better choices for the NCG. Nobody said they’d be perfect or that it’d be fool-proof; just that it produces more data. What a +1 is trying to do is produce a more satisfying national champion within a politically feasible manner; judging it by the standards you’d have for a playoff that you organize from scratch is the wrong approach. It may be “pretty much worthless as far as deciding any kind of national champion,” but the question is whether it produces better results than we get now.
I think the other things you propose are contingent on massive changes to the NCAA bylaws in terms of number of contests that just aren’t going to happen. I think everybody feels that it’s quite possible you could talk the NCAA into allowing a “2nd bowl game” for 2 teams. Multi-round playoff formats like you propose would require a lot more NCAA cooperation and are unlikely to happen any time soon.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how ESPN, the BCS bowls, and the other conferences would agree to this. There is too much uncertainty in this idea. There is no guarantee of what kind of match up you would get and it would be way too much uncertainty from the bowl perspective of whether or not you would host a semi-final.
There is only one logical step in the BCS evolution. That’s a true seeded plus one tournament. You go with the double hosting format. Two bowls host their regular bowl games and then host a semi-final each and then another bowl game hosts it’s bowl and the national championship game. So three bowls would do the double hosting format.
This idea might water down the BCS bowls way too much so they could scrap that and just go back to the old BCS system in that there would be only four games. Two of them would host a semi-final and another would host the national championship game and the fourth would just host it’s regular bowl and then rotate. The problem with this, is that it is very hard to see how they will shrink the field back to eight instead of 10.
LikeLike
Your logic ignores the realities of the system and the powers that be.
LikeLike
Nice game, but North Carolina did not want it bad enough. Else they could have taken it with their last drive. Tennessee’s youth movement produces fruit in the Music City Bowl. 1.26 to go.
LikeLike
Other than the missed personal foul late on UNC’s game-tying drive, this Big Ten crew has been as crisp as a freshly ironed pair of pants.
LikeLike
WOW! NC had one last chance to win it or tie it. Ridiculous clock management! Somewhere in the SEC, Les Miles is smiling.
LikeLike
No wait! one second left on the clock. NC in Field goald range. From 37, the kick is gooooood! I was watching this waiting on the Nebraska game, but getting my moneys worth. it’s 20 – 20 going into OT.
LikeLike
This is great. I have a new overtime idea. How about after regulation, we have the present media just vote for which team played better?
LikeLike
Nobody can say that the Music City Bowl is just another meaningless bowl game to the Vols or the Tarheels.
I feel like I’m watching a LSU game right now. My Tigers are a common opponent and beat both of the guys on crazy endings. I guess the Mad Hatter rubbed off a little on Davis & Dooley.
LikeLike
NCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC! 30 – TN 27. in OT.
LikeLike
Ohio State is #1 in football spending.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5970794
LikeLike
Those numbers don’t mean much though. Like Alabama (and many other schools), OSU is paying off recent stadium renovations at several million a year. If that’s included, it skews the numbers.
LikeLike
That list is dominated by SEC teams. 6 of the top 10 spenders in football are SEC schools. OSU & Wisconsin represent the BigTen. ND is third, and TCU, showing that its program is already at a BCS level when it comes to commitment, is 10th.
LikeLike
Looks like this list is only of bowl teams. Texas would have been on there (bumping TCU to 11th) if they had made a bowl.
LikeLike
Frank;
You address the bowls’ preferences. One thing you don’t mention is ESPN’s preference. Reality is that ESPN “owns” most of the bowls. ESPN clearly intervened to help make sure the Pac 16 didn’t happen now. They are a significant player in this.
I don’t profess to have any knowledge of what they want. They promote the BCS now because that is their property. But would they prefer some sort of playoff? Do they have the same control concerns as the colleges with regard to playoffs?
LikeLike
ESPN desperately would want a playoff. Can you imagine the ratings they would get it? ESPN is not against a playoff.
ESPN didn’t kill the Pac 16, Texas did. Texas and DeLoss Dodds (Texas AD) had a chance to kill the BCS and they took the knife away from the throat. If Pac 16 happened that would have forced the SEC’s hand to expand to even more.
Basically more teams in a conference equal more losses. Those conferences would have demanded access to the national championship.
Scipo Tex of the excellent Texas blog BarkingCarnival.com explains how the creation of a Super Conference will lead to the demise of the BCS.
Here is something that he said:
“All cartels are brought down by the same thing: the members themselves. Whether it’s OPEC, Colombian coke lords, corrupt unions, or lazy auto manufacturers. As the Cartel fights and bickers within its own ranks – attempting to lasso each other’s teams, lying to each other about “production”, plotting against some member’s future inclusion, engaging in reckless expansion – they sow the seeds for their own destruction.
The eventual creation of super conferences guarantees a playoff.
Why?
Because massive conferences with quality guarantee losses. And the sharp delineation between have (member of 4-5 elite conferences) and have-not (everyone else) will only be highlighted. And losses – the great taboo no-no of BCS qualification – necessitate that the power schools find alternative constructs for fulfillment that outweigh the corrupt interests in their own athletic departments and bowl tie-ins.
Further, the most compelling and broad-based argument against the BCS is not found in the little guy left out from the main table. Whatever you think of Boise State and TCU, they have no pull, no fan base, and no clout. And when they develop sufficient capital, they are co-opted into the haves (see TCU and the Big East). That is the nature of all effective dissent – co-option into the mainstream. Political, corporate, or otherwise. Ask Nelson Mandela. Ask the next competitor that Google acquires. Ask the guy who used to bitch about accounting errors at Enron that shut up after a pay raise.
Thankfully, all Cartels eventually slit their own throat. It’s basic game theory, a form of the prisoner’s dilemma. Human beings struggle to maintain agreements that limit short term self-interest, even at the expense of shared longer-term interest.
Indeed, members of the Cartel almost managed suicide this offseason, but DeLoss Dodds unwittingly slapped the razor out of their hand.
Someone else will wield that knife eventually.”
Here is the link for the whole article.
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/11/30/death-to-the-bcs-a-book-review/#more-25421
LikeLike
The bowls provide ESPN and family with 33 games (~120 hours of programming), plus preview shows, wrap up shows and sportscenter fodder. Playoffs will pull great ratings but for many fewer hours. ESPN has to consider how it will fill the time. Also, when do they schedule the games? Their are a lot of business considerations that go into the decision. I’m not saying ESPN would fight a playoff, but they may not be completely excited about one either.
LikeLike
Primetime, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that ESPN would love a playoff? As Brian pointed out, ESPN loves the lower-tier bowl games because they’re good bang for the buck; ESPN pays a pittance for them but they bring in better ratings than most other things that the WWL could be showing on their networks at that time. I’m not certain that ratings for a playoff would be tremendously better than for the BCS, but it’s certain that the rights fee would be much higher, so it’s not at all clear that ESPN would like a playoff, since they may not be able to make more money off of it.
LikeLike
Philosophical CFB questions:
Why can the defense score on an offensive penalty (safety for holding in the end zone) but the offense can’t score on a defensive penalty? Both assume the continuation of the play.
Why use half the distance penalties instead of straight penalizing down to the 1 or 2 yard line?
LikeLike
Frank
I appreciate your effort(s). Your latest proposal is probably more realistic than your previous one.
I am now resigned that playoffs of a big scale will never happen.
Here is what convinced me: a buddy of mine put forth the hypothetical of the NCAA tournament was cut down to 32 teams.
He then asked me which was more important: having the top 32 teams in the tourney or saving spaces for the little guys. I said having the top teams was more vital.
He answered that is why there won’t be a playoff in college football.
Sadly, I think that he is correct. The only way a plus one happens will be the next time that 3 AQ conferences have undefeated teams. The BCS still acts retroactively to solve previous issues.
LikeLike
@Penn State Danny:
I think you’re right on most of that, but there is an exception to what you said.
“The only way a plus one happens will be the next time that 3 AQ conferences have undefeated teams. The BCS still acts retroactively to solve previous issues.”
I don’t think it can be just any ol’ undefeated AQ team . If it’s a traditionally middling program getting shut out while Oklahoma and Ohio State, for example, go undefeated, the BCS commissioners still won’t see enough reason to respond with a plus-one. (Look at how little fuss AQ commissioners had over Cincinnati getting left out.) Heck, even if it’s a consistent winner getting shut out, but not necessarily one regarded as a true blue blood program, then that still might not be enough. Again, look at BCS history: Instead of Auburn in ’04, if it had been a more popular SEC team like Alabama or Florida gettting left out in, or even better, a Delany constituent like Michigan or Ohio State, would there not have been a more serious consideration for a plus-one?
It’s really going to take an undefeated USC, OU, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami, Florida, Alabama, LSU, or Tennessee being left out of a title game for these guys’ minds to change.
Now excuse me while I vomit over that disgusting reality.
LikeLike
Nah, I don’t think FSU & Miami would be enough. Don’t think the ACC has enough clout. LSU & Tennessee are about on the same level as Auburn. It’d have to be an undefeated BigTen or Pac12 team being shutout (or maybe ND) for there to be change.
LikeLike
@Richard,
I’m going to have to disagree with you there.
It can just be any Pac-10 team. It would have to be USC, for obvious reasons, or UCLA, because it’s THE public university of the nation’s second-largest city.
As an example, remember the controversy back in the 2000 season. Once-beaten FSU was ranked in the polls at #3 behind once-beaten Miami, who had beaten FSU. Yet FSU was granted a spot in the national title game to face unbeaten Oklahoma in the championship game because of the BCS formula at the time.
In any case, it was clear that both Miami and FSU had more clout than the once-beaten, fourth-ranked team, which hailed from the Pac-10. It wasn’t just any old Pac-10 team. It was the Washington Huskies, the only Pac-10 team besides USC to win a national title since Eisenhower’s first term. Yet despite the fact that Washington was from the Pac-10 (as opposed to the ACC or Big East) and that Washington DEFEATED Miami that year, they outranked neither Miami nor FSU. After the bowls, both polls still put Miami ahead of Washington.
After that season, the BCS formula was changed because the #2 ranked team, i.e., Miami, was left out of the title game. Had the change in formula been in effect that season, Miami, not Washington, would have been in the game. In other words, change was made in a way that would have favored Miami, not the Pac-10 team.
LikeLike
OK, fine, an unbeaten USC or the handful of Big Ten kings would have to be denied a shot at the championship for there to be a plus-one. I don’t think anyone else would be enough.
LikeLike
Interesting note: While the Big Ten has deliberately set up New Year’s Day as “Big Ten Day”, by happenstance, New year’s Eve this year is “Florida Day”, as all 4 bowl games feature Florida teams.
LikeLike
I noticed that today is also “car bowl day” with the Meineke Car Care Bowl, Hyundai Sun Bowl, and Autozone Liberty Bowl (as well as the bowl-formerly-known-as-Peach).
LikeLike
The Bowl Wars – updated for 12.30.2010 games, and added ACC
BIG 10 – Wisconsin (TCU), Michigan State (Bama), tOSU (Arkansas), Iowa (W Missouri), Illinois (W Baylor), PSU (Florida), Northwestern (T Tech), Michigan (MSU) – 8 bowl invitations
vs SEC 0-0 (4 possible)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (ZERO possible, the tragedy of this season)
vs Big 12 2-0 (3 possible, congrats Illinois and Iowa!)
vs ACC 0-0 (0 possible)
vs the “rest” 0-0 (1 possible, MWC)
2-0, with 6 games left
SEC – Auburn (Oregon), Arkansas (tOSU), LSU (TAMU), Alabama (Michigan State), South Carolina (FSU), MSU (Michigan), Florida (PSU), Georgia (UCF), Tennessee (L UNC), Kentucky (Pitt) – 10 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 0-0 (4 possible)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 0-0 (1 possible, does this seem low for balance?)
vs ACC 0-1 (2 possible)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (2 possible, 1 BE, 1 CUSA)
0-1, with 9 games left
PAC 10 – Oregon (Auburn), Stanford (Va Tech), Arizona (L oSu), Washington (W Nebraska) – 4 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 0-0 (0 possible!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 1-1 (2 done)
vs ACC 0-0 (1 possible)
1-1, with 2 games left
BIG 12 – Oklahoma (Uconn), Missouri (L Iowa), oSu (W Arizona), Nebraska (L Washington), TAMU (LSU), Baylor (L Illinois), T Tech (Northwestern), KSU (L Syracuse) – 8 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 0-2 (3 possible, go wildcats for the sweep!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, again only 1 Big 12 vs SEC matchup)
vs Pac 10 1-1 (2 done, Big Red 😦 )
vs ACC 0-0 (0 possible)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (2 possible, 2 BE! weird combinations)
1-4, with 3 games left
ACC – Va Tech (Stanford), FSU (South Carolina), Maryland (W ECU), NC State (W WVa), Miami (Notre Dame), Boston College (Nevada), UNC (W UTenn), Ga Tech (L Air Force), Clemson (USF) – 9 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 0-0 (0 possible, with 8 & 9 invites, not 1 game?!?!)
vs SEC 1-0 (2 possible)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (1 possible)
vs Big 12 0-0 (0 possible, with 8 & 9 invites, not 1 game?!?!)
vs the “rest” 0-0 (6 possible, 3 BE, 1 MWC, 1 WAC, 1 IND)
3-1, with 5 games left
#1 Big 10 2-0
#2 ACC 3-1
#3 Pac 10 1-1
#4 SEC 0-1
#5 Big 12 1-4
The winners so far Big 10 and ACC
The losers so far SEC and Big 12 (in fairness, UT/UNC game was fugly
The big question is why no ACC vs Big 10 or Big 12 games!
LikeLike
Duff – in response to your comment about there not being more SEC/BigXII bowl match-ups, this is the first year that there’s only one game between the two. My hometown Independence bowl featured BigXII & SEC teams for close to a decade.
The I-Bowl, as the locals call it, is a nice little bowl game and the teams are treated very well. Shreveport is also a little bit of a “mini-Vegas” with 6 casinos, so fans are surprised that they actually have something to do in the Shreveport area. The Big XII/SEC match-ups were ideal for the I-Bowl as Shreveport is in SEC country, but has more of a Texas feel, as it is only 20 miles from the Texas border, while its 300 miles from New Orleans.
The I-Bowl used to have very good payouts for a medium-sized bowl, but neither conference seemed to favor it. Once the Music City Bowl came online, it jumped the I-Bowl in the pecking order – even with a lower payout. Former SEC Commish/Godfather and Nashville native Roy Kramer had something to do with that.I’m sure. The same thing happened with the Big XII and the Texas Bowl. Then it went a couple of years without a sponsor. Where’s Poulan-Weedeater when you need them? The SEC picked up the Liberty and Gator, and the I-Bowl saw the writing on the wall.
Now the I-Bowl has MWC#3 & ACC#7 ties and I’m worried. With Barksdale AFB just outside of Shreveport, the Air Force Academy is the best case scenario team for the I-Bowl – every year. This year, they got the Falcons and only sold 39,000 tickets. I hope it survives, but its one of the oldest bowls and has been in trouble before.
With the SEC bowl games set for the next few years, I don’t see any way for anymore SEC/Big XII match-ups, other than the Cotton Bowl. Next year, I’m guessing the new BigXII-2 will lose a bowl game or 2.
LikeLike
The Independence should try to get a CUSA tie-in (and maybe Army & Navy as well). Most ACC teams won’t bring fans that far west, and Air Force would really be the only MWC team that would draw crowds.
If the Liberty loses CUSA’s top pick (and if I’m the Big Ten, they’d be one of the new mid-tier bowls I’d target because 1. Memphis is one of the few warm-weather bowl sites that is within driving distance of at least part of Big Ten country 2. It’s a fertile recruiting area 3. A lot of African-Americans in the Midwest trace their roots to the delta), the I-bowl should make a play to be the destination for CUSA’s champion. Most CUSA schools are within driving distance of Shreveport, so the I-bowl could at least ensure survival that way.
LikeLike
Alan,
There are the obvious future BCS games to help cover the void, though.
LikeLike
Great discussion and a couple of things to note:
1. I understand the sentiment that only conference champs should be eligible to play for the national championship. However, it’s critical to note that the BCS conferences have never agreed to impose that requirement for the national championship game for the top 2 teams, so it would be even less likely in a plus-one system. There are plenty examples of where a conference championship requirement would’ve been less than optimal, such as 2008. If #3 Texas and #4 Alabama had won their bowl games over #2 Florida and #1 Oklahoma, respectively, should they be jumped by lower ranked teams with less impressive wins simply because they didn’t win their conference championships?
The best pro sports comparison is the Champions League for European soccer. A team doesn’t have to win its own home league championship in order to compete for the larger European championship. The Champions League is looked at as a “separate but related” competition to the home leagues such as the English Premier League, where how teams play at home has a great impact in qualifying and seeding for the Champions League yet they are still regarded as different championships.
2. Note that the Fiesta Bowl is actually the most deep-pocketed bowl after the Rose Bowl. This is why they were able to jump the Cotton Bowl in the pecking order back in the 1990s. The Insight Bowl, which is run by the Fiesta, is now the 4th highest paying non-BCS bowl after the Capital One, Outback and Cotton (even though it’s actually taking lower selections from the Big Ten and Big 12 than the lower paying Gator and Alamo Bowls, respectively). So, while the common assumption is that Jerry Jones can afford to buy off whoever he wants, the Fiesta can run with anyone when it comes to dollars. In a way, this better allows the Fiesta to maintain BCS status without a conference tie-in than the Orange since the Fiesta can always put up the dollars. In contrast, the Orange really does need its relationship with the ACC to continue because it can be outbid by the Fiesta or other well-funded bowls that are looking to move up if it comes down to only dollars.
LikeLike
Frank,
I really would like to know how you feel about this thought?
“Frank you never commented on my thought of moving the Sun Bowl (and its history as one of the oldest bowls) to the weekend of the CCG’s for the Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, ACC, etc….. Have the [Big 12 winner play the best non AQ at that time] (with the winner getting the automatic slot in the Cotton Bowl. To me there are 4 bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton – sorry to the Fiesta but they are the “johnny come lately” to the Big Bowl Table. By using the Sun Bowl as a CCG of sorts between the former Big 12 vs best non AQ, you keep the former Big 12 in the media eyes, AND you force the best non AQ to go on the road to prove their regular season schedule is not such a cream puff.”
Thanks for the heads up on the Fiesta (and wonder where their deep pockets come from)!
LikeLike
Happy New Year, folks!
LikeLike
Progenitor of the BCS says it’s time for a college football playoff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123103466.html?tid=wp_ipad
(Gene Corrigan, ACC Commish from 1987-97, on the BCS:)
“…It was certainly an improvement on what we’d had before. But the time for change has come. The best and fairest thing would be a 16-team playoff. It would be the best thing for the players and for the sport….”
The article describes how he and Tom Mickle conceived the BCS. It later shifts to his idea for a 16-team playoff. His proposal may not be the best or most likely solution, but rather offers evidence that more of those “In the know” and connected at the highest levels are seriously considering a playoff. IMHO we’re now at how and when, not if.
…”Mick and I disagreed on what should happen next…He always favored a playoff. I was against it because I thought asking the players to play more than 12 or 13 games was wrong. But now the presidents have gone ahead and approved a 12th game and the conference championship games so they’re all playing 14 games anyway.
“I really think letting the presidents take over the decision-making process was a mistake. The faculty reps [who used to be the decision-makers at NCAA meetings for most schools] did a better job because they spent real time studying what was going on. They weren’t as political. They understood more about athletics because they really cared. They weren’t just making decisions based on finances – which is really what’s happened the last few years.”
Corrigan now believes a 16-team playoff with at least one round – perhaps two – played on home fields in early December is the way to go.
“Go back to an 11-game regular season,” he said. “The extra revenue from a playoff would make up for anything lost by not playing the 12th game. You don’t need conference championships for the same reason and, in a year like this for example, all three of those [one-loss] Big Ten teams would get into the tournament.
“You start the season the last weekend in August, which is what they were doing with those preseason games a few years ago anyway. The first round of the tournament is Thanksgiving weekend, the second round the first weekend in December. Most teams are playing those two weeks under the current schedule already.
“Then you take a break for exams and the holidays and play the semifinals on New Year’s Day at bowl sites. The championship game is the weekend before the Super Bowl. There’s no extra missed class or study time except maybe for the two teams in the final at the very beginning of the semester.
“It’s far less taxing than what the basketball teams are doing in March.
“The second-tier bowls stay exactly the same and serve the same purpose they serve now. And instead of having one January bowl game that has real meaning, you have three. Only two teams play more than the 14 games they’re all playing right now and most will only play 12 or 13 games.
“It’s fair, it makes everyone a lot of money and it won’t hurt anyone academically…”
LikeLike
Interesting stuff. The only thing, as with any playoff plan, is figuring out why any BCS conference would agree to this. Dropping a regular season game would be a complete non-starter for the conferences with large TV packages. The fact that a playoff would make more total dollars than the current BCS system has never been questioned. The real argument is how that playoff money is split.
LikeLike
So you start the season earlier but trim two weeks off the end? That will make the bowls even worse as everyone is more rusty. Most teams are done before Thanksgiving. Are fans (outside of the Big Ten) ready for that? Is Thanksgiving weekend the ideal time to start a playoff?
He claims the playoff would make up for losing the 12th game and CCGs financially. First, how does he know that? He’s been out of things since 1997. How do you split the money to assure everyone they won’t lose anything? How do you appease people that co-champs are the norm for conferences (only 8 conference games, no CCG)?
I see a lot of holes in this. He could be right, but I would need a lot of questions answered.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of tradition on Thanksgiving games.
I think a lot of people proposed the 12th game to avoid a playoff. It would be very hard to take away. 1st, all 120 schools would have to get a cut, not just playoff teams, not just AQ conferences.
I suspect even if they do a 16 team playoff they keep the 12th game, which means only one round before the holidays. And interfering with finals would be an issue for some schools as it would be the 2nd week in December. For others it would be done just before.
LikeLike
This idea is very similar to Frank’s idea, but what are the chances of this happening? Could this work? Just have all the team’s go to their normal tie ins and then play the games and then the do standings a day later and have a national championship game.
Take this season for example. Oregon would go the Rose Bowl and play Wisky. Auburn would go to the Sugar and play Ohio State. OU would play UCONN and Va Tech would play Stanford. Crunch the numbers and spit out a national championship game.
The problem with this is you could have a potential Wisconsin vs. Ohio State national championship game. Wisky beats Oregon, OSU beats Auburn and Va Tech beats Stanford.
Wait… this is exactly Frank’s idea. The only difference is that there is no flex option and no predetermined semi-final spots.
LikeLike
It’s called an unseeded plus one. It’s probably the first step, but they might skip it because of the obvious problems of unequal match ups or #1 and #2 playing in a bowl and then having to play someone else for the title.
Any plus one system has the possibility of a conference game in the finals, but so does any playoff that allows more than one team from a conference (unless specific rules force them to play each other in the first round).
LikeLike
I don’t see any problems with conference mates in the finals. It should be avoided in the 1st round.
LikeLike
Dear Spartans fans,
We told you you didn’t deserve a BCS berth.
Sincerely,
The rest of the college football world
LikeLike
Yeah, but we don’t have to live in Ohio. Lol! JK.
LikeLike
Having lived in both for a long time, I’m not sure MI has any bragging rights over OH. They’re very similar, and both have a lot to recommend them. The economy hasn’t done any favors for either one, though.
LikeLike
SEC 101 – State of Michigan 21
Way to hold up the honor of the Big Ten Great Lakes state. You made NW look like a powerhouse.
If this embarrassment doesn’t help get RichRod fired, nothing would have. How can you have no defense and no special teams for 3 years?
LikeLike
Well you could look at it as, Florida’s late comeback saved the SEC East from going 0-4. Big 12 N is 0-3 and done.
LikeLike
Well, I guess it’s up to Wisconsin and Ohio State to salvage some honor for the Big Ten. They say any publicity is good publicity, but even if Wisconsin wins today, I still don’t see how Big Ten fans can be pleased to see their league take all these losses on New Year’s Day.
LikeLike
How about the hour long funeral discussion of RichRod and his failures at MI by Craig James and Mike Patrick?
That’s the sort of message you want to send to potential recruits.
LikeLike
Yeah. We pretty much collectively blew it today. Oh well, maybe next year, assuming we still actually play games and don’t just award the trophies based on recruiting!
OSU already punted it’s chance to do the honorable thing.
LikeLike
The tough thing is that OSU suspending the players for the bowl would really aggravate the Sugar Bowl folks, Jim Delany, the NCAA and possibly players and recruits. That would have serious future consequences in terms of at large spots (and not just at the Sugar) and maybe in other ways. OSU has to consider that.
I’m just glad so many of the OSU fans want Tressel to sit them.
LikeLike
Let me make sure I understand how this all works…
When Florida State beats Florida, South Carolina, and BYU, it means nothing for the ACC. When FSU loses badly AT Oklahoma, the ACC sucks.
When Clemson loses on a dropped pass AT Auburn, the ACC sucks.
When Miami wins AT Big East co-champion Pitt, no one cares. When Miami loses non-league games, the entire conference sucks.
When a depleted UNC almost beats top ten team LSU, the ACC sucks. When UNC beats an evenly matched Tennessee team in Nashville, no one cares.
When NC State loses to ECU, the ACC sucks, but they beat West Virginia, no one cares.
Meanwhile…
The Big Ten is second only to the SEC when Ohio State beats Miami at home, when Wisconsin slips by Arizona State at home, when MSU and Michigan slip by Notre Dame, when Michigan beats UConn, and when Iowa beats Iowa State. Nevermind that there were virtually no other challenging non-conference games in the regular season. But when Iowa loses at Arizona, Penn State gets beat down by Alabama, and when the league goes 0-for-4 in New Year’s Day bowl games, the Big Ten is still soooooo obviously better than the ACC.
Someone explain to me how there’s not a double standard going on here.
LikeLike
By the way, I’m not trying to take shots at the Big Ten here. Rather, I’m simply trying to point out that the Big Ten unfairly escapes criticism in large part by avoiding more than a handful of tough non-conference competition before the bowl season, while the ACC gets crucified for losing the kinds of games the Big Ten so often avoid.
Even after a day like today for the Big Ten, and after the ACC has so far gone 4-3 in bowl season, the Big Ten will still evade the enormous criticism the ACC has gotten. In truth, neither league is all that great but they’re not terrible either.
LikeLike
Are you kidding? I’ve heard nothing but criticism of the Big Ten since OSU lost to Florida. It’s a never ending refrain of how slow they are (even when they beat speed teams), how they don’t win enough bowl games, etc.
Perhaps the ACC should play fewer December bowl games if they want more credit. The Big Ten has fewer teams, usually sends two teams to the BCS and has a tougher slate of bowl games. Perhaps that is why the ACC can win more bowl games?
ACC 1 – BCS
ACC 2 – SEC 3/4/5
ACC 3 – BE 2
ACC 4 – P10 4
ACC 5 – BE 3
ACC 6 – SEC 7/8
ACC 7 – MWC 3
ACC 8 – CUSA/Ind./B12 8
B10 1 – BCS (usually B10 2, too)
B10 2 – SEC 2
B10 3 – SEC 3/4
B10 4/5 – SEC 6
B10 4/5 – B12 4
B10 6 – B12 6
B10 7 – CUSA/B12 8
B10 8 – MAC 1
The ACC will be fine as soon as FSU and Miami get better, or VT actually starts winning against top 5 teams. The lack of elite teams and elite wins kills the conferences rep.
LikeLike
The ACC would love fewer December bowl games, but because it’s a less popular conference, it can’t get them. The Gator was an ACC bowl for a long time, for example, but the ACC & Big East lost it to the SEC & Big Ten.
The Big Ten hasn’t gotten a hard time since that OSU-UF game, no question about that. But it’s still treated as relevant. The ACC is all but dismissed.
LikeLike
Ohio St. has been the flagship this decade with PSU and UM having rough decades by their standards, so they are who everyone looks at.
Someone hit on part of the problem. OSU is kind of an SEC-lite team. They have the speed with some power. They can stay with B10 schools and beat them with their near SEC speed. When it comes to SEC matchups, they do they same things as the SEC teams but not as well.
In contrast, Wisconsin has a power game that SEC teams don’t often face. They match their different strengths against SEC speed.
LikeLike
Michael,
The ACC would seem more relevant if the conference champ didn’t lose the BCS game against relatively weak opposition every year. The ACC is 2-10 in the BCS with no at larges. Losing to runner ups from other conferences or Big East champions does not earn much respect.
The ACC used to have respect when FSU was good. Miami regressed before joining, FSU has been down, and VT can’t seem to win the big game.
1998 – TN over FSU in NCG
1999 – FSU over VT in NCG
2000 – OU over FSU in NCG
2001 – FL over MD
2002 – GA over FSU
2003 – Miami over FSU
2004 – Auburn over VT
2005 – PSU over FSU
2006 – Louisville over WF
2007 – Kansas over VT
2008 – VT over Cincinnati
2009 – Iowa over GT
When the ACC produces two elite teams in the same year, they’ll start to get respect. Lately it has seemed more like VT sort of was winning by default but wasn’t that good.
LikeLike
@Brian,
Now THAT is a logical explanation. Can’t believe I didn’t think about that. The ACC’s rep is probably more tied to BCS bowl performance than anything else.
As for the inability to get two teams into the BCS, I can’t help but wonder whether the tough out-of-conference schedules are getting in the way. FSU is always going to play Florida no matter what. Adding in Oklahoma and perennial top 25 BYU isn’t a formula for an at-large berth. Neither is Clemson’s OOC schedule against Auburn and South Carolina. If ACC schools lighten up a little, the league as a whole will increase its odds of getting a second BCS team.
Of course, it hasn’t helped, either, that the league spent the past nine years beating up on itself, too; until this year, no one had gone unbeaten in conference play since FSU in 2000.
But at least this year by itself, I don’t see enough evidence that the Big Ten was any better than the ACC. We’ll see if I’ll eat my words after the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
See Mike, the b10 looks better on paper, so it’s better. Sorry old bean.
LikeLike
When the ACC loses, there is a good reason and it still shows how good they are. When anyone else loses, they suck. When the ACC wins, it is proof how awesome they are. When anyone else wins, there are reasons why it is not impressive and they still suck.
Who has the double standard, exactly?
The ACC was expected to be good this year.
AP Preseason:
ACC – 5 top 25 teams
Big Ten – 4 top 25
The ACC disappointed people this year.
AP Final:
ACC – 2 top 25
Big Ten – 3 top 7
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/13561/conference-power-rankings-bowl-season
The human polls and computer polls agree that the ACC was weak this year. Most people lump the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-10 together as similar (different people favor different ones based on their preferred criteria).
LikeLike
Great start to 2011.
This is why the Big Ten was dumb to start 4 bowl games at once on 1/1. No matter where you turned, a Big Ten team was losing. NW came back to be competitive despite no defense and PSU was in it despite 5 interceptions, but MI and MSU just stunk. Good thing viewers couldn’t avoid watching that and getting the impression that the whole conference stinks.
WI really needs to come through or this whole season will be a disaster.
LikeLike
I dont’ know about the rest of you, but I was flipping around and this is what I saw:
TT-NW timeouts
UM-MSU commericals
PSU-UF pictures of Meyer or Paterno standing on the sidelines
MSU-AL MSU players lying hurt on the field
These games all seemed awfully long w/o a lot of action.
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem to me like a very entertaining bowl season. WI-TCU was the 1st entertaining game I’ve seen that wasn’t really sloppy.
LikeLike
Not here to flame but yesterday’s performance provides another reason why “Legends” and “Leaders” is a horrifying decision. This blog is fairly insular and pro-Big Ten but in the rest of the sports world, can you imagine how many references and comments are being made this moment concerning the Big Ten performance in the bowls in terms of the W-L and PF PA for teams in Leaders and in the Legends? How “Legendary” was the performance?
Why not East and West? Or some other simple designation? Or perhaps you want “We are Legends, Fuck You” — to paraphrase the most frequent response to the Logo disaster.
Finally, could not help but read about OSU’s performance tomorrow “upholding” the Big Ten’s
honor. The only way OSU can uphold the Big Ten’s reputation is if Tressel benches the “re-gifters” for the game. Otherwise, the Big Ten is in the worst of all positions — like all the other schools and not being as good at it as the others.
LikeLike
rich,
Very few B10 people like the division names either. In fact, virtually no one does.
LikeLike
So far, the Legends have been a disappointment. It would have been even worse if NW hadn’t made their comeback.
Legends:
1-4, 93-189
MI – L 14-52
IA – W 27-24
MSU – L 7-49
NW – L 38-45
MN – N/A
NE – L 7-19
Leaders:
1-2, 81-72
OSU – ?
PSU – L 24-37
WI – L 19-21
IL – W 38-14
PU – N/A
IN – N/A
LikeLike
It was a leveraged bet. If the B10 had gone 5-0 or 4-1, Delaney would have looked like a genius. unfortunately, he can’t recruit or coach the teams for them.
LikeLike
Now is the worst time of the season. Channel surfing for games is officially over until September. And as an OSU alum, I wait for the inevitable reneging on the pledges to come back next year and the recriminations that come with it.
I can’t even really look forward to next season with the suspensions. The only things to look forward to are Delany possibly changing the division names and seeing Nebraska in the Big Ten. Michigan might even have a real coach by next year, potentially ending the streak soon (not sure they have the talent right now).
LikeLike
Could be worse dude. Look at msu. all we heard about was how we didn’t play OSU, now next year is a no win proposition the suspensions.
LikeLike
At least MSU is a growing program. It can aspire to new heights next year and in the future (winning a bowl, winning a January bowl, making the BCS, winning a BCS game, winning the Big Ten outright, winning the Rose Bowl, playing in the NCG, winning the NCG).
OSU doesn’t have much room to get better (beating the SEC in a bowl, winning a NCG), so there are fewer things to look forward to. It is much easier to go down than up from where OSU is (a good problem to have, admittedly).
LikeLike
I won’t comment on B1G’s performance so far today, other than it is painful to watch.
Back to the idea of playoffs, here is another alternative that I have not seen discussed. What about a multiple plus-one system?
Allow all bowl games to develop their own plus-one pairings at the involved bowls’ and/or conferences’ discretion, with one restriction: a minimum number individual conference champions among the four teams must be involved.
The Main Event would obviously be Rose vs. Sugar (B1G, Pac-12, SEC, The Fourth Spot [ranking system, play-in, ACC/Big XII, or whatever]). The final alternates between the two sites.
If Fiesta/Orange or Cotton/whoever want to pair up on their own for another contest, that would be fine under this system. Because of restricting it to involve a minimum number of conference champions (two?), the number of individual plus-one mid-January games is three, four, or five, depending on how it sets up. This way, it cannot get out of hand.
As much as they might not like it, no other bowl committee would have veto power, because no more than two bowl games need to cooperate with one another. Fiesta and Orange may get a less significant set of teams, but those historically had different automatic tie-ins anyway.
On a side note, it might not be a very good idea legally to call The Main Event a “National Championship.”
Clearly, this is not as good of a system for fans as a true playoff. It does have its advantages, though. With respect to the CEO’s parameters previously listed here, the advantages include:
1. Implementation is simple.
2. TPTB remain TPTB, especially Jim Delany/B1G, Mike Slive/SEC, and Larry Scott/Pac-12, except that there would be a lower tier of AQ conferences.
2. Sugar Bowl’s stock is on par with Rose Bowl. SEC is happy.
3. Rose Bowl restores and solidifies its traditional tie-ins. B1G and Pac-12 are happy.
4. Lesser bowls remain 100% intact. Bowl committees breathe a sigh of relief.
5. Except for The Fourth Spot, which could also be an automatic bid for ACC/Big XII, it is a very clean, simple system.
6. The three waiting spots in Miami and AZ for Big East, ACC, and Big XII will reduce complaints from second-tier AQ conferences. The system as a whole vents accusations of collusion, because it is little more than an extension of the old system.
7. Everybody else of consequence could have a shot at The Fourth Spot, but the bully conferences remain in charge.
8. Competition for The Fourth Spot could, in some way, appease BCS defenders. There would still be all of the BCS bullshit that involves #1 and #2, but it gets reduced to only one spot of four. Again, if there is a problem here, those on the cusp would still be involved with one of the other plus-ones out there.
Advantages for fans:
1. It is a possible bridge to something more in the future.
2. More January college football!
Disadvantages:
1. Barring a play-in, The Main Event involves only three games and four teams.
2. Half of the AQ conferences potentially lose their marquee status.
3. Somebody from outside the main three conferences is going to be irate with not being in The Fourth Spot, and we are going to hear about it, consolation plus-one or not.
4. Non-AQ conferences may gain some clout. That’s probably good for us, but not so good for the AQ conferences that may want to keep them down.
Yes, there could be a dispute over who was better among the few plus-one champs, but at least the Main Event and the other “plus-ones” would be something great to watch. Until the plus-ones somehow work it out, I would be content with this simple, crude system in place of the BCS.
Now, how does this system suck, too?
(New Year’s resolution: stop wasting time trolling around the internet. Hence, GBCW)
LikeLike
I’m curious about the rules on a catch. I thought there was very clear video on the Wisconsin incompletion ruled a catch in replay. His hand and the ball hit the ground at the same time. It looked like he had control, but the ball clearly hit the ground. I thought by rule that would have been an incompletion, but maybe control is the bigger issue?
LikeLike
If you don’t trap the ball, the ball can hit the ground as long as it doesn’t move on impact. The ground can’t help a catch, but it doesn’t automatically invalidate one.
LikeLike
Thanks. Its gets annoying listening to those idiots on ESPN. They talked about how he got his hand under the ball when clearly he didn’t.
LikeLike
I like Frank’s idea and hope something like this happens.
I was wondering what is the lowest ranking a team could have before the bowls and make the NCG under Frank’s proposal?
For instance if Frank’s scenario 2 happened and produced the following matchups and results.
Rose: #1 vs. #10 (#10 wins)
Orange: 2 vs. 3 (Winner advances to NCG)
Fiesta: 4 vs. 7 (7 wins)
Sugar: 5 vs. 9 (9 wins)
Cotton: 6 vs. 8 (8 wins)
This type of scenario, although unlikely, would produce complete chaos. Would Frank’s proposal allow for a team to lose it’s bowl game and still play for the NCG?
LikeLike
Me, I’d send #7 to the NCG (highest ranked team still standing). The BCS voters would probably send #1 (bletch).
LikeLike
Oh man, bucky with some bad clock management and play call issues in the Rose Bowl.
First Tolzien wastes 2 timeouts earlier in the game (which makes an onside kick neccesary). Then they nonchalantly take 40 seconds off the clock between each play; I mean, I don’t have a problem with UW ramming the ball down TCU’s throat, since they obviously can’t stop John Clay at this point in the game, but don’t they have a hurry-up offense? Then, on the 2-point conversion, calling a pass play when Wisconsin’s O-line is pushing TCU’s D-line back 2 yards every run play and arm tackles aren’t even slowing down John Ball. You think there’s a lower percentage that Bucky’s O-line and John Ball can’t get 3 yards than that you’ll complete a pass?
LikeLike
I don’t blame the QB for timeouts as much as the coaches. Get the plays in quicker and tell your QB to take the delay penalty if he has to.
I think the WI hurry up is John Clay jogging back to the huddle instead of walking.
Like many coaches, I think they outsmarted themselves on the 2-point conversion. They were hoping to catch TCU playing the run. For a coach willing to fake a punt on 4th and 9, you’d think they would just run Clay for the 3 yard conversion. As you say, they weren’t stopping Clay up the middle.
I knew they’d lose as soon as they didn’t try to score quicker. Only an idiot assumes you’ll make the TD and 2-point conversion and then win in OT. I was wondering where their sense of urgency was earlier in the game. As weak as WI’s defense was, they should have quit trying to throw deep and run up the middle more where the TCU speed was the least help.
LikeLike
I couldn’t believe they got away with that fake punt. I saw the weakness on the delay of game-1 TCU defender w/i 15 yards of the line of scrimmage and 3 blockers. The punter started to run before the play was called dead. That was a terrible coaching breakdown to not see that and prepare on the 2nd effort to punt.
LikeLike
Eat your heart out Gordon Gee!
LikeLike
Honestly. Good lord man. Disaster day for b10.
Now, who would not want to see tcu play sugar bowl winner?
Let’s watch uconn beat the most overrated program if the past decade.
LikeLike
Me
LikeLike
Scared?
LikeLike
What’s to be scared of? I want them to win the NC if they deserve it, I just hate playoffs.
Tell TCU to schedule somebody OOC next time (Oregon St, TN Tech, Baylor, SMU) since their conference is so soft at the bottom.
LikeLike
@jj,
What would be so interesting about seeing TCU play the Ohio State-Arkansas winner? Did you mean the Oregon-Auburn winner???
LikeLike
I think it will be called Black Saturday.
As for UConn, they have no chance as long as OU is even remotely interested in winning.
LikeLike
@jj,
For the record, I really wanted to see the Big Ten go 4-1 today (exception being the Rose Bowl). I’m not originally from Big Ten country; if it’s not completely obvious, I consider myself an ACC guy, having grown up near Clemson and attended college in North Carolina. Still, having lived in Indiana for several years, I’ve grown to appreciate the Big Ten. One thing I’ve really enjoyed about it is that the fans overall seem to have a million times more class than what I experienced growing up. I’ll never forget, for example, the way Clemson fans harassed and threatened my parents, who were in the late 40’s/early 50’s at the time, just for wearing Florida State sweatshirts. At Purdue games against Iowa, Penn State, and Michigan State, this thing called civility prevailed. It’s not much to ask, really, but it was impressive nonetheless.
The Big Ten is a very well-run conference, but sometimes arrogance gets in its way. Delany could have made his point about the league’s protection of its Rose Bowl tie-in without being such an a**hole. Seriously, why did he feel so threatened he had to cut off a fellow conference commissioner in mid-sentence? As for Gee, I just find it funny just how much he’s eating his words now.
LikeLike
On behalf us all us all I thank you. I think maybe we just don’t collectivelly get as worked up about it all. I dunno. I always root for the big ten, fans are fans though; they get a little carried away sometimes.
I know Brian won’t agree, but I honestly like to see the upsets andwhat not. I think it makes it more fun. The beauty contest stuff drives me nuts. Why play the games if we’re just going to rank em? If the “big boys” don’t want the ” little uns” around, grow a pair and tell them to get lost. Can the b10 argue with a straight face now that it deserves 3 of the 10 slots? Our 3 headed monster looks more like the 3 stooges.
LikeLike
I have no problem with upsets. Seeing the little guy beat anybody but my team is always fun. Nobody will cheer louder for Boise to beat Georgia next year than me.
TCU was favored and ranked higher than WI, though. It was not an upset. WI actually won against the spread, by the way. They did not embarrass themselves like MSU.
Most Big Ten people argued there were 3 worthy candidates, not that all 3 should get in this year (except in place of UConn). If OSU and MSU had played, this would not have been mentioned (one way or the other). There certainly have been years when 3 SEC teams deserved to be in (that was part of Delany’s argument). The other at larges/non-AQs this year were all very worthy (TCU, Stanford, Arkansas).
I think you are being too harsh and speaking too soon. Yes, MSU crapped themselves. WI didn’t look bad or get blown out, they just didn’t upset TCU. OSU hasn’t played, so there’s no way you can disparage them yet.
LikeLike
StvInIL,
Your cats got the short end of the stick! I went to tune in to the game, and lo and behold it was ESPNU! (which meant where I watched TV today had no feed, and I missed the game. Looks like from the score it was pretty good game from score, and yet the folks at Northwestern were denied getting the broader audience! 😦
Alan,
After the play of the SEC West today I am considering a change in my opinion of your tigers vs TAMU. I was thinking a low scoring affair with a field goal or TD in the favor of the tigers. If the SEC West is as good as it appears to be, katie bar the door!
Frank,
a) I like hockey (I watched the blackhawks play the red wings when I could not get the Northwestern game).
b) I love when they play hockey outdoors
c) I am okay with the whole Winter Classic concept
d) why must they do it opposite New Years Day Bowl games? (there are folks that would watch both!
LikeLike
Re (d): cuz the NHL is run by an idiot. Actually, a total idiot.
LikeLike
The Bowl Wars – updated for todays games (sans OU vs Uconn)
BIG 10 – Wisconsin (L TCU 2 pts), Michigan State (L Bama 42 pts), tOSU (Arkansas), Iowa (W Missouri 3pts), Illinois (W Baylor 24 pts), PSU (L Florida 13pts), Northwestern (L TTech 7 pts), Michigan (L Mississippi State 38 pts) – 8 bowl invitations
vs SEC 0-3 (4 possible, it is up to tOSU)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (ZERO possible, the tragedy of this season)
vs Big 12 2-1 (done)
vs ACC 0-0 (0 possible)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (done, MWC)
2-5, with 1 game left
SEC – Auburn (Oregon), Arkansas (tOSU), LSU (TAMU), Alabama (W Michigan State 42 pts), South Carolina (L FSU 9 pts), Mississippi State (W Michigan 38 pts), Florida (W PSU 13 pts), Georgia (L UCF 4 pts), Tennessee (L UNC 3pts), Kentucky (Pitt) – 10 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 3-0 (4 possible, PSU was close but UM and MSU not so close)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 0-0 (1 possible, does this seem low for balance?)
vs ACC 0-2 (done, the ACC shuts out the SEC)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (2 possible, 1 BE, 1 CUSA)
3-3, with 4 games left
PAC 10 – Oregon (Auburn), Stanford (Va Tech), Arizona (L oSu 26 pts), Washington (W Nebraska 12 pts) – 4 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 0-0 (0 possible!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 1-1 (2 done)
vs ACC 0-0 (1 possible)
1-1, with 2 games left
BIG 12 – Oklahoma (Uconn), Missouri (L Iowa 3 pts), oSu (W Arizona 26 pts), Nebraska (L Washington 12 pts), TAMU (LSU), Baylor (L Illinois 24 pts), TTech (W Northwestern 7 pts), KSU (L Syracuse 2 pts) – 8 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 1-2 (3 done, curse you ESPNU!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, again only 1 Big 12 vs SEC matchup)
vs Pac 10 1-1 (2 done)
vs ACC 0-0 (0 possible)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (2 possible, 2 BE! weird combinations)
2-4, with 2 games left
ACC – Va Tech (Stanford), FSU (W South Carolina 9 pts), Maryland (W ECU 31 pts), NC State (W WVa 16 pts), Miami (L Notre Dame 16 pts), Boston College (Nevada), UNC (W UTenn 3 pts), Ga Tech (L Air Force 7 pts), Clemson (L USF 5 pts) – 9 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 0-0 (0 possible, with 8 & 9 invites, not 1 game?!?!)
vs SEC 2-0 (2 done, granted close games)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (1 possible)
vs Big 12 0-0 (0 possible, with 8 & 9 invites, not 1 game?!?!)
vs the “rest” 2-3 (1 left, 3 BE, 1 MWC, 1 WAC, 1 IND)
4-3, with 2 games left
#1 ACC 4-3, sad that the weakest conference is leading the list.
#2 SEC 3-3, defeated by ACC, and undefeated vs B10
#3 Pac 10 1-1
#4 Big 12 2-4
#5 Big 10 2-5, first to last, ugh!
The winners so far is nobody
The losers so far Big 10 and Big 12
The SEC is April reversed (came in like a lamb, going out like a lion)
=> the “lamb” = SEC East
=> the “lion” = SEC West
The big question is why no ACC vs Big 10 or Big 12 games!
LikeLike
Thank you for the post.
The BIG question is :
SEC 10 bowls
B12 9 bowls
B10 7 bowls
ACC 9 bowls
P10 4 bowls
Don’t the Pac 10 like to go bowling???
LikeLike
USC preferred to cheat and ASU tried to play all of I-AA, or it could have been 6 out of 10. The ninth conference game might have cost California.
LikeLike
The B10 actually has 8 bowl teams this year.
LikeLike
This was probably the worst Big Ten day in history in terms of going 0-5 in bowls.
But looking at the games, the only downside surprises were Michigan and Michigan State getting totally blown out…
TCU has been a legit national championship contender the whole year. A slip up in Auburn’s last second comeback against the Tide and we’d have been talking about them in the NC.
As for the others, Northwestern and Penn State showed up and played.
I had been expecting the Big Ten to lose most of the games today, since we were underdogs in every match up but to lose them all was somewhat unexpected.
It happens though; we’ll have to see whether Ohio State is able to end its SEC drought. But with Ohio State going through all of its troubles with players, there might be way too many distractions for them to be able to focus on it…
LikeLike
The only game that should be seen of as reputation damaging is the Michigan State-Alabama game.
I mean, the line had Alabama favored by 8-10 points, but to go 7-1 in the conference and then just get totally annihilated is an embarrassment.
Michigan, on the other hand, has the worst Big Ten defense by a mile, so we should have seen that blowout coming…
LikeLike
I thought people did see that coming. No defense, no special teams and a dead coach walking. The only hope was that Shoelace could keep the score close. With Forcier out, they looked afraid to run Robinson as much as usual since he’s made of glass so they relied on their weak passing game.
LikeLike
But Mississippi State had the weakest offense in the SEC West. They did score 49 against Memphis and Alcorn and 47 against Houston. But other than that, 31 was the most they scored. So it was bad. I wasn’t surprised MSU won, but typical for them would have been 17-14, not 52-14.
LikeLike
Mississippi State was #47 in total offense, #56 in scoring offense.
Michigan was #107 in total defense, #101 in scoring defense.
Almost everyone scored on MI in bunches, especially late in the year (except Purdue, but they were missing their top QB, RB and WR).
I figured MSU was good for at least 35 points. My only question was what Shoelace could do.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a fair point. It’s just astonishing how far Michigan’s defense has fallen that today’s result isn’t even that shocking…
Either way, the Big Ten sent three 11-1 teams and then a lot of 7-5 teams (and 6-6 Illinois) to the postseason this year.
Michigan State’s result is by far the most damaging because of just how thoroughly outclassed they were despite going 7-1 in conference.
LikeLike
That, more than anything, is why RichRod should be fired. Expecting MI to get blown out by every good team they play is a shame. No other king program would accept 3 years (and more in the future) of that.
The records were a little deceiving this year. Iowa was better than their record, and NW (Persa hurt) and MSU clearly worse (lucky breaks, an easy OOC and missing OSU helped). Things might have been different if IA and NW finished stronger.
LikeLike
Yeah, if anything, today’s result for Michigan shows just how far they’ve fallen into a hole right now.
This kind of result is just not something a top program should have…
LikeLike
That’s the msu way! We don’t do anything halfway. If you’re going do do something, do it right. I mean who else ends up punting on a 1st and goal?
The biggest problem, which any honest state fan could see a mile away was the msu o-line, particulary the strong side.
LikeLike
Actually, I had posted somewhere (I think in a comment on the previous post) that based on the 2 2010 B12-B10 games, it was clear that a spread-based B12 team could not stop a good B10 power running game. I saw 6 B10 power-running teams (Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, MSU, PSU, & OSU). Of those, PSU was the only one going against a spread team, so I liked their chances. I also liked Wisconsin going against a defense based on speed. I didn’t like MSU’s chances because they were going up against the same kind of team, except with faster athletes. It was hard to determine OSU/Arkansas. Of the 2 spread teams, I noted that MissSt. was the defense&running team while Michigan was the spread/no defense team, so I didn’t like the odds there. I didn’t like NU’s odds against another spread team without Persa, even though TTech can’t stop any B10 team’s running game.
Well, the power team I thought would lose got blown out, and the spread team I thought would get blown out also got blown out (and the other spread did what I expected and lost as well). The 2 power teams I thought would win lost late&close (I didn’t watch the PSU game much, but thought that Wisconsin made the mistake of trying to pass too often in the second half against TCU instead of just pounding John Clay up the middle; they started doing that in the 4th quarter, but I thought they should have started doing that in the 3rd). Could anyone who watched the PSU game tell me how successful the JoePa’s were running the ball? Could they have won the game if they had run the ball more instead of trying to pass and throwing 5 interceptions?
Taking the new results in to account, it doesn’t look good for OSU, as, of the January B10 bowl games, I had most confidence in PSU winning, and then Wisconsin, and then OSU.
LikeLike
I watched about 85% of the PSU game. From what I remember PSU was doing OK rushing the ball (Evan Royster, PSU’s top RB, did OK with about 5 yards per carry) but was really trying to mix up the plays, and as a result probably passing more than they should have. This year I would not call PSU a “power running” team. PSU’s problem yesterday was not being able to overcome QB McGloin’s 5 INTs. With about a minute left in the game and down by 6 points, PSU was at about the Florida 30 yard line or thereabouts when McG threw an INT that resulted in an 80 yard TD return by the Florida defense. So a potential one-point win by PSU (had they punched it in) became a 13 point win for the Gators.
As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me the “overanalysis” applied to these post-season exhibition games. Other than being able to claim a “win,” there is virtually nothing to play for unless a player is looking to pad stats in prep for the draft. There is also “big game experience” for whatever that’s worth. Looking at Nebraska’s performance, it’s pretty obvious that some teams “mail in” their bowl game performance, and who can blame them? Bowl games tend to ride on emotion and momentum swings, great for TV viewership and “fan appeal” I suppose, but as far as using these as “benchmarks,” other than bragging rights the bowls really mean little.
I also am amazed at how “analysts” ignore the “home team advantage” as evidenced by the Ticket City bowl, Outback Bowl, Cap One, and the Sugar Bowl and I could go on. Gee, y’dont think that Texas Tech, Florida, and even ‘Bama had a “home field advantage” playing in stadiums in their home states or adjacent to their home states? It would be interesting to pair the Big Ten and SEC in the Pinstripe Bowl and see the SEC teams go to work in a hostile environment and on a frozen field.
LikeLike
@84Lion
I’m with you on the overanalysis. That was one nice thing about the Rose Bowl. Both teams seemed to be giving maximum effort. Both teams also seemed to be giving maximum effort in the Fiesta, but that didn’t make it interesting.
There isn’t always a “home field” advantage. I think about 60% of the Rose Bowl was red, so some of those B10 teams really travel. I suspect the Sugar this year will be about 50/50. The Texas/USC Rose Bowl was probably majority Texas fans despite being in USC’s backyard. When Texas went to the Sugar Bowl in 95 there were probably more Virginia Tech fans. And seeing KSU and SU slipping around on a messy field wasn’t that interesting. Nike sure got some bad publicity with those new TCU spikes in the Rose that didn’t work.
LikeLike
Yeah, ignoring my rooting interest for Big Ten teams, the Rose Bowl was by far the best football game that I’ve watched this postseason from a pure football quality standpoint.
Both teams played a crisp game and settled in after a first quarter shootout, so it was a compelling game to the finish.
LikeLike
I never have understood the Big 10 arguement of playing SEC teams in a cold/winter environment. I mean, of course the Big 10 team would have the advantage. But the opposite could be said for playing in the south in 98 degree humid weather where the SEC team would have the advantage.
Why add external factors into the equation when determining the better team? If you want a true test of which is the better team, stick both team in a dome or in an environment where external factors will be kept to a minimum, and let the athletes determine the outcome. If you have to rely on playing in a cold weather environment to win, that only proves that you do not have the superior athletes. It just means you’re players are more used to the cold weather.
LikeLike
Well, it’s not just the temperature, but also the home field advantage. For example, this year, the B10 played Florida in Florida, Texas Tech in Texas, and Baylor in Texas (and 3 of the other schools played/will play, Alabama, SCarolina, & Arkansas, are within driving distance of the bowl sites while none of the B10 schools are). This isn’t an abberation either. Since 2000, the B10 has played SEC, B12, ACC, and Pac10 schools that are in the state of the bowl game 19 times and from adjacent states 15 times. When you play Florida, FSU, or Miami in Florida, a Texas school in Texas, USC in LA, or LSU in Nawlins, I’d say there are external factors at play.
LikeLike
The reason environment comes into play is due to the fact our important games are play in October & November.
The offensive game is centered around what you can do on cold wet days with nasty swirling winds. Not very good weather to have a passing attack under.
As far as hot humid days, we might not have the heat of the south, but come up here in August and September and it does get hot and humid. Not like the south, but it does get into the low 90’s with a high humidity factor.
The south does not have anything on the north when it comes to cold in October and November. I can recall attending a game at Northwestern the first week in October. Nasty cold (low 40’s) with a bitter wind coming of Lake Michigan.
I could use a war analogy on better athletes. Who had a better army, the Germans or Russians in World War II. Man for man, unit for unit the Germans were superior. Yet it was the Russian cold that defeated the German army.
I can also remember how Tampa Bay of the NFL did when the weather was below 40, not very good when they played north.
LikeLike
@ aps
the only places being better on paper as the deciding factor makes any sense is the courtroom or the toilet paper market.
LikeLike
Weather conditions are a part of the game. The brutal weather conditions in winter months are a part of the game for professional athletes as well. You’re putting them in a dome theory only sterilizes what is supposed to be a natural thing. There are plenty of Southern born athletes who have been drafted by northern cities. They acclimate themselves to the conditions or they will be useless to their teams. I have never seen one not pan out for weather conditions. Yet it is not a natural condition for a Southerner.
In terms of the weather, I think there is something to 1) Big Ten teams always playing bowl games on the other teams home turf. 2) Not getting to play any important cross sectional games in late October and November in the upper mid west. The southern teams do have more athletes per team. But I really think that is an overrated factor. Football is still also about football players, coaching and preparation. There are a few really guys that are truly head and shoulders ahead of everybody else. I’m thinking guys like Herschel Walker, John Elway, Charles Woodson, Deon Sanders and Barry Sanders. These guys still need the 11 other guys to win.
LikeLike
Iowa was another power running B10 team facing a B12 spread, and managed to win behind 219 yards by a true freshman running back.
LikeLike
Iowa was kind of like the Alabama of the Big Ten though.
Way underachieved this year relative to how highly ranked they started…
LikeLike
Even though Iowa fell to 7-5 and the Insight Bowl, they ended up beating a team in Mizzou that was 10-2 and ranked 12th in the country coming into the bowl.
LikeLike
My predictions were for the January bowl games based on the results of the Iowa-Mizzou & Illinois-Baylor games.
LikeLike
Richard,
The lions were OK running the ball, but not great. In addition to running more, I think replacing McGloin with Bolden might have been the right move.
As 84Lion said, they were driving with a chance to win at the end. Heck, another pick set up Florida’s go ahead score too.
LikeLike
Saw a minimum of New Years games because I was with family (and as much as I love family, I love our family Christmas’s more), but I did notice a Big Ten commercial and they used the B1G logo (black and blue) without spelling out the whole thing. I’m hoping that means they are going with that one rather than the whole Big Ten one; it just looks better.
LikeLike
from adam rittenberg
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/21884/jim-delany-it-was-a-very-long-day
on his interview with Jim Delany after the 0-5 start.
for the tOSU guys on this board, good game in Bloomington, but next few years may not see you have such success! 😉
LikeLike
Crean should have IU back soon. He had such a huge hole to dig out of when he arrived.
The beauty of it is beating IU in hoops is fun but doesn’t mean all that much to OSU. It’s much more of a football school (except to part of the older fan base), and IU probably won’t catch up in football for a while.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/01/02/bcs.early.ratings.ap/index.html
Rose Bowl ratings were way down this year, even worse than USC/ILL in 2008. Is ABC/ESPN still happy with their plan? ABC had nothing of interest on in that time slot.
LikeLike
look, i like your idea, but here is still how i see it.
1.A) B1G waits til others move 1st ( as we are already seen as bad guys at time)
1.B) we wait for the whole , Wac/MTW/Big East thing to work out. then we can start a new.
now here is my conferences and the teams. ( no non-AQ’s FYI) Now this is how i works . we rank the 5 conferneces each year. and #4 plays #5 at #4’s home staduim. then #1 plays #4/5 in a bcs bowl game. # 2 plays #3 and the winners play one more game. I know that is only 3 BCS bowl games( 4 if you count the play in game between #4), but i think it will gain more in the other Big Bowl games without the BCS Tag. here are you 2016 Conferences:
Pac-14-USC,Ucla,UO,OSU, UA, ASU,Utah,Stanford,Cal,UW,WSU,Colorado. plus Texas ,T A&m
ACC- Miami,GT,VT,Duke,Clemson,BC,FSU,NC,NCS,UV,Wake. plus WV and Pitt
Big Ten- Iowa,OSU,wis,PSU,MSU,UM,Iu, Illinois,Nebraska,NW,Minny,Purdue.plus ND and Mizzou
Beast- Rut, USF, Cuse, Uconn,Cinci,Louis,TCU, plus ISU,KU,KSU,T Tech, Baylor, BYU,UCF
SEC-UF,UG,Bama,Auburn,Ark,USC,Vand,LSU,UM,MSU,UT,UK plus Ou and OSU
LikeLike
Pac-14-
USC,Ucla,UO,OSU,UA,ASU,Utah,Stanford,Cal,UW,WSU,Colorado. plus Texas ,T A&m
ACC- Miami,GT,VT,Duke,Clemson,BC,FSU,NC,NCS,UV,Wake. plus WV and Pitt
Big Ten-
Iowa,OSU,wis,PSU,MSU,UM,Iu,Illinois,Nebraska,NW,Minny,Purdue.plus ND and Mizzou
Beast- Rut, USF, Cuse, Uconn,Cinci,Louis,TCU, plus ISU,KU,KSU,T Tech, Baylor, BYU,UCF
SEC-UF,UG,Bama,Auburn,Ark,USC,Vand,LSU,UM,MSU,UT,UK plus Ou and OSU
LikeLike
Frank,
I actually like this revision a little better than separate playoff with one tweak…your scenario can and eventually will screw either the B10 or P10 champ.
Going with your “cat out of the bag” metaphor, I don’t think the Rose Bowl will now be able to go back to being exclusive to B10/P10 anyway. I think they should be allowed to keep their B10/P10 matchup if BOTH conference champions are in the top 4 or NEITHER is in the top 4. If the B10 champ is in the top 4 and not the P10, the P10 champ loses their seat at the bowl, and vice versa. If the B10 and Rose Bowl are so tied together, then always grant them access to this bowl and flex the P10 champ depending on rankings.
I’ll use 1994 as a reference year since I’m a Penn State. Penn State was #2 and played a bad Oregon team while undefeated Nebraska played 1-loss Miami. Assuming PSU and Neb both win, which they did, they both play for the title. If Miami had won, there were about 4-5 1-loss teams all with a claim to be #2, including Nebraska! From 2001, we know that odd things can happen when #2 is left to the computers/pollsters (even though it is less likely now). This scenario is why the BCS was created over the previous bowl alliance…so that the B10 team doesn’t get screwed out of a shot at the title.
In short, if we’re going to tweak the system, I feel it should be done in a way that arbitrary cutoff is #4 instead of #2. Have the computers and polls set #1-#4, and the bowls adjust accordingly while still trying to maintain previous agreements.
LikeLike
Hey everybody, I just got back into town. No, not from out of town, but I have been mentally away from the Big ten embarrassment of the last 5 bowls. Happy New Years everyone.
Given the back up quarterback situation, I did not expect much from the Wildcats game, but it turns out that offense was not their problem. Even in a loss I think they did OK.
Over all the Big Ten teams up till now, at the lower end of the bowl schedule did way better than the guys at the top.
Thank you Iowa, Illinois, and even Northwestern under the circumstances. Good games all.
Penn State, LORD! You guys did less with more than anyone else. That was a “W” boys. Why didn’t he pull that kid playing QB?
I’m not giving Wisconsin any credit for losing a Rose Bowl they should have won. I just do not see any other option for them but to win that game.
I will though give a lot of credit to the horn frogs for playing well enough to win on a Hugh stage some think they did not belong on. Their QB and coach came off as being real classy to me as well as the team being a good football team.
Horn frogs headed to the Big East eh? I am instantly thinking about the Big 12 and shaking my head. This teams as worthy as Baylor and better than most if not all in the Big 12.
Honestly, I still think there is real merit to the point of being tested most weeks by conference teams in the Big 12 or Big 10. I mean ask Nebraska or Texas if the best laid plans of mice and conference footballers are not often thwarted.
LikeLike
StvInIL,
I hope you did not take my comment as a knock on the wildcats, because it was not. My beef was that it was on ESPNU, so I did not got to see it on TV (I was pissed at whoever did not let the game get a more available outlet. I have no problem with the Wildcats, and Penn State was much closer most of the game than the score would indicate.
I think the real pain came from Michigan and Michigan State (In all fairness, Alabama is a beast who was only 4 pts from being undefeated, and in the MNC game this year again (I still think the USC loss was a fluke, and did not include it). Mississippi State only lost to SEC West teams this season, but the pounding they gave Michigan was much wider than most expected. I still think it is Auburn / LSU at the top, but if alan thinks the Hogs were better than his Tigers this season, it could get very ugly for tOSU.
+
“Honestly, I still think there is real merit to the point of being tested most weeks by conference teams in the Big 12 or Big 10.”
+
I still agree 100% with you on this, and why I think the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC are just a harder week to week life. I put the Pac 10 and the ACC on the next rung down, and everybody else below that. Not to disrespect the TCU’s and Boise States of the world, but my guess is at the end of the season they have fewer banged up bodies than the conferences that bang each other week in and week out.
LikeLike
duff – speaking of the SEC West, here’s a list of the five ranked SECW teams’ losses, ranking of the team that defeated them at the time, and location:
#1 Auburn – zero losses
#8 Arkansas – #1 Bama , at #7 Auburn
#11 LSU – at #4 Auburn, at #12 Arkansas
#16 Alabama – at #19 South Carolina, at #10 LSU, #2 Auburn
#21 Miss State – #21 Auburn, at #15 LSU, at #12 Alabama, #13 Arkansas
Note only one loss outside of the division. South Carolina caught Bama in Columbia, at the end of a brutal 3-game stretch.
If LSU and Arkansas win their bowl games, this might be the most impressive showing of any division in any conference – ever.
LikeLike
Penn State, LORD! You guys did less with more than anyone else. That was a “W” boys. Why didn’t he pull that kid playing QB?
True “that kid playing QB” had 5 INTs, however, PSU was leading the game into the 4th quarter. Having had a couple of days for the loss to “boil down,” I am more in agreement with the decision to leave in the “interception machine.” PSU was only down 6 when “that kid” threw his fourth INT, PSU had about a minute left and was at about the Florida 30, driving to the potential winning TD. The INT was a bad pass that resulted in a pick six. The fifth and final INT was in the final drive, a vain comeback attempt within the last 50 seconds or so, really meant nothing and not too surprising under the circumstances.
OBTW, reports are now that “that kid’s” backup (who as a freshman started and played to a 3-3 record in the first six games, pretty poor performances in general but showed potential) had already made up his mind to transfer before the bowl game. Might be that’s why he didn’t get off the pine.
Actually PSU has been credited with “doing more with less” as they spend less on athletics, yet occasionally do perform well enough to win a shared conference title. Ugh. I would say “take our coach, please” but he is high mileage and knowing the Penn State penchant to hire “at low cost” and “within the PSU ‘family'” I’m not sure his replacement would coach a hell of a lot better. Double ugh.
PSU will be lucky to make a bowl game next year, which will actually be kinda good if that avoids embarrassment for the conference. They’ll just take the check, thank you, and spend it on some new shrine for JoePa.
LikeLike
Uh, PSU’s athletic department rakes in more money than all but 5 schools in the whole country, and they & their neighbor Ohio have the best recruiting grounds in the B10, not to mention that they’re the only B10 school that’s situated close to fertile recruiting areas outside the B10 (Virginia/Maryland/DC & NJ).
If PSU has “less”, then I’m not sure what 110+ other FCS schools have.
LikeLike
PSU actually SPENDS quite little in comparison to other big time programs, like OSU and Texas.
You are correct however in that they bring in quite a bit (near the top in the nation) of money via fundraising.
LikeLike
Well, it’s hard(er) to win if you’re cheap. Any idea why? At most schools, boosters/fans wouldn’t be happy contending for bowl games when the program has the potential to contend for conference and national titles.
LikeLike
I heard that same rumor too and to be honest, if that’s the case then good riddance to him.
I mean I thought he showed a lot of good stuff earlier in the season and it was a just a combination of teams getting tape on him, concussions, and adjusting to the speed at the big stage level that left him trailing off mid-way through the season (and he couldn’t rely on the run to save him like Pryor did), but if after that bowl game the kid really isn’t excited to come in and compete for the starting job next year (lets be honest…the only reason why we lost was McGloin, why wouldn’t it be up for competition?) then we’re not going to have to worry about him becoming a top notch QB any time soon.
LikeLike
Actually, just another thought, but I wonder how true that will be once JoePa moves on.
I mean look at history…early 2000’s and the AD and President went to Joe to talk about him moving on. He threw them out, but I think its important to note they recognize how important putting a winning football program together is.
It doesn’t have to be perennial NC contender (and to be honest with the type of unethical crap you need to do to be a NC contender nowadays I don’t think PSU would allow it), but 7+ wins per season I think is mandatory.
What’s more, they eventually caved to the Wrestling Alumni when their head coach never really put the talent he had available to good use. They were going to hire a highly respected local guy until arguably the best wrestling coach in the nation asked if he could interview and next thing you know he’s hired (and head of the new Olympic Wrestling Training Ground). He didn’t come cheap (as wrestling coaches go), but they didn’t hesitate in offering him the job.
I think the problem is they know JoePa truly is more powerful than the AD/Pres. He’s too well respected everywhere and still puts decent product on the field while never dragging PSU’s name though the mud.
He may not win another NC, but he still fills the stadium and in the end that’s all that matters.
LikeLike
Nevermind the previous post; you answered my question.
LikeLike
@ PSUGuy
I agree that they’ve accepted the current situation.
I mean Penn State is in such a great position looking forward (averaging 105k+ fans, huge revenue streams, facilities, etc.), that it doesn’t matter if they don’t win a NC for the next few years (or how ever long Paterno remains in coaching).
Penn State has seemed to me to be in a bit of a holding pattern with the next coach (or the one after that) being the one with the burden of national championship expectations.
LikeLike
Well, to maintain that great position, they’d need to keep that 105K attendance.
You could argue that that’s the main reason why JoePa is still around and BBowden isn’t: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2010/09/florida-state-attendance-woes-a-closer-look.html
LikeLike
Oh, what’s the Big deal? Looks like Evanston on a good day.
LikeLike
Strangely enough, some schools (especially those that pay their coaching staff several times what NU does) expect better than high school-level attendance.
LikeLike
Totally agree Richard. My response was tongue in cheek by the way. 🙂
LikeLike
Why is Delany such an ass? Admit you made a mistake and fix it! That’s what real leaders do.
From http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0103-big-ten-foot–20110102,0,1105935.story:
He hinted that Legends and Leaders will remain the Big Ten’s division names, saying: “We’ll give it time to breathe. I think ultimately it will be a sustainable thing.”
Cognizant of the snickering out there, Delany added: “We certainly didn’t create any legends (Saturday), but how you handle defeat is part of the lesson of becoming a leader.”
There’s also the reality that if you take famous names (Bo and Woody) and geography off the table, there simply are no crowd-pleasing choices out there.
“Well, we didn’t spend seven months just twiddling our thumbs,” Delany said. “Whenever you deal with generics, you may get 7 percent support, 70 percent disinterest and the rest of the group might say, ‘I prefer Valor and Courage.’ ”
And from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/01/02/jim-harbaugh-coaching-carousel/1.html:
As for the oft-mocked Legends and Leaders division labels, it doesn’t sound like the commissioner is relenting on his creations. “People have the right to agree or disagree, but they honor the objective of what we’re trying to do,” Delany said. “We had a rough day, but when you consider what we’re trying to do with the concept of leaders — I think everyone has to pick themselves up and move on with your life. If you can’t do that, then you really haven’t learned anything about what it means to be a leader.”
I said before this jackass was arrogant enough to keep the names despite everyone hating them. This whole bit about reviewing them is just a delaying tactic to get people to move on to other things. Once football is done, people will forget about the names.
LikeLike
Honestly, I was scratching my head a few years back when there were some in Pennsylvania rumbling about it being time for Jopa to go. It did not make sense then and not now. He will go when he’s ready. His coaching staff by now is a machine and the recruiting grounds of PA, VA, NJ and OH aren’t going anywhere. When he does go there will be a wealth of people who will want that job who are great coaches or will be real soon. This is assuming that someone is not chosen from his current staff for continuity sake. This is sometimes the best bet.
On another note, it was a great season for Sparty. But they wont be able to live down or forget that last one.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/01/nu-loses-receivers-coach-to-indiana.html
Indiana is setting aside $2M to hire assistant coaches with, which I think is a very smart thing for a school like Indiana to do (Kevin Wilson will make $1.2M; at a lot of programs, the head coach makes as much or more than all the assistants combined). Right now, I think head coaches are overvalued and good assistant coaches are undervalued. To get the most bang for its buck, I think it makes a lot of sense for a school like Indiana to hire a relative unknown as head coach but shell out money to get good assistants.
LikeLike
I am not quite sure what the impact was that Johns had on this team. I am sure in the recruiting end he was of value. I believe it’s the system that is the biggest draw coupled with W’s. So we wish him luck but not too much. It’s not like Indi has had problems finding or developing wide-outs. They have had enough there that they have been able to turn a couple over to the defensive backfield to fill needs.
LikeLike
Will Terrelle Pryor be suspended before the Sugar, er, Auto Direct Sugar Bowl? Haha, yeah right.
For some reason the link isn’t posting, but from the Sporting News article:
Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor was stopped for traffic violations three times in the past three years while driving cars owned by a car salesman or used-car lot, but an Ohio State investigation determined nothing improper occurred, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
Pryor was pulled over twice in early 2010 driving a Dodge that was registered to Auto Direct, a used-car dealership in Columbus. In 2008, Pryor was pulled over driving a 2004 GMC Denali, registered to Aaron Kniffin, a car salesman at Auto Direct. Ohio State was unaware of the 2008 traffic stop, but told the Dispatch it would investigate…
BTW, I’m getting really tired of Jim Tressell’s ‘Aw shucks, I had no idea there was gambling taking place in this establishment’ BS. He’s one of the biggest phonies in college football.
LikeLike
Why would Pryor be suspended for getting a loaner car just like other customers? It’s not against the rules.
Perhaps you should save Tressel comments for a story that actually mentions him in some way, shape or form. It’s a little disingenuous to throw them in after a long quote of an article which doesn’t mention him.
LikeLike
Agree. But you have heard the old saying, “where there is smoke, there is fire?” Ohio state success, probably the most successful football program in the Big Ten over the past ten years has shined a light on the program, right or wrong. The best way to clean that up is for TOSU to shine a brighter light on itself and move on.
LikeLike
With the dealer covering his story, Ohio St. didn’t have any grounds for a violation.
But I hope you aren’t saying you believe the story? How many times have any of you gotten a loaner car? And it doesn’t discuss what price he got on the “engine replacement.” Also doesn’t discuss if those tickets were 2 days apart or 20. Or why anyone would write an anonymous letter if something out of the ordinary wasn’t going on.
LikeLike
Most people only have to hear half the story on a news update. Depending on their disposition to tOSU they may instantly think negative or in Columbus, chose to ignore all.
LikeLike
I believe this story at least as much as I believe Cam Newton’s.
While I’ve never gotten a loaner car, I do know people that have. I’ll accept the dealer’s story until it is proven false.
There are no details on the stops, so who knows what was going on?
LikeLike
Well, no one (except the NCAA) believes Cam’s story, Brian.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Probably the most successful? It’s not even close.
2001-2010 stats
OSU: 106-22 (2nd best winning % nationally, 3rd most wins), 1 national title, 7 Big Ten titles, 3 national title games (1-2), 8 BCS bowls total (5-3, 4-2 non-NCG)
WI: 88-41 (17th win %, 14th wins), 1 Big Ten title, 1 BCS bowl (0-1)
Iowa: 85-41 (18th win %, 20th wins), 2 Big Ten titles, 2 BCS bowls (1-1)
PSU: 79-45 (24th win %, 26th wins), 2 Big Ten titles, 2 BCS bowls (1-1)
MI: 79-46 (26th win %, 26th wins), 2 Big Ten titles, 3 BCS bowls (0-3)
Better comparisons to OSU:
Boise: 114-16 (1st win%, 1st wins), 8 WAC titles, 2 BCS bowls (2-0)
Texas: 106-23 (3rd win %, 3rd wins), 1 national title, 2 Big 12 titles, 2 NCG (1-1), 4 BCS bowls total (3-1)
USC: 94-24 (5th win %, 11th wins), 1 national title*, 6 Pac-10 titles, 1 NCG (0-1), 6 BCS bowls total (5-1)
OU: 109-26 (4th win %, 2nd wins), 6 Big 12 titles, 3 NCG (0-3), 7 BCS bowls total (2-5)
LSU: 101-29 (7th win %, 6th wins), 2 national titles, 3 SEC titles, 2 NCG (2-0), 4 BCS bowls total (4-0)
FL: 98-32 (8th win %, 7th wins), 2 national titles, 2 SEC titles, 2 NCG (2-0), 4 BCS bowls total (4-0)
LikeLike
It’s somewhat amazing that Texas has won the B12 only 2 times the last 10 years despite being 3rd in winning percentage over that time.
LikeLike
#4 OU has won 6 of those 10. The other two were upsets, KSU over OU and CU over Texas.
Its interesting that #2,#3 or #4 will not be in the BCS game this year for the 1st time since 2001 when UNL made it after Texas got upset by CU. OU won it all in 2000. So after 8 straight years, 9 of 10 and almost 10 straight, neither OU, Texas nor Ohio St. will be in the BCS game. And it was always 1 of them, never 2.
LikeLike
It’s somewhat amazing that Texas has won the B12 only 2 times the last 10 years despite being 3rd in winning percentage over that time.
Simplest answer is OU is better coached. It took 2 phenom athletes in VY and Colt McCoy to play in the faux nat’l title games despite Mack and especially OC Greg Davis. Nice guys, but not the best gameday coaches. As much as it pains me to say it, the B12 in football was OU’s conference.
LikeLike
LikeLike
sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-01-02/report-no-violations-with-terrelle-pryors-cars
LikeLike
You’ll have to add in the:
h
t
t
p
and the
w
w
w
LikeLike
While the Big Ten and Pac-10 may want to preserve the traditional Rose Bowl tie-ins, the folks in Pasadena could have other ideas. Largest crowd for the game since 1998, over 1,000,000 at the parade, hotels, restaurants and bars doing land office business – none of that would have happened with a Pac-10 team in the game.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/01/business/la-fi-rose-bowl-20110101
Go Frogs.
LikeLike
From what I saw on TV last night, the Orange Bowl would have been glad not to have a Pac 10 team. It looked like a LOT of empty seats. This was one of those years where the bowls would have done much better if they could have worked things out. UConn might have sold some tickets to the Orange, Stanford definitely would have in the Rose and TCU still would have in the Fiesta. A few more years like this one and the other 3 bowls may be begging for an 8 team playoff every bit as much as the Sugar begged for Terrell Pryor.
LikeLike
The Rose was contractually obligated to take TCU this year, so no other bowl could have taken TCU even if they wanted them. The Rose Bowl had agreed to take a non-AQ team, provided it finished in the BCS top 12, the first time it lost a team to the national title game, but would only have to do so once every four years. The reason for this is that the Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar had become aggravated about having to take low-ratings and/or poor-traveling Big East, ACC, and non-AQ teams while the Rose Bowl could count on great ratings and ticket sales from Big Ten and Pac-10 powers. (As I understand it, the other bowls were the ones applying the pressure for non-AQ access to the Rose Bowl, not the non-AQ’s themselves. Delany seemed to paint a different picture.)
Still Stanford could have gone to the Fiesta, which, compared to the Orange, is in Stanford’s back yard.
It looks to me like the Orange was the party that was most short-sighted. They went for higher TV ratings with #4 Stanford while ignoring the better ticket sales (and hotel rooms and restaurant sales) that UConn likely would have brought. In the process, the Orange also brought the Fiesta down with it.
LikeLike
Surprised nothing’s on here yet. Detroit Free Press reporting RichRod is going to be fired.
LikeLike
Well, it wouldn’t really count as news.
LikeLike
Question: Is Harbaugh the answer? I don’t know. Liked him as a QB here in Chi and he was successful elsewhere. He has had a nice run at Stanford. That’s good. But so did Ty, Tyrone Willingham. His next step up did not work out so well. Unless Harbough is bringing a defense with him, I don’t really know what a coaching change does at this point. Myself, I would give the man one more year kinda like the U of I did with Zook.
LikeLike
The fans just never accepted RR. At all. I think his crying and “lift me up” antics did more to lose the job than anything else.
I think RR is an ok guy and if the fans hadn’t gone nuts on him, he’d be around. Ideally, I think anybody should get 4 years. I still don’t think he was a crazy hire as some around here think.
Hoke is the apparent frontrunner per the rumor mill.
LikeLike
Michigan has always been my 2nd team after TX, and I was appalled at the hiring of the shady RR. Sure enough, he sullied the program (though that’s also on the AD for hiring him with his reputation) and performed dismally. Good riddance and not a moment too soon.
LikeLike
He’s sure not a typical M kind of guy.
I just mean that he seems to really try hard. I think he’s more of a doofus than an intentionally bad person. Maybe I read him wrong.
LikeLike
I’m with you on the 4 year bit. Its the 4th year when your recruits really hit their 3rd year. And many of them will be redshirt sophomores.
Lindy’s had a contrary point of view. In an article they pointed out the past 10 national champs:
OU-season 2 for Stoops
Miami-1 for Coker
OSU-2 for Tressel
LSU-4 for Saban
USC-4 for Carrol
Texas-8 for Brown (but he had already turned things around)
FL-2 for Meyer
LSU-3 for Miles
FL-Meyer again-season 4
AL-3 for Saban
Chizik & Kelly are in their 2nd year.
LikeLike
RichRod NOT Fired, yet!
As of 7pm, the ABC and NBC affiliates in Detroit are reporting that Rodriguez met with the AD from 2pm – 6pm today with no final decision on RichRods fate. Apparently, Fox Sports and the Detroit Free Press jumped the gun with their earlier reports. Not sure what’s going on. It shouldn’t take 4 hours to fire a coach or give him a performance review. The only thing I can think of is that, since Harbaugh apparently isn’t coming to Ann Arbor, they may let RichRod keep his job if he fires all of the defensive coaches. This is really turning into a cluster fuck! Almost as bad as Pitt:-)
LikeLike
Kind of. They don’t think Hoke would be better than RichRod? I think the talking heads at ESPN have it right; RichRod may be a good coach, and if he gets the chance, he’ll succeed in the BE, B12, or Pac10, but his style of football just doesn’t work in the B10 (and his personality doesn’t work at Michigan).
LikeLike
Yeah, this is really nutty right now.
What the hell are they doing?! Fire him or don’t.
Maybe RR has some incriminating photos or something!
I honestly like Hoke or Miles for this job. I can’t see any others that fit. I think I have heard them all a this point; someone even mentioned Fitzgerald. He’d be perfect, but I don’t see it happening.
LikeLike
Harbaugh put together a defense at Stanford that has shut down many teams. MI is easier to recruit to and wasn’t that bad when RichRod arrived. He killed the defense by driving off players and forcing the 3-3-5 on a team not built for it. Then he hired a DC who has never run it. It is hard work to make a defense as bad as MI’s this year. They are historically bad.
Harbaugh will also understand the culture at MI. He would not commit major NCAA violations (1st ever for MI) or downplay the OSU rivalry.
Folks around WV have been nervous about how shady the program was under RichRod. For all the hype, he hasn’t actually won that much.
7 years at WV:
60-26 (34-14 in conference)
1 outright BE title (only 7-0 year)
3 split BE titles
2+ BE losses 4 of 7 years
He only won 10+ games with Pat White
A coaching change would wipe out the negative energy in the program right now. A good coach will get them back fairly quickly. Think of the playing time available to new recruits.
As Jeremy Foley says, what will be done eventually must be done now.
LikeLike
I don’t think Harbaugh would choose Michigan over the NFL, but Hoke (who, IMHo, has a more impressive resume than RichRod) would do better than RR as well.
LikeLike
I totally agree about how good Hoke is. Before Hoke came to Ball State, the team made Duke football look awesome. When he was there, they had a season starting 12-0, losing only the last two games. The next season, after he left, Ball State completely fell apart again. The guy’s unbelievable.
LikeLike
I’m gonna miss that guy.
LikeLike
As a Michigan State fan, I’m sure you would!
LikeLike
Me too. Maybe just another 4 or 5 years (to fully balance out John Cooper)?
LikeLike
It’s been a foregone conclusion for most of us up here in Michigan that RicRod would be fired, especially after the Gator Bowl disaster and his buyout dropped to $2.5m from $4m on January 1st. Not much to get excited about.
Detroit papers are reporting that Harbaugh has turned down Michigan and will either stay at Stanford or go to the 49ers. My guess is Brady Hoke is the man. He coached the defensive line for Lloyd Carr several years ago before moving to Ball State and SDSU. Most Wolverine fans probably haven’t heard of Hoke, but no one know who Schembechler was either:-)
LikeLike
Big East and ACC teams shouldn’t play bowl games west of Texas, and Pac-10 teams shouldn’t play bowl games east of Texas. It’s just too far for the fans to be asked to travel.
LikeLike
I have to think the economy has something to do with it more than the gross distance. The Rose and Sugar are seemingly the only economy proof bowls.
LikeLike
I think Stanford fans just don’t show up that well no matter where they are. Their home attendance was a bit disappointing considering the season they had.
LikeLike
From ESPN
Report: Michigan fires Rich Rodriguez
January, 4, 2011 Jan 43:01PM ETEmail Print Comments41 By Adam RittenbergThe axe has fallen on Rich Rodriguez after three seasons at Michigan, according to Fox TV in Detroit.
The station reports that Michigan fired Rodriguez earlier Tuesday. Rodriguez and athletic director Dave Brandon were scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. ET. The team has a meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. ET.
Rodriguez has a 15-22 record as Wolverines coach.
There is still no official confirmation from Michigan.
I’ll have much more as the story develops, so don’t go anywhere.
LikeLike
As long as Michigan stays away from my Crazy Uncle Les.
LikeLike
Wetzel hits another home run on Pryor, OSU, bowls, and the NCAA. Grand slam:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-pryor010311
LikeLike
I want to make a note on the theory that the SEC’s rise to domination is related to the nation’s population shift to the South: Population isn’t actually shifting towards most of the SEC states. In fact, most of the SEC states are not growing at a rate much higher than Big Ten states.
9 of the 12 SEC schools are located in Southern states between the Atlantic coast and Texas/Oklahoma. These states–Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama–are not where all that “Sun Belt boom” is occurring. Alabama, for instance, grew by 7.5% b/tw 2000 and 2010; Indiana’s growth rate was 1% less, but because Indiana had more people to begin with, it actually gained more new residents than Alabama did.
Now, is Florida growing at a faster rate? Absolutely–even with the most conservative estimation, Florida is set to pass New York to become third in population behind only California and Texas within ten years. Is Georgia growing fast? Yes, and it will soon pass Michigan to be 8th in population. And South Carolina is growing fast as well, although SC still has fewer people than all Big Ten states but Iowa and Nebraska.
In addition to Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, more sifnificant population growth within the South is occurring further up the Atlantic coast, i.e., in ACC-only states: North Carolina, Virginia, and to a lesser extent, Maryland (if you can call Maryland the South). Yet with all that growth, the ACC, which also has schools in the SEC’s rapid-growth states, has actually been declining in football performance.
Growth is also much, much more significant in the state directly west of SEC land. Texas is decidedly Big 12 country. Sure, SEC schools recruit there, but it’s not their home turf any more than it is the Big Ten’s.
So can we put to rest the idea that the SEC is doing so we’ll because of a population shift? There are still a lot more people living in Big Ten states overall than there are in SEC states. It’s been that way as long as college football has been around, and that fact won’t change for decades (barring SEC expansion into Texas or North Carolina).
LikeLike
Good points. I think part of the perception has been the ability of several southern states to attract more high profile industrial plants and relocations, though that often masks in-state losses in other areas. Foreign auto plants are a good example. Also the notable growth of mid-sized sub-regional hubs such as Nashville, Huntsville, and Bentonville-Fayetteville that offset the states’ out migration to Atlanta, Florida, Texas, and NC.
LikeLike
The SEC is doing well because they have coaches that are bringing in the right recruits to win and their premiere programs (and even second tier programs) have mostly been doing well this decade.
I mean all this talk of SEC dominance is of the past 5 years.
What’s happened is that several of the SEC teams are firing on all cylinders while the rest of the conferences only have 1 or 2 schools that can really compete at the top level, if that.
I mean, the fact that the ACC has Miami and FSU and neither has been relevant this decade speaks to the fact that population isn’t necessarily destiny if you don’t have the right coaches to recruit and develop talent.
It has more to do with the fact that the SEC has been getting the best coaches, and they’ve been putting together championship-level teams, all within a few years of each other.
Then again, no other conference can really do that. The Big Ten might be able to in the future if all of its top 4 programs were firing on all cylinders but Penn State won’t threaten for a national title until after the Paterno era, Michigan is going to take years to rebuild with how their situation is, and Nebraska still looks to be a bit away from being a true contender. Iowa and Wisconsin haven’t yet taken the next step by putting together truly dominant teams that can run the table and reach the MNC.
The SEC has Florida and Alabama along with LSU and Auburn that have had years this past decade where they’ve been firing on all cylinders (in all 4 of those cases, we’re talking about multiple championship contending years). This is even with Georgia and Tennessee which have the means with which to contend largely being non-factors.
A part of this is just that so many programs are hitting coaching turnover so fast but only the SEC schools have really been able to bring in the very top coaches.
Look at the Big East, almost every job has changed hands over the past 2 years, so it looks like a perpetual rebuilding project. Some of the other coaches don’t seem to really be doing anything a la Schiano.
The Big 12 has Texas and Oklahoma which have both been relevant the past decade, but the rest of the programs like Missouri, Kansas State, and Texas Tech haven’t been able to take the next step.
The Pac-10 was USC and everyone else earlier in the decade, although Oregon is now starting to look like it could have staying power, especially if it contends annually for the Pac-12 North. But USC is going to be down, and Stanford may not be anywhere near as strong as it is now once Harbaugh is gone (if he is).
To me it just comes down to coaching, if Nebraska had been relevant this whole past decade, then the Big 12 might have been the strongest conference (and it already has had more MNC participants anyways in the BCS era; correct me if I’m wrong, but I think they have).
As it is, the Big Ten is still a ways away from really being able to contend with the SEC in terms of quality of teams at the top. Until Penn State is back in the national championship discussion along with Michigan and Nebraska consistently, the Big Ten won’t really be as competitive as it could be…
LikeLike
Good point. The top ACC schools pay their coaches as much as a mid-level SEC school. The B10 and Pac12 schools also don’t pay their coaches as much as the SEC. Only Texas can match the top of the SEC.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-coaches-contracts-table.htm
You see something similiar with assistant salaries as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-coaches-contracts-database.htm
9 SEC coaches (actually, 10 now with Dan Mullens joining the list) pay their head coach >$2M and all are in or near fertile recruiting grounds. Only Cal, GTech, Oklahoma, SMU(!), Texas, VTech, Wake(!), and maybe tOSU (if you consider Ohio fertile); maaaaybe Rutgers (NJ fertile?) have the same combination of coaching and proximity to talent.
LikeLike
@zeek,
Exactly! It has very little to do with population growth and so much more with coaching. I would add, though, that the SEC has also been able to exploit its enormous recruiting advantage better than it did in the past. LSU is getting recruits from Louisiana that used to get picked up by Florida State and schools that recruited nationally (like Notre Dame). Alabama and Auburn are both off probation and don’t have to watch the state’s best go to other schools. The Mississippi schools are also retaining in-state talent.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s true.
But it’s all a part of coaching.
I mean when we talk about SEC recruits, we’re talking about Georgia and Florida as much as anything else.
Those two states are also the prime grounds for Miami/Florida State/Georgia Tech. When those schools have good coaches (especially the first two), they can put together teams that are as dominant as any SEC team. It’s just that they’ve been mediocre for most of the past decade…
LikeLike
SEC recruiting is done mostly with home state players, is it not? Most Alabama & Auburn players are from Alabama, most Georgia players from Georgia, most LSU players from Louisiana, etc. Tennessee & Kentucky have to try to steal players from the Gulf Coast states.
A big difference now compared with years ago is that FSU used to be able to get players from Louisiana (Warrick Dunn comes to mind) and Texas, while Miami was able to get all the best players in South Florida. Now, LSU is keeping those Louisiana players, Florida is getting South Florida players, and Texas is keeping more Texas players. I’m not so sure how much things have changed as far as the rest of the SEC recruiting more heavily in Florida and Georgia than they did in the past.
LikeLike
as small as it is, kentucky still produces some excellent players. I think shawn alexander’s run at alabama started in kentucky. as have others. the problem is volume of players, and keeping them in state. Louisville and northern kentucky (southern Cincinnati) have powerful high school teams that go on to D 1 and pro level play. just can not keep them in state. Since basketball has smaller teams (hence fewer players) states like Indiana, Kentucky, and Kansas can assemble basketball teams easier.
LikeLike
I say right now it has more to do with available athletes. There are simply more of them on some of those high school teams down south than there are on the ones up north. Football is also more of a religion down south too. Sure it’s real popular up North but in general, with all our big cities, it’s not the only game in town. So what this means is that some states like Florida and Texas has more than enough to fill rosters in state and many kids go where they can get a Division I scholarship. Most big ten teams have at least a couple of Floridians. Not a lot of Texans but that would have changed if Texas had joined he conference. There will always be a slot up North for a good athlete who is willing to invest the time and in and education.
LikeLike
I’ll go along with coaching being the biggest factor. But the aging of the midwest masks the impact in terms of total population. That has hampered the Big 10.
There are a couple of other factors: the emphasis on speed has benefitted the SEC which heavily recruits rapidly growing Florida. And some is just cyclical (just like Big 12 South vs. North and SEC West vs. East). In 2005 the SEC was 5th in ooc win % vs. FBS. From 98-2005 they were 1st just twice. They’ve been 1st from 2006-2009. This year depends on the remaining bowls as to whether Big 12 or SEC is #1.
LikeLike
The Big 12 schools have improved their programs and significantly increased Texas recruiting. The MWC which has made great strides has increased their Texas base from 12% of their roster before TCU to 17% (Commissioner mentioned that as an expansion consideration). The Big 10 schools do need to expand their recruiting areas as their proportion of the nation’s students shrink if they want to stay near the top. But the coach IS the most important factor.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you’re saying, and I think it means that the Big Ten will become much more heavily dependent on having the best coaching in order to compete with schools in other conferences.
The fact is that Michigan and probably Ohio State as well will have to look more like Nebraska in terms of bringing in recruits nationally. Penn State will probably not have to do as much because it already has major pull on the NJ/MD areas in the northeast…
Just look at that Stanford team from last night. Most of the starters were from a variety of states all over the country from the coasts and the south as well as Texas.
Virginia Tech’s starters were mostly from Virginia and the Appalachian area…
The Big Ten will have it much harder in the future than the other conferences since it won’t be attached to any of the 4 fastest growing areas in NC/VA, Cali, Texas, and Florida, but it can remain in the hunt if it can get the coaches to do so. Of course, if great coaches decide not to make the jump to the Big Ten, then that would really pose a long term threat, but there’ll probably be enough out there.
LikeLike
@zeek,
You’re definitely right about Ohio State and Michigan needing to look more like Nebraska in recruiting. I read a piece by Ivan Maisel this past summer about how Ohio high school football has suffered due to dwindling populations in certain parts of the state, especially Youngstown. With the loss of jobs and population has come the loss of a tax base to support h.s. teachers’ salaries, including coaches. Athletics have been cut out of the desperate need to save money.
Still, Ohio State and Michigan do have the best local recruiting in the Big Ten, besides maybe Penn State. They’ll still get their states’ best players. It’s the rest of the league that has to recruit nationally because there just aren’t as many great high school players west of Ohio.
LikeLike
@zeek,
Speaking of that Stanford team, I am so impressed with the job Jim Harbaugh has done. He HAD to recruit nationally for Stanford because finding players who qualify academically requires going all over the nation. From what I understand, Toby Gerheart and Andrew Luck were both high school valedictorians; it’s not easy to assemble a roster of mediocre talent where that’s the standard, let alone a roster with great talent.
Michigan ought to be bending over backwards to get Harbaugh as their coach.
LikeLike
For all the Big Ten fans: what would it really mean for the Big Ten to be “back?”
Another way of putting it: Do you have in mind a time when you thought, “Man, the Big Ten is the best league in the country?” Was there a certain reason you thought that?
The reason I ask these questions is that it seems the SEC’s string of championships seems to have redefined what it means for a conference to be great. As recently as mid-season 2006, the Big Ten was widely respected as one of, if not the, best leagues in the country.
I don’t mean this disrepectfully, but that respect of the Big Ten could not have come from national titles: Michigan in ’97 and Ohio State in ’02 are the only national championship seasons in the past 40 (although Penn State in ’94 should have counted). The respect of the Big Ten as a great league had to have come from something else… what was that? Was it from winning Heisman Trophies? From winning Rose Bowls and other BCS bowls? From beating the SEC in the Citrus & Outback? From winning big-time regular season non-conference games?
Other than Ohio State and Michigan’s titles, what was the Big Ten doing in the late 90’s and early 2000’s that is missing today?
LikeLike
The Big Ten was respected because we were winning bowl games, going to a lot of BCS bowls, and generally just matching up well in ooc tests. The explanation for the lack of NC competitors was that teams were beating each other up.
The problem now is the past 5 years have clearly exposed the Big Ten as being top heavy. Ohio State has been the only national championship competitor the past couple of years, and they’ve taken it on the chin in a lot of big games (2 BCS NCs along with some big games with Texas and USC).
What the Big Ten is missing today is Michigan and Penn State being able to compete in the national championship race at the same time as Ohio State. They’ve both been close (top 2 for Michigan or Penn State as recently as the past 4-5 years for each), but neither has been in the BCS NC game itself.
For better or worse, the Big Ten is always going to be measured by how Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and now Nebraska are doing because they’re the national brands.
Michigan falling off the map in 2007 along with Ohio State’s stumbles in big games, and Penn State’s inability to get to an NC recently are the three things that have to be turned around for the Big Ten to really be back.
Iowa and Wisconsin are doing as well as they ever have, so they’re doing what they can to improve the Big Ten, but no one outside the Midwest sees them as anything but the “second tier” behind the national brands. Michigan State is in the same position; they haven’t yet cracked the code of being consistently an elite team.
To me, your question is simply answered that we’re missing Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State all being relevant at the same time…
LikeLike
I’d just interject that OSU did not “take it on the chin” from Texas. They lost on a last minute drive to a team that many thought should be playing for the title.
Also, one big problem you didn’t mention is the Big Ten suffered greatly by facing USC at the height of its powers. The SEC never faced Pete Carroll’s USC in a bowl. The Rose Bowl beatings of IL and PSU coupled with the regular season losses by OSU really hurt.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s fair.
LikeLike
brian,
you can call me all wet, but I for one would have enjoyed the Auburn / U$C game instead of U$C / OU. In my discussions with alan on this board I am more convinced of the defense in the SEC teams. Teams like Auburn and LSU do not generally have high scoring teams (this year is an outlier for Auburn). What they do have is the ability to hold high scoring teams to a half or a quarter of their normal offensive points.
In 03/04 LSU held high scoring OU to 14 points!
In 05/05 Auburn held Va Tech to 13 points!
If Michigan could hold U$C to 28 points in the 2004 Rose Bowl. I could easily see Auburn holding U$C to 2 or 3 touchdowns the following year. If you are holding the opponent down to that few scores, I could see an Auburn 21 U$C 14 type score.
I said to alan before this season that his tigers can not score, but they can hit. I think this is the real “asset” of the SEC as opposed to the “speed” often quoted. In conference they pound each other week after week, so when bowl season rolls around they are just used to getting hit, and hitting back.
If the Big 10 want to move up in quality, they are going to have to do it by improving the middle and bottom of the conference. Sure U$C is in many a MNC hunt, but at the expense of the rest of the conference. We saw the same thing in the Big 12 (with UNL, OU, and UT getting the lions share of the power.
I just think the gap between the top of the SEC and the middle is MUCH smaller than any of the other major conferences.
LikeLike
duffman,
Many/most SEC fans were clamoring for a chance to play USC during their run, so I believe you. I’m just saying there is a decent chance USC would have won some of those games. This could have saved the Big Ten some losses and maybe cost the SEC a bit of their reputation. A game or two here and there can make a big difference.
USC was on par with the top SEC teams, so the games would have been interesting. Certainly better than USC/IL.
LikeLike
Yes, being on the plus side after the bowls. You have to be a better than average team for the most part to get to a bowl. And in the bowls the teams are often matched up fairly well. After the preconference you have (predicable) winners and losers, after the conference season we have winners. Finally the conference collective efforts can be measured in the bowls cross section matchups.
LikeLike
Good point. The top ACC schools pay their coaches as much as a mid-level SEC school. The B10 and Pac12 schools also don’t pay their coaches as much as the SEC. Only Texas can match the top of the SEC.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-coaches-contracts-table.htm
You see something similiar with assistant salaries as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-coaches-contracts-database.htm
9 SEC coaches (actually, 10 now with Dan Mullens joining the list) pay their head coach >$2M and all are in or near fertile recruiting grounds. Only Cal, GTech, Oklahoma, SMU(!), Texas, VTech, Wake(!), and maybe tOSU (if you consider Ohio fertile); maaaaybe Rutgers (NJ fertile?) have the same combination of coaching and proximity to talent.
LikeLike
So let me get this straight…Nick Saban at MSU sucks…Nick Saban at LSU/Bama is amazing coach?
Please.
While I’m not going to marginalize the level of good coaching in the SEC or the shifting of population levels, lets not just spread honey all over the SEC’s @$$ and tell it how sweet it is.
For most of this decade (and before), the SEC has been notorious for “grey area” rule infractions such as over-signing and out-right lying to potential recruits regarding their possibilities of playing.
I read Florida, an amazing school academically, had a 35% Federal Graduation Rate for its football team (and only had ~50% when you use the looser NCAA rates). That speaks to an incredible level of “churn” (ie: kids coming to that school then transferring). Other SEC schools are similar (interestingly enough, Saban at Bama has been decent in that area).
Facts are the SEC schools do a lot of good things to develop top notch programs…get good coaches, facilities, etc.
But facts are also facts, they tend to treat their programs like pro teams and their players like disposable commodities.
IMO anyway.
LikeLike
“I read Florida, an amazing school academically, had a 35% Federal Graduation Rate for its football team.”
This is absolutely a Hugh factor that is not mentioned at all. For my money we need to see this number before every game along with the win loss record. It is certainly relevant.
And if they want to flash some guys yardage and touchdown numbers, they should also be flashing a GPA. While it’s not relevant in the pros, I think the numbers and the W’s and L’s that make recruits want to go to a college should include these. 35% Graduation is a total failure. So is 50%. These are state schools and we should ask for better results.
LikeLike
Some factors in recent SEC success (not all apply to every school):
1. Mercenary attitude. The schools/fans are more willing to win at all costs. Some examples:
1a. Bigger coaching budgets. They spend more, especially for assistants. More money usually leads to better coaches.
1b. Oversigning (especially in the SEC West). More players through the system mean fewer holes in the depth.
1c. Lower standards for players.
1d. Total commitment to winning. Losing coaches get the boot quicker, schools spend more on facilities, etc.
2. Spring football in high school. It is much more common in the south and the players are more developed heading into college.
3. Prioritizing speed over size.
4. Being less conservative. SEC coaches wouldn’t try to run out the clock in the whole second half like Tressel did in the Sugar Bowl. They would continue to attack and play to win.
LikeLike
#4 don’t know how that adds to success, but is definitely an SEC attribute to the point of excess. Spurrier openly did that against UGA one year and his disciples (see Stoops/Leach in Big 12) have carried that other places. Saban could have cost himself the BCS game last year with that attitude. If he had taken a knee 4 times against Texas last year he would have been 10 points up with no more than 5 seconds left, maybe no time left-mathematically impossible. He scored and gave them about 90 seconds to try to score two TDs which has happened before. A former Baylor coach tried to jam it in on UNLV from the 1 with a few seconds left a few years back. They fumbled, it got run back 99 yards and gave UNLV the win. He got fired that year.
LikeLike
Jimmy Johnson looks like a nice old grandpa type on his Sunday NFL show today. But I will always look at him as one of the biggest A-holes for this. I look at some peoples need to run up the score in the same way some have a need to rape other men in prison. They do it because they can. For some reason this makes them look more manly?
LikeLike
When you watch your team sit on a one possession lead and just try to kill the rest of the game rather than increase the lead, you’ll understand how that costs you games. Being too conservative too soon kills momentum and can lead to comebacks.
LikeLike
If spring football in high school was outlawed, would it lessen the SEC’s edge? I’ve always thought that concept was ridiculous. But having briefly lived in that neck of the woods, I know how ridiculously important football is to that culture.
Backward southerners.
LikeLike
Easy, now, Vincent. SOME Southerners get their priorities out of whack and treat football like it’s a religion. SOME poor school districts across the South put far more emphasis on football than academics, but there’s no point in making blanket statements about all Southerners.
Heck, the Midwest has its share of backwards thinking. So many schools in Rust Belt are still preparing young people to work in industrial plants that closed decades ago instead of preparing them for the modern economy. But that doesn’t mean they’re “backwards Midwesterners.” It’s just a select group of people with backwards thinking.
(If you were just making a joke, I apologize in advance… Having grown up in the South, I feel defensive when people declare false sterotypes about my home region. I’m every bit as defensive about the Midwest when I go home and hear people make moronic, uneducated declarations about the Midwest, like calling Midwesterners, “Yankees.”)
LikeLike
“But that doesn’t mean they’re “backwards Midwesterners.” It’s just a select group of people with backwards thinking.”
Or it may mean that they are hopeful. Manufacturing has not gone the way of the dinosaur you know? But it has gone overseas for slave wages which both good Midwesterners and southerners could not afford to work for.
Your point about Blanket statements is well taken. We should be careful about that.
LikeLike
@StvInIl,
Perhaps I should have been more specific: I was thinking more about towns like Muncie, Indiana, where preparing high school students for college seems undervalued and preparation for manual labor jobs are overemphasized. Yes, it would be wonderful if Muncie (or Anderson, IN, Youngstown, Flint, Toledo, etc.) is able to attract new manufacturing jobs. I think it’s a terrible shame how so many jobs have gone overseas, devastating thousands of families, not to mention exploiting workers in other countries. But those jobs are not coming back–at least not by the tens of thousands as they were a few decades ago. Instead, more towns need to learn how to reinvent themselves. Prime example: Pittsburgh. Its heritage hasn’t been shunned, but kids there also understand their future is brightest if they don’t lean on too heavily on their grandfather’s industry.
LikeLike
While I don’t think the backwards southerner thing is apt, there is a very good point to be made.
My friend got an instant family (wife and 2 kids, just add ring) and the boy child (8ish) wanted to do football in central Florida. They had 100+ kids, in spring ball, with tons of position coaches, two-a-days…the works. And this was one group…in a middling sized town.
Facts are more than “just a couple” people down south treat football more highly than it should. Its almost become a “trade” the same way craftsmen used to take on apprentices.
I mean when I was a teenager, my @$$ was expected to work. Most players nowadays seem to think football’s their only reason for living (and society tends to reinforce that belief).
LikeLike
@Michael
Tough to reinvent the education when you don’t have any money. Anderson had a lot of great union jobs. Every single one of them, probably 30,000, is gone. GM, Delco Remy, Fisher. Some of them moved south. Some are in Toyota plants in Japan. Some are just gone. And so younger people are moving out. That is happening in a lot of areas in the midwest. The midwest isn’t creating the professional jobs in great enough numbers to keep the college graduates so a lot of them relocate also.
When I lived there Anderson had 3 HS and probably 20 elementary schools. Next year they will cut down to 1 HS and 5 elementary schools to keep from going bankrupt. And they project losing 20% of their student population over the next 5 years. Both of my schools have been long closed. One has been plowed under and turned into a cornfield.
Chicago and Columbus may be job magnets, but a lot of areas with sizable populations are struggling. The midwest, in general, has not figured out how to multiply the effect of the research that is going on in its universities the way the Bay Area, Boston, Austin and Raleigh-Durham have.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana are heavily tied to the auto industry, so haven’t been doing so hot. Wisconsin’s also manufacturing-heavy. However, cities like Minny, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Cincy (as well as Chicago and Columbus) aren’t really dependent on manufacturing. The farmers have been doing pretty well as well (and I see that trend continuing).
Look at population groth, and the western portion of the B10 isn’t doing worse than the western division of the SEC. The biggest difference is that arc that stretches from DC through Charlotte to Atlanta was growing like mad. I don’t see housing bust ponzi economy states like Florida, Arizona, or Nevada (or chunks of California and other parts of the SE) growing much in the future.
LikeLike
@Bullet,
How about that! I didn’t realize there was someone else in Frank the Tank world who’d spent part of his life in Indiana! I live on the northeast side of Indy, so I’m not far at all from Anderson.
I did see on the news a few months back that Anderson had to close another high school. I was sorry to hear about that, man. Personally, I hate it that school districts in Indy and towns like Anderson are being forced to close schools while places with no history or sense of place (i.e., Fishers, home of the invisible downtown) can’t keep up with the demand for new schools. Somehow it seems kind of wasteful, but what can be done about it?
Anyway, I have some friends who live in and/or work in Anderson and in Muncie, and I’m fully aware that trying to reverse those cities’ misfortunes is incredibly hard.
The scariest thing is that once communities get down in a rut, it takes a long time to get out. While many Midwest & Northeast cities & towns have been feeling the pain for the past 30-50 years, it’s been even worse in many places across the South. My mother’s hometown, which is in northern Florida but is much more like a typical poor, rural Mississippi or Alabama town than a tourist’s idea of Florida, is even more poor than it was when she was born there almost 60 years ago. Its real heyday was before 1900. And just like Anderson, it’s the kind of place many people don’t want to return to after college or graduate school.
I think you hit it spot-on about the need for states to leverage their Big Ten schools’ research reputation to spin off private research efforts like they have in Boston, RDU, Austin, Silicon Valley, etc. Ann Arbor’s got a little bit of that going on with Google, and Purdue has a good research park, but nothing to the point where it’s driving the local economy.
Man, is this way off the topic of college football!
LikeLike
easy kids!
before we go all crazy about the football “religion” in the south, remember that this same “religious” mentality applies to IU and UK when it comes to basketball! 😉
LikeLike
Yes, it would reduce the gap. Many football skills are developed through pure repetition, and spring football almost doubles the reps for southern athletes. That’s a tremendous advantage.
LikeLike
There’s been an explosion of Texas QBs in the last few years (Oregon, Alabama, Ole Miss last year, most of the Big 12, etc.). I think a lot is due to the summer 7 on 7 leagues which have developed in recent years.
LikeLike
Mallett isn’t going to make it in the NFL.
Hit him a few times (or even breathe on him slightly) and he starts misfiring.
LikeLike
Fitting last play to Mallett’s career.
I really should have taken defense in to account when it came to predictions; tOSU’s D-Line is much better than PSU’s or Wisconsin’s.
LikeLike
Good win bucks.
How much for the trophy?
LikeLike
Is that the only way Sparty can get one?
Just kidding. It was actually good to see MSU be good again. Hopefully Dantonio can continue to build the program.
LikeLike
touche.
LikeLike
Brian. Check out the marathon video.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/extramustard/hotclicks/01/05/amber-lancaster-ted-williams-offered-job-by-cleveland-cavaliers/index.html?eref=sihp
LikeLike
Congrats to the Buckeye fans on this board.
Here’s some words of encouragement for the B1G from SI.com:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_rosenberg/01/04/big.ten/index.html?eref=sihp
LikeLike
Barry Tramel makes an argument for TCU in the Big 12
http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-big-12-was-shortsighted-in-shunning-tcu/article/3529403?custom_click=rss
Here is naked truth. TCU would not bring more television sets to Big 12 football, which already has the Dallas-Fort Worth market covered.
But TCU would bring more television viewers to Big 12 football, because football fans like good teams and good games.
The Big 12 is proud of its impending, round-robin format. But that format does not produce more good games.
The new format just means more Oklahoma-Kansas and Texas-Iowa State and Missouri-Baylor games. That’s more inventory, but not better inventory.
TCU provides better inventory.
He loses me here
The Big 12 with TCU and BYU would be better than the Big 12 with Nebraska and Colorado. The Big 12 with TCU and BYU would be at least as marketable to television networks.
If that was true, it would have been done.
LikeLike
The problem with his logic is that BYU and TCU haven’t yet built up their brands to the point that they’re valuable national properties.
I think they can get there, and I think TCU would have to follow the Miami path to get there. If TCU wins the Big East say 6 times over the next decade and wins a couple of BCS bowls and a national championship, they’ll probably have the national brand necessary to really bring value to the Big 12.
As it is right now, I’m not certain they’re a strong enough name to really add national viewership if they were to have a bunch of 8 win seasons…
BYU is a similar story. Neither BYU or TCU has built up enough national brand value to be good enough to replace Nebraska/Colorado.
In fact, I think it would be much better for the long run if TCU joined after dominating the Big East for a decade or so like Miami did when it went to the ACC.
LikeLike
Actually he is being short sighted. TCU beat Texas in 1992. They also beat Texas in 1967. Never between or after. Over the last 30 years of the SWC, TCU was the worst program in the conference. If they joined the Big 12 the current team would be very competitive and they would probably stay competitive with Gary Patterson, but over the long run they would become the new Baylor.
When Darrell Royal was in his early years as coach at Texas he compared TCU to cockroaches. “Its not what they pick up and carry off, its what they fall into and mess up.” TCU knocked off unbeaten Texas teams more than once. But that was before the Cowboys owned Dallas. They’ve lost the fan base that gave them the ability to mess up things frequently. Now they would just carry off TV$ without contributing much.
Gary Patterson himself once said he wasn’t really interested in the Big 12. I think he knows if he went head to head with UT and A&M all the time he would lose in the long run. TCU has a chance to succeed in the Big East both because of the weaker competition and because they can differentiate themselves instead of competing head to head. That ability to differentiate themselves is why they left the CUSA and the Texas schools there.
LikeLike
Eh, put TCU in the North and they can’t do as much damage to TX. If every AQ has 12 teams and a CCG then I guess we can also. Longhorns and Lepers divisions.
But screw that, I want to play in the Rose Bowl regularly. Bring back the P16! Or at least let TCU prosper in the Big NotSoEast, more conferences means a better chance of multiple teams from Texas making BCS bowls (or the playoffs that replace them.)
LikeLike
Well, I’d say BYU is at least a match for Colorado. I agree with Zeek that TCU probably would have to go on a Miami-like run to match the national value of Nebraska. Like Miami, they’re a small private school in a pro sports city in a fertile recruiting region that has several other big state schools.
The biggest difference is that Miami in the ’80’s/’90’s could truly corner the talent market in south Florida because Florida is so long. UF is more than 5 hours away, FSU is even farther, all other big schools were not within driving distance, and USF/FIU/FAU, etc. poised no threat even for scrub players.
The Metroplex is within 3 hours of Austin, Norman, and College Station, there are minor but aspiring programs (like SMU) within driving distance as well & majors like Arkansas, LSU, and TTech would also compete for players within TCU’s home area.
Still, pulling off what Miami did (9 BE titles & 2 national titles in 13 years) is certainly possible, and if they do that, they’d get an invite to a bigger conference (if not the B12, the Pac12 may take a serious look if they can’t get Texas).
LikeLike
I read that article yesterday, too.
I think the case for BYU is pretty strong. There’s a reason they were able to get a nice contract from ESPN for their home games. Their brand is solid–at least in the top 25 of college football. BYU, unlike TCU, also would not have to compete head-to-head with Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, etc, for recruits. They’d get recruits from the same places they’ve always gotten them.
TCU, even with the Rose Bowl win, is still a tougher case to make. If they could replace Baylor or Iowa State, it would be done in a heartbeat, but that’s not happening.
I’m not quite sure they’d have to be the next Miami, either. If, and this is a big if, TCU is still a top ten program in five years, winning BE titles, beating top-flight programs, and getting elite recruits, I could see the Big 12 calling them up. With that consistency, they would have appeared on ESPN and ABC pretty regularly, getting more exposure than any other Big East program. They’d be a team fans would want to watch. They could increase the value of a Big 12 national TV contract, regardless of how little difference they’d make in local TV ratings.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Sugar Bowl had an 8.4 overnight rating, 3% lower than last years Sugar Bowl. That sounds very good for ESPN itself, but bad for college football (probably enough to make it more profitable on ESPN, but fewer viewers overall).
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2011/01/05/sugar-bowl-espns-second-best-college-football-overnight-ever-886502/20110105espn02/
LikeLike
Interesting that Birmingham was one of the top markets.
LikeLike
Even more interesting is the selective quoting from an article titled “Sugar Bowl: ESPN’s Second-Best College Football Overnight Ever”.
The story is slightly different if you include the entire statement…
“The 8.4 overnight rating – which only represents television viewership – is 17% higher than last year’s Orange Bowl (Iowa – Georgia Tech, 7.2), played on the equivalent Tuesday night, and three percent lower than last year’s Sugar Bowl (8.7, Florida-Cincinnati), played on New Year’s night.”
LikeLike
Eric,
Arkansas has a way to go to becoming the “brand”. If they wanted the best numbers, then you would have seen an LSU vs tOSU game or a Alabama vs tOSU game (a battle of 2 of the true “brands”). I actually believe if they had forgiven Bama for the USC loss, and put them against tOSU in the Sugar, you would have seen some monster numbers. Sure they were both down this season, but the PSU vs UF game had the best “national” draw for eyeballs based on where they are in the pecking order of the nation as a whole. (and yes the JoPa’s vs the Jorts did cross my mind! 🙂 🙂 )
LikeLike
Probably should have worded that differently, but that’s what I was trying to get at with it good for ESPN (very high for cable), but bad for college football as a whole (less people watching than on network TV).
Most telling to me is that the game had a smaller audience than Florida vs. Cincinnati. I know that had a different time-slot, but that game was a blowout and while Florida is a name school, Cincinnati is much less of one that Arkansas. Also, outside the Rose Bowl and national championship, match-up seems more important than time-slot.
LikeLike
Birmingham and Columbus are always two of the top markets for a college football game. It’s like OSU and AL fans take CFB seriously.
LikeLike
well duh! 😉
LikeLike
In its new tone following its handling of Cam Newton and Ohio State, the NCAA today declared Vince Young eligible for 2011:
http://thesportsjury.com/satire/ncaa-to-grant-vince-young-a-waiver
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Well, it sounds like he’ll be available. Can Texas afford to outbid Auburn?
LikeLike
While I like to cite undefeated Auburn being left out in 2004 as a reason for playoffs, their fans shouldn’t run their mouths too much about being ripped off and how they would have beaten USC.
On the field:
2002 at USC: USC 24-AU 17
2003 at AU: USC 23-AU 0
AU was better in 2004, but so was USC.
LikeLike
Playoffs,
That was sort of my point:
In 2002 Auburn dropped their season opener to U$C 17 – 24 @ U$C and lost to Arkansas, Florida, and Georgia in the regular season before beating PSU in the Capitol One Bowl to finish 9-4. U$C would lose to Kansas State and Washington State before beating Iowa in the Orange Bowl to finish 11-2 (+2 wins over Auburn). The 24 points U$C scored against Auburn in that game was their 3rd lowest offensive output the WHOLE season. (20 was #1, and 22 was #2)
In 2003 Auburn dropped their season opener to U$C 0-23 @ Auburn followed the next week with a loss to Ga Tech @ Ga Tech. Conferences losses to LSU, Mississippi, and Georgia in the regular season before beating Wisconsin in the Music City Bowl to finish 8-5. U$C would lose to Cal before beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl to finish 12-1 (+4 wins over Auburn). The 23 points U$C scored against Auburn in that game was their lowest offensive output the WHOLE season.
In 2004 Auburn went 11-0 in the regular season while beating EIGHT SEC foes. They went on to beat Top 10 Tennessee (before they fell off the cliff) in the SEC Championship Game (remember U$C had no such “extra” game) and probably allowed their opponents ALL season to AVERAGE around 11 points per game (hence they had a STOUT defense). They finished the season by beating Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl to go 13-0. U$C would open the season to Va Tech (and Va Tech would hold U$C to 24 points in that game!). They went on to roll over opponents with a weak schedule to finish the season at 12-0. They beat Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl to finish 13-0 (+0 wins over Auburn).
While I am not suggesting that an Auburn win was 100% (as some Auburn fans might suggest), I do think it would have been a low scoring affair (which would favor Auburn) and was played in the Orange Bowl (which would have a much higher Auburn flavor – possible “home” game for Auburn?). I could easily see a 14-7 or 21-14 game outcome, with the eventual winner being a touchdown or less ahead of the loser.
The bigger issue is the fight for the #2 spot in conference ranking (as nobody seems to questions the SEC’s recent death grip on the #1 position). From the Pat Forde (who I am no fan of) link http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5991838 comes this quote:
“Fact is, these two very different conferences have not met in a bowl game since the 1989 Freedom Bowl, a game that no longer exists. History buffs will note that the Pac-10 won that one: Washington 34, Florida 7. Since the Pac-10 (then the Pac-7) formed in 1959, there have been just nine bowl meetings between the two. Scoreboard: SEC 5, Pac-10 4.”
To me the issue is not if Auburn wins and continues its dominance, it is an issue of what will happen to the Big 10 “perception” if Oregon wins! If you go back to Frank’s early blog polls you will see I was on the Duck bandwagon early on. Now I am “haunted” by the “be careful for what you wish for” mantra. If the Ducks win, they will vault into 1st place and the SEC killers (and hence their conference). The wins against UNL and Va Tech will only further strengthen this mantra! In short, the Pac 10 could vault ahead of the Big 10 in “national” media play. This alone now finds me wishing the Ducks now loose (after a season of hoping they win), just to keep the Pac 10 from leapfrogging the Big 10 in the overall conference pecking order!
LikeLike
I hate to break it to ya, but at least for the 2010 season, the Big Ten’s place in the conference pecking order is already behind the Pac-10, no matter the outcome of Oregon-Auburn.
LikeLike
The Bowl Wars – updated as of 01.05.2011
BIG 10 – Wisconsin (L TCU 2 pts), Michigan State (L Bama 42 pts), tOSU (W Arkansas 5 pts), Iowa (W Missouri 3pts), Illinois (W Baylor 24 pts), PSU (L Florida 13pts), Northwestern (L TTech 7 pts), Michigan (L Mississippi State 38 pts) – 8 bowl invitations
vs SEC 1-3 (done, congrats to tOSU for avoiding the shutout)
vs Big 12 2-1 (done)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (done, MWC)
3-5 (37.5%) all games played
SEC – Auburn (Oregon), Arkansas (L tOSU 5 pts), LSU (TAMU), Alabama (W Michigan State 42 pts), South Carolina (L FSU 9 pts), Mississippi State (W Michigan 38 pts), Florida (W PSU 13 pts), Georgia (L UCF 4 pts), Tennessee (L UNC 3pts), Kentucky (Pitt) – 10 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 3-1 (done, tOSU holds on at the end to prevent the shutout)
vs Pac 10 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 0-0 (1 possible, does this seem low for balance?)
vs ACC 0-2 (done, the ACC shuts out the SEC)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (2 possible, 1 BE, 1 CUSA)
3-4, with 3 games left
PAC 10 – Oregon (Auburn), Stanford (W Va Tech 28 pts), Arizona (L oSu 26 pts), Washington (W Nebraska 12 pts) – 4 bowl invitations
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, and for the MNC)
vs Big 12 1-1 (done, split decision)
vs ACC 1-0 (done, and dominated in the process)
2-1, with 1 game left
BIG 12 – Oklahoma (W Uconn 28 pts), Missouri (L Iowa 3 pts), oSu (W Arizona 26 pts), Nebraska (L Washington 12 pts), TAMU (LSU), Baylor (L Illinois 24 pts), TTech (W Northwestern 7 pts), KSU (L Syracuse 2 pts) – 8 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 1-2 (3 done, curse you ESPNU!)
vs SEC 0-0 (1 possible, again only 1 Big 12 vs SEC matchup)
vs Pac 10 1-1 (2 done)
vs the “rest” 1-1 (done, award for OU playing Uconn – the razzie!)
3-4, with 1 games left
ACC – Va Tech (L Stanford 28 pts), FSU (W South Carolina 9 pts), Maryland (W ECU 31 pts), NC State (W WVa 16 pts), Miami (L Notre Dame 16 pts), Boston College (Nevada), UNC (W UTenn 3 pts), Ga Tech (L Air Force 7 pts), Clemson (L USF 5 pts) – 9 bowl invitations
vs SEC 2-0 (2 done, granted close games)
vs Pac 10 0-1 (done, like the start, VT ends with a wimper)
vs the “rest” 2-3 (1 left, 3 BE, 1 MWC, 1 WAC, 1 IND)
4-4, with 1 games left
#1 Pac 10 2-1, 1 game left, worst outcome = 50/50
#2 ACC 4-4, 1 game left, a win puts them over the 50/50 threshold
#3 SEC 3-4, 3 games left! 2 wins puts them over the 50/50 threshold
#3 Big 12 3-4, 1 game left, best outcome = 50/50
#5 Big 10 3-5 = 37.5% winners from starters
The winner is looking like the Pac 10? (MNC pending)
The loser so far is the Big 10
The “image” loser was tOSU, as even with the win, the 5 players will taint the long term history of the win, and hence a loss for Tressel in PR.
LikeLike
The BE doesn’t count? 3-2 so far, with one more game coming up.
MWC’s 4-1. CUSA finished 2-4 (though with a win over an SEC team).
LikeLike
Big East doesn’t count.
Bowls games are about good teams. The Big East doesn’t have any. Props to USF for being Clemson; however, the two top Big East teams got their asses kicked. Nail biters over South Miss and Kansas St? Who cares?
LikeLike
Actually, if you took out the BT’s best 2 teams and worst team, the BT and Big East match-up pretty well:
MSU v. WVU
Iowa v. U Conn
PSU v. Pitt
Syracuse v. Illinois
Louisville v. Michigan
USF v. NW
Cincy v. Purdue
Rutgers v. Minnesota
LikeLike
The Big East was definitely down this year, so it is a tough year for comparison, but I definitely agree with your premise that the Big East is normally similar to schools 3-10 of the Big Ten.
The lack of elite teams at the top hurts them, but their bottom is seldom as bad as the bottom of the bigger conferences.
For example, this year last place Rutgers beat champ UConn while IU was getting 80 hung on them by Wisc. Last year, last place Syracuse beat one Big Ten bowl team and took another to OT.
It was a no-brainer for the Big East to add TCU to improve the top of the conference.
LikeLike
I thought you took out the worst team, but MN is still there (I know, you went by the B10 standings). You think IN is worse than MN? They won 2 more games this year.
With your listed match-ups, I’d still project the B10 to go 6-2. Rearranging to be more accurate (NW 8th without Persa, PU 7th, IN 6th) I’d say 7-1. Most of the games should be good, but I think the BE records are inflated by playing BE teams.
Besides, who would consider the B10 a good conference without OSU and WI this year?
LikeLike
Minnesota beat Illinois & Iowa when they weren’t saddled with Brewster. Indiana finished worse in conference. They got 4 wins against illustrious foes such as Towson, Western Kentucky, Akron, and Arkansas St. (barely). If Minnesota had played IU’s nonconf schedule, they would have gone to a bowl game.
LikeLike
Richard,
That would be a better argument if MN didn’t lose to I-AA South Dakota. You also have to look at the whole season, not just post-Brewster.
MN was lucky to beat an IA team that didn’t want to be there. IN was inches from beating IA before they went on their losing streak.
IN isn’t vastly better, but their offense gave them more chances to win.
LikeLike
Phil..I agree it was a no brainer for the Big East to add TCU, but I doubt that arrangement will work in the long-term…..TCU will be good as long as the present coach is there, then it will go back to also ran status…..the geography is bad, and TCU won’t add much to the basketball picture…….in the short term however, it’s good for TCU and the Big E.
LikeLike
Brian…as an IU fan, I definately think Minn was better than IU, but only because of our inept coaching staff
As far as Minny losing to SD State, you need to remember that that was the week after Minny made a respectable showing against SC…we were fortunate to be in the game against Iowa…they signicantly beat us in yardage…and ILL kicked our ass…by the end of the season Minny was better than IU….
LikeLike
Phil,
I disagree that the bottom of the Big East isn’t as bad as the bottom of the major conferences. Their records are better because they play other BE teams, but the talent level is bad. Part of the reason the bottom of the BE can beat the top is because the top isn’t that good usually.
Sagarin 2010
BE 1 ~ B10 4 ~ SEC 7 ~ B12 6
BE 2 ~ B10 5 ~ SEC 8 ~ B12 8
BE 3 ~ B10 7 ~ SEC 9 ~ B12 9
BE 4 ~ B10 8 ~ SEC 10 ~ B12 10
BE 5 ~ B10 8 ~ SEC 10 ~ B12 10
BE 6 ~ B10 8 ~ SEC 10 ~ B12 10
BE 7 ~ B10 8 ~ SEC 10 ~ B12 10
BE 8 ~ B10 11 ~ B12 12 > SEC 12
Yes Rutgers beat UConn. So did MI, and badly. How does the MI defense hold a conference champ to 10 points? Purdue beat OSU last year and almost beat MSU this year. MN beat a ranked IA, and IN almost did.
LikeLike
mushroom:
TCU isn’t dependent on a coach (they won when Franchione was there as well, which is why Franchione was poached by Alabama) & they spend as much money as the big boys on football (top 10 in football spending amongst bowl teams; notice that that’s more than Michigan, PSU, or Nebraska . . . or Oklahoma or FSU: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-costofbowling-glance)
LikeLike
To add to that, there’s no reason to believe that TCU doesn’t have the possibility of going on a Miami-like run, given that they’re in a recruiting hotbed (while most of the BE isn’t), are spending more money on football than Miami did in the ’80’s, and will be (like Miami was) in a weak but BCS conference, meaning they should make BCS bowls most years and challenge for national titles some of the time.
LikeLike
@Richard,
TCU is listed top 10, but that spending list seems to be heavily skewed by stadium renovations. Iowa was something like top 5 a year or two ago as they serviced a lot of debt in a single year for a renovation they did 5 years ago. TCU may be only temporarily high on the list due to their recent renovations.
LikeLike
greg:
Well, Michigan just finished renovating, and they don’t crack the list. Other than Alabama, which schools on that list are renovating?
LikeLike
@Richard,
I guess my point is that any single year can be skewed for whatever reason, renovations in particular. Is TCU in the top 10 annually? Or is this a one year spike?
I’m not saying TCU doesn’t spend, but I’d be surprised if they are consistently one of the top 10 in all of college football.
LikeLike
Richard,
OSU is also paying off stadium renovation debt, and some other construction projects.
Also keep in mind that different schools do their accounting very differently in terms of what costs are listed where.
OSU’s biggest athletic expense group is direct facilities/maintenance/rental. Not every school charges that all to athletics. Scholarship costs are also a factor, especially for private schools.
Without a detailed breakdown, it’s hard to compare expenditures.
LikeLike
Greg:
OK, in 2008-2009, TCU spent $16.63M on football, which is still like a BCS school and 31st nationally, roughly in the same league as PSU, Michigan, FSU, & Nebraska (and more than Oregon, MSU & TAMU).
LikeLike
Richard,
TCU spending 31st in the country, or about the midpoint of BCS teams, is something I can believe. Top 10 would have been very surprising. A small private school in a small stadium has a tough time competing with the huge schools with huge stadiums in spending.
LikeLike
BTW, is JoePa’s old school ways going to cost PSU going forward? Denying a kid’s request to transfer probably won’t play well on the recruiting trail, and Tom Bradley probably got tired waiting for JoePa to step down.
LikeLike
Word is his Mom wants the kid to stay in school at PSU, its the kid’s dad who is pressing to leave. JoePa is listening to the (smart) mom’s opinion.
IMO, the dad seems like one of those types living vicariously through his kid and can’t stand to see “the guy who’s always started” sit the bench, even if its good for him (he had two concussions this season for crying out loud).
Joke is if he actually applied himself and came into next year ready instead of listening to his dad whine on his behalf I’d put him for the inside track to get the starting job next year.
LikeLike
You’d think one of the two departing Qbs would change their mind unless Paul Jones looked that good in practice. Certainly they shouldn’t be afraid to compete with McGloin.
LikeLike
Like I said, I really think the dad is pushing it more than anyone.
As for Newton (the other QB) I can understand why he might want to transfer…You have McGloin and Bolden fighting for the start and Jones actually did look very good in spring practices. Newton really is more of a “running QB” and with our WR/RB situation fairly set it might be hard to get him snaps.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/06/fox-shells-out-big-bucks-for-inaugural-pac-10-title-tilt/
The agreement, which is expected to be officially announced later today, is actually for a total of $25 million; the other $10-plus million comes from what the SBD describes as “other game inventory that is the result of the conference’s expansion from 10 teams to 12.”
As noted by the website, FOX’s deal with the Pac-12 means that ESPN will have just one conference title game — the ACC — on championship weekend. The Big 12 will no longer have a conference title game after dropping down to 10 schools, while the SEC’s game is broadcast by CBS.
LikeLike
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/knights/os-conference-usa-fox-tv-deal-20110105,0,1925774.html
Fox also got CUSA, although for significantly less, $7 million. Still double what they were getting from ESPN. Excluding tertiary rights, article says CUSA is getting $14 million for fb and bb. They were getting $9.5 before. BB went up slightly while fb doubled.
LikeLike
link not working. Will try again.
LikeLike
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/knights/os-conference-usa-fox-tv-deal-20110105,0,1925774.story
LikeLike
Fox’s regional networks are a huge benefit for covering a smaller conference like CUSA. Local markets see their teams, not ones they don’t much care about. It has to be hard for ESPN to compete with them for this sort of deal.
LikeLike
Good point. I thought that as well. I wonder if the MWC will go to Fox as well after their deal with Comcast ends.
LikeLike
Interesting. So the Pac12 championship game is valued at the same level as the SEC championship game (though that game probably would be worth more if the contract was negotiated today); both behind the B10 title game.
So should we expect to see more Pac12 games on Fax Sports Net channels?
Big question is, what time slots will these games be played? Fox has said it will put the B10 championship on primetime; I have trouble imagining a west coast title game starting in the afternoon (noon on game site), so will Fox have the B10 title game at 5:30PM eastern and the Pac12 title game at 9:30PM eastern? When would CBS put it’s SEC title game? 8PM eastern? ESPN may be satisfied to hog the afternoon time slot with the ACC title game if that happens.
The other alternative is Pac12 title game at 4PM eastern, B10 title game at 8PM eastern going up against the SEC title game at the same time. ESPN could start the ACC title game at noon in that case (going up against the CUSA title game), or maybe go head-to-head with the Pac12 at 4PM. ESPN may convince the B12 to move some games to championship week, then, so that they can also show something on primetime.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Fox and CBS want to avoid the Big Ten and SEC going head-to-head. The SEC championship game has been played at 4 pm ET for the past few years, so if it stays there, look for the Big Ten to be at 8 pm ET. The Pac-10 would likely be against the SEC, while the ACC would probably be against the Big Ten in the time slots.
LikeLike
Interesting if the Big Ten Championship game is played at time later than the rest of the November games, especially if it ends up outdoors at some point in the future.
LikeLike
I wonder if the B10 would ever consider staging the title game outside of B10 territory. I’m thinking of FedEx Field. The dome in St. Louis could be a possibility as well.
LikeLike
@Richard,
I think there’s a little too much risk in making a move like that.
The Big Ten needs to learn a lesson the ACC learned the hard way: don’t put your conference championship game too far from the majority of your membership. Except for FSU-VT in ’05 and GT-Clemson in ’09, the attendance at those games in Jacksonville & Tampa were horrible. When it finally moved to Charlotte (within 200 miles of 7 members) this year, attendance improved dramatically.
Of course, a game in Washington (or Philly or New York or wherever) would probably get better attendance than the ACC’s games in Florida because BT teams are more popular and have far bigger alumni bases, but still… More often than not, teams won’t know whether they’re going to the title game until one week beforehand; it’s a lot different from the 3-5 weeks’ notice for a bowl game. Even well-traveling Nebraska fans would have a hard time planning a trip 1,000+ miles to the east coast so quickly.
Besides, the Big Ten has a nice selection of neutral sites to choose from within the geographic center, or close to it: Cincinnati, Chicago, Indy, Detroit, maybe Green Bay. Minneapolis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh are probably too far for too many schools. With the SEC claiming the Georgia Dome, the ACC’s only choices are in Florida, Charlotte, and Washington DC.
LikeLike
Eric,
I don’t think they’ll go prime time outdoors very often (except opening up Indy if it’s nice). Why risk getting a bad game determined by weather or a bad field? There are sufficient neutral indoor choices (Indy, Detroit, maybe Minneapolis, maybe St. Louis).
If they want outdoor games, they should use campus sites which can sell a lot more tickets. They could pick two sites from one division to be ready for each year so nobody gets to play at home, and alternate divisions each year.
Personally, I’d like to see them make Indy the permanent host. It’s central, it’s used to hosting big events and is unlikely to provide home field advantage. The other locations people mention seem better for regular season games when weather should be less of an issue.
Richard,
What would be the advantage of playing in DC? The game will draw plenty of attention as is. Will Snyder put up big money to get the game? Enough to justify making all the fans make last minute travel plans to go several hundred miles out of their way (last minute flights are expensive)? How would Nebraska feel about going that far? At least St. Louis is essentially inside the footprint, although it’s dome is not great.
LikeLike
Brian:
I mentioned below that DC is risky.
I don’t have 2 possible sites is a good idea; you want one site set in advance so that you can sell suites to corporates.
LikeLike
Richard,
I just don’t see where the value in DC is. What is the reward to compare to the risk? You can sell more tickets and reduce travel at MI or OSU, without the risk of a grass field in December.
I agree 2 sites is bad, but it is better than a team getting to play at home (that’s why a neutral site is better). One site would be the designated back up. You could certainly sell suites with a contingency deal to get one in the other stadium.
LikeLike
Fine, limit it to Indianapolis or Detroit (maybe Chicago; maybe Cincy).
LikeLike
Richard,
That would be my preference.
I think these other sites are better for some special regular season games, probably OOC.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’d guess the SEC game will jump the B10 game next time it’s available. As long as they’re negotiated years apart, I’d expect them to leapfrog each other.
LikeLike
The CBS deal for the SEC CCG lasts until 2023. The Fox deal with the Big Ten CCG lasts until 2016. So, that Big Ten will have another chance to “jump” before the SEC even is able to negotiate. I wouldn’t be surprised if the SEC CCG merely approaches the Big Ten’s payout, rather than surpassing it because the Big Ten’s deal might be really far ahead.
LikeLike
Unless things drastically change by 2023, and they certainly could, the SEC game will be worth more than the B10 game 7 years into a contract (I’m assuming a long term deal – 10 years or more).
LikeLike
Everyone made a huge deal about the total dollar value of the contracts the SEC signed a few years ago, but the B10 will be killing them by the end of that contract.
LikeLike
Yep. That’s why I don’t believe in really long contracts for this stuff. The landscape can change so fast, you need the ability to renegotiate.
LikeLike
In reading more, this is a one year deal. Fox does not have the new contract yet. That is still in the bidding stage. So Utah and Colorado are bringing in $5 million each on the TV contract and $14.5 for the championship game.
LikeLike
Salt Lake Tribune: TV Deal Wipes Out Utah’s Probable Deficit
“The game, worth about $25 million in a deal with Fox, means the Utes will earn about $2 million next year.”
“The Utes will receive 50 percent revenue in 2012-13, 75 percent in 2013-14 and become a full-share member in 2014-15.”
http://fwix.com/saltlake/share/ca0da87bc9/tv_deal_wipes_out_utahs_probable_deficit
LikeLike
Given the number of sites in the Big Ten I would doubt it. If the offer is better, I guess, but as much as they might want to expand the territory, they also don’t want to increase the changes of the game not selling out which is what putting it outside the territory will do. I certainly don’t see anything further than those two places regardless of offer.
LikeLike
Well, unless they’re willing to play the championship game outdoors at night in December (and note that the B10 doesn’t do that even in November), outdoor sites (at least in the northern part of the B10) are probably out. Especially when you consider that attendance would likely be depressed for outdoor games as well since few neutrals would be willing to brave the cold. The only outdoor site that has enough fans of every B10 school (except PSU) within driving distance to fill its stadium is Chicago.
That shrinks the number of possible sites down quite a bit. Within B10 territory, there’s Indianapolis & Detroit (and maybe the Humpdome). Outdoors, other than Chicago, you could consider maybe Cincy or Philly. Realistically, as you want the site to be within driving distance of the schools playing, there’s really only Indy, Detroit, Chicago, and maybe Cincy. Maybe Philly, but you’d have to bet that the B10 alums on the East Coast (which Michigan, PSU, tOSU, & NU has, but Iowa and Wisconsin probably don’t) would show up. Same for DC. Opposite situation for the Twin Cities and St. Louis. Few fans east of Illinois are within driving diatance of the Humpdome, and few fans east of Indiana are within driving distance of St. Louis.
LikeLike
I’d strongly urge them to avoid grass fields, too. They are notoriously bad in December (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Philly, Green Bay).
I’d stick with Indy, or maybe rotate with Detroit so there’s competition.
Otherwise, I’d use a neutral campus stadium like OSU or UM that can sell more tickets than any NFL stadium.
LikeLike
Again, Brian, for logistical & marketing reasons, the title game site has to be set far in advance, and no one would be happy with tOSU or Michigan playing the title game on their home turf.
LikeLike
Realistically, I think the location of the Big Ten title game will come down to between Chicago and Indy (just like the conference basketball tourney). They are both fairly centralized to everyone in the conference with a low risk of a school having an overwheming home field advantage (unlike putting it in a place like Cleveland, Detroit or Pittsburgh). There’s definitely no way that the game will ever be placed at a campus site. The value proposition of the game beyond TV rights is to serve as an intra-conference bowl game with suites and corporate seats sold months in advance without regard to who is playing. That means having the game in an NFL stadium in a major market is critical. The Pac-10 is doing it differently because they don’t have fan bases that will travel and the conference population is much more dispersed over a wide geographic area. The Big Ten doesn’t have that issue, which is why they’ll emulate the extremely profitable SEC neutral site model.
LikeLike
I’m not advocating campus games. I’m just saying I’d choose them over outdoor NFL sites. I don’t believe it would be that hard to manage.
I think Chicago is a horrible location. The field is crap and the weather is too, especially for a night game. The average high is about 40 degrees with a low around 28. With decent odds of snow, that’s a bad gamble.
Indy, and maybe Detroit, Minneapolis and St. Louis, are the only realistic choices as long as it is a night game.
Chicago is much better for indoor events, or for spring through fall.
LikeLike
Brian:
I don’t get how a campus site (which would also be outdoors) is better than an outdoors NFL site.
LikeLike
The other huge negative to Soldier Field is it holds 61,500. That ain’t a whole lot of seats to sell.
LikeLike
Richard,
OSU and MI seat about 45-50,000 more than Soldier field and they don’t have grass. WI and NE seat ~ 20,000 more and don’t have grass. The weather in Columbus is slightly better than Chicago, too.
Those are the main advantages for campus stadiums, more tickets to sell and no grass. Also, the money would go into the economy in a B10 city rather than a large, neutral city (especially outside the footprint like St. Louis).
If they weren’t afraid of home games, they could rotate through the best B10 stadiums. It will never happen, though.
Indy is clearly the best site:
1. Indoors (with the possibility to open the roof)
2. Bigger than all but Cleveland and Green Bay in the footprint
3. Centrally located
4. Unlikely to be home field, though only an hour away from IN and PU
LikeLike
Yes, but how many suites do Ohio and Michigan stadiums have compared to Soldier Field? A smaller stadium isn’t even sure to be worse revenue-wise since you could sell the tickets for higher prices given high demand if there are fewer seats. If the SEC wanted to max out attendance, they’d hold the title game at Bryant-Denny or Neyland (both of which hold 30K+ more than the Georgia Dome), but you don’t see them do that (for good reason).
LikeLike
frank,
while I would prefer chicago, I have a feeling it will rotate between Indy, Detroit, and the Metrodome if they can fix the dadgumed roof. My guess the days of outdoor football is dead, especially if soldier field is one of the smallest NFL stadiums in the country.
On the plus side:
a) good airport
b) fun city
c) excellent food
On the negative side:
a) outdoors
b) small
c) cold air off the lake
(remember my sister lived there for 30 years, and I am aware just how cold that air is).
The upside to Ford Field is the good folks of detroit will actually be able to say that they can see winning teams play there (hey they are in hard times so small victories are important).
LikeLike
Richard,
Soldier Field has 8000 club seats and 133 suites.
OSU has 2625 club seats and 81 suites.
MI has 3200 club seats and 83 suites.
Of course, 45,000 extra seats at $100 per ticket is $4.5 million more, so that should more than cover the extra club seats and suites.
I’m not really buying that they could just jack up the ticket prices to make up the difference. TV money is more important than ticket sales, though.
The SEC sticks with Atlanta because it is central and indoors. They started off in Alabama which was only slightly larger but had some bad weather. Atlanta seats a lot more than Soldier Field, too (~75,000).
That just agrees with me that the game should stay in Indy.
LikeLike
The Metrodome? That place is a dump and everyone in the conference is glad we don’t have to play there any more. I doubt it has the modern skyboxes that Indy and Detroit have, and it doesn’t seat many.
Minneapolis is also on the very NW edge of the conference footprint. I think there is zero chance the game is ever played at the Hump dome.
I have to admit one of my favorite Hawkeye experiences was attending the game there in 2002 when we won a share of the Big Ten title and tore down their goalposts:
LikeLike
Yes, Minny isn’t within driving distance of the eastern half of the conference (and some of the more likely participants in OSU, PSU, Michigan, & MSU).
I think Indy will host the most, with sometimes Detroit and an outside chance of it being in St. Louis one year.
On the other hand, it makes it more likely that the B10 basketball tournament will almost permanently be in Chicago if Indy is the (almost) permanent home of the football title game.
LikeLike
@Richard – I agree re: Indy for football and Chicago for basketball. Delany did the politically correct thing by mentioning that the Big Ten footprint contains several “great cities”, but there are concrete reasons as to why Chicago and Indy have been the only hosts for the Big Teb BB tourney and make them likely to be the only probable hosts for the FB CCG, too. I think it’s extremely important to the Big Ten to have the CCG in prime time for both exposure and to avoid going head-to-head with the SEC. That means a premium on having an indoor stadium and Indy provides the best location in terms of geography and the fan experience downtown. Detroit has a nice stadium, but it’s not a fan-friendly location and the risk of a stadium dominated by Michigan or MSU fans if either makes it to the CCG is much greater than in Indy. Chicago has also drawn significantly better attendance for the Big Ten BB tourney than Indy, so it makes sense to move it back to the United Center. The irony is that Chicago is a football town first and foremost while Indy is the quintessential basketball town, yet it makes the most sense for the Big Ten to juxtapose its top events in those two cities.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’m with you on this. Chicago is a great place for hoops and Indy is the clear choice for football. They may jump around occasionally just to remind the hosts that there is competition, but mainly I think Chicago and Indy make sense.
LikeLike
RE: Title Game in Indy
Okay, I know I’ll come across as biased since I live in Indy, but I promise any of you that you would not be disappointed to watch your team at Lucas Oil.
I went to my first Colts game on Sunday, had a great time, and spent a lot of time just marveling at the stadium itself. The architecture is nothing short of spectacular. It’s very comfortable and clean, too. There’s literally not a bad seat in the house. The location is great (if you’ve never been to Indy, it’s very easy to get around).
If your team makes the game next year, remember this: Park at White River State Park. Parking there is just $10.00 on game day for a regular season Colts game, and there’s space to tailgate there. It’s only a few blocks from the stadium.
That’s my two cents. 🙂
LikeLike
Just to stick up for Detroit, I would add that Detroit really does a hood job hosting these big events, the final four and superbowl went really well. I know it isn’t a tourist location, but there really is a ton to do here. Indy is great too though.
LikeLike
jj,
My great grandparents were from detroit, and my grandparents got married there. I still like Detroit so I got your back man!
LikeLike
Another question: Does Fox push for the Rose Bowl the next time it comes up. If they have both the Big Ten and PAC-12 championships, it would be logical, although I certainly hope it doesn’t happen.
LikeLike
I think the BCS likes having one network for all of the games. Maybe Fox tries to get them all next time.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl TV contract is separate from the other BCS bowls. I’m sure the Rose Bowl will seek the best deal for itself regardless of what the other BCS bowls want.
LikeLike
It’s separate for now. There’s no guarantee that will always be true, or that the rest of the BCS won’t influence the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
Considering that the Rose Bowl gets more from it’s TV contract than the other BCS bowls, there’s no reason for the Rose Bowl to allow the other BCS bowls to “influence” it (and I doubt the other BCS bowls can deny the Rose Bowl the title game or anything like that).
LikeLike
They may have some synergies they can exploit by sharing a network. That may make it worth keeping them together. The Rose may get the same amount by getting a cut from the other games if that helps the greater cause.
LikeLike
Right. “Synergy”. A lesson: if you ever hear execs presiding over an M&A deal talk about synergy, you know it’s a bad deal.
LikeLike
I’m guessing ESPN is more happy to run promos for other BCS bowls they also show than Fox would be to advertise for ESPN. The Rose won’t get much hype on Fox with no CFB games during the season.
Also, the broadcasts can be more cohesive when they are all done the same way. Consistency of the message is important.
Besides, Fox has the worst CFB coverage ever. The announcers are terrible, and mostly NFL focused (like Tirico/Jaworski/Gruden on ESPN). The producers like random crowd/band shots more than showing the game.
ESPN is much better at televising CFB, and have all year to hype the games to the CFB audience.
LikeLike
I’d take the Fox announcers with the ESPN camera crews. Camera crews is no contest.
LikeLike
Ron Franklin was one of my favorite ESPN announcers. I wonder if his comment was, rather than sexist, frustration with ESPN playing the sex angle, putting inexperienced, but good looking women on the sidelines. If they want to show good looking women, just show more cheerleader shots.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Are you kidding me? I’m watching the Cotton Bowl on mute because these guys are horrible. They are Gruden bad.
Wait, I think they’re explaining another college football rule to the CFB audience. Does it never occur to them they are the ones confused by the NFL rules, not the fans who watch CFB all year?
I’m not big on all of the ESPN teams, especially not the NFL team or Musberger, but they are still much better on average. Nessler and Blackledge do a great job.
I loved Franklin also, but there’s no place for comments like that to a co-worker. ESPN probably had to dump him with the string of similar problems they’ve had like Kornheiser/Hannah Storm.
The part that bothered me is that she also should have been reprimanded at least for her response. Maybe she was, privately.
LikeLike
I don’t know what Kornheiser’s problem was!
I actually remember Storm’s very 1st TV broadcast when she was young enough that noone would question her wearing minis (I don’t remember what she wore that day). She had been on Houston FM radio doing traffic and sports and she did the halftime show for the 1st Rockets game on HSE (now part of Fox Sports Southwest). She was pretty bad. But by the 2nd show she was much better and got pretty good by the end of the season. Since her Father had been GM of the Kentucky Colonels of the ABA, she was not just another pretty face, but really knew basketball.
Incidentally, Ron Franklin was a Houston sportscaster around the same time.
LikeLike
I’ll second that I hate being explained college football rules like they are foreign. If you are going to comment on the differences, phrase it in a way that doesn’t make it sound like the audience watches primarily the NFL. There are actually some of us watching who don’t know the NFL rules.
LikeLike
This is probably a great point. I could easily see Fox going hard after the Rose Bowl if they keep both the CCGs for a long time…
LikeLike
TCU puts up “Little Sisters of the Poor” billboards in Columbus, OH.
http://college-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/26885361
LikeLike
Would’ve been a better dig if Ohio State had lost to Arkansas, since OSU getting their first bowl victory over the SEC probably immunizes them from feeling bad about the whole TCU thing…
Plus, Gee apologized a couple of times and admitted that TCU was legit when he said he’d go and eat some crow in New Orleans…
LikeLike
Yep doesn’t sting when we won our BCS game and didn’t play them.
LikeLike
Since everyone in Columbus probably believes OSU would beat TCU, I doubt billboards will bother them much.
LikeLike
Immature… but pretty funny.
They really do need to let it go, though. Gee said all he needed to say with the “eat crow” comment.
LikeLike
Richard,
On Frank’s last post, you asked whether success from 1975-1992 or geography would have produced more balanced divisions for 1993-2009. I gave you the brief answer that both could do well, but generally success was better than geography.
A few more details:
First, realize that the older success must be measured by overall records, not conference records, since PSU was independent and NE was in a different conference. That differs from how the more recent period was evaluated.
Second, realize that by competitive balance the B10 simply meant that they would split OSU, MI, PSU and NE equally, and also split WI and IA. Rivalries, money and politics trumped maximizing numerical balance since past results can’t guarantee exact future results.
With those constraints, only 1 geographic split is available. That is the N/S split with PSU in the N, and it provides good balance. X/O was better from 1975-1992, but not by much. N/S was a little better from 1976-2009. I believe it was rejected out of hand because it would lose OSU/PSU as an annual rivalry, though.
If approximate geography is acceptable, then there is also a ~NW/SE split (OSU/PSU/IA/IL/IN/PU vs MI/NE/WI/MSU/NW/MN) which is X/O with WI and IA swapped. This split was better than X/O from 1975-1992 but about the same from 1993-2009. I believe this was rejected out of hand because it would lose NE/IA as an annual rivalry, though (to preserve IA/MN).
All the other geographic splits do much worse than X/O, and do not evenly split the top tiers of teams. In other words, anyone that advocates using geography is also asking to kill a major rivalry and/or have poorly balanced divisions. Some balanced divisions from ’75-’92 didn’t do as well from ’93-’09, but they still beat out geography almost always.
In general, the divisional alignments that were more balanced than X/O were rejected (IMO) because:
1. No OSU/MI split
2. Losing OSU/PSU
3. Losing MI/MSU
4. Preserving western rivalries
There really weren’t any better options, if you value splitting OSU/MI and preserving major rivalries.
In summary, either geography or balance could provide for good future balance, but past balance did it much better. That said, I think most fans would have accepted the N/S split (even PSU fans don’t seem that upset at the prospect of losing OSU annually). Frankly, I think it would have been better received than X/O. I think the B10 wanted to preserve that annual game, though. PSU’s powers may have wanted to keep it too.
LikeLike
Not sure why (OSU/PSU/IA/IL/IN/PU vs MI/NE/WI/MSU/NW/MN) would be worse than X/O. It’s not as if IA/NE have actually been rivals. they’ve hardly ever played since WWII, and NE actually has played MN much more. Plus, while they lose IA, they gain WI, and Madison isn’t much farther away than Iowa City.
LikeLike
Since IA and NE are neighbors, I think the B10 wants to build that rivalry more than WI/NE. It probably makes sense to most of the AD’s, too. NE/MN played more because IA/ISU was annual. Otherwise, I think IA/NE would have been more common. It’s not like there was a major difference in balance either way.
LikeLike
I’ll be curious to see which old Big 8 rivalries Nebraska tries the most to continue. I’m sure UNL could care less about ever playing any of the four schools from Texas.
Obviously Oklahoma is the school UNL fans would probably want to play the most, but they both have pretty tough future non-conference schedules, so it’ll be hard for it to become very regular.
Just venturing a guess, but I bet Iowa State would be the school most willing to play UNL. They have a hard time selling out most of their home games, but hosting Nebraska was pretty reliable. So for them, playing Nebraska would be for more than nostalgia alone. For Nebraska, let’s be honest, Iowa State would be the least risky matchup.
Otherwise, I have no idea whether Missouri, Kansas, K-State, Okie State, or Colorado will be played much anymore.
LikeLike
Also, since Nebraska probably isn’t very interested in playing the Big 12 Texas schools anytime soon, I wonder whether they’ll seek out other schools in Texas as a way of keeping a presence there for recruiting purposes.
It just seems like it would make sense… When Nebraska schedules games against lower-tier FBS programs, they’d have more to gain by playing North Texas, UTEP, Rice, Texas State, etc., than by playing MAC schools like the rest of the Big Ten. Occasionally they could play road games there, maybe against TCU or Houston.
After all, Nebraska and the rest of the Big 12 North has been averaging one road game in Texas for the past 15 seasons. Now, the remaining four B12 North schools will increase to 2 games in Texas per year. Plus, Big East schools are going to start playing games in Dallas every other year. It couldn’t hurt to maintain as much of a presence in Texas as possible.
LikeLike
Right. UNL seems to have adopted PSU’s philosophy of scheduling a bunch of 2-for-1’s (which, IMHO, is probably the worst scheduling philosophy for a power program that can sell out its gigantic home stadium to take, unless they want to appease alums or get recruits by visiting a region, because only non-AQ’s are willing to schedule 2-for-1’s).
So far, they have 2-for-1’s with So. Miss & Fresno (probably for recruiting) & home-and-homes with UCLA, Miami & Tennessee (also should help recruiting) as well as a silly series with Wyoming.
If they’re scheduling home-and-homes with any Big8 teams besides OU, (or neutral site games in KC) it’d likely be Mizzou because there are actually recruits there. They’d probably do a 2-for-1 with ISU if the ‘Clones are willing.
Assuming 7 home games, they have space for 2 home games in 2012, 2014, & 2015, 1 home game in 2013, and a precious away slot in 2016. I’d expect them to target Houston, SMU, or even Rice for a 2-for-1. Maybe TCU would be willing to play a 2-for-1 if a 4th game is played in JerryWorld? Of course, for that to happen, Nebraska would have to play only 6 home games one year.
LikeLike
OK, I looked at the future schedules of TCU & UNL, and if UNL buys out their return trip to Wyoming, they can both fit in a 4 game series:
2011 @ TCU
2014 @ UNL
2015 @ UNL
2016 @ JerryWorld
The OOC schedules for both teams could become pretty brutal though (UNL would play TCU as well as Miami in 2014-15 and Tennessee in 2016; TCU would play UNL as well as LSU in 2014 & Arkansas in 2015-16.
LikeLike
SMU has actually already filled their OOC schedule out to infinity, but Houston still has a ton of open slots and can fit in a 2-for-1 anywhere.
Rice could do
2014 @UNL
2016 @Rice
2017 @UNL
LikeLike
Since the end of the SWC, Texas has scheduled a series of 2 for 1s with Rice or UH. They have finally quit doing that in 2012. They only have Rice on the schedule once from 2012 to 2020 (but they do still have some open spots).
LikeLike
Nebraska has also actually had a history of playing west coast teams and tends to get recruits from California. I think they’d probably like to continue to play some west coast schools.
I don’t understand the comment about the 2-for-1’s being the “worst scheduling philosophy” since it does in fact result in more income due to more tickets sold and the visitor usually being glad to get the better-than-usual payday and media coverage. In a six year period, what is the downside of having 4 home games as opposed to 3, especially when you know that you’re going to sell out the stadium regardless of the opponent?
LikeLike
84Lion:
Assuming you’re a power program that’s going to have 7 home games a year, then if you eschew 2-for-1;s, you can schedule 2 home-and-homes with your equals from other BCS conferences and 2 MAC/FCS schools at home every year. If you schedule 2-for-1’s, if you want 7 home games, you’re effectively limited to only 1 game with a BCS opponent every year. Over a 6 year period, 6 of your 24 OOC slots would be against your home-and-home opponents but 3 of your precious 6 away OOC slots would be. That leaves 3 away slots to be filled with 2-for-1’s (meaning another 6 home games are covered). You’d have to pay for the other 9 home games to bring in MACrifice or FCS opponents.
As an example, here’s MSU’s OOC schedule 2006-2008:
2006
Idaho
EMU
@Pitt
ND
2007
Bowling Green
UAB
Pitt
@ND
2008
@Cal
EMU
FAU
ND
Here’s PSU’s:
2006
Akron
@ND
YSU
Temple
2007
FIU
ND
Buffalo
@Temple
2008
Coastal Carolina
OrSt.
@Syracuse
Temple
That Oregon St. game was a guarantee game, but still, less BCS opponents for PSU. Unless PSU wants to visit Philly for their alums (and they might), there’s no reason to set up a 2-for-1 with Temple.
LikeLike
Richard,
You are giving more value to playing BCS teams while 84Lion is not. If they can sell out at home regardless of the opponent, they benefit financially from not playing two BCS teams in home and homes. That also means there is no advantage to them for 2 for 1 deals unless they want to visit somewhere.
Nebraska may want to visit CA or TX, PSU probably isn’t as worried about it. I don’t see teams doing 2-1s with Florida schools for recruiting purposes, so maybe playing there is not the benefit fans like to think it is.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, MSU seems to have adopted an interesting strategy. From 2008-2014, they’re playing Florida schools (FAU, Jacksonville St., & USF) 5 times in 7 years, all 5 times in Michigan. I guess they’re trying to have their cake and eat it to by having home games (and one in Detroit) as well as getting their name in local papers in Florida. We’ll see how well that works.
LikeLike
Jacksonville St. is an FCS school in Alabama. So that is just a money game. Jacksonville U. in Florida doesn’t offer scholarships.
LikeLike
Richard,
IA/NE has not been a rivalry on the field, but it has been in the minds of the fans. 75% of Nebraska’s population sits right up against the Iowa border. In Western Iowa, a huge chunk of the population are Husker fans. The message boards of both sides have more posts by the other school than the rest of their rivals combined, and it has spiked since NE joined the B10.
It would have made zero sense to split them up. I’m sure both sides were politicking for it, as Osbourne and Iowa AD Bard have made clear.
LikeLike
Fox’s coverage of the Cotton Bowl is pathetic. They had absolutely no breakdown or even discussion of the first half during halftime. They’re talking more about Jim Brown and other Cotton Bowl players from years gone by. They’re skipping over entire plays while interviewing people. They’re promoting the NFL game on Sunday to a point of excess. And they’re just flat-out lazy in filming the bands instead of talking about the freaking game.
And this is the Cotton Bowl! It’s between two top 20 teams!
Contrast that with an ESPN game about a month ago. My Appalachian State Mountaineers were playing a playoff game against Western Illinois on espn3.com; the game didn’t even make the cut for ESPNU. Basically, it was regarded by the public as a very obscure. Yet the announcers had clearly done their research on just about all the starters for both teams. They knew backstories about players & coaches. They were familiar with each team’s seasons. Except during timeouts, they didn’t push games like Oregon-Oregon State or the conference title games, which were the same day. I would have expected poor coverage for that game (and was very pleased to see the opposite). I wouldn’t have expected it for a matchup of two nationally-known teams like LSU & A&M.
LikeLike
Fox has no CFB people since this is their only CFB game. The FSN teams aren’t bad, but they refuse to use them. Not only do the FSN announcers know college football, FSN had a TAMU game this year. I don’t understand this mentality.
The non-stop NFL promotion is the other major reason I hope Fox never gets any B10 or Rose Bowl games. They see Saturdays solely as a way to build the Sunday audience.
LikeLike
Not that I am a great fan of Fox’s announcers, but Bret Musberger is ESPN’s A team.
Does it seem like A&M has packed it in? They bounce a 52 yard FG off the upright and then down 18, they punt from the 32 (alright the 37 but they deliberately took the 5 yard penalty)?
LikeLike
Hate Musberger, always have. He’s gotten worse with age, too. He tries to make himself the center of attention, and babbles his folksy crap nonstop.
Here’s an idea Brent – just tell me who did what. I’m not watching to see you.
___
I don’t think they’ve quit so much as Sherman made the prototypical conservative NFL decision. A better coach would realize you need to go for it based on the defensive failures.
How have they managed to make LSU into a dangerous passing team?
LikeLike
They either go for the FG to make it 15 (and they have a decent shot) or go for it on 4th and 13. Don’t punt 19 yards with a defense that hasn’t held them.
A&M just has been inexplicably mediocre with the obvious talent they have had over the last 5-10 years. Their offense made LSU look slow the 1st quarter. But then they started doing empty backfields and getting sacked.
We may be on the same page with ESPN/Fox announcers. Musberger/Herbstreit/James et. al. force me to watch a different game. But they do have some good people.
LikeLike
A guilty pleasure is listening to Chris Spielman complaining about poor technique and explaining how it should be done, especially tackling. He gets so excited, you can feel his love for the game. I think he would have been a coach a long time ago if it wasn’t for his wife’s cancer.
LikeLike
Maybe TAMU can pull an Arkansas without the late choke?
LikeLike
Apparently not. Oh well.
TAMU seems to be taking the PSU approach, making a weak SEC offense look good by giving them lots of picks.
LikeLike
Jefferson really is one of the best QBs I have ever seen in his fakes. I was never sure if he handed off or not. Now his passing—he was incredibly accurate when A&M was about to flatten him. Other than that, he had a hard time hitting anyone or anything.
LikeLike
So why did the SEC send Georgia to the Liberty Bowl and Kentucky to the bowl in Birmingham? The Liberty Bowl was far from full (which it would have been if Kentucky had gone), and the Birmingham Bowl probably would have been full if next-door Georgia had gone there instead.
LikeLike
Oh wait, looks like the Liberty Bowl wanted Georgia (who didn’t sell out there allotment). Stupid bowl execs.
LikeLike
Plus Kentucky had been to three Music City Bowls and a Liberty Bowl in the previous four seasons. Maybe the Liberty Bowl people thought Kentucky fans wouldn’t be interested in just going to Tennessee yet again.
LikeLike
In which case they are stupid. To rely on historical traveling performance by Georgia fans (when they were far more excited than this year) and not taking in to account that Kentucky fans always fill up bowls in Tennessee is asinine, especially since Memphis isn’t Nashville (Philly’s in the same state as Pittsburgh, but no one would think one visiting one city is the same as visiting the other).
LikeLike
Georgia fans weren’t going to travel anywhere. They were debating whether or not to fire Richt. This season was a major disappointment.
LikeLike
playing a CUSA school also was a factor.
LikeLike
Playing Pitt would have helped? We all know in what high esteem the SEC holds the BE.
LikeLike
A lot of UGA fans didn’t know that UCF existed, let alone played football.
Incidentally, there seem to be a lot of people believing (and not one seems to have any substantiation for the belief) that UCF will get a Big East invitation soon.
Should be some rumours this week as the NCAA meetings are being held.
LikeLike
@Bullet – I’ve heard a lot of UCF to the Big East rumors, but nothing substantial. My feeling is that it’s totally dependent upon whether Villanova moves up. 10 appears to be the target number for the Big East right now (as there aren’t enough realistically worthy schools to jump up to 12), so that last spot is going to either Nova (who has first right of refusal) or likely UCF. There are some arguments for Houston (market and Texas pairing for TCU) and ECU (great attendance for a non-AQ school), but UCF is being talked about the most. Granted, Missouri and Rutgers were discussed by the media much more for Big Ten expansion than Nebraska and I’ve heard from lord knows how many people that have been absolutely convinced that Memphis would get invited to the Big East, so we obviously can’t take being discussed a lot as a firm indication of an invitation down the road.
LikeLike
I attended the Cotton Bowl last night and obviously had a great time. This was the first game I have attended at the new Cowboys Stadium, although I did take a tour of it in the Summer of 09, and I have to say that the big video board is mesmerizing. I had very good seats but I had to make a conscious effort to watch the game on the field. I can’t wait for next season, when my Tigers open up 2011 back in Cowboys Stadium against the Oregon Ducks.
Watching my Tigers stomp a mud-hole in the Aggies brought me back to my college days – minus the debauchery – when that occurred on a regular basis. The poor Aggies came out and punched the Tigers in the mouth, much like tOSU did in the 2007 BCS NGC, but just couldn’t keep it up. I think my Tigers were in awe of the facility as they kept looking up at the video screens after plays. Once they settled down, the Tigers looked better than they have since the 07 championship season.
They should finish ranked 6, 7, or 8 in the final polls and be ranked in the pre-season top 5. With the BCS NCG in the Superdome next season, I’m hopeful for another good run.
On the Michigan coaching search, what is the deal with the Michigan powers that be? I’m certainly glad that they don’t want my crazy Uncle Les, but can’t understand why they wouldn’t. Not many coaches have a better resume over his six years at 6 LSU: 1 BCS NC, 1 SEC Championship, 2 SEC CG appearances, 2-0 in BCS bowl games, 5-1 in all bowl games, 1 12-win season, 3 11-win seasons, 1 9-win season, and his worst season was 8 wins. And he’s a “Michigan Man” that played for Bo.
Regarding the Aggies-to-the-SEC-talk, here’s a fun article that appeared in the Dallas Morning News today.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/010811dnsposherrington.a51889.html
LikeLike
While I wouldn’t ever say I actually know what they’re thinking, I have to wonder if they think Les, like Saban before him, is a good coach who benefits greatly from the recruiting rules (or relatively lack there-of) in the SEC. In that case, the hiring would be the same as the RichRod hiring…someone who is able to do well within the confines of the old rules, but not necessarily by those prevalent in the Big Ten.
That being said…did Mich actually say they weren’t interested in him? Seems short sighted IMO.
LikeLike
1. They hired a search firm, so no details should be public yet. Les denied hearing from MI, not from anyone. They may be looking at him.
2. He’s crazy.
3. As PSUGuy says, they may be wondering if he can win without oversigning and lots of JUCOs.
4. Maybe they want to go younger (he’s 57) to get a coach who will be there longer.
5. Maybe Les told them he wasn’t interested.
LikeLike
Alan,
I haven’t heard any of that TAMU to SEC talk for a while. I assume that it’s all regional talk, mostly by the fans?
LikeLike
Brian,
I get the feeling the TAMU fans are out of touch in that they think realignment will happen without delany or scott making a first move (which at this time seems highly unlikely). Slive appears happy with the 12 team model, so I do not see him taking on a 13th team (even TAMU) and upsetting the apple cart if he does not have too. I think delany and slive both have ACC roots, and just can not see either rocking the boat, when such an action would implode the ACC. Slive has said repeatedly that the SEC will not be the first conference to 13 +.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve heard the “open invitation” talk and I just don’t buy it. Slive would take TAMU if the Big 12 was breaking up or they went independent first, but I don’t think he wants to poach them.
On the other hand, if ND and TX asked to join the SEC he’d be the first to 14 in a heartbeat.
I don’t think Delany or Slive would let concern for the ACC stop them from expanding if they thought it was the right move. The ACC will survive regardless.
I’d like for Scott to present the numbers that show expanding to 14 or 16 is a wise financial move in general. Sure, if you add TX and OU it works. How many of those programs are out there to get? ND, TX, OU and maybe TAMU?
The best of the remaining schools offer some value, but I’m not sure they make it worth expanding.
LikeLike
Alan, congratulations on making us look like a Big Ten Champion. Not what I was expecting. I’ve seen several of your games this year, and your QB has never been that precise.
Of course, that columnist has it completely backwards. A&M should be leaving the Big 12. The only reason to stay is to ensure we keep playing the Longhorns, and our goals should be much higher than that.
Most sports writers offer opinions to justify their own laziness; Texas sportswriters don’t want A&M to go to the SEC because they would have to travel more and pay attention to more teams.
LikeLike
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6003504
Like I said, just give them time.
LikeLike
Word is that Lloyd Carr is opposed to a Mad Hatter hiring (because he’s not conservative enough for him). Not sure how much sway Carr still has with the UM admin. Word was that last time, Miles felt low-balled by Michigan; they probably offered him the same salary they eventually gave RichRod, which wasn’t the top of the national/SEC scale, and was less than what Tressel made as well.
LikeLike
Good article by Pete Thamel about Larry Scott.
Scott says no expansion in the immediate future but that the next round will happen in the next 10 years. He also say he now thinks the $320 million figure people threw out for the Pac-16 would have been significantly exceeded by the real deal.
Sources close to Scott say $170 million ($14.17 million per school) is the benchmark for their new TV deal. Above that, they go to equal revenue sharing.
He said some interesting things about courting Texas, too.
Scott said that Dodds and Powers told him “we’re on board in principle.”
LikeLike
Great article! I read it during breakfast this morning and was amazed to read that the $320 million estimate may have been low. I wonder if Texas and Oklahoma are having second thoughts already on the PAC-16? I suspect they will join within five years. Just need to find a way to dump Baylor.
LikeLike
Too soon to have regrets. Wait until they get their new TV deal. If they make what Beebe promised, they’ll be happy for a while. The others may chafe if they have to sacrifice to pay the big 3.
They still have a Baylor/TT problem with the Pac-16. Would Baylor go BE to join TCU, or will TCU have changed conference again by then? Would the SEC take one with TAMU? Would OU consider the SEC over Pac-16?
I think any major changes are more than 5 years away. People will need time to adjust to the new conferences and all the new TV deals to see who is happy.
LikeLike
I’m sceptical. The Pac12 managed to get about the same amount for their championship game now as th SEC got a couple of years ago. That implies that the current schools will likely pull down the $17M per school with their new TV contract that the SEC schools got a few years back. To get to even $20M per school, the 4 new schools would have to add over $100M, or about $25M per school. Considering that even Texas likely won’t pull down that much, that seems unlikely. Granted, there are factors of scale at work here, but a potential $320M TV contract, much less one far over that, sees quite unlikely. What makes it less likely is that ESPN is willing and able to buy off Texas (and TAMU & OU if need be) to prevent superconferences from forming.
LikeLike
Interesting that the boosters and alumni are trying to boot Pederson from Pitt with the chancellor defending him (according to ESPN). No pressure on making a good football coach hire this time, Steve, unlike the other coaches you’ve hired (Callahan and Haywood).
They’ve added layers of bureaucracy to the search with two school officials joining Pederson for the initial round of interviews and the chancellor interviewing the final candidates. This is not going to end quickly, and they’ve already lost 11 of 18 recruits. Add in the inevitable loss of players to the NFL and transfers due to a coaching change and they are in trouble, even in the Big East.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/college/s_717024.html
LikeLike
I’m not sure how/why Pederson managed to get another AD job at another BCS school. Firing/hiring the head football coach is an AD’s biggest responsibility, and he royally screwed up both aspects of that at Nebraska.
LikeLike
He was AD at Pitt before going to Nebraska, and won an award for being a good AD.
LikeLike
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6000577
Results agree with one of the reasons I have said an 8 to 16 team playoff is very likely in the next 10-20 years, maybe sooner. The bowls will start supporting it. BCS alleged championship game diminishes, not the regular season, but the other 4 BCS bowls. Their solutions are laughable-geographic rules or more horsetrading (they all support their own interests-which is why Orange keeps inviting Pac 10 schools to the chagrin of the western bowls), making it easier to qualify (they made it more difficult so Notre Dame and mediocre SEC and B10 teams don’t get invited over more deserving schools), minimum standards for AQ champs (they will never agree).
I don’t think this is a “blip”, but we have had a slow, continuing diminution of the non-“championship” BCS games’ value. With schools like Virginia Tech and OU not drawing, the bowls will, in time, come to see the light. The Presidents will figure out how to make it work in their interests and follow the $.
LikeLike
Results agree? It is interesting how each of us sees the world through our chosen prism. The Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl see their ratings drop only 0.1 despite a move from broadcast to cable, and it is portrayed as “fan apathy”. The worst BCS team ever (UConn) brings terrible ratings, yet somehow a playoff with the MAC and Sun Belt in it would do better.
The biggest problem these bowls have is when they don’t have an SEC or Big Ten school to fill their stadiums. (peering through my own prism)
As for the BCS games supporting a playoff… Wouldn’t a playoff diminish them even further? Home games for the playoff games with a neutral field championship means the other bowls are even less important.
LikeLike
The bottom 25 or so bowls don’t have much influence. They can’t really be diminished much more. The big 4 would be the quarterfinals.
LikeLike
Alan,
What are the LSU people saying about Miles going to Michigan? If he were to go, who would be on the list for replacements?
Michigan alumnus/fans,
What are you hear about the search? Do you think that Miles will get the job. Is he the one that most want now that Harbaugh is going to the 49ers?
LikeLike
Miles or Hoke seem to be it. Old school blue wants the latter and new the former, for the most part; it seems. Fitzgerald has denied interest but his name keeps popping up. I think all 3 are pretty good. Miles would be the sexy pick, but perhaps the most polarizing.
LikeLike
Yeah, Miles’ personality doesn’t seem like it really fits the personna of the Michigan alumus and fans (at least how it is perceived from an outsider such as myself). But with that said, the guy has made be a believer over this past year (up until this year I thought he was winning solely on Saban’s talent, but he proved me wrong this year) that no matter how “quirky” the guy is, he wins a lot of games.
LikeLike
Since the landscape is settled among the truly power conferences, should the Big East and MWC expand now (or soon) or should they wait?
Would expanding to UCF, Houston and Villanova (or Temple) be a smart move at this time for the Big East or should they wait?
Should the MWC go for twelve or stand pat with their new roster?
LikeLike
10 is the ideal size for these conferences (they want to maximize their number of conference games because guarantee games cost too much for these guys). No reason to go to 12 because at this level, conference title games aren’t all that lucrative.
LikeLike
The games aren’t that lucrative unless you compare to their regular season contract. If they get $7 million for their season and $3 million (don’t remember any exact $) it can be worthwhile. More importantly, the exposure can be invaluable. Certainly the MAC and CUSA feel that way.
LikeLike
Well, once you have 12 teams, of course you’re going to stage a championship game, but did the AMC or CUSA expand just so they could get to 12 and stage a title game?
LikeLike
NIU and Marshall were added to get a championship game, but they added in other ways as well. CUSA gradually got to 12 from their original 6 to get a game. I don’t remember the exact figures, but for the WAC 16, the championship game was 33-50% of their total TV contract.
MWC has different motivations. Cutting travel would be a factor in going to 12 for them. But they still have dreams of an AQ, so 11 & 12 would have to pass some strength hurdles. I suspect they stand pat unless Houston was willing to join.
I don’t know if anyone has a clue what the BE is thinking. Villanova??? And they aren’t even sure they want to join. UMass to MAC is a tough decision. Villanova to BE is a no brainer. They’ve already tried dropping fb and brought it back 4 years later. There are existing stadiums they could work a deal on. So do you sit in FCS and lose $4 million a year or join an AQ conference and lose $1 million at worst and probably break even or make a little money? The only logical question would be Big East or non-scholarship football. That they are taking 9 months to make a decision only indicates that their administration is just totally asleep at the wheel.
LikeLike
Frank,
I was there live to see the Illinois women last night in gymnastics (they finished second, but that was after UK swept the floor part) and my niece has added Illinois to her possible schools after seeing them in action last night (she is a multi sport athlete). The UK team had several Illinois natives on their roster (as well as other Big 10 states) and it was close between the two schools till the last round. Of the 3 schools in the meet, she liked the Illinois uniforms the best (funny what kids look at in picking schools). 🙂
LikeLike
You need to shake that out of her. The color of her school’s uniform is going to matter a hell of a lot less 30 years from now than the type of education she received (and what school she went to).
LikeLike
richard,
agreed! and not saying it is the only reason, but it is funny that they notice. (fwiw, I am okay with her at Illinois, as her great great grandfather went there, among others).
LikeLike
Illinois is a great place to go to school AND get an education. ;-). Some don’t put the two together. Wishing her some Orange and blue luck in her decision Duffman.
LikeLike
Guys, I made it in from Dallas a few hours ago and have been looking around various sites (Rivals’ TigerBait.com, the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, the Shreveport Times, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Detroit Free Press, ESPN, and Rivals main board. I’ll make a few calls in the morning, but this is what I know right now.
1. ESPN’s local affiliated website BayouBengalsInsider is reporting that Kathy Miles does not want to move to Ann Arbor.
2. Rivals TigerBait.com is reporting that Les is working on his LSU contract regarding future roll-overs and a few other staff matters. The Mad Hatter may get bumped up to an even $4mm per year, up from his current $3.8mm per. Their sources do NOT expect Miles to leave LSU.
3. Two huge recruits just committed to LSU yesterday. Probably wouldn’t have happened if they thought Miles was leaving. Rivals currently ranks LSU’s incoming 2011 class #4. Michigan’s class is falling apart.
4. Lloyd Carr’s UM faction is dead-set against Miles. They want Hoke. The Bo faction obviously wants Miles.
5. Miles is not crazy about being a back-up plan for UM, either in 2007 or currently.
6. LSU DC John Chavis recently turned down Mack Brown, Texas, and $1mm to stay at LSU.
7. Most of the local anti-Miles faction has quieted down after The Hat beat Meyer & Saban, won 11 games, and crushed the red-hot Aggies this season.
8. LSU should be pre-season top 5 and the 2011 BCS NCG is in the Superdome.
LikeLike
Apparently some people want Gruden and think he’s in the mix:
http://www.thepigskinguru.com/2011/01/jon-gruden-to-michigan.html
http://www.thepigskinguru.com/2011/01/jon-gruden-to-michigan-part-2-he-and.html
http://www.thepigskinguru.com/2011/01/jon-gruden-to-michigan-part-3-people.html
LikeLike
alan,
thanks for the update.
I think my post from awhile back may be accurate in that Michigan is experiencing “brand” slippage, and LSU is experiencing “brand” traction. I am not saying Michigan is no longer a “brand” and have stated that it can take a decade or more to knock a team out of the top “brands”. It does appear to be a shift in perception in that the Michigan job might not be a destination one, and LSU may be making a run at being one. With this in mind the mad hatter will pick LSU at this point in time because it will be perceived as the “destination” job at this specific point in time. The biggest problem is the rivalry between Michigan and tOSU. In the early history, it was dominated by Michigan (but most of those fans are taking the dirt nap right now). However, in the last 10 meetings michigan has only taken one game (for a 10% W-L, and 10% to 90% does not equal a rivalry). The balance needs to be closer to 50 – 50 for broader media appeal (and why the IU vs UK basketball game has lost some luster to UNC vs Duke).
The “solid” brands (ie the top half)
tOSU, Bama, U$C, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (due to national appeal)
The “secondary” brands
Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, SEC +1, PSU (in a post JoPa world ?)
congrats on your tigers, as I adjusted my spread in a post prior to the game, but I did not see either side scoring as many points as they did. I am beginning to believe that in the SEC it is best to not be the pre season #1 pick in the conference.
Florida was picked, but Bama won
Bama was picked, but Auburn won
not sure how that trends through the history of the SEC, but it might be interesting to do the data over the past 20 – 30 years to see if there is a long term historical trend.
I have a feeling the real losers going forward will be the secondary teams in the former Big 12 like A&M. The conference will probably lose at least 2 bowl tie ins, and with no CCG, teams like UT and OU will always get the nod over teams like A&M and Missouri. They also lose 2 states for media footprint, so fewer eyeballs will remain for the non UT / OU teams in the conference to provide media clout (my guess is those “secondary” teams will find a smaller and smaller national TV audience, and will see their teams reduced to smaller viewing areas and more games in tier 2 and tier 3 channels.
LikeLike
Who is the Big 12 going to lose bowls to? The MAC? Big 10 never fills its existing bowls, much to the chagrin of the MAC and Pizza Bowl. Pac 12 doesn’t have a lot of attractive bowls within reasonable travel range. And it plays the Big 12 in the Holiday.
LikeLike
Fiesta = Big 12 #1
Cotton = Big 12 #2
Alamo = Big 12 #3
Insight = Big 12 #4
Holiday = Big 12 #5
Texas = Big 12 #6
Yankee = Big 12 #7
36 current bowls, at some point we will see contraction as are the 6-6 schools filling the stadiums?
sure going 7 teams deep in a 12 team conference seems more possible than going 7 teams deep in a 10 team conference.
will ISU or Baylor travel as well as UNL or CU? Will the “lesser” children draw national media the same way the “bigger” children will. I would see at least one bowl dropping a Big 12 contract to pick up a Pac 12 contract. If the Big 12 has 7 tie ins right now, and the Pac 10 has
Rose = #1
Alamo = #2
Holiday = #3
Sun = #4
Las Vegas = Pac#5
Emerald = #6
with the adds of CU and Utah, and the deletes of UNL and CU, I can see a flip flop in Big 12 / Pac 12 tie ins.
LikeLike
Actually, the B12 has 8 bowl tie-ins now (don’t forget the TicketCity bowl) so it seems likely that the Pac12 will expand to at least 7 tie-ins and the B12 drop to at most 7 tie-ins.
LikeLike
Actually, I expect the Big 12 to lose at least one bowl tie-in next time negotiations come up. The league is losing two teams AND is adding five more conference losses among the remaining ten teams. It’s a mathematical certainty that fewer Big 12 teams will be bowl-eligible with its new alignment.
LikeLike
I can definitely see the B12 losing the Insight Bowl (which is in Pac12 territory) to the Pac12, especially since the B12 has lost it’s western edge and Pac12 has gained more schools on its eastern edge. They may lose the Holiday Bowl to the B10 (or the Yankee Bowl, if the B10 wants it).
LikeLike
Pac could have had Insight anytime, but haven’t wanted it (they had to settle for BE for a while before B10 signed up). Same with B10 and Yankee/Pinstripe. Maybe Pac wants Insight now. Holiday isn’t likely to get a B10 team. B12 is closer and Holiday doesn’t offer the money the Big 10’s Florida bowls offer.
But Big 12 has a number of bowls it could replace the Insight with. Sun & Independence are former Big 12 bowls that got replaced. Sun would dump ACC or Pac in an instant to get Big 12.
LikeLike
Back when the Insight was taking BE teams, its payout was the minimum. Now it’s a mid-tier bowl. The Pac10 wanted to add the Insight last time and lost out to the B10 & B12.
Don’t be so sure that the Holiday prefers the B12 over the B10. The B12 schools may be closer, but everyone has to fly in regardless, and once you’re out of driving distance, it’s more about how ardent the fans are. Plus, the B10 has a lot of retirees/fans/alums in Arizona (within driving distance of San Diego). Finally, the Holiday actually wanted to add the B10 last time, but the B10 went with the Gator. With the B10 adding Nebraska (and the B12 losing Nebraska, as well as another western school in Colorado), the Holiday may prefer the B10 6th slot to the B12 5th slot. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the B12 losing the Insight & Holiday bowls and regaining the Sun bowl.
LikeLike
Losing 2 teams and going to 9 conference games means we’ll likely lose at least 1 bowl team and maybe more each year. So the Big 12 will lose at least 1 bowl, though I think this will not be one of the top bowls in their rotation.
More interestingly, I think we’ll probably get a bit less money for each bowl team the next go round. Nebraska was one of the most desirable teams for bowls, and I think Colorado was fairly desirable in the years they were actually good. So that does knock some value off our bids. However, with the natural inflation that will occur before we negotiate the next contracts, we won’t be able to measure it.
LikeLike
duffman,
OSU-MI has run in streaks lately. Tressel is 9-1 but Cooper was 2-10-1. The series has been balanced for a while, though.
All time: 57-44-6 MI
Since 1919: 44-44-4 (1st OSU win)
Last 40: 19-19-2
Last 25: 12-12-1
LikeLike
brian,
I agree 100% long term, and why I do not put FSU and Miami in the “brands” yet, but I was speaking of national perception outside of the Big 10 (and hence the slippage in national love for Michigan). Sure you and I can see well beyond a decade, but can mainstream america?
LikeLike
No, mainstream America can’t remember past yesterday.
The series has been bad for the past 20 years in terms of streaks. Many of those games were good ones, though. There have been 9 single digit wins and a tie in the past 23 games versus 4 blowouts.
Michigan was just so bad under RichRod that people forget the 1/2 game in 2006.
LikeLike
I think several people are getting carried away with the notion that only Notre Dame, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and Big Ten and SEC programs are brand-names.
For example, how could Miami and FSU not be considered “brands.” I realize that Florida stands ahead of them in their own state, but Miami and Florida State are major brand name teams in their own right.
Miami had an ESPN documentary made about them in 2009, i.e., the recent past, and it got the second-highest ratings in the 30-for-30 series. Their branding is quite successful. At the beginning of a Saints game, for example, when the offensive starters are introduced, the tight end says, “Jeremy Shockey, the U.” Everyone in the audience knows exactly which school he’s talking about.
Florida State has one of the most recognizable helmets in college football, one of the most famous chants in all of sports (known in Atlanta as the Tomahawk Chop), and one of the most famous former coaches in college football history.
I may live to 120 and never see FSU or Miami come within 100 games of the win totals for Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas, etc., but that doesn’t mean at all that they’re not brand names.
LikeLike
Michael,
People who remember the 70s and before recognize that the current “brands” were “brands” then, too. It takes more than 20 good years to really join the big boys.
Look how quickly Miami and FSU faded from the spotlight when they stopped being elite. That doesn’t happen to the real “brands.” And remember, the old “brands” did it in the days when not every game was on TV. Lots of teams cycle through periods of greatness, but the real “brands” are elite for the long haul.
There are 10 783+ win teams, 8 of which have over a 70% winning percentage and the other two are over 68%. Those are your “brands” – MI, TX, ND, NE, OSU, PSU, OK, AL, TN, USC.
The next best teams are below 65% and only 3 have 700+ wins (highest is 737). Miami is 50th in total wins, more than 300 behind Michigan. FSU is 83rd in total wins, another 100 behind Miami, although FSU does have a 66% winning percentage.
That is a clear separation between the true “brands” and everyone else. That doesn’t prevent other teams from becoming current brands, but those tend to rise and fade.
Newcomers will never catch up in total wins, but they can compete in winning percentage. Example – Boise is 109th in wins with 231 in 25 years but has a 76.8% winning percentage which leads the nation.
LikeLike
On the other hand, Brian, no one cares who won in the ’30’s. Otherwise, Minnesota would be one of the most talked about schools.
LikeLike
Richard,
Did you see MN on the list?
Only teams that won all the time made the list. Those programs have proven they can succeed in all different eras.
FSU will be more of a brand if Jimbo is successful for years. Right now, it is Bobby that’s the brand more than FSU.
Miami’s fair weather fans hold them back. Hard to be a true brand if you can’t fill your stadium.
LikeLike
“Look how quickly Miami and FSU faded from the spotlight when they stopped being elite. That doesn’t happen to the real ‘brands.'”
@Brian:
Recall how quickly OU faded from the spotlight through its years of mediocrity in the 90’s. USC and Texas were were down for even longer, going back to the early 80’s, both in win columns and in the public consciousness. Even Alabama was largely irrelevant between 1992 and Nick Saban’s arrival, with the exception of the Shaun Alexander years.
Why, then, are those programs credited as “brands” while FSU and Miami are not?
I also find it hard to understand the notion that the so-called true brand name programs only stay down for a limited time, whereas FSU and Miami may have faded for good.
Miami has already proven its ability to fade and recover. Between the ’91 championship season and 2000, Miami had some pretty dry years. They came back strong between 2000 and 2003.
FSU hasn’t really been down for all that long, and has gone 33 years since being quite as rock-bottom as every other program has been at one point or another. You won’t see any 3-9 records for FSU during the “down” 2000’s decade as you would for Notre Dame and Michigan.
LikeLike
It’s not that the brands don’t fade when they’re down, it’s that they have generations of fans that remember them when they were good. The brands stay relevant to those fans. This built in base helps them recover in the public consciousness faster.
The newcomers are really only brands to the younger generations that only knew them as good. Everyone else drifts away when they are down. All they have to do is stay good, and they’ll be brands too.
LikeLike
@Brian,
FSU does have generations of fans that remember them when they were good.
My grandmother, who’s 79, has pulled for FSU since her daughters first enrolled at FSU. She doesn’t remember much of FSU football before Bowden because there wasn’t much worth remembering. She and my grandfather, like thousands of Floridians born in the 1920’s and 30’s, found it very easy to pull for a team coached by a very likable southern man around their same age. I’m pretty sure she’d say FSU is one of college football’s brand names.
The Baby Boomers, also not a part of the younger generation, has known FSU as a winning football program since they were in college or since shortly after. My mom graduated during FSU’s dark ages of the mid-70’s, but she’s only known winning FSU football teams since she was 24 years old. She’s now 57. My father went from graduation at FSU in 1975 to retirement in 2009 and knew only one winning season during his career: 1976.
Obviously, generations younger than my grandparents and parents have known nothing but winning seasons for their whole lives, myself included. FSU finished in the top five every year from kindergarten to my freshman year of college.
In the past 30 years, FSU, Miami, and Florida have been more successful than all of your “brand names,” with the obvious exception of Nebraska.
LikeLike
Michael,
That’s great for your family, but I could find plenty of people the same age not from Florida that would disagree. The ‘Noles were largely nobodies before the 14 year run ’87-’00 (much like a Boise) to much of the country. The constant losses to Miami also devalued them for a while.
Oh, and OSU also has more wins and a better winning percentage than FSU over the past 30 years. Of the 10 brands I listed, 7 were in the top 11 for winning percentage for the last 30 years, the other were 14, 20 and 22 (ND and AL were the stragglers). Like I said, they’ve proven to be good in all eras.
If only the last 30 years counted, then Miami, FL and FSU would all be brands. I just don’t believe that fundamental premise.
LikeLike
brian,
going to the basketball model and IU as example
early on (back in the 20’s) IU owned UK, until the 90’s it was more even, and since it has been heavily UK (to the point that there has been talk of canceling the series). Now wether IU and UK hate each other is not as valid as them continuing to keep the game alive, as stopping it allows another conference to grow in its place (note the rise of duke vs unc fits nicely within the decline of IU vs UK). As an older person I can see the value of the long term history, but many younger folks just see in 5 year windows or less. If Crean can build a solid base of 4 year “local” boys to combat the 1 and done “national” boys at UK, I can see a competitive and balanced future, which will translate to greater national media awareness and demand. I guess my point is if Michigan can not win a game against tOSU sooner that later, it will find itself in a similar fate to IU basketball when it comes to national viewer attraction. It is just my observation that the younger the audience, the shorter the attention span and influence on long term history.
LikeLike
Crean will never cheat enough to compete with Calipari.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s dismal ratings this year were interesting. I wonder if their brand is facing serious damage with the short term focus.
Over the last 10 years ND, MI, UNL and FSU haven’t made the final top 5. PSU has only made it once. But then AL’s only finish in the final top 5 was last year. Those 5 schools have had some rough years in this decade. Of course, USC, OU and Texas had some rough years in the 90s and Ohio St. did also (late 80s?/early 90s?). Those 4 schools have nearly half the top 5 finishes this decade.
LikeLike
Some of these storied rivalries aren’t what they a promoted to be all the time. No, not that I would disparage the UM vs. tOSU rivalry. I do want to point out that when they get one sided, they kind of seis to be what they are billed at. For example, The Chicago Bears and Green Bay packers rivalry. This is a much ballyhooed rivalry. My sense/memory is that back in the days when the Bears had Walter Payton, there were no rivalry, it was bears all the time. Likewise when the packers had Bret Favre, it was Packers all the time. For me rivalries are better when the records are close to being even for a given period. As well they are more intense when there are home losses.
LikeLike
I think essentially all rivalries are overhyped by the media. If you don’t have a personal stake in the outcome, all that matters is quality play. No rivalry stays great in that sense for a long period of time. The rest is the amount of bad blood and times when the stakes were high.
MI will return to greatness eventually, and the rivalry will perk up. Maybe 2013.
LikeLike
brian,
as an old guy it is amazing how “rivals” happen. I was often at a game nobody attended early on, and it turned out to be totally exciting for one reason or another. Then folks came in later hoping to see what they had missed the first time. Just look how big the checkerdome was when UK, Duke, Arkansas, and ND was when that final Four happened, and not look at the size of the Final Four. If you were lucky enough to be at that game, you got an experience when the schools had a higher percentage of the seats, the media was less “programmed”, and the voices were much louder that the dull corporate folks who sit there now. I have always advocated early adoption as that is when you get the most genuine and fun sports events.
LikeLike
BTW, I’m not sure about brands, but in terms of the most attractive coaching jobs (because of money, brand, and access to recruiting), I’d say they are
tip-top: Florida, Texas, Alabama, Georgia
1.5ish (some people may put these schools in the top tier): tOSU, PSU, ND (note that Urban Meyer turned down ND for Florida because he felt he had a better chance of winning a national title there), USC, OU, FSU, LSU
2nd: Michigan, Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami
3rd: TAMU, UCLA, UNC, Clemson, Auburn
2nd and 3rd are very close. You almost have to divide in to 2 groups (those that are in great recruiting grounds and those that are not), because comparing between the 2 groups of schools is very difficult.
LikeLike
You have Georgia too high. They have much less history of success but their fans expect the moon. GA is well behind CA, TX and FL for recruiting, and just ahead of OH. History says most of your tier 1.5 and 2 schools are really tier 1.
FL, TX, USC
OSU, OU, AL, FSU, ND
LSU, GA, PSU, MI
I’d call them all elite jobs.
LikeLike
I don’t think Georgia’s too high. I’m talking more about potential (thus the desirability of a coaching job) instead of what’s happened in the past. They’re amongst the top schools when it comes to football money (http://www.trackemtigers.com/2009/6/15/910631/top-10-college-revenue-producing), they have a good brand, and are in a great recruiting situation. It’s true that Georgia doesn’t have the population of Florida, Texas, or Cali (and thus don’t produce the number of elite recruits those 3 states do), but they also don’t have to fight off 2 other football powers (like Florida does) or some 8 other FBS schools instate (like Texas does) or 3 other schools in its own conference & fan apathy (as USC does). In the state of Georgia, GTech’s clearly second to Georgia. They really should have done more with their resources than they have.
LikeLike
@Richard – Other schools that have managed to do less with more besides Georgia (in terms of recruiting location): UCLA, Texas A&M, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland. UNC might deserve to be on that list, too. These all seem to be schools in constant “sleeping giant” mode, where the argument is that if a coach could just keep some in-state recruits, they’d be national powers.
Schools that have done more with less: Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Stanford (in terms of the stricter academic standards). I’d also like to know how South Carolina always manages to pony up such huge money for big-name coaches. There must be more to that than just being in the SEC.
LikeLike
Richard,
GA is good for recruiting, but everyone comes to Atlanta for recruits. There are so many transplants in Atlanta that the loyalty to UGA isn’t as high as you would think. FSU takes a lot from south Georgia, too, since it’s closer.
There’s a reason why UGA hasn’t won more often. They just aren’t an elite program. They’re a more successful version of Illinois. The fans don’t accept this, of course.
LikeLike
UGA ought to do better in Georgia in recruiting than they do. Just saw a top 50 list. They have 10 of the 45 committed and those are spread throughout the list, not just at the top. 4 of top 6 were uncommitted still. All the surrounding state teams recruit in Georgia. 34/45 committed + all 5 of the uncommitted were going to Georgia or surrounding states. UK had 4 of the other 11. Rest were spread around-Stanford, ND, Cal, Michigan St., Syracuse, Cincinnati, VT. Auburn, S. Carolina, TN and GT all had 4 or 5. Miami, FSU, Alabama took a few. Clemson didn’t have any but were in the running for the top 3.
If UGA dominated Georgia, they would spend most years in the top 10.
I wouldn’t put UGA as a job in the top tier, but it certainly has the potential to be there.
And I think FSU and Miami were so dominant in the 80s and 90s that they are “brands.” Anytime they are good, they get in the conversation, just as Michigan and Notre Dame would-and their dry spells are a lot worse than Miami or FSU. Over the last 10 years, Miami has more top 5 finishes than the entire Big 10 excluding Ohio St. Over 25 years (which is a long time) FSU has more top 5 finishes than any two Big 10 schools. FSU & Miami together have more top 5 finishes (24) than any conference except the Big 12 (also 24) and SEC (27). Top 5 or 10 is what the casual fan notices.
LikeLike
Bullet,
FSU and Miami are brands to the younger generations, but not to everybody. The true brands have been good for long enough that they are brands to everybody. That’s the difference. All they have to do is stay good for a while longer, and then I’ll agree with you.
LikeLike
Not all the older fans would exclude them, as I certainly don’t qualify as younger. I actually remember seeing IU play in the Rose Bowl (its not just a legend-they actually did make it).
LikeLike
Bullet,
I think it is fair to say that FtT readers are not representative of the typical CFB fan. I have more faith in your rationality than the average fan’s.
LikeLike
Colin Cowherd made a great argument for Texas as the #1 coaching job. His key points:
– UT is in a desirable location for a coach and his family to live. The weather’s great, the city’s great, the school’s great, etc.
– UT is in a great state for recruiting, and it has more of a leg-up on its in-state rivals for recruits than Florida does on Miami or FSU, both of which are easily capable of out-recruiting UF.
– UT has vast financial resources that it’s even more willing to use than other power programs.
– The fanbase & media react with a greater sense of reason towards the UT coach when he has a bad season than SEC fans and media do, yet there’s still a ton of passion and support for the program in bad times, compared with more lukewarm attitudes at a place like USC.
I don’t agree w/ everything Cowherd says but on this one he seems pretty spot-on.
LikeLike
Agreed, except for the support part; they’re pretty fair-weather in Austin, so when the Longhorns do badly, attendance drops off just like it does in Troy.
Still, Texas probably belongs in its own tier on top.
I should probably move TAMU up to the second tier as well or even 1.5. There’s no reason for them to perform worse than FSU.
LikeLike
Texas isn’t anywhere near as fair weathered as USC. USC has varied in recent years from 57k to 91k. Texas has been very close to capacity for at least 30 years. Texas may not maintain the 100k if they have another 5-7 year, but they will still be in the 80s.
I wouldn’t put it quite as strong as some of the SEC schools. There is a little bit of UT being Austin’s “pro” team. And while Texas fans aren’t quite as quick to jump on coaches as SEC fans, they aren’t that far behind. OC Greg Davis has been reviled almost since day 1 of the Mack Brown era despite putting up more points than any Texas teams in history (until this year).
LikeLike
@Michael in Indy – I agree. I’d put Texas as the #1 coaching job for all of those reasons and then Florida as #2.
@Brian – Your tiers were essentially what I was thinking except that I’d swap FSU and Michigan for sure, while PSU probably ought to be kicked up a tier, too. FSU has the location advantage for recruiting, but Michigan has a certain historical mystique that only Notre Dame can match along with significantly more financial resources (and it’s not as if though UM has a program that’s completely removed from its past successes). I look at Michigan being at a point where Alabama was during the early 2000s – it might be temporarily down, yet it’s still the highest profile job in its own powerful conference (even if rivals such as Ohio State and Florida, respectively, are located in better recruiting territories). Meanwhile, even though the Northeast isn’t nearly as fruitful as the Southeast for recruiting overall, PSU effectively controls its entire home region with fairly weak head-to-head competition, which is a major advantage and why I think it’s a “tier 2” job. Tennessee probably fits into your 3rd tier. UCLA and Texas A&M are perpetually in “the right coach could make this program into a superpower” category.
LikeLike
Frank,
I raised FSU precisely because they are a fairly close #2 in a great recruiting state (much like OU in Texas). As brands, I would move MI and PSU up, but not as jobs. MI and PSU were lower because MI and PA are slightly lesser recruiting grounds and OSU has been dominating the conference. PSU also suffers from having so much of its success under 1 coach. I left TN off only because of the lack of strong recruiting grounds. I wasn’t trying to be all inclusive.
LikeLike
Brian:
Actually, I think PSU should be tOSU’s equal. Brand-wise, they’re about the same. Money-wise, tOSU has an edge, but that’s mostly because PSU (for whatever reason) isn’t spending to their potential. Recruiting-wise, Pennsylvania is as good a recruiting ground as Ohio. Granted, tOSU doesn’t have a recruiting rival like Pitt in-state, but PSU also has access to more talent outside it’s home state. as I’ve noted before, they’re the only B10 school that borders fertile recruiting areas outside the B10 footprint (in MD/DC/VA & NJ). Plus, as the dominant brand in the northeast, they should get good players from NY & New England as well.
PSU really hasn’t reached their potential in the latter JoePa years. Then again, they’re not paying JoePa a premier salary either. As no one there can push him out, they’ll likely rejoin the arms race after he decides to retire.
LikeLike
Richard,
I disagree on several points. Please note that those tiers were made based on small differences. I’m not claiming OSU is much better than PSU.
1. OH is better for recruiting than PA. Yes, PSU has proximity to other states but they have to fight a lot of other schools for those kids. Also, OSU takes a lot of the elite western PA kids.
2. PSU historically has won less often than OSU while playing an easier schedule (eastern independents) for most of their history.
3. You may feel that PSU should be OSU’s equal, but they’ve had over 100 years. Perhaps you’re seeing potential that isn’t quite there.
4. I’d say PSU is not quite OSU’s equal as a brand. In part because OSU has been a little more successful, in part because OSU/MI, in part because PSU’s accomplishments as an independent were devalued due to their easier schedule, in part because they didn’t instantly dominate the B10 like many outsiders thought they would. I think they’ll benefit from moving past JoePa in this, because I think he’s bigger than the school at this point and that hurts the brand.
LikeLike
Frank,
if you remember my earlier posts about top 5 under performers, TAMU was at the top of my list. when I did the detailed study they have had some of the greatest coaches at TAMU, but failed to keep them! Hence, TAMU is far from a destination school even tho they have all the other elements.
LikeLike
Michigan man or no, Miles has a great situation at LSU and in some ways a much more manageable one. I think this and not alumni loyalty that decides this one.
There are a few guys that have not proven to be great pro coaches but maybe great college coaches. Why? Because they are a little old school and their expectations of discipline do not transfer as well to today’s pro athletes.
I think of Mike Singletary. Not a Michigan man but a good man and football player with pedigree.
LikeLike
Well, that great situation was looking to fire him as recently as the middle of this year.
The coach who rebuilds MI will win a lot of loyalty. Facing the challenge and helping your alma mater has to have some appeal.
I’m not sure Miles is the right coach for MI right now, but he seems to be the leader so far.
LikeLike
Great link in Frank’s tweet on oversigning:
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2011/01/10/oversigning-sucks-or-why-the-big-ten-can-still-claim-moral-superiority/
Watch the (ESPN) video in that article (especially).
Not sure why other conferences would object to everyone adopting the Big Ten rules. If everyone has to follow the same rules, then there’s no advantage to be gained.
LikeLike
What’s really inexcusable (besides their cowardice in refusing to talk to the athletes in person), is doing it in mid or late summer when the players have very few options. If there was an NCAA rule requiring you to have your roster by sometime in May that would deal with a lot of this. It would also discourage signing marginal academic candidates, who realistically ought to be in a junior college.
If the NCAA was serious, they would look at the issue with upper classmen. Besides having limited options for scholarships, they will likely lose a lot of credits by transferring.
The only reason for having as many as 85 scholarships is to allow for mistakes in recruiting, whether academic or talent or effort.
There historically were a whole lot more “washouts.” Bear Bryant’s 1st A&M team lost about 2/3 of its players. Texas routinely signed huge numbers of players. Pitt’s class with Tony Dorsett in the 70s was the impetous for scholarship limits as they had over 100 freshmen. So the SEC is continuing historical practices. That doesn’t mean they should be continued.
LikeLike
Bullet, couldn’t agree with you more. Hopefully, the NCAA will be forced to clean up this mess if one of the lawsuits recently filed moves forward. I would like to see the SEC put back on a level playing field with the B10. I’m tired of all the recent B10 bashing.
LikeLike
Another option would be to not allow them to replace any scholarship revoked by the college to upperclassmen. They wouldn’t be so quick to revoke those scholarships. I might suggest 1/2 to 1/3 for each one revoked, but that might encourage schools to get rid of more players to get the full scholarship back.
LikeLike
I know a lot of people wouldn’t support it, but I’d like to raise scholarship limits to 95 (or 100) and end oversigning at the same time.
I don’t have a problem with the big money going to big college programs, but I’d like some of that being used to pay for more scholarships. While some schools might cut other men’s athletic scholarships to reach the new limit (and other schools will stay with their current numbers), there will be an overall increase in the number of scholarships given each year. With title 9, that also means more women’s scholarships.
I know other people have supported the exact opposite (cutting scholarships), which I think is a horrible idea. Give more people a chance to attend school on athletic scholarships. Even if they don’t apply themselves to their academics, they’ll generally be better off than if they had no exposure to higher education.
LikeLike
Money isn’t free. 1 more athletic scholarship mean one less academic scholarship or grant for financial aid. I’d rather give out scholarships/tuition support to those students who perform better in the classroom than those who perform better on the football field.
LikeLike
It is money, but it would easily come out of the football budget. It would simply mean that football coaches or facilities spending would not go up quite as rapidly for a few years.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t come out of coaches’ salaries or facilities because competition would keep those numbers high. I find it doubtful that if the football scholarship limit was cut to 75 from 85 (or raised to 95) that it would have any impact on attendance or ticket prices or donations (or coaches’ salaries or facilities spending). Essentially, then, the difference would be more/less profit/loss for the athletic department, meaning more or less money going to the academic side, and I’m always in support of more money to the academic side.
LikeLike
Actually if the limit was raised the difference might come out of recruiting. You can afford a few more misses with a higher number.
Reducing the number has definitely been one of the biggest rule changes. It’s made smaller programs more competitive at the expense of the bigger programs as talent is more spread around. The big boys can still dominate, but the need for good coaching (and good recruiting) is higher than ever (part of the reason salaries are so high).
I definitely wouldn’t lower the limit anymore. The best balance is when you’ve got a lot of team competive, but can still expect the big names teams to regularly be good and draw in a lot of viewers. We’ve already gotten to the point were Wake Forest, Stanford, and Northwestern can be competitive in their conferences and Boise State is considered a top team. On the flip side, big programs have spent a lot more time down than would have been the case in the past. Reduce the scholarships anymore and I think things will have come too far.
Personally, I’d be in favor of raising it a little (to 90 or 95).
LikeLike
Eric:
The facts don’t support the assertion that the 85-scholarship limit made Stanford & Northwestern competitive. Stanford was always competitive, even pre-limit. NU’s big breakout year was 1995 (and they’ve been competitive ever since). The 85 scholarship limit came in 1994.
LikeLike
Several problems with this:
1. Further separates the haves from the have nots
2. Will force other men’s sports to go away since schools can’t afford yet another women’s sport (thus no net scholarship gain, just a shift of sports)
3. Will reduce the parity that helped build the smaller schools (10 more studs at OSU, USC, FL, TX, etc means lesser teams at TCU, Boise, etc)
4. Will waste a lot of academic resources on non-deserving, unqualified “students” instead of students who actually deserve to be there
Proof you don’t need oversigning: Florida
LikeLike
There is a lot of separation between the haves and the have nots. That is a good thing. If you don’t have a closed system (like the NFL) it’s better to have tiers with teams on similar levels, instead of 120 equal teams.
People should worry about parity within conferences, not parity between conferences.
LikeLike
When the separation gets too large, they’ll have to split divisions again. How small do people want I-A to be?
LikeLike
Even UNL dropped some men’s sports a couple years back. There’s a lot of pressure on the budgets of all but a handful of schools. And oversigning is about gaming the rules. It would be the same issue at 95 or 100. The NFL got along fine for many years with rosters of 40 and 7 on the taxi squad. The reasons for 85 are primarily about giving the bigger programs room for more errors. You can redshirt 20, have 10 injured, 5-10 fail academically and still have 45-50 regular players not even counting walk-ons (which many schools use for kickers and special teams).
LikeLike
Its easy to see why they don’t want to adopt those rules…it would eliminate a huge advantage those schools have.
Also, I’d like to enforce a graduation limit on post-season (and therefor NC) competition. If you don’t graduate 60% (say from the past three years, averaged) then you can’t go to a bowl game. I mean they are STUDENT athletes right?
LikeLike
Long time reader, first time poster.
I have often wondered why everyone seems to insist that the existing bowl structure must be included or used for any playoff system. The fact is that today all the bowls are irrelevant excepting the BCS chapionship game. The remaining ones are post season consolation games in effect, and I don’t see much reason to continue to elevate them to something else.
Someone mentioned that in most every sport, playoff games are home games for the higher seeded team. I also believe this is important because fans are not going to travel for 3 straight neutral site games. It’s simply cost prohibitive, and if attendance is a needed factor to have these games in the first place, a home game solution would be needed, at the very least for the initial rounds.
Personally, I think that the existing system for the BCS rankings works fine. It has a bit of a subjective human element, and an objective computer element. I think most of us would agree that the top 8 teams would be ok in an 8 team playoff. Sure, there’s always some discrepancy like a lack of AQ’s, or someone who didn’t win their conference championship being included, or God forbid, that number 9 ranked team being left out but for the most part, it’s the top 8 that are pretty clearly deserving of the shot. Why can we not have playoff games throughout December that would be independant of the Bowl Games, other than the BCS championship?
This year it would be:
1) Auburn
2) Oregon
3) TCU
4) Stanford
5) Wisconsin
6) tOSU
7) Oklahoma
8) Arkansas
In the playoffs you have The Pac 10 Champion, The SEC Champion, an At Large non-AQ, Pac 10 Runner Up, Big 10 Champion, Big 12 Champion, and SEC runner up.
They would be seeded by ranking, and the higher seed would host the game. Games to be the weekend after CCG’s. Teams that do not progress to the NC game are guaranteed a slot in the (5) BCS bowls, assuming that the Cotton is added. This means that there is little pressure for these teams to be relegated to an early Demcember Bowl. Each conference champion that is guaranteed a slot today, is still guaranteed a slot, and some factor would have to be given to specific rankings of NON-AQ teams gaining an automatic birth.
Dec 10th, 2010
Auburn vs Arkansas @ Auburn Oregon vs Oklahoma @ Oregon
TCU vs tOSU @ TCU Stanford vs Wisonsin @ Stanford
Lets then presume the winners of those games are the higher seeds for arguments sake:
Dec 17th, 2010
Auburn vs TCU @ Auburn Oregon vs Stanford @ Oregon
Oregon / Stanford becomes a rematch of a regular seasons game, as was Aubrn vs Arkansas. This is less than desireable, but I don’t see how any sysem would remove that possibility entirely. Even if you try to stack it to be less likely, it can and eventually will happen, so I prefer to simply take the easy road.
Now, sticking with the higher seed wins, we get Auburn vs Oregon in the National Title game.
The remaining teams are then slotted into their respective bowl games, and this allows the Rose to continue to stage their Big 10 / Pac 10 game where applicable. We would want to avoid a rematch of a playoff game in this case though.
Rose: tOSU (at large / sub for Big 10 Champ) vs Stanford (sub for Pac 10 champ)
Orange: Virginia Tech (ACC champ) vs Michigan State (at large)
Sugar: Arkansas (sub for SEC champ) vs Wisconsin (at large)
Fiesta: Uconn (Big East Champ) vs Boise State (non AQ)
Cotton: Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs TCU (Non AQ – Autobid from playoffs)
The top 10 of the end of season BCS are represented, along wiht the lower ranked AQ Conference champions (UCONN and Va Tech)
The Big 10 gets in three teams, coincidentally, all three of whom shared the conference title.
SEC and Pac 10 gets in two.
Non-AQ’s get in two. (makes finishing in the top 10 important, and would be the requirement for ND as well)
Big 12, ACC, Big East each get one.
So.. we have two more teams that get in, benefitting Boise and Michigan State.
The playoff games are at home locations of the higher seeds. The bowl games are no more or less relevant, and the successful teams are still rewarded at the end of the season for achieving. Non-AQ schools finishing in the Top 10 have a real chance and high probability of making it into the BCS caliber games.
The BCS type games then go back to being played on January 1st of each year, with the BCS championship being staged on the following Sat or Sunday as the calendar permits for dual hosting.
This would have put the Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, and Rose back on Saturday January 1st. Then the championship would be help on Saturday January 7th at the dual hosting site.
I think this is just as elegant as trying to use the bowls to host the games, and doesn’t push out lower tier teams so that team A can play in 3 bowl games in 3 weeks. Games are still over before Christmas and the start of the traditional bowl season, and only the BCS quality bowls are in question, but become filled as teams drop from the playoff ranks.
I guess I just like the KISS rule, and I find this extremely simple and not game breaking. It has potential to generate $$ and the home team advantage to the higher seeds rewards their superios season results. Finances would have to be worked out of course, so that the traveling teams gets X percent of the revenue from the game to cover their costs, etc, but the TV bonanza would be big too. I’m not sure who would govern if not the NCAA, and for all I care it can be the BCS. The TV money from this type of two week event following the championship games would be huge. Conferences represented would get their payouts, etc.
Just seems to elegant to probably work.. but I like the simplicity.
LikeLike
Ask the people actually involved (players, coaches, ADs, presidents, boosters, etc.) if bowl games are irrelevant.
LikeLike
Oh, and while you obviously don’t care about the bodies and increased potential for injury of the student-athletes (who don’t get compensated extra for the extra games), I think many of the presidents do. Not to mention that an 8-team playoff _would_ deemphasize the regular season. The extra money would have to be pretty substantial to make up for those 2 factors (especially since deemphasizing the regular season would have a monetary impact as well).
LikeLike
I think a playoff would effectively kill the major bowls. That is my reason for including them. Sending a team to the Rose Bowl after losing a playoff game is like the consolation games that used to be played in the NCAA tournament in both the regionals and finals. I think Duffman’s 78 championship he mentioned may have been the last time there was a consolation game (but it could have been earlier). They dropped them because the players and fans didn’t care. Bowls have trouble getting fans of teams who lose ccgs.
So if the playoffs don’t include the Big 4, they become like the Ticket City Bowl.
LikeLike
The de-emphasis on bowl games in playoff system is actually the reason, I think, if you wanted both to prosper, you’d have to have the playoff after the bowls (all bowls on January 1st or before), or do very slight changes like a small plus one.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Let’s try that again…
“ESPN, University of Texas ‘very close’ to forming Longhorns TV channel”
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/espn-university-of-texas-very-close-to-forming-1174731.html?cxtype=rss_longhorns
LikeLike
@Muck – It would seem to me that the ESPN Regional games (AKA “Big 12 Network”) featuring Texas could be internally “sold” to the Longhorn Network, which could result in a larger number of basketball games (including a number of conference games).
LikeLike
Oregon has the coolest uniforms. MSU needs a sugar daddy.
Why does it seem that the under is always the right bet when 2 high scoring teams play?
LikeLike
Those things are hideous. The unis are one of the reasons I can’t take them seriously.
LikeLike
I think auburn ought to tale them pretty seriously. That 4th and go was the stupidest thing ever. Play worked, but just kick the damn field goal. WTF?
LikeLike
Well. What the hell do I know?!
LikeLike
I was glad they went for it, it’s the right decision under almost all circumstances. I just think they outsmarted themselves with the play call. Running is safer, especially when they have struggled to stop you. Passes, especially to non-primary receivers, carry a lot of risk in that situation.
LikeLike
Eh, even Cam Newton wouldn’t be able to get 3 yards against 5 gang-tackling linemen. I liked the call.
LikeLike
They were at the one. Between Newton and Dyer, they would have made it. Also, I wouldn’t mind the pass as much if it goes to a receiver. They threw to a backup RB with 5 catches all year.
LikeLike
Tons of mistakes so far. In the first quarter, besides the 3 interceptions, I counted a dropped pass by Auburn and 2 fumbles by Cam Newton (the one that was recovered by Auburn, and another one when Newton was sacked, he lost the ball before he was down, but the refs didn’t review that for whatever reason (they blew the whistle already?)
LikeLike
How about Malzahn outsmarting himself on 4th and goal. Nice pass, Cam.
LikeLike
I thought that was the right call. Play worked; Cam just didn’t execute. Plus, even if it doesn’t work, you pin them back (which got them a safety & short field setting up the touchdown). So far, neither offense has been in point-a-minute mode, but Chizik & company probably thought (rightly, IMHO) that field goals weren’t going to win this game.
LikeLike
Going for it was the right call. The play call was weak. I’d prefer a run, but play action is OK. Throwing to a backup RB with 5 catches all year on 4th down in the NC game?
LikeLike
Equally weak, an inside hand off on 4th and goal at the one. That works a lot better between the 20s. Especially against Auburn’s DTs, you need the ability to power run to try to run up the middle there. I assume they have no faith in Thomas in the red zone based on the play calls.
LikeLike
That deep handoff that led to the safety was a pretty risky play, especially considering how the line was getting no push. James still could have made it out if he hadn’t turned to try to go outside.
LikeLike
A lot of their goal line calls were bad. They were inside the Auburn 6 yard line 8 times. They ran it 6 times (including all 4 times when they got stopped on the goalline stand) and passed it twice. Both times they passed, they scored (the TD and 2-point convernsion). They should have passed at least half those downs. By the 3rd quarter, they should have figured out that running against the middle of the Auburn line wasn’t going to be successful, and near the endzone, the spread doesn’t open up enough holes against Auburn’s fast defenders. They should have designed pass plays (fades, shovel pitches, halfback passes, etc.) for the goalline.
LikeLike
Then Darron Thomas doesn’t land the ball off (which would have been a TD), forcing Oregon to settle for a FG.
LikeLike
More mistakes:
How about Herbstreit? Last 4 BCS games weren’t interesting because of SEC speed? I guess he only watches his alma mater. OU/FL wasn’t interesting because it was sloppy. UT/AL because McCoy got knocked out early. Still the QB who led UT to a 5-7 season brought UT w/i 3 with 3 minutes left.
How about ESPN for being obvious? Pac signs with Fox so ESPN brings in 2 SEC coaches for analysts.
Was it Herbstreit who said Oregon put a DE on WR on the TD? The problem was that he didn’t even bother to try to cover him?
You can see why lots of teams scored lots of points on these teams.
Interesting that Oregon has several times either totally missed Fairley or chose not to block him.
LikeLike
Well, the reason he didn’t try may have something to do with the fact that he’s a DE. They don’t exactly have good pass coverage instincts (and know they’ll get burned if they try to press up close).
LikeLike
Bullet – I’m assuming Saban and Meyer are there because they coached the last two BCS NC teams.
LikeLike
Meyer is auditioning for a job.
They could have brought Belotti on for some balance, but heaven forbid ESPN be fair.
LikeLike
Not exactly. Belotti is ex-Oregon. Nobody would say he’s unbiased.
LikeLike
And Meyer and Saban are?
LikeLike
More so than Belotti would have been.
LikeLike
I disagree.
LikeLike
They could have brought on two people involved with neither conference. If they needed former title winners, they could have gone with any two among Jim Tressel, Mack Brown, Bob Stoops, Bobby Bowden, Tom Osborne, and Lloyd Carr.
But if they’d have done that, ESPN’s night in bed with the SEC might not have gone so well.
LikeLike
Turns out god is an auburn fan.
LikeLike
Way to teach Farley a lesson, Coach Chizik. Keep him in the game after he twists the head of an already-tackled Oregon player.
Whatever it takes to win, I guess…
But as long as you thank God, it means you did nothing wrong.
LikeLike
Hate to see a team lose because of a fluke play that everyone but the Auburn bench & refs thought was dead.
At least the Big 10 refs had a good night.
ESPN calling an 8 point game in the 3rd quarter? Even with their worship of USC in 2005 and months long coronation, they still didn’t assume the game was over. Musberger and Herbstreit were bad even by their own low standards.
Play of the game was the Auburn player’s tackle of the receiver that stopped the TD that allowed the 4th down stop.
My conclusion: Cam Newton good. Auburn O line-fantastic, TCU#1.
LikeLike
Agree on refs and announcers. I had the volume on 1 just to avoid pure silence.
Fluke plays are a bad way to lose, but there were tons of those plays this year. Play to the whistle. I have to give Dyer play of the game for starting to run again. It’s OT otherwise.
TCU didn’t overwhelm me in the bowl. I’d give it Auburn while acknowledging that they weren’t dominant.
How long until Newton is busted by future evidence and this win never happened?
LikeLike
I think Auburn will be losing all of the Tostitos within 3 years.
LikeLike
I’m hitting the “like” button for this one.
I can’t decide who’s getting more screwed this season: Oregon for having to play against a team with one of the dirtiest players I’ve seen this year (Farley) and a semi-pro athlete, or TCU for not getting a chance at all?
LikeLike
If auburn isn’t on probation within 3 years, then recruiting in the SEC will become the SWC part 2. If you think the recruiting in the SEC is bad now, you just wait. Schools like Bama have a hard enough time trying to control boosters as it is. You throw a situation like this where everyone with half a brain knows that Cam was bought and paid for and then if they are given a pass, then the “rogue” boosters from the other SEC schools will believe that they are entitled to be able to do the same thing. It will make the wild west look tame if the NCAA lets auburn slide on this. JMHO
LikeLike
Too long for Oregon and TCU to get a fair crack at the national title against a team that doesn’t look the other way when dirty play and off-the-field cheating happens…
I couldn’t believe when the announcers said Farley got “revenge” on LaMichael James… Revenge for what? Drawing a 15-yard-penalty for pulling an Oregon player’s head around when he’s on the ground?
LikeLike
My reasons for TCU:
2 unbeatens and I think Dalton would carve up Auburn’s defense the way UK, UGA, USC, Arkansas and Arkansas St. did. In fact just about everyone but MS St. and Oregon. Oregon apparently doesn’t throw the long ball.
TCU had the nation’s #1 defense so they would have slowed Auburn down (as Oregon did).
LikeLike
They did throw the long ball once. Remember Thomas’ 85-yard pass?
LikeLike
That’s the point-once. Auburn’s secondary got beat a lot this year.
LikeLike
Wisconsin slowed down TCU and their defense wasn’t great either, especially the DBs. I’m not sure TCU would block Fairley any better than Oregon (or most of the SEC) did. TCU is certainly capable of beating them, but I wouldn’t favor them.
LikeLike
Fair enough, but Wisconsin was #20 in total defense this year. Auburn was #55. Auburn was #106 against the pass. Dalton was 5th in passing efficiency (although Thomas was #18 and only got 19 points).
LikeLike
Wisconsin’s defensive stats are inflated somewhat due to the running game increasing their time of possession, and playing a lot of bad teams.
LikeLike
@Bullet – I agree that the announcers were putting it in the bag for Auburn way too early. Even my wife commented that ESPN didn’t say a good thing about Oregon for nearly the entire 2nd half and she doesn’t have a preconceived notion that the WWL has SEC bias. The storyline makes it sound as if though Auburn dominated Oregon, where it was no more than a one-score margin the entire game and was cemented on a fairly fluky play. That being said, Auburn’s defense definitely deserves props.
LikeLike
Props for what exactly? Personal fouls? Late hits? Getting to stay in the game by coaches who don’t hold their players accountable for playing dirty?
I can see it already: Farley just plays with “passion,” and he just gets “a little carried away.” Look for those kinds of BS quotes from the coaching staff. What a bunch of BS.
That kind of play isn’t “passion.” Tim Tebow plays with passion, and he doesn’t do that kind of crap. And by the way, I freaking hate the Gators with every bone in my body, but I can at least respect them when they’re led by someone like Tebow. I can’t respect a program like Auburn or any other one where coaches just look the other way when rules are broken.
LikeLike
I’ve never seen so many cheap shots and late hits and personal fouls committed by a team (since the Miami teams of the late 80s/early 90s) as I have seen from this auburn team all year. I don’t know if you watched the auburn/UGA game, but that was 100x worse than what was done last night. They have played like thugs all year.
LikeLike
While watching this game, I totally felt like I was watching the Miami of old.
LikeLike
They were much worse vs. UGA. And they were proud of it. 1st player who got kicked out for throwing a punch was high-fiving everyone. Fairly virtually started a brawl (that eventually led to 2 of his teammates getting ejected) and was strutting around the field.
I don’t think Auburn overall was as bad as those Miami teams. But Fairly would have been right at home. Auburn’s fans, however are worse. They defend everything their team does. After that Miami-UT Cotton Bowl, Miami got embarrassed (even though they won 46-3) and started cleaning things up.
LikeLike
@ Frank
Auburn’s secondary’s speed impressed me. They got burned all year, but they ran down some Oregon receivers and Oregon looked fast all year. Auburn’s D line dominated, but the front 4 was the strength of their D so that wasn’t a big surprise. Their schemes seemed pretty good. Numerous times noone touched Fairly. And he’s not someone you just forget about.
LikeLike
Herby couldn’t stop fellating the SEC, as usual. Everyone and everything SEC is great and everyone else is inferior in all ways. I also noted Musberger feeling the need to bring up OSU-FL. Really, the NCG from 4 years ago is relevant?
LikeLike
Anyone else think the TV commercial breaks were longer and more frequent this bowl season?
I had trouble avoiding channel surfing even when there wasn’t another fb game. Maybe it was just really bad commercials. How long do you want to look at arrows following a car? Does anyone care that the design was inspired by an archer? Did Delaney’s Legends & Leaders consulting firm write that commercial? Does anyone remember what that stupid car was?
LikeLike
When I’ve reached the point that I’m sick of looking at Beyonce, it means that they’re playing that Vizio commercial too damn much.
LikeLike
Conveniently I used the breaks to refresh FtT and see what had been posted lately and otherwise netsurf. Long live the mute button.
LikeLike
Awful game, a fitting finish to an awful season with an awful system of determining mythical champions. What an effing joke, no better argument for a playoff than the slop that what we saw tonight. Anyone other than Oregon or SEC shills really believe those were the 2 best teams in the country?
TCU may not be either, but they sure looked like they would easily handle either of tonight’s teams. Oregon too gimmicky, Auburn too sloppy (go back and look at how many escapes they had with mediocre teams this year.) Tonight only confirmed what many of us suspected, there are no outstanding teams and absolutely zero way to know who the best team in the country is without winning at least 3 games in a playoff of at least 8 teams. This beauty contest failed us once again.
Another year without a legitimate champion. Not to mention the travesty of one of the dirtiest programs in the country being allowed to compete after being caught red-handed buying a player. Hopefully the AP votes TCU #1 in protest of this bogus and corrupt system. But don’t count on it, they are probably too busy trying to find a way to blame Palin for college football’s ills.
LikeLike
Well if 1/10 of what people say is true (even if none involves Cam Newton), Auburn will eventually lose 14 games this year and another BCS title will be vacated. Of course, a playoff wouldn’t solve that problem unless Auburn lost.
LikeLike
I agree the game stunk like many/most of the bowls.
Yes, I believe those were the two best teams. Everyone else but TCU eliminated themselves by losing. TCU played a much easier schedule and wasn’t very impressive to me.
Most teams play poorly in the NC game. There is a lot more pressure than in a regular bowl game.
I think everyone agrees there was no dominant team this year.
I would have just as little confidence in a playoff champ as the BCS champ. Playoff proponents like you have a blind devotion to them as if their outcomes are always right.
You will never have a “legitimate” champion when 120 teams play only 12 games each.
LikeLike
I agree these were the two best teams. And, even as a big SEC hater, I think Auburn was considerably better than Oregon.
Not having previously watched Oregon much, I was rally surprised that their QB was not much of a runner, and couldn’t throw the deep ball. However, there D was a lot stouter than I expected it to be.
As to TCU, I think of that TCU-Wisconsin came basically as a tie. Wisconsin had the better of it statistically………..I also think OSU is right there with Wisconsin and TCU. And I sure don’t think OSU or Wis would have fared well against Auburn.
As to Farley, he’s the most impressive DT I’ve seen in college in a long time (didn’t see Suh much 2 years ago). As a football player he is relentless. As a person, he’s scary. He reminds me of Ray Lewis. Five years from now he’ll either have been all-pro 5 times or in prison for manslaughter.
I agree with everyone who thinks that Auburn cheated and hope they get nailed……but I don’t think that’s going to happen……….
LikeLike
Well, Fairley this year is about as good as Suh was 2 years ago. However, his senior year, Suh was a once-in-a-generation force. I’ve never seen a DT affect virtually every play before or since, which is what Suh did.
LikeLike
I don’t think Fairley will last 5 years in the NFL. If he plays dirty like he does now there will be payback and someone will take out his knee ligaments. He’s been lucky it hasn’t happened already.
LikeLike
So what would you say if this was the championship game of a 16-team playoff?
LikeLike
The same thing about the travesty of those busted cheats being allowed to compete, but otherwise ok with the outcome. Winning 3 or 4 games on the field in a playoff is EARNING and PROVING it. Winning a single game after getting one of 2 spots based on a beauty contest is just politics, perceptions, and often luck.
Win your AQ conference, with maybe a couple of wild card slots to cover the chance that the best team lost their conference on a fluke or injustice, and the occasional non-AQ if they appear to prove to deserve a shot. Thus any champ still has to win 3 games and prove that they really did belong. Smoke, mirrors, bias, ESPN-pimpage, suckering the media, running up the score, etc. is then no longer enough, can’t scam the system.
So 8 works, as would 10, 12, or 16. Virtually anything would be better than this 1-game fraud we have now.
LikeLike
For the conspiracy theorists, did Phil think if everyone slipped it would be to Oregon’s advantage? TCU, Auburn, Oregon, everyone was slipping like they were on a chewed up rain soaked natural grass field using rubber cleats. Been a long time since I’ve seen anything like it.
LikeLike
I wonder if the new grass was the problem in the CG? Auburn wears Underarmor, not Nike, so it can’t be Phil’s fault.
LikeLike
Oregon was slipping more than Auburn. Several Nike teams have been slipping in bowl games from the new cleets Nike put out.
(TCU in the rose bowl, Syracuse in the pinstripe bowl among others)
LikeLike
So Phil could have cost Oregon a national championship. It may not have been those Auburn players were so fast, but that the Oregon players couldn’t get any traction.
LikeLike
Its just amazing to me that TCU would only bring new shoes that noone had tried in their most important game of the year. That’s just basic to any athlete. (They had mentioned in the Rose Bowl they had trouble practicing before the game and had only brought the new shoes).
LikeLike
Just sayin’….
The officals were wearing Addidas (according to uniwatch) and I didn’t see them slip.
LikeLike
Well with Auburn’s win, the SEC squeaks in with a 5th BCS title in a row and 5th straight season with best ooc record vs. FBS:
SEC 34-11 75.56%
Big 12 37-12 75.51%
Big 10 29-13 69.05%
Indies 19-12 61.29%
Pac 10 15-12 55.56%
Big E 19-18 51.35%
ACC 23-22 51.11%
WAC 23-22 51.11% (tie, not a typo)
MWC 17-21 44.74%
CUSA 16-32 33.33%
MAC 9-37 19.57%
SB 4-33 10.81%
LikeLike
This list gives a general idea of which conference was better than which, but there’s no way the Big East was better than the ACC this year.
NC State beat West Virginia and Cincinnati. Miami beat Pitt. BC beat Syracuse. UNC beat Rutgers. USF was the only Big East team to beat ACC teams this year (Miami and Clemson).
LikeLike
It has to be taken just as a general idea because of the differences in schedules. The BE for the most part has schedules that would make any SEC AD proud. SEC, B10, B12 all generally schedule pretty easy ooc also. But if you are 25% ahead, it indicates more than just an easy schedule.
LikeLike
In all honesty, a 0.24 percentage (ACC vs. Big East) difference is really nothing. The SEC and Big 12 are essentially tied. The Big Ten is about 6.5 percentage points difference, not insignificant but still puts them closer to the top tier than the next tier down. If it is considered a “down year” for the Big Ten I’d say they did rather well.
LikeLike
At least one national writer is willing to criticize the SEC: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/01/11/auburn.sec.dominance/index.html?eref=sihp
“That attitude also results in a questionable practice in February that may give the SEC an unfair advantage in January. Several SEC schools make a practice of signing more players to letters-of-intent than scholarship availability would allow. This can result in messy divorces, as players who have outlived their usefulness get chased off to lower-division schools or placed on medical hardship. In eight of the 10 bowls involving SEC teams, the SEC school had signed more players over a four-year period than its opponent. This allows coaches to cover their recruiting mistakes. In Monday’s matchup, Auburn had signed 19 more players than Oregon over a four-year span. In the Capital One Bowl, Alabama had signed 25 more players than Michigan State. In the Sugar Bowl, Arkansas had signed 30 more players than Ohio State.
“The SEC instituted its own oversigning rule in 2009, capping incoming classes at 28 players. But come February, some players on scholarship at SEC schools will still get caught in a numbers crunch. So maybe university presidents need to pass a rule to level the playing field.
…”Auburn defensive tackle Nick Fairley is the SEC in microcosm. He’s fast, strong, dominant. He can outmuscle a lineman, split a double-team and outrun a quarterback. Between the snap and the whistle, he usually is a joy to watch. But Fairley also grabs facemasks and hits late. His greatness, like the SEC’s, has a dark side that occasionally overshadows the excellence.”
This is the kind of crap that sums up why I would hope Florida State never joins the SEC. FSU has enough of a bad rap for stuff in its history. It doesn’t need to join an entire association with a win-at-all-costs mindset.
LikeLike
Staples is an SEC boy. He knows what he’s talking about.
LikeLike
The Bowl Wars – final update as of 01.11.2011 @ 1:11am
added BE, CUSA, and MWC for Richard + the rest for the heck of it
BIG 10 – Wisconsin (L TCU 2 pts), Michigan State (L Alabama 42 pts), tOSU (W Arkansas 5 pts), Iowa (W Missouri 3pts), Illinois (W Baylor 24 pts), PSU (L Florida 13pts), Northwestern (L TTech 7 pts), Michigan (L Mississippi State 38 pts) – 8 bowl invitations
vs SEC 1-3 (congrats to tOSU for avoiding the shutout)
vs Big 12 2-1 (those Big 12 wins saved the B10 from total embarrassment)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (congrats to TCU, but it is not like they blew the badgers out of the Rose Bowl)
3-5 (37.50%)
SEC – Auburn (W Oregon 3 pts), Arkansas (L tOSU 5 pts), LSU (W TAMU 17 pts), Alabama (W Michigan State 42 pts), South Carolina (L FSU 9 pts), Mississippi State (W Michigan 38 pts), Florida (W PSU 13 pts), Georgia (L UCF 4 pts), Tennessee (L UNC 3pts), Kentucky (L Pitt 17 pts) – 10 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 3-1 (tOSU saves the SEC shutout, but many watching the game were not impressed with tOSU)
vs Pac 10 1-0 (another year, another MNC)
vs Big 12 1-0 (not good showing by Big 12 in final year)
vs ACC 0-2 (ACC shuts out the SEC)
vs the “rest” 0-2 (1 BE, 1 CUSA)
5-5 (50.00%) = SEC East => 1-4, SEC West => 4-1 (and could have gone undefeated in the tOSU/Arkansas game)
PAC 10 – Oregon (L Auburn 3 pts), Stanford (W Va Tech 28 pts), Arizona (L oSu 26 pts), Washington (W Nebraska 12 pts) – 4 bowl invitations
vs SEC 0-1 (close all the way to the end)
vs Big 12 1-1 (split decision)
vs ACC 1-0 (Pac 10 dominates the ACC in only head to head)
2-2 (50.00%)
BIG 12 – Oklahoma (W Uconn 28 pts), Missouri (L Iowa 3 pts), oSu (W Arizona 26 pts), Nebraska (L Washington 12 pts), TAMU (L LSU 17 pts), Baylor (L Illinois 24 pts), TTech (W Northwestern 7 pts), KSU (L Syracuse 2 pts) – 8 bowl invitations
vs Big 10 1-2 (cements Big 12 finish under Big 10)
vs SEC 0-1 (no wonder OU was happy playing Uconn)
vs Pac 10 1-1 (not a good start for new Big 10 member UNL)
vs the “rest” 1-1 (done, award for OU playing Uconn – the razzie!)
3-5 (37.50%)
ACC – Va Tech (L Stanford 28 pts), FSU (W South Carolina 9 pts), Maryland (W ECU 31 pts), NC State (W WVa 16 pts), Miami (L Notre Dame 16 pts), Boston College (L Nevada 7 pts), UNC (W UTenn 3 pts), Ga Tech (L Air Force 7 pts), Clemson (L USF 5 pts) – 9 bowl invitations
vs SEC 2-0 (only conference that can claim SEC dominance, granted it was not against any SEC West teams)
vs Pac 10 0-1 (done, like the start, VT ends with a wimper)
vs the “rest” 2-4 (2 BE, 1 CUSA, 1 MWC, 1 WAC, 1 IND)
4-5 (44.44%)
MWC – TCU (W Wisconsin 2 pts), Utah (L Boise State 23 pts), Air Force (W Ga Tech 7 pts), San Diego State (W Navy 21 pts), BYU (W UTEP 28 pts) – 5 bowl bids
vs Big 10 1-0
vs ACC 1-0
vs the “rest” 2-1 (1 WAC, 1 IND, 1 CUSA)
4-1 (80.00%)
BE – West Virginia (L NC ST 16 pts), Uconn (L Oklahoma 28 pts), Pitt (W Kentucky 17 pts), Syracuse (W Kansas State 2 pts), USF (W Clemson 5 pts), Louisville (W Southern Mississippi 3 pts) – 6 bowl bids
vs Big 12 1-1
vs ACC 1-1
vs SEC 1-0 (SEC superiority, but against UK, so not that great)
vs the “rest” 0-1 (1 CUSA)
3-3 (50.00%)
WAC – Nevada (W Boston College 7 pts), Boise State (W Utah 23 pts), Hawaii (L Tulsa 27 pts), Fresno State (L Northern Illinois 23 pts) – 4 bowl bids
vs ACC 1-0
vs the “rest” 2-1 (1 MWC, 1 CUSA, 1 MAC)
2-2 (50.00%)
CUSA – UCF (W Georgia 4 pts), Tulsa (W Hawaii 27 pts), Southern Mississippi (L Louisville 3 pts), SMU (L Army 2 pts), ECU (L Maryland 31 pts), UTEP (L BYU 28 pts) – 6 bowl bids
vs ACC 0-1
vs SEC 1-0 (when your best squeaks past their worst, do you brag?)
vs the “rest” 1-3 (1 WAC, 1 BE, 1 IND, 1 MWC)
2-4 (33.33%)
MAC – Northern Illinois (W Fresno State 23 pts), Miami, OH (W Middle Tennessee State 14 pts), Ohio (L Troy 27 pts), Toledo (L FIU 2 pts)
2-2 (50.00%)
IND – Navy (L San Diego State 21 pts), ND (W Miami 16 pts), Army (W SMU 2 pts) – 3 bowl bids
2-1 (66.67%)
Sun Belt – Troy (W Ohio 27 pts), FIU (W Toledo 2 pts), MTSU (L Miami, OH 14 pts)
2-1 (66.67%)
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Final Standings of the Power Conferences:
#1 SEC => 5-5 (50.00%) Another MNC cements the SEC as the top dog
#2 Pac 10 => 2-2 (50.00%) Oregon in MNC, and Stanford vs Va Tech
#3 ACC => 4-5 (44.44%) meh!
#4 Big 10 => 3-5 (37.50%) Who would think Illinois and Iowa would keep the Big 10 from last place, congrats guys!
#5 Big 12 => 3-5 (37.50%) With a 1-2 head 2 head with the Big 10, and a broken conference, you guys get last place
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Final Standings of the All Conferences (for richard):
#1 SEC West => 4-1 (80.00%) I could argue all these teams should be in the top 5 or top 10
#2 MWC => 4-1 (80.00%) Top to bottom, the SEC is ahead of these guys
#3 IND => 2-1 (66.67%) Ponder my old post of a new 12 member conference 😉
#4 Sun Belt => 2-1 (66.67%) They come out on top in H2H with MAC
#5 BE => 3-3 (50.00%) They played more games, but not quality ones
#6 Pac 10 => 2-2 (50.00%) with the lesser conferences, see how the math drops them from #2 to #6
#7 WAC => 2-2 (50.00%) Still not impressed with whole conference
#8 MAC => 2-2 (50.00%) Northern Illinois! Next year a BCS bowl!!
#9 ACC => 4-5 (44.44%) meh! They need to get back in gear, or will stay middle of the pack
#10 Big 10 => 3-5 (37.50%) Who would think Illinois and Iowa would keep the Big 10 from last place, congrats guys!
#11 Big 12 => 3-5 (37.50%) With a 1-2 H2H with the Big 10, and a broken conference, you guys fall below the B10
#12 CUSA => 2-4 (33.33%) How good was the MWC, when a CUSA team handed them their only loss? no offense loki 🙂
#13 SEC Least => 1-4 (20.00%) While the SEC west was the bomb, the SEC East just bombed!
Is it just me or is TPing Toomers Corner a bit odd (TP is made from wood, and by TPing the trees, the dead is draped on the living).
The winner is the SEC West, which may have the top 5 teams in the country (top 10 for sure)
The loser is the SEC East, with the Big 12 and Big 10 hot on their heels
The “image” loser was tOSU, as even with the win, the 5 players will taint the long term history of the win, and hence a loss for Tressel in PR. They also wound up in 5th place in the final poll with a weak bowl win (not sure I would put them in the top 5 based on their schedule, and bowl performance, and that may start the ball rolling against them in the “national” eye especially after the “sisters of the poor” comment). Who is handling the tOSU PR machine?
LikeLike
In my mind, the Big 12 easily had the worst bowl results.
The U Conn and NW games were basically gimmies (NW with Persa being out). The Neb., Mo., Baylor and A&M games were all very poor losses. They also lost to a mediocre Big East team.
Only the OK State win was impressive.
The Big 10 didn’t do as bad the public thinks….The Wisky-TCU game was a pick em, PSU should have beat Florida, NW had no chance without Persa, but didn’t give up. OSU hung on under tough circumstances (I was more impressed by that win than you were), and Iowa and Ill surprised. MSU did suck, and presented a very good example of the perils of over-achieving. The game that surprised me the most was UM…..I really thought they’d get it together in the off-time.
LikeLike
“image” loser was tOSU? Not Auburn who bought a national title that they will end up vacating?
The world is crazy.
p.s. SEC 5-5 in bowls, but they are the greatest thing ever.
LikeLike
If not for the legends and leaders, SEC would have been at the bottom.
LikeLike
greg,
you expect it from the SEC, you do not from tOSU!
p.s. the SEC west was pretty dadgum good this year!
LikeLike
Les Miles is staying at LSU, as per LSU AD Joe Alleva.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=205075195
LikeLike
i’m curious what happened. i think Les would have done very well at UM. Good for LSU though; many might not like him, but he’s a good coach. looks more and more like Hoke Is It.
LikeLike
Looks more and more like a clusterf*ck.
Brandon couldn’t have gotten in touch via back channels with Harbaugh & Miles in December to see if they were interested in the Michigan job for the salary they were offering? If they both were noncomittal at that point, I would have gone with Hoke; I don’t think he’s a bad coach; probably as good or better than Miles, and unlike Harbaugh, isn’t likely to bolt for the NFL any time soon.
If they had gotten rid of RichRod in December & hired Hoke then, they may have kept some of their recruiting class.
LikeLike
jj – I guess we’ll never know since Les will give Michigan all the cover he can and will never say anything to embarrass his Alma Mater.
The word on the street down here, though, is that Michigan offered $4.5mm for 5 years. Miles’ wife, a Michigan native, didn’t want to go. The kids didn’t want to go. Les loves Michigan, but he also loves LSU, especially his players. LSU will probably re-work Les’ deal for $4mm for 7 years and lower the roll-over threshold. He’ll also have complete control of the football program going forward.
LikeLike
I don’t see why Miles would have gone. Even if Michigan is a Tier 1 job, LSU is Tier 1A, at worst. Why leave a place you’ve lived and worked at for 6 years? For a school that MAY be a slight step up, but is a rebuilding job?
LikeLike
@greg
You just pointed out the reasons. The challenge. Plus he’s getting a lot of criticism and he’s from Michigan.
LikeLike
alan,
I just wondered if miles was pulling a donovan (and the UK / Magic volley) to get his stock up. I never thought Donovan would leave Florida, but he used the other suitors to get a massive contract.
LikeLike
Well, Miles already has a pretty massive contract. On the other hand, I guess you could always get more control.
LikeLike
duff – we don’t have any hard details yet, but it sounds like Les was not interested in a big bump in salary. $3.8mm is a lot of money in Baton Rouge. He may get it up an even $4mm per, but he currently doesn’t have the final say on staff matters and was pissed when his contract didn’t get rolled over in 08 and 09. The Hat was probably using this situation to rectify those matters, rather than trying to get more money.
Congrats to UM and Brady Hoke. It was just announced on ESPN that Hoke is the guy.
LikeLike
Speaking of salary bumps, Chizik had better get a massive raise soon, because he won’t get many more employment opportunities a few years from now.
LikeLike
I’ve got to admit… I was a little worried that if Miles left for Michigan, LSU might have gone after Jimbo Fisher, who was an assistant for 7 years at LSU.
LikeLike
Here’s a breakdown of the final AP rankings by conference:
SEC (6) #1 Auburn, #8 LSU, #10 Alabama, #12 Arkansas, #15 Miss St, and #22 South Carolina.
Big XII (5) #6 Oklahoma, #13 Oklahoma St, #18 Missouri, #19 Texas A&M, and #20 Nebraska.
ACC (4) #16 VA Tech, #17 Florida St, #23 Maryland, and #25 NC St.
Big Ten (3) #5 Ohio St, #7 Wisconsin, and #14 Mich St.
Pac-10 (2) #3 Oregon and #4 Stanford.
WAC (2) #9 Boise St and #11 Nevada.
CUSA (2) #21 Central Florida and #24 Tulsa.
MWC (1) #2 TCU
LikeLike
Its a strange year when they have to stoop down to a 2nd place CUSA West 10-3 Tulsa team to fill out the top 25.
LikeLike
Here’s the final AP Top Ten team’s games against the final AP Top 25 teams.
#1 Auburn (7-0) – #15 Miss St, #22 South Carolina, #12 Arkansas, #8 LSU, #10 Alabama, #22 South Carolina, and #3 Oregon.
#2 TCU (1-0) – #7 Wisconsin.
#3 Oregon (1-1) – #4 Stanford and #1 Auburn (L).
#4 Stanford (1-1) – #3 Oregon (L) and #16 VA Tech.
#5 Ohio St. (1-1) – #7 Wisconsin (L) and #13 Arkansas.
#6 Oklahoma (3-2) – #17 Florida St, #18 Missouri (L), #19 Texas A&M (L), #13 Oklahoma St, and #20 Nebraska.
#7 Wisconsin (1-2) – #14 Michigan St (L), #5 Ohio St, and #2 TCU (L).
#8 LSU (3-2) – #15 Miss St, #1 Auburn (L), #10 Alabama, #12 Arkansas (L), and #19 Texas A&M.
#9 Boise St (1-1) – #16 VA Tech and #11 Nevada (L).
#10 Alabama (3-3) – #12 Arkansas, #22 South Carolina (L), #8 LSU (L), #15 Miss St, #1 Auburn (L), and #14 Michigan St.
LikeLike
As for sites for a championship game:
Atlanta had 5″ of snow and 1/4″ of freezing rain on top starting late Sunday and the city has been closed for 2 days. They did swear in the new governor on Monday, but cancelled the inaugural celebration. A number of places are closed for Wednesday as well. If you are getting some goods from Florida, your truck may very well be on Loop 285 in Atlanta, where a stretch near the airport has become a parking lot.
LikeLike
No. 1 Oklahoma
Buzz: Hard not to argue that the Sooners should be the No. 1 team. They return QB Landry Jones and WR Ryan Broyles but need to replace RB DeMarco Murray.
No. 2 Oregon
Buzz: The Ducks are primed to make another run at the BCS title with QB Darron Thomas and LaMichael James both back to a very talented offense. Defense will have several holes to fill on the front line.
No. 3 Alabama
Buzz: Greg McElroy was one of the most successful quarterback in Tide history so replacing him will be key. Also gone will be RB Mark Ingram, WR Julio Jones, and DE Marcell Dareus.
No. 4 LSU
Buzz: Defense again will be the specialty for the Tigers this season despite losing CB Patrick Peterson. The offense will hinge on QB Jordan Jefferson and RB Spencer Ware will have to step up and fill the void left by Stevan Ridley.
No. 5 Stanford
Buzz: Despite losing head coach Jim Harbaugh to the NFL, the Cardinal has a lot going for it next season. QB Andrew Luck will be back to guide the offense which has some questions on the front line but the defense will step up next season. Who will step up and replace Owen Marecic.
No. 6 Texas A&M
Buzz: It could be a pretty good year for coach Mike Sherman and the Aggies. The offense will be lead by QB Ryan Tannehill and RB Cyrus Gray. The defense returns a lot but will have to see who can step up and fill in for LB Von Miller.
No. 7 Nebraska
Buzz: The Huskers move from the Big 12 to the Big Ten in 2011 and will immediately make some noise in the conference. Freshman QB Taylor Martinez will lead the offense again which will have holes to fill on the offensive line. The defense will be lead by DT Jared Crick but the secondary could have some issues.
No. 8 Michigan State
Buzz: Despite winning a piece of the Big Ten Championship, the Spartans didn’t get to play in a BCS bowl game. That could change this season. QB Kirk Cousins returns to lead the offense with RB Edwin Baker in the backfield. LB Eric Gordon is a huge loss on the defensive front.
No. 9 Wisconsin
Buzz: The Badgers will look to QB Jon Budmayr to step in next season and fill the void left by QB Scott Tozien. The running game takes a hit with John Clay leaving early but Montee Ball and James White are a great one-two punch in the backfield. The defensive line should be tough but will need someone to step up and replace DE J.J. Watt.
No. 10 Boise State
Buzz: The Broncos make its move to the Mountain West but will have some familiar faces guiding the offense with Heisman Trophy finalist QB Kellen Moore. Boise State will open against Georgia and add TCU to the regular season schedule. Don’t forget Nevada as well.
No. 11 Oklahoma State
Buzz: One of the biggest losses for the Cowboys in the offseason will be offensive coordinator Dana Holgorsen, who now heads to West Virginia. Oklahoma State will be led by QB Brandon Weeden, who threw for over 4,000 yards this season. The defense needs major rework with the front line having some questions.
No. 12 TCU
Buzz: With an impending move the Big East in 2012, the Horned Frogs will look to go out of the Mountain West in style but will have to contend with Boise State this season. QB Andy Dalton has moved on and the means Casey Pachall will need to fill his void. RB Ed Wesley will be relied on heavily to carry the load.
No. 13 Florida State
Buzz: Head coach Jimbo Fisher will have plenty of reasons to get excited about his team this season. Christian Ponder is gone but E.J. Manuel will finally take the reigns at quarterback. The rushing duo of Jermaine Thomas and Chris Thompson will lead a powerful rushing attack for the ‘Noles. The defense should only get better next season especially if Nigel Bradham returns for his senior year.
No. 14 South Carolina
Buzz: The Gamecocks return most of the core of its offense next season with QB Stephen Garcia, RB Marcus Lattimore, and WR Alshon Jeffery returning. The question next season could be the defensive line which will have some holes to fill.
No. 15 Ohio State
Buzz: Before their suspensions, the Buckeyes would have been the favorites to win the Big Ten again, but without QB Terrelle Pryor, RB Dan Herron, and WR Devier Posey, that could change. The trio were past of five players suspended for the first five games of the season and who the team responds during that period could effect the season.
No. 16 Arkansas
Buzz: Bobby Petrino will have his work cut out for him as he looks to continue the Razorbacks success on the field. QB Ryan Mallett has elected to head to the NFL and Tyler Wilson will have to step up and fill in for him. RB Knile Davis and WR Greg Childs will help Wilson along but the offensive line has several holes to fill.
No. 17 Notre Dame
Buzz: The biggest situation facing head coach Brian Kelly his second season in South Bend, could be a quarterback controversy. Dayne Crist will be coming off of his second knee surgery but Tommy Rees played really well in his absence. The defense needs to continue to get better and should next season.
No. 18 Georgia
Buzz: It has to get better for head coach Mark Richt following a dismal 6-7 season. Quarterback Aaron Murray returns which will only strengthen the offense. WR A.J. Green leaving early for the NFL will hurt but Washaun Ealey will be back for the running game. The opening game against Boise State could tell how good this team really is.
No. 19 Mississippi State
Buzz: The Bulldogs enjoyed one of its best seasons to date and should be able to expand on that success. Chris Relf will be back under center and he will have RB Vick Ballard to help him in the backfield. The defense will need to continue to grow with questions at linebacker.
No. 20 Michigan
Buzz: The Wolverines have so many problems its hard to count. First, they are missing a head coach and will more than likely have a whole new coaching staff. QB Denard Robinson should be back which will be a huge plus for whomever takes over that program. The defense is one of the worst in the country, giving up close to 450 yards per game.
No. 21 West Virginia
Buzz: New offensive coordinator/coach-in-waiting Dana Holgorsen will bring his high-powered offense to the Mountaineers program. Question still remains, who is really in charge? This season will be Bill Stewart’s swan song and players want him to go out on top.
No. 22 Missouri
Buzz: Blaine Gabbert’s departure from Mizzou will hamper the Tigers continued rise but Jame Franklin will try and fill those shoes. The defensive line could be the strength of this team but DE Aldon Smith’s decision to leave early as well hurt.
No. 23 Penn State
Buzz: It’s hard to fault with the success of 84-year-old Joe Paterno. The Nittany Lions will rely on QB Matt McGloin to step up and lead the offense. With Evan Royster gone, Silas Redd will have to step and control the ground game. The defense could be the strength of this team next season.
No. 24 Auburn
Buzz: The future of Auburn’s program rests on QB Cam Newton’s shoulders. Most have him taking his skills to the NFL. If that is the case, the Tigers will have a huge hole to fill behind center. The offensive line loses five players which could hamper Gus Malzhan’s explosive offense. The defense will replace five starters as well and could lose DT Nick Fairley to the NFL as well. If Newton returns or Fairley chooses to stick around, Auburn would be much higher.
No. 25 UCF
Buzz: The Knights will use its success in 2010 to catapult them to bigger and better things in 2011. Look for QB Jeffrey Godfrey to expand on his successful freshman campaign. DE Bruce Miller is a big loss for UCF but overall the defense should be another top unit for George O’Leary’s team.
LikeLike
Early Vegas Top 25
No. 1 Oklahoma
Buzz: Hard not to argue that the Sooners should be the No. 1 team. They return QB Landry Jones and WR Ryan Broyles but need to replace RB DeMarco Murray.
No. 2 Oregon
Buzz: The Ducks are primed to make another run at the BCS title with QB Darron Thomas and LaMichael James both back to a very talented offense. Defense will have several holes to fill on the front line.
No. 3 Alabama
Buzz: Greg McElroy was one of the most successful quarterback in Tide history so replacing him will be key. Also gone will be RB Mark Ingram, WR Julio Jones, and DE Marcell Dareus.
No. 4 LSU
Buzz: Defense again will be the specialty for the Tigers this season despite losing CB Patrick Peterson. The offense will hinge on QB Jordan Jefferson and RB Spencer Ware will have to step up and fill the void left by Stevan Ridley.
No. 5 Stanford
Buzz: Despite losing head coach Jim Harbaugh to the NFL, the Cardinal has a lot going for it next season. QB Andrew Luck will be back to guide the offense which has some questions on the front line but the defense will step up next season. Who will step up and replace Owen Marecic.
No. 6 Texas A&M
Buzz: It could be a pretty good year for coach Mike Sherman and the Aggies. The offense will be lead by QB Ryan Tannehill and RB Cyrus Gray. The defense returns a lot but will have to see who can step up and fill in for LB Von Miller.
No. 7 Nebraska
Buzz: The Huskers move from the Big 12 to the Big Ten in 2011 and will immediately make some noise in the conference. Freshman QB Taylor Martinez will lead the offense again which will have holes to fill on the offensive line. The defense will be lead by DT Jared Crick but the secondary could have some issues.
No. 8 Michigan State
Buzz: Despite winning a piece of the Big Ten Championship, the Spartans didn’t get to play in a BCS bowl game. That could change this season. QB Kirk Cousins returns to lead the offense with RB Edwin Baker in the backfield. LB Eric Gordon is a huge loss on the defensive front.
No. 9 Wisconsin
Buzz: The Badgers will look to QB Jon Budmayr to step in next season and fill the void left by QB Scott Tozien. The running game takes a hit with John Clay leaving early but Montee Ball and James White are a great one-two punch in the backfield. The defensive line should be tough but will need someone to step up and replace DE J.J. Watt.
No. 10 Boise State
Buzz: The Broncos make its move to the Mountain West but will have some familiar faces guiding the offense with Heisman Trophy finalist QB Kellen Moore. Boise State will open against Georgia and add TCU to the regular season schedule. Don’t forget Nevada as well.
No. 11 Oklahoma State
Buzz: One of the biggest losses for the Cowboys in the offseason will be offensive coordinator Dana Holgorsen, who now heads to West Virginia. Oklahoma State will be led by QB Brandon Weeden, who threw for over 4,000 yards this season. The defense needs major rework with the front line having some questions.
No. 12 TCU
Buzz: With an impending move the Big East in 2012, the Horned Frogs will look to go out of the Mountain West in style but will have to contend with Boise State this season. QB Andy Dalton has moved on and the means Casey Pachall will need to fill his void. RB Ed Wesley will be relied on heavily to carry the load.
No. 13 Florida State
Buzz: Head coach Jimbo Fisher will have plenty of reasons to get excited about his team this season. Christian Ponder is gone but E.J. Manuel will finally take the reigns at quarterback. The rushing duo of Jermaine Thomas and Chris Thompson will lead a powerful rushing attack for the ‘Noles. The defense should only get better next season especially if Nigel Bradham returns for his senior year.
No. 14 South Carolina
Buzz: The Gamecocks return most of the core of its offense next season with QB Stephen Garcia, RB Marcus Lattimore, and WR Alshon Jeffery returning. The question next season could be the defensive line which will have some holes to fill.
No. 15 Ohio State
Buzz: Before their suspensions, the Buckeyes would have been the favorites to win the Big Ten again, but without QB Terrelle Pryor, RB Dan Herron, and WR Devier Posey, that could change. The trio were past of five players suspended for the first five games of the season and who the team responds during that period could effect the season.
No. 16 Arkansas
Buzz: Bobby Petrino will have his work cut out for him as he looks to continue the Razorbacks success on the field. QB Ryan Mallett has elected to head to the NFL and Tyler Wilson will have to step up and fill in for him. RB Knile Davis and WR Greg Childs will help Wilson along but the offensive line has several holes to fill.
No. 17 Notre Dame
Buzz: The biggest situation facing head coach Brian Kelly his second season in South Bend, could be a quarterback controversy. Dayne Crist will be coming off of his second knee surgery but Tommy Rees played really well in his absence. The defense needs to continue to get better and should next season.
No. 18 Georgia
Buzz: It has to get better for head coach Mark Richt following a dismal 6-7 season. Quarterback Aaron Murray returns which will only strengthen the offense. WR A.J. Green leaving early for the NFL will hurt but Washaun Ealey will be back for the running game. The opening game against Boise State could tell how good this team really is.
No. 19 Mississippi State
Buzz: The Bulldogs enjoyed one of its best seasons to date and should be able to expand on that success. Chris Relf will be back under center and he will have RB Vick Ballard to help him in the backfield. The defense will need to continue to grow with questions at linebacker.
No. 20 Michigan
Buzz: The Wolverines have so many problems its hard to count. First, they are missing a head coach and will more than likely have a whole new coaching staff. QB Denard Robinson should be back which will be a huge plus for whomever takes over that program. The defense is one of the worst in the country, giving up close to 450 yards per game.
No. 21 West Virginia
Buzz: New offensive coordinator/coach-in-waiting Dana Holgorsen will bring his high-powered offense to the Mountaineers program. Question still remains, who is really in charge? This season will be Bill Stewart’s swan song and players want him to go out on top.
No. 22 Missouri
Buzz: Blaine Gabbert’s departure from Mizzou will hamper the Tigers continued rise but Jame Franklin will try and fill those shoes. The defensive line could be the strength of this team but DE Aldon Smith’s decision to leave early as well hurt.
No. 23 Penn State
Buzz: It’s hard to fault with the success of 84-year-old Joe Paterno. The Nittany Lions will rely on QB Matt McGloin to step up and lead the offense. With Evan Royster gone, Silas Redd will have to step and control the ground game. The defense could be the strength of this team next season.
No. 24 Auburn
Buzz: The future of Auburn’s program rests on QB Cam Newton’s shoulders. Most have him taking his skills to the NFL. If that is the case, the Tigers will have a huge hole to fill behind center. The offensive line loses five players which could hamper Gus Malzhan’s explosive offense. The defense will replace five starters as well and could lose DT Nick Fairley to the NFL as well. If Newton returns or Fairley chooses to stick around, Auburn would be much higher.
No. 25 UCF
Buzz: The Knights will use its success in 2010 to catapult them to bigger and better things in 2011. Look for QB Jeffrey Godfrey to expand on his successful freshman campaign. DE Bruce Miller is a big loss for UCF but overall the defense should be another top unit for George O’Leary’s team.
LikeLike
Here’s Bleacher Report’s 2011 pre-season Top 25.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/569569-college-football-insider-a-look-at-the-2011-college-football-top-25
SEC has 8 in the top 25: #2 Bama, #3 LSU, #5 Auburn, #6 Arkansas, #17 South Carolina, #21 Georgia, #22 Miss St, and #24 Florida.
B1G has 4 in the top 25: #11 Michigan St, #13 Wisconain, #14 Nebraska, and #20 Ohio St.
LikeLike
Here’s Mark Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early 2011 Top 25.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=6009707
SEC
#2 Bama
#4 LSU
#8 Arkansas
#11 South Carolina
#17 Auburn
#23 Florida
#24 Miss St
B1G
#10 Ohio St
#12 Wisconsin
#15 Michigan St
#19 Nebraska
LikeLike
alan,
2 in the east, and 5 in the West – do you see a balance from the east anytime soon.
ps – congrats on your tigers, and I was right about auburn playing some D and it turning into a low scoring affair. 😉
LikeLike
duff – Florida will never be down for long. Georgia had their 2010 season wrecked by the AJ Green 4 game suspension for selling his Independence bowl jersey. Tennessee is loaded with young talent (and bad luck this year).
I do think the natural order will be restored with Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia all being good again soon. But I also don’t see South Carolina and Arkansas taking a back-seat anymore either. The problem is with 8 teams trying to win, and spending real money on their programs, somebody has to lose sometime.
Miss State will also beat some teams as long as Dan Mullen is the coach. Ole Miss tries to be competitive as well.
LikeLike
Alan,
If Petrino can coach up their new QB, and if Cam sticks around for next year, the SEC west might be just as tough (if not tougher) as it was this year. It will be freaking brutal. Which ever team walks out of that division on top will probably be the best team in the country (if they get the opportunity to play for in BCSCG is another issue if they get a lose or two from playing in that division). Should be a fun year next season.
LikeLike
I think the chances of Cam sticking around are in the area of me picking up a winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk tomorrow.
LikeLike
Here’s the SI.com way-too-early 2011 Top 25.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/01/12/early-2011-top-25/index.html?eref=sihp
Oklahoma is #1 & Oregon is #2.
SEC (7) – #3 LSU, #4 Bama, #9 South Carolina, #14 Auburn, #17 Arkansas, #21 Georgia, and #22 Miss St.
B1G (4) – #6 Ohio St, #12 Nebraska, #15 Wisconsin, and #17 Michigan St.
LikeLike
Prediction:
The winner of the two kickoff classics in Atlanta and Arlington will play for the national title (in other words, Boise and your Bengals, Alan).
What I don’t get is why everyone has OU on top. There’s no league title game to trip them up, but that visit to Tallahassee looks dangerous, and Texas always has the talent to derail a title contender if the players feel motivated enough, plus no league championship means OU has to run the table.
LikeLike
Hoke was the right guy for the Michigan job. What they need is stability and to focus on improving on both sides of the ball consistently. Also to go back to pro-style power football.
Les Miles just isn’t the right person for the job at this time. LSU is primed for contention right now, and he doesn’t have a coaching window long enough to totally revamp Michigan’s program.
Michigan is not one or two recruiting classes away from contention like Auburn was when Chizik came in…
Michigan needs a guy who can be there for 10 years if he can get to a high level of success. I don’t think Miles had a long enough window to really be able to turn it around and be able to coach it as a contender for a while. He seems like he’s going to go for another MNC with LSU over the next year or two and then call it a career in a few years…
LikeLike
Also, people thinking that Hoke won’t be successful because he has a losing record as a coach don’t know what they were talking about…
He seems like he’ll be a solid recruiter, and a guy that wants to be there for a long time if he can get it back to 10+ win seasons as well as some wins against MSU/OSU.
That’s the guy that Michigan needed, and it’s hard to see who else would have had the proper timeline.
Harbaugh was obviously the best choice because he could have turned Michigan around within 3-4 years, but Hoke is probably the other reasonable choice.
LikeLike
zeek – Les Miles does not strike me as a Dick Vermiel/Urban Meyer burnout type. I could see him coaching another 10-12 years.
LikeLike
QUESTIONS FOR MICHIGAN POSTER ONLY PLEASE!
a) as a fan who would be your dream hire?
b) if you could have only 1, do you want to beat tOSU, or do you want to win the division?
c) right now MSU has some momentum, how important is this hire in tipping the scale back to the maize and blue?
d) do you think Hoke will be at Michigan in 5 years?
Not trying to throw fuel on the fire, just pondering if Michigan is like Bama after the Bear? Bo and Carr are big shoes to fill, an it took the Tide about a quarter of a century and 8 coaches to make peace with the fact that the Bear was not coaching Bama anymore.
LikeLike
So it begins.
LikeLike
Response to a couple of earlier posts/topics:
Proof that ESPN bias is not a figment of our imagination is available in Kirk Herbstreit’s final AP vote. He has the highest rank of anyone for LSU (2 agree) and Alabama (2 agree), the 2nd highest rank for Florida (1 agrees) and the 4th highest rank for SC (3 agree). He is middle of the pack for Arkansas and Mississippi State. This is the objective announcer for national games that sometimes include SEC teams.
Herbstreit is the lowest in the nation for TCU (3 agree) and OSU (the only voter that agrees with him on OSU is Chris Fowler). OSU dropped 3 places by beating #8 Arkansas, which also dropped 3 places. OU climbed 7 places for beating UConn. LSU climbed 4 places for beating #13 TAMU (dropped to #24). Alabama climbed 4 places for beating #7 MSU (dropped to #13). Wisconsin lost to #4 TCU but stayed ahead of OSU. Fowler had OSU lower than anyone else in the final regular season poll and they moved up one spot due to VT dropping. Alabama jumped OSU by beating MSU and Arkansas dropped behind OSU.
I wonder why OSU fans feel like ESPN doesn’t like them?
Herbstreit:
Fowler:
Am I the only one that would expect national voices for college football to be more mainstream in their opinions? Since these two work together, are they influencing each other to view OSU in a negative light? Does that not carry over into their TV talk?
LikeLike
TCU posters late in the season pointed out what outliers the ESPN voters were. James, one week, had TCU lower than anyone else (6th I believe). Only one of the 4 ESPN voters I saw that week was in the middle of the pack (think it was Fowler). The other 2 had TCU 4th or 5th when only a handful of voters had TCU that low.
LikeLike
I’ve got to applaud the AP’s decision not to be part of the BCS. There really is a conflict of interest, especially for broadcasters like ESPN.
LikeLike
I’d agree, but their poll is still part of the problem. If they want to cover the news, not make it, they should stop running a poll (especially pre-season). Getting out of the BCS was just posturing.
LikeLike
Are you saying the Harris poll voters and coaches key off of what the AP voters do? Because the computers don’t care.
LikeLike
Richard,
Yes. Humans are influenced by all the polls. Beating the AP #5 carries more weight than beating AP #12. It’s not a conscious decision, but it does have an impact. Since humans are 2/3 of the BCS, that’s important.
LikeLike
The coaches poll and AP poll track each other pretty closely. 25 years ago, there were more differences. Now the top 20 teams are usually within 1 or 2 spots and the top 25 is usually the same 25 teams.
LikeLike
Bullet,
That’s true, and another reason the AP should drop their poll. If they aren’t really adding anything to the discussion, then just report the coaches poll.
LikeLike
Yeah, Herbie also gave TCU the lowest rank in his final vote (4th).
I saw where Fowler tweeted “always amusing to me how irate fans get about final rankings in polls.. really? finishing 7th vs 9th or 11th or 12th matters that much?”
He seems to miss two key points:
1. Final polls influence pre-season polls and pre-season polls influence the opinions of voters that impact the BCS, so yes it does actually matter even if he’s an AP voter.
2. The polls are indicative of the biases of the voters. When 1/2 of the dominant pre-game show in college football, including the premiere national analyst, are giving extreme votes for some schools and against others, it raises questions about the impartiality of the network and their coverage.
LikeLike
Also, yes, 7th vs. 9th does matter. If you don’t think it matters, you don’t deserve to have a vote. If you don’t take each and every position seriously, stop voting. The BCS now figures the percentage of total points you got, meaning that voting a team 7th vs. 9th matters a lot.
I know, AP isn’t a part of the BCS anymore, but the point is that it’s the wrong mentality for a voter in any poll.
LikeLike
brian,
a few points:
a) KH works for ESPN, he will tow the line the same way Dicky V and Billy Packer did for the ACC in basketball. If KH worked for the BTN, we might see a different ballot.
b) There is bias in every ballot, and If I am understanding this pollstalker site it says that Ray Fittipaldo is the most unbiased pollster, but look at his votes:
1) he is a newspaper guy in Pittsburgh (pro B1G, anti SEC, probably does not follow others schools live as he may the B1G or East Coast schools).
2) he puts Wisconsin at #8 and tOSU at #4
Wisconsin beat tOSU 31-18 head to head!
3) he puts TCU at #1 (over Auburn & Oregon)
The Rose Bowl was close, so if he had such “faith” in TCU to place them #1, why does he not support this by putting the badgers in the top 5?
4) he puts Oklahoma at #7, and Uconn at #23
He put Uconn higher than anybody else (save 1 other voter), and then rewards the Sooners for beating them in a bowl (when Uconn was not even it the top 25 in the December 5th? BCS rankings – the one they used to place teams in bowls). I think Oklahoma should have been penalized for such a weak opponent, and not rewarded for it.
5) he put Boise State at #6 (for beating a questionable Utah team), and Nevada at #12 (for squeaking by a barely bowl eligible Boston College team)
Not to puff up Alan or his Tigers, but they were probably the #2 team in the SEC West, beat TAMU soundly, and yet this guy puts LSU below BOTH Boise State & Nevada. In head to head I would have the Tigers beating Boise State / Nevada 90% or better, no matter how many times they played. To be fair, I would say the same for Oregon or Stanford vs Boise State / Nevada.
6) He was the Highest voter for TCU, tOSU, WVA (tOSU and WVA are in his markets, and TCU is about to be). He was the lowest voter for Auburn, LSU (SEC) – Stanford (Pac 10/12) – Missouri (Big 12/-2) {all teams outside of his primary market}
My point is not to pick on Ray in Pittsburgh, but to show that media folks are biased/beholden to their markets. It is why I like this blog, because tho there is bias here, there is also a high probability that the posters on here have actually watched games outside of the B1G footprint, so their view is better informed for actually seeing teams across the nation play.
LikeLike
duffman,
I don’t think there is an explicit company line, but other announcers (Danielson?) have stated they feel obligated to promote the league they cover. ESPN staff may feel a subtle pressure due to the big SEC deal. They have a deal with the B10 too, though, which is why I don’t think it’s explicit pressure.
Certainly every ballot has bias. However, that is supposed to cancel out by combining multiple ballots. It’s seeing multiple voters at ESPN all swing the same way that bothers me, especially due to the out-sized influence ESPN has on the CFB world.
I think you slightly misunderstand the pollstalker site. Fittipaldo’s ballot was voted “good” by the most people this week. The site just tallies ballots, it doesn’t make any judgements. He is the most extreme voter for the week (7 highest or lowest votes, and 3 near-extreme votes), but the people must like his extremes (which you mentioned). Herbie was the 4th most extreme voter.
My issue is that the national announcer for the game of the week should not be that biased. He sees more games than the average guy and knows more about the game.
Everybody likes to make fun of Doug Lesmerises during the season for his unusual voting method, but his final ballot has no extreme votes and 3 near-extreme votes. Craig James has 1 extreme vote and 1 near-extreme vote. I’d expect a national guy to more closely represent the consensus across the country than Herbie does. Fowler agreeing with him about OSU is troubling to me because it reinforces the feeling that ESPN is anti-OSU.
LikeLike
brian,
I think we are in agreement on ESPN bias (be it actively promoted, or implied off record) and the effect it has. Early on I did a post on here and the value of shorter train trips on Big 10 early positive media (Chicago was a shorter train trip to the east coast, than say Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, or Norman). In the information age, I still believe this bias exists (even tho in the information age you can watch almost any team, anytime, anywhere – and can watch replays at a later date).
I think your are correct in my interpretation of pollstalker (thinking they were the watchdog, and giving opinions). Thank you for the added information so I am more aware of their value. Thanks for the DL info, as when I checked him out, it did seem more in line with balance.
I do agree with your comment about a national announcer being unbiased. When an announcer like Billy Packer or Dicky V always mention the ACC multiple times in a IU vs UK game it drives me nuts. If you are a national announcer, you should not be mentioning teams and conferences not in play at the game being called!
two things to clarify:
a) I think there is general bias, and “old” vs “new” bias
Back in the age of the dinosaur tOSU was the top party school in the Big 10 and I was there often 🙂 . That being said I have many close friends and family in the borders of Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo so while tOSU may not be my favorite team, I am not fanatical enough to think they are the spawn of satan. I am fairly tOSU neutral, and can watch them and root for them, but do not have the same passion as a kid in Ohio, or a tOSU alum.
Where I have the issue is that now I see them through the eyes of friends children and grandchildren who are the “new” tOSU. Maybe I want to believe things were different 30 – 40 years ago, but it appears to me that things go on now that would not have gone on back then (and the 60’s – 70’s were wild times). What a kid today thinks is acceptable tOSU behavior, would not have been so when I was in college. I think this may be a part of the anti tOSU feeling you get.
I for one get upset when tOSU follows the “norm” rather than standing alone with principle (and why I have always had good feelings about PSU). If Tressel had been the leader, and not the follower, about those 5 kids, it would not have bothered me as much. it reinforces some of the things I have heard from folks in the state of Ohio the past decade or so. I know all things change, and everybody says “everybody else does it”, but when it is the folks that normally don’t it chips away support.
b) I think there is media bias
what you perceive as anti tOSU from ESPN, I perceive as anti BTN from ESPN. You could be right, or I could be right, I do not know the answer. Yet I remember the early days of ESPN and their bias to Uconn and the ACC. I have often wondered if the Uconn women would have knocked the Tennessee women off their perch if they had no support from ESPN. Phil Knight at Oregon, and ESPN at the ACC is a troubling sign of things to come as they can pass bias off because of money, and not actual skill.
LikeLike
duffman,
Certainly the younger fans look at things differently. I wish OSU didn’t play the five, but I actually think they made the right decision. There are a lot of repercussions to not playing them. Aggravating the NCAA, B10, ESPN and BCS bowls is probably a bad move. While nobody took the pledges to return seriously, for now it looks like all 5 players are returning. I think that will reduce the backlash.
There is media bias. The reason I lean towards it being anti-OSU is that it has been present since
Clarett (i.e before BTN). All fans feel persecuted to some extent, but the extent of the Clarett coverage plus OU not getting mocked for BCS failures, plus the treatment of Troy Smith during the bowl halftime, etc makes me think there is something to this.
By most methods of accounting, OSU had the best decade of any team. They didn’t win multiple NC, but they never had a really bad year either.
OSU: 106-22 (2nd best winning % nationally, 3rd most wins), 1 national title, 7 Big Ten titles, 3 national title games (1-2), 8 BCS bowls total (5-3, 4-2 non-NCG)
The only comparisons are OU, USC and maybe LSU and FL (solely based on NC won). ESPN coverage has never reflected that, in my opinion. Maybe if OSU wins another title.
LikeLike
@Brian
As a non-Big 10 person I don’t see the anti-Ohio St. bias (although 9th in the polls is pretty low) and I’m generally favorably inclined toward OSU. I definitely see anti Pac and anti Big 12 (both had Fox deals) and I am sure ESPN doesn’t like BTN.
I will say that OSU deserved every bit of the criticism they got for Clarett, especially after the Redskins player (can’t remember the name right now-pretty sure he played for OU but it could have been Ok. St.) testimony before Congress that he couldn’t read but had played college ball for 4 years.
LikeLike
Bullet,
There is a reason OSU fans were booing Mark May during the postgame at the Sugar Bowl. He is the latest ESPN guy to have nothing but bad things to say about OSU.
I don’t see anti-Pac as much as ignoring the Pac outside of USC. They did declare them the best team ever (before losing to TX). The same with the Big 12. TX and OU seem to get plenty of love and the rest of the conference doesn’t exist.
That’s part of why OSU people get upset. OU and Stoops never seemed to catch nearly as much crap for BCS failures as OSU.
Why exactly did OSU deserve the criticism with Clarett? The NCAA investigated his claims and said OSU was clean. I’m not saying nothing went on, but other schools don’t get nearly as much crap for being exonerated. They avoided the USC story like the plague. ESPN didn’t let Clarett go for years.
LikeLike
Pac and Big 12 get ignored. There is no love for Texas (will that change with the Longhorn Network?).
I don’t remember the details on Clarett, but wasn’t he an alleged “student” taking courses that would have been a light load for a HS sophomore?
In fairness, Auburn didn’t get much press for their early 2000s independent study deal which was probably a lot worse(a link was posted on this board a few weeks ago), but then they didn’t have any Heisman candidates at that time.
LikeLike
I don’t recall his classes being any worse than a typical athlete’s schedule. Every school has classes and majors that attract athletes. Andy Katzenmoyer was the one that got some national pub for a couple of basket weaving type of classes on quarter. Like all of those stories, though, I don’t pay much attention because I remember regular students taking the same sort of schedule.
LikeLike
@Brian,
I think you’re being unfair about Mark May. He doesn’t single out tOSU. He never has anything but bad things to say about ANYONE.
LikeLike
brian,
if you do not think it is BTN related, then when did the bias begin as you see it? Can you narrow down to a date or an event that may have triggered this? If you go by a specific event, can you attach a month / year to the event?
LikeLike
duffman,
Some of it now may be BTN related, although they still have a big deal with the B10.
I’ve certainly noticed it since the NC game and Clarett (1/2003) and with multiple analysts (Mark May, Trev Albert, etc). I don’t recall it being a problem when Cooper was there, but he was less successful with better talent.
Herbie has said he makes an effort to be neutral when discussing things, but many perceive him as often going too far. Maybe the other Buckeyes also feel a need to not be pro-Buckeye (except Lou Holtz). Regardless, I just don’t see a fair amount of praise and criticism for OSU considering the success they’ve had under Tressel.
LikeLike
As someone who follows the Big 12, I think OU does catch flack for not winning the big bowls, but it’s not brought up much until bowl season comes along. It was definitely brought up before this year’s bowl, but it was almost a joke (‘if they don’t beat UConn this year, they’ll never win a BCS bowl!’).
I think people have expected OSU to win the Big Ten every year recently. In the Big 12, people expect the Longhorns and at least one other team (Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma State) to put up opposition. Even if these perceptions aren’t exactly accurate, it does explain why they start talking about the postseason for OSU early in the year, while it doesn’t come up for Oklahoma until after the Big 12 championship game.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
It doesn’t seem like OU and Stoops have caught nearly as much flak as OSU and Tressel despite OSU being more successful. Maybe it’s because OU plays a pretty offensive style and OSU doesn’t, but the level of negativity has never been equal in my opinion.
LikeLike
@Brian – I agree – OU hasn’t caught nearly as much flak as OSU, even though OU had some truly bad BCS losses. Even on this fairly pro-Big Ten blog, I’ve seen several comments intimating that they were “tired” of seeing OSU getting invited to bowls that “they didn’t deserve to be in and get blown out.” This is so unbelievably far from reality, yet it’s what’s parroted by the ESPN crowd for some reason. OSU’s BCS bowl record is 6-3, reflecting more BCS bowl appearances and wins than any other program. All 3 of the OSU BCS losses were to top tier opponents – 2006 #2 Florida, 2007 #2 LSU, and 2008 #3 Texas (with the latter 2 games having OSU as clear underdogs). They took care of business every single other time they were in a BCS bowl, including a national championship over a 2002 Miami team that many believed was a juggernaut and 5 other BCS bowl wins. By all accounts, OSU has been the most consistent performer of any school in the BCS era. They never lost to clearly inferior teams like OU did to 2006 Boise State and 2007 Wests Virginia. I have no clue why OSU gets slammed all of the time for supposedly underperforming in BCS when their record clearly states otherwise, while OU largely gets a pass. Maybe it’s that simply more people watched the OSU losses (as they have largely played in “sexier” matchups than OU). It certainly isn’t based on actual records or logic.
LikeLike
I think its more of the “what have you done for me lately” ESPN syndrome. Ohio St. was #1 and got dominated twice in a row in its last two trips to the big game.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Just for perspective, OU lost 5 BCS games in a row to OSU’s 3. OU also lost 2 straight NCG and three total. OU has also been upset twice in the Fiesta Bowl, while OSU was the underdog to Texas. How does what have you done for me lately help OU?
LikeLike
OU’s were further back in time. And their blowout was to a USC team that would be annointed by ESPN as the greatest team of all time (until Texas beat them). They also weren’t #1 in either of those losses. OU’s 5 straight losses weren’t in the national championship game and weren’t in consecutive years.
Besides, ESPN has to have someone to compare the SEC to and show how superior they are. Auburn beat Oregon on a last second FG in an ugly game. FL beat OU by 10 in a relatively close, not particularly pretty game.
With 3 minutes left Alabama was only 3 up on Texas and Texas had the ball despite their Heisman candidate QB getting knocked out of the game early in the 1st quarter. So OSU makes a good whipping boy.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Yes, OU’s record string of BCS losses started sooner, but they were #1 for one of the games plus the latest one.
In ’04, OU was BCS #1 and was dominated by LSU’s defense (32 1st half yards, 154 total yards). In ’05, OU was undefeated but #2 and got embarrassed by USC. Yes, that was the USC team ESPN would proceed to fawn over, but remember OSU beat the ’02 Hurricanes team that ESPN had previously declared the best ever.
In ’06 OSU was #1 before being embarrassed by FL. OSU backed into being #1 in ’07 (#7 before their last game, but everyone else lost), and LSU was a big favorite. OSU out-gained LSU but lost due to turnovers and dumb mistakes (15-yd penalties, dropped TD).
The point here is that OU and OSU had equivalent losses (1 big, 1 pretty close).
Nobody ever said OU lost 5 straight NCGs, but they lost 2 in a row just like OSU did and OSU only lost 3 BCS games total.
The SEC beat a #1 OU more recently, as FL shut down the highest scoring offense ever. I wanted OU to win, but the game was not as close as the score.
AL dominated TX until they let off the gas. Then TX made a big comeback until AL started to care again. Nobody outside of TX (or maybe Big 12 country) thought TX was going to win. Yes, the game might have been different with Colt McCoy but he got hurt.
LikeLike
OU was #3 in the polls vs. LSU and #2 in the polls vs. FL even if they were #1 in BCS. And even if their high powered offense got shut down vs. LSU, the game was very much in the balance with the final 21-14. Ohio St. was #1 in both polls and BCS in both of their losses. And even if Vegas made LSU the favorite, Ohio St. was higher ranked and LSU had 2 losses.
Now I’m not saying any of this is “fair”, but Ohio St.’s losses were closer together, more recent than OU’s big loss, on the biggest stage, and voters had them #1 and saw them get dominated unexpectedly in both. Its the same way with conferences-the general public evaluates them by what their very top teams do, not the middle or bottom. Its why the Pac often surprises people in bowls.
As for TX/AL while there may have been some relaxing the contrast it true for TX. I also look at it from the perspective of, TX dominated the 3 minutes McCoy was in, AL dominated the 27 minutes McCoy was in the locker room and TX had a small advantage while McCoy was on the sidelines but not playing.
LikeLike
“Its the same way with conferences-the general public evaluates them by what their very top teams do, not the middle or bottom. Its why the Pac often surprises people in bowls.”
That’s not always the case. USC did very well in bowl games for most of the 2000’s, but there was very little national respect for the Pac-10 Conference during their whole run. Miami and Virginia Tech both had some outstanding Big East teams, but I never once heard about how great the Big East was. Even since then, wins by top Big East teams were treated much more as failures by the teams they beat than as signs that it was a legit league. Remember: in the ’06 Sugar Bowl, it was supposedly a failure by Georgia rather than a sign of Big East legitimacy. The next year, Louisville drew a weak opponent and thus didn’t have much opportunity to advance the Big East’s reputation. And the year after, when West Virginia’s won big over Oklahoma, the main storyline was OU’s fourth-straight BCS bowl loss, not WVU and the Big East’s win.
Criticism of the ACC these days is perfectly valid, but history shows that even when the league actually is strong, perception still hurts it. In ’96, the Fiesta Bowl and the Orange Bowl passed over 9-2 UNC for Penn State and Nebraska teams who had the same number of losses, even though UNC finished second in its conference to a team that went 11-0 in the regular season, PSU finished second to 10-1 Ohio State, and Nebraska finished second in the Big 12 to a 9-4 Texas team. The next year, the Fiesta Bowl picked 10-1, tenth-ranked Kansas State over 10-1, seventh-ranked UNC.
My point is that being strong at the top helps conference reputation if you’re the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12. For the other conferences, especially the Big East and ACC, even strong seasons do not help very much.
LikeLike
Michael,
Well, when FSU & USC were competing for national titles, their strength didn’t help their leagues because no one else in the ACC & Pac12 were challenging for national titles. Compare with the BigTen, where tOSU & Michigan (before before the RichRod era) as well as PSU farther back were perennial national title contenders, the B12, where Texas and OU (and Nebraska farther back) were national title contenders, and the SEC, where 4 teams have won the national title recently.
BTW, bowl bid have more to do with traveling support & TV viewers than perception or anything else, so I wouldn’t use it to support an argument about national perception.
LikeLike
@duffman
Looking at your analysis of his votes, I don’t see regional bias. I see someone who is most influenced by the number of losses. Yes WI beat OSU, but they had 2 losses and OSU had 1. Boise and NV each had 1 loss.
From watching the teams on TV, TCU and Boise were very impressive. I saw a bunch of SEC teams, being in Atlanta. So though TCU & Boise clearly didn’t face the strength of schedule SEC schools did, I think they should be highly ranked.
Just on TCU, they were on nearly every week, beating 7 of their 13 opponents worse than anyone else. On 4 others, they won by 2,17,42 and 49 for those teams 2nd worst losses-and the teams with bigger wins played at home while TCU did not. The other 2 games were their 27-0 win over CSU (4 teams beat them worse-and TCU got punished in the polls that week) and 30-21 win over Oregon St. (4 teams beat them worse-but they lost 2 key offensive players in October and faded down the stretch-and TCU got punished with each OR St. loss).
For comparison Auburn did beat 6 of their 14 opponents worse than anyone else. 3 were the 2nd worst (1 of 3 51-31 over Ole Miss was on the road while TN beat Ole Miss by 38 at home). S. Carolina lost to FSU and Arkansas worse than their 1st 8 point loss to Auburn. Alabama’s other 2 losses were worse than their 1 point Auburn game. MSU’s other 3 losses were worse their 3 point Auburn loss. Clemson’s other 6 losses were worse than their 3 point OT loss to Auburn. UK’s other 6 losses were worse than the last second FG loss to Auburn. Auburn never got punished for close calls while TCU got nailed for only winning by 27.
You can say Auburn deserves #1 because they played a much tougher schedule which is clearly true. But watching the teams and seeing Auburn’s inconsistency, #55 defense, #106 pass defense, and TCU’s domination of the schedule they had, TCU deserves serious consideration.
LikeLike
bullet,
I am certainly not saying TCU is a top team(undefeated and winning Rose Bowl), as their path indicates a top tier ranking is warranted. This year it is the BS, Nevada, and Oklahoma ones that bother me, as they feel less “earned”. the point I was trying to make is that many vote on win – loss, and do not consider schedule strength. I really believe many of those who vote, do not watch a majority of the teams they vote on (which is why I get frustrated, as they are being paid to be “in the know”). When the “talking heads” all seemed to be surprised how low the Oregon vs Auburn score was! I predicted such a game, and do not have the media access they do, or get paid to follow the sport the way they do. I am not saying I am smarter or better, but am saying I was just using common sense based on the games I actually watched. I wish the media would exhibit more such “common sense”, so the fan base would be better educated (oh lordy I will shut up now, as I have just reinforced B1G “academic snobbery”) 🙂
LikeLike
I didn’t mention NV because I agree with you on them. They deserve to be ranked as they have one of the best offenses in the country, but not as high as they are.
I think Boise every bit deserves their ranking. They had one bad day (and their kicker did also) and lost on the road in OT.
As for OU, who deserves it significantly more? OU played 5 of the end of year ranked teams, only one at home, and went 3-2.
LikeLike
bullet,
for OU, it more that they played Uconn in the post season. I would have been nice to see them play a team that was in the BCS top 25 in December!
OU wins the last Big 12 CCG, then gets Uconn
TAMU does not play in the CCG, then gets LSU
Something is wrong with that picture!
LikeLike
That’s our bowl system!
LikeLike
Interesting comments from the former AD of both USCs. Thinks Texas and A&M belong in SEC. Nebraska will help Big Ten keep pace with SEC. Not sure about PAC10 with Colorado and Utah.
http://omaha.com/article/20110111/SPORTS/701119842#-59-outland-winner-likes-nu-in-big-ten
LikeLike
I get the feeling he is just looking at the football teams. The academics at Texas are too good to want to go to the SEC unless they have to for some other reason.
LikeLike
The Ducks were unhappy with the turf in Phoenix. They don’t blame it for the loss, though.
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/sports/25754914-41/oregon-ducks-stadium-field-footing.csp
LikeLike
Mark Cuban talked with Oregon and TCU about playing a possible +1 game if OU had won. Neither would commit, but they weren’t opposed. The problem was the NCAA.
Cuban decided to review his plans and proposes a new plan – a mid-season 3 week playoff to replace the cupcake games on the schedules. The money raised would be used to pay off the cupcakes and coaches with bowl bonuses. He’s seeking input.
LikeLike
This year proved more than any in recent history that the bowls need to go… And with at least a 16 team playoff.
The only bowl game I watched (READ: could sit through) in entirety was the Wisc-TCU game. Was good from start to finish. As a Gopher’s fan—was fun to see Badger’s go down 😉 (Looking forward to seein a well coached U team bring the axe back where it belongs)…
TCU only proved what everyone knows and few of the mainstream will acknowledge… On any given Saturday, some of these non-AQ’s can take down supposed AQ big-dogs.
The only good way to sit through parts of the bowl games was with the TV volume off, and XM satellite music playing in background. Everyone rips Fox, but ESPN is nothing but self-serving… and has totally sold their college football soul to the devil, er, the SEC…
Proofs–#1–SHAME to the NCAA, Ohio State, Auburn… All 3 proved to be fraudulent, and show what’s wrong with major college athletics…
#2—Big 10 over-rated (again) this year. SEC lived up to top-dog status. Boise State would have done to MSU what Alabama did. My Gopher’s may have fared as well with the better coaching they were gettin at end of the year…
#3–Way too many mismatched games……and blowouts because of this…
Please, please, please… gimme a real, honest-to-God playoff, and stop this BS bowl tradition insanity… The tradition left with the BCS…
LikeLike
No, it didn’t. This was not a great bowl year, but that happens sometimes. All the TV timeouts don’t help. None of that is proof that a playoff would have helped.
Almost everyone acknowledges that a good non-AQ can beat anyone on any given Saturday. Most people just don’t believe these teams face as many challenges in their schedule, so they end up with inflated win/loss records.
ESPN is bad, as many have mentioned on this post, but Fox was worse. At least most of the ESPN people are familiar with college football.
Hard to say the B10 was over-rated. The B10 was the underdog in 7 of 8 bowls. Close loss to #3, close wins over #8 and #12. MSU was over-rated, but many believed that before the bowls. NW had no QB and came back to make it close and IL crushed Baylor. PSU was pretty much who they were all season. MI got killed, but that wasn’t a huge surprise based on the end of the season.
Mismatches can lead to blowouts, but so can motivational differences and coaching turmoil. It’s hard to avoid with the bowl tie-ins, but could also happen in a playoff.
LikeLike
It was a bad bowl year. 17/35 games were one-sided (13 of those by more than 3 TDs). 7/35 were 7 to 14 point games and only 11/35 were close.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you’d think Auburn vs. FIU, Oregon vs. Miami(OH), TCU vs. UCF, & Stanford vs. UConn would have been more compelling that what we did see.
LikeLike
Because most of the other 11 playoff games would be compelling (definitely more than the at most 8 bowl games they would replace) and we’d get a true national champion that earned it on the field.
Which produces more compelling games per post-season:
1. The NFL playoffs as they are.
2. Just having Atlanta play New England in the BCS title game while half the NFL goes to meaningless bowls.
Can’t wait for the Grandpappy of them all, with the NFC North champ Chicago vs AFC West champ KC playing for nothing more than bragging rights. I’m sure Chicago fans would much prefer that to playing in a Super Bowl, right? “Well gosh golly, woulda been nice but we didn’t make the top 2 and don’t deserve a shot at the title.” Yeah, surely most Bears fans think that.
Pitt-NYJ in the Orange, Sugar has Balt-Indy (Not NO, Sugar didn’t want a bad for ticket sales rematch) Phil-GB for the Cotton, with Sea-NO in the Fiesta. Some interesting matchups, but not as much since they aren’t playing for a title. Think any of their fans are happy, besides Brian? Surely you don’t like these, Richard? Most fans enjoyed Sea-NO last weekend, but how many bother to tune in if it isn’t a playoff game with nothing on the line?
Not to mention the 6 more second and third round games that wouldn’t be played. Methinks most of those would be considered compelling by most fans.
LikeLike
Well, you know, I don’t actually pay attention to the NFL until the playoffs begin because most regular season games just don’t have enough of a bearing on the eventual champion to be worth my time.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now,
Call me crazy, but I thought it was ridiculous when the Arizona Cardinals made it to the Super Bowl after a 9-7 season, especially since they only made the playoffs because they won a horrible division.
LikeLike
Well, I wouldn’t watch any of them so I’d say neither system produces more compelling games.
You don’t find it odd to think professional sports and college sports must be the exact same? Does the NCAA tournament need to go best of 7 at each level too?
LikeLike
But what about the regular season? I want the bowls for their own sake, but I think the real argument against a playoff is the regular season. Utah-TCU was huge because of BCS. Ohio State losing to Wisconsin destroyed their hopes for a championship, same with Oklahoma when they lost to Missouri. Boise State was interesting every-time we watched because we knew they had to win or were finished. If we go to a 16 team playoff, most of that is just for seeding and loses it’s national interest. At least for me personally, I know I watched a huge amount of regular season college football from across the country. In college basketball, I watch a ton of Big Ten play, but see no need to follow any other conference.
LikeLike
It sounds like what you are saying is everything for OU and OSU after their loss was meaningless. That doesn’t sound like an argument against a playoff.
LikeLike
As opposed to nearly everything before and after being meaningless? Again, I’m not going to tune in to watch a battle for seeding.
LikeLike
I’m with you on excessive teams in a playoff. Basketball has too many IMO. FCS has 24 now, nearly 20% of the schools (and way over 20% of the full 63 scholarship programs), bringing in a bunch of 7-4 teams. I just don’t see how an 8 team tournament makes it a seeding exercise. And I don’t agree that a 16 team tourney would.
Tony Barnhart of the Atlanta paper is now on board with a Plus 1 playoff with a little different reasoning. Article is about highs and lows of 2010. He gives Cam (who’s from Atlanta) the benefit of a doubt.
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2011/01/14/college-football-2010-the-good-and-the-bad/?cxnftid=blogs_barnhart_college_football
LikeLike
It wasn’t meaningless at all. It had huge implications for those programs and still potential national championship implications if enough teams fell.
What I’m saying is that each game during the regular season at least up until a loss and often 2 takes on a special purpose because there are quite possibly direct national title implications in all of those games. The same cannot be said in a 16 team playoff. I don’t feel an extra need to watch to see whether the #10 and #11 or #16 team is going to get in. I don’t feel any extra need to watch games like Oregon-Oregon State or Oklahoma-Texas because they might put a team as the #1 team instead of a the #8.
On the flip side, I did feel an extra need to watch Oregon-Oregon State because it directly effected the national title game. I felt an extra need to watch Nevada-Boise State because I knew it could. The same could be said for Utah-TCU, Alabama-Auburn, etc.
Many of these games I like in their own right. If I wasn’t a die-hard for the sport though it would be the national title implications that would draw me in. A playoff position just doesn’t have the same power.
LikeLike
Iowa has a distinction. Unlike most of the ranked teams, and only two other unranked teams, they beat 2 ranked teams this year, #14 Michigan St. and #18 Missouri. Clemson beat #24 and #25 MD and NCSU (per the coaches poll) and ECU beat #24 and #25 Tulsa and NCSU (per the AP poll).
LikeLike
per Alan above only Auburn (7), OU (3), AL (3) and LSU (3) of the top 10 had more than 1 win vs. AP ranked teams (Boise had 2 vs. coaches poll teams).
Of the rest, VT, FSU, MO, A&M, UNL and NCSU had 2. MS St. and UCF had 0. The rest all had 1 except for ARkansas who had 4.
LikeLike
TCU also had 2 wins vs. top 25 coaches poll teams.
For Michigan fans, TCU also beat SDSU who was 9-4 and unranked. SDSU’s best win was Air Force, but their 4 losses were by a combined 15 points, Mo by 3 on the road, BYU by 3 on the road, TCU by 5 on the road and Utah by 4 at home.
LikeLike
This video is a little old, but it’s about the kid Miles kicked out of LSU when he needed the spot:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5935634
LikeLike
Its all good…LSU is going to be highly ranked next season.
LikeLike
shroom,
what do you think of the new video?
LikeLike
Interesting read,
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2011-01-11-img-ted-forstmann-lawsuit-betting_N.htm
If this happened in 2007, and has been stopped since, it is interesting it surfaces now that IMG has purchased ISP. It always becomes who is driving who behind what the public can see.
LikeLike
I thought y’all might want to order a shirt before they sell out.
http://www.secstore.com/COLLEGE_SEC_Gear/SEC_White_2010_BCS_National_Champions_Five-in-a-Row_T-shirt
LikeLike
I heard the S-E-C chant after oregon, did tOSU do the B-1-G chant after arkansas? if so anybody have a video link?
LikeLike
Actually, they did a mocking S-E-C.
LikeLike
The SEC sets themselves up for that. Arkansas got one everywhere they went the year they announced for the SEC. They managed to go 1-7 only beating back from the dead SMU.
LikeLike
brian,
is there a video link? 🙂
LikeLike
A quick search found this one.
LikeLike
That link was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOl3HKOf3Y4
in case it won’t load for people. It auto-embedded and that doesn’t always work for people.
LikeLike
Sure beats the old t-shirt:
http://www.teesnthings.com/never-apologize-confederate-flag-t-shirt.aspx
LikeLike
M – that is way below the belt. I only posted the 5-in-a-row shirt as a good-natured poke to my B1G friends on this board. As a History major, the image of the Confederate battle flag later adopted by the KKK makes me sick. I am not someone that views that flag as part of Southern heritage. I view it as a racist symbol that serves no positive purpose in the 21st century, and a reminder of the worst period in our nation’s history.
You may not like that five different SEC teams have won 7 national championships during the BCS era, but you don’t have to play to racist/slavery/civil war card, to which I take great offense.
LikeLike
Alan,
I can’t climb inside M’s mind, but I think he might have been making a good-natured poke at SEC fans, too.
I’m sure he’s smart enough to realize most people in the South don’t wave that flag and don’t subscribe to the crap taught by the KKK, which, of course, once had as much of presence in the heart of Big Ten country (Indianapolis) as it did anywhere in the South.
I grew up in South Carolina, where, during my high school years, the flag was removed from the top of the state house. As a “compromise” it was placed at a memorial site on state house grounds, which just so happened to be in a more visible, prominent position out in front of the state house. I found the decision embarrassing.
But why should I take offense when someone pokes fun of the South’s past, or at other Southerners racist and/or redneck and/or uneducated decisions? It’s not like I’m responsible for the sins of past generations or for present day Southerners’ dumb choices.
M was just messing with you. Call him a stupid Yankee and you can both laugh it off.
LikeLike
I was simply making a joke, but if you want to analyze it further, I do think that the whole “SEC” rah rah is a (mostly healthy) outlet for the southern brand of rather virulent regionalism. The fact that it’s the same region that started a civil war could be seen as an amusing coincidence.
I can’t imagine being that upset at someone posting a humorous t-shirt. If you dislike that one (presumably because it has Buckeye and Wolverine colors) you could become the proud owner of the LSU version:
http://www.collegeteamshop.com/store/LSU-TIGERS-COLORS-PURPLE-AND-GOLD-CONFEDERATE-T-SHIRTS-230567222733/
LikeLike
There is a different attitude toward state and region in the South than in the midwest. When I lived in Ohio and Indiana, they seemed to identify themselves as midwesterners before Ohians and Hoosiers. Its reversed in the South. And the state and region pride/tie is generally much stronger. Its true even in Kentucky which never seceded.
LikeLike
There tends to be a ton of movement within the Midwest. Chicago, for instance, draws from a bunch of Midwestern states. Plus, it’s hard to differentiate by accent.
LikeLike
You’re right in that the rural south has a lot of families that never move very far. Ties to their State U. football team are pretty strong w/o having huge student bodies like the Big 10.
As far as accents, there’s a noticeable difference between Minnesota, Chicago, Indiana, Cleveland and the more generic midwest accent in southern Ohio. Just as there is a difference between North Carolina, TN, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama/Mississippi, New Orleans, North Lousiana and even Central KY, Eastern KY and Western KY. People outside the south (and places like NY and Boston) often don’t realize they have an accent.
LikeLike
Well, the northern cities are going through the Northern Cities Shift in the Inland North, which makes it different from North Midland and South Midland (as well as North Central). St. Louis also is a bit different in that it’s a North Midland island surrounded by South Midland rural areas, so there are some differences there. Cincy’s also a little unique. However, all these dialect zones cut across numerous state lines (and tend to merge together), so it really isn’t possible to tell which state (or even subregion) someone is from just by their accent (you’d actually have a better chance at guessing urban/rural). However, in the south, Piedmont, Coastal Carolina, Appalachian, Cajun, Delta, & Texan are fairly different & regional.
LikeLike
Texas has as many accents as the rest of the south. East Texas, West Texas, South Texas, and the urban areas are all very different
LikeLike
I actually thought the Hollywood southern accent was just something made up until I flew into Birmingham one time. Hollywood uses an Alabama/Mississippi accent. I can’t detect any differences between those two states(maybe someone from Birmingham could). But most of the other southern accents are pretty distinctive to the state or region of the state.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with the Confederate flag. I’m a proud Ohioan who would never think of owning something with it on it, but if you read through some the great Civil War books (Gods and Generals, The Killer Angles, etc) you can’t help, but appreciate the complexity of the war and how it wasn’t one right side vs. one wrong side. That’s not the PC thing to call the war, but there were very good points about the nature of federalism, the Constitution, and the republic from both sides.
LikeLike
Eric:
Sure, and you could even make a compelling argument that the confederate states had the perfect legal right to secede. However, what can’t be denied is that they were moved to do so en masse only when they felt their peculiar (odious) institution was threatened, and if they had succeeded, humanity would have been worse off for longer.
LikeLike
Y’all may want to save your money to buy a tshirt commemorating your 20th consecutive Oversigning Cup.
http://oversigning.com/
LikeLike
greg,
🙂
seriously tho, looking at this graphic:
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2011/01/02/otl-video/
B1G = 86
ACC = 89
P10 = 90
BE = 92
B12 = 97
SEC = 103
Not trying to be cute, or clever, but if over signing is such a big deal, why is the BE not better in football?
LikeLike
A lot of bad players don’t make a good team.
The SEC number is even deceiving since FL, GA and Vandy don’t oversign. The worst offenders are the SEC west teams plus a random team here and there in the rest of the country.
Is it a coincidence that the SEC west only recently became such a powerhouse division?
LikeLike
Baylor had a reputation for doing it in the 90s. They would sign a bunch of blue-chippers that noone else would touch. They’d have a highly ranked class in February, but they lost a lot between February and September. SEC seems more inclined to sign academically questionable players in the hope they might qualify or in the hope they would sign again after going JUCO. Never worked for Baylor. The ones who survived JUCO (usually not many) signed elsewhere.
LikeLike
I think LSU, ‘Bama, and Auburn have a little more pull than Baylor.
LikeLike
I don’t think it works for anyone. When they come out of JUCO they go to the highest bidder. See Cam Newton-Auburn won, now NFL won.
LikeLike
Nick Fairley went from an Auburn-directed Juco (they even persuaded the Juco to redshirt him) to Auburn.
LikeLike
I told you Delany was this arrogant. Here’s hoping he dies/retires/gets fired soon.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2011/01/13/big-ten-to-keep-divison-names/
LikeLike
Hope he dies? Really?
LikeLike
I listed all three options that will remove him from the job. And frankly, he’s more likely to die in the near future than get fired or retire. I’d take any of the three.
LikeLike
I think I’ll have to boycott all B10 conference games not involving my alma mater next year. If they stay for 2012, I’ll have to consider just dropping the B10 altogether. It would certainly free up a lot of time on Saturdays.
LikeLike
I like the sounds of that.
LikeLike
frank,
now that the MNC is done for another year, and realignment has cooled off, is it okay to talk some round ball?
This “new” NCAA has me baffled:
tOSU players are not suspended
Newton plays after all
and not the cherry on top!
Normally I do not listen to Dicky V (much like nails on a chalkboard) but he put out 2 tweets this week that may change my mind. I do not tweet, so do not know how to link the exact tweets. The first was tweeted to Seth Davis on 01.08.2011 at 9:30pm (about tOSU and Auburn and their NCAA decisions) and the next was about an hour later on 01.08.2011 at 10:30pm (about Enes Kanter). While the football issue seems incorrect, the basketball one seems downright stinky.
Here is the background:
Guy is president of a University and his sports program is deep in the hunt for a player. NCAA clears the kids, and the president feels he is eligible to be a future member of his alma maters sports program.
Not only has the kid been cleared for his team, but the kid has cleared to play for several teams in the conference this university belongs to. pretty cut an dried at this point that the kid will play for this school, or this conference. Then 2 things happen:
1) The kid gets a late recruiting push from a school outside the conference, and goes with the new school.
2) The president of the university takes the job as the new president of the NCAA, and proceeds to ban the kid from playing.
As most of you know I am a basketball fan, and as most of you know I think the wind blows differently for Duke, UNC, UCLA than it does for KU, IU, UK (as discussed with brian about bias in football, I firmly believe there is bias in basketball as well). I guess I feel that if it can happen to KU, it can happen to IU, and so on. I guess I feel that if this kid had gone to IU, he would have suffered the same fate, but had he gone to UCLA, he would be playing right now.
What really chaps my a$$, Is that the current NCAA president does a complete 180 to his position less that a year ago when he was a university president. How can the player be eligible for his school a year ago, but not another school right now? As stated before I am no fan of Dicky V, but I find myself on his side in this fight, as it could be IU next time.
alan,
wasn’t this guy at LSU before he went to Washington and the NCAA? What is the word on him while he was at LSU? Is he going to keep making these type of calls the whole time he is at the NCAA? How can the NCAA not take more heat for this gaffe?
LikeLike
duff – Mark Emmert was the chancellor at LSU and did a great job. He came to us from UConn where he was the president. At LSU, he instituted a strategic plan that has significantly improved LSU. During the oil bust of the mid-80s, when I was a student, LSU was devastated by budget cuts for several years. Before Emmert arrived, LSU had only made incremental improvement during the 90s. While not up to B1G standards, LSU is currently in the best shape its been in since the 60s. Emmert is credited with putting us on the right path.
On the athletic side, Emmert hired some obscure footbal coach away from a Big Ten school.
LikeLike
You make it sound like Emmert made this decision himself. Wasn’t it the appropriate committee of investigators and staff that made the decision?
There certainly is media bias, but you think Duke, UNC and UCLA get preferential treatment from the NCAA over KU, IU and UK?
To me UK seems lucky to not have been in more trouble over the years. IU deserved their recent punishment for Sampson (never hire a coach that just got busted for breaking the rules). KU hasn’t had many problems that I can recall.
What should Duke, UNC and UCLA have gotten in trouble for but didn’t? What players were they allowed to have that the others couldn’t? I’m asking seriously, since you clearly pay more attention to CBB than I do.
LikeLike
Walton has said publicly many times that they were making more at UCLA than they could in the pros. I think there was an investigation, but it wound on for like 5 years and was allowed to “fade out” claiming too much time had gone by (and why I was thinking the same thing would happen to U$C in football with reggie bush, when it took so long to render an opinion).
Corey Magette testified under oath that he took money from an agent, but Duke still has the NCAA banner.
there has been rumblings for years about UNC (which could be sour grapes from other ACC alum), and while allowed to hit their football program (not a major TV revenue stream) it would never hit their basketball program because it was the “golden goose” for ESPN.
IU got busted for texting! no money changed hands
KU got busted for tickets
UK got busted for 1,000 bucks (small compared to the 250,000 U$C paid for players)
While I am not saying IU or UK should not have been punished, I am saying that relative to other programs, the punishment does not seem to fit the crime for some programs.
I still have the SMU thing in my mind because I grew up watching SWC and Big 8 games, and have felt that they let the ax fall on SMU, BECAUSE they were small compared to the “brands” (especially when the “brands” have viewers in major markets). Do I think SMU should have been harshly dealt with? YES! Yet when you watch the video, it looks like some other programs in the conference were in way deeper, but got off without a scratch (I had forgotten about the “Eric Dickerson got a gold Trans AM from A&M” thing, but seems to show that SMU was not alone in the deed, but were the only one that went to the gallows).
I guess I am ready for the NCAA ax to fall on a major “historical” brand in a major TV markets to get my faith back in the NCAA. Maybe I am getting old, but I would like kids to see sports at the college level the way I did when I was a kid. Live, with my dad, in the weather, with more of what happened on the field, than off. It has been a long time since, but the memories are about the game (not tailgating, or TV timeouts, or luxury boxes, or all the vendors hawking products outside, etc.)
LikeLike
I think everyone agrees UCLA’s teams were bought and paid for under Wooden. So were many of the major football teams back then. If it was against the rules, the NCAA never did much about it. That was a while ago, though.
I either forgot or never knew about Magette. Was it a statute of limitations thing, because the NCAA only has 5 years?
NCAA penalties and offenses often seem mismatched. I think IU’s problem is that Sampson just got busted for the same thing and didn’t watch him more closely.
Similarly, SMU only got the hammer because they ignored the NCAA. What option was left to the NCAA when SMU continued the payments after being busted the first time? Clearly, other SWC schools than SMU also deserved to get busted, but it seems like the others weren’t quite as openly brazen. As for the Trans Am, knowing and proving are two different things. Dickerson still won’t admit to anything today.
I remember the good old days too of going to games. Unfortunately, travel and tickets and parking and concessions costs have made that a lot more difficult. The level of media coverage will never go away, either. Ignorance was bliss back then.
You can always drop down to I-AA, d-II or D-III. Much more pure at those levels, and you can get good seats.
As for a major team in a major market, who even qualifies? USC football, UCLA hoops and ? A lot of people think USC got hit pretty hard for the Bush incident, albeit belatedly. Most of the big boys (outside the SEC) know better than to repeat violate.
I think in their current mood, the NCAA would come down hard on a repeat violator now. I just don’t think anyone is dumb enough to ignore the NCAA and continue to blatantly violate in the same way as they got caught for in the first place.
LikeLike
duff and Brian – I think both of you have good points. Part of the problem with the NCAA is that it seems to have inconsistent enforcement of its rules, which leads to a perception that it might favor some schools over others. Texting a recruit too much gets a quick suspension, yet the NCAA doesn’t care to enforce the much larger problem (IMHO) of cracking down on schools providing jobs, favors or straight-up cash to family members or high school/AAU coaches close to recruits. That being said, I don’t think the NCAA is out to slam anyone unless they’re repeat offenders, which as Brian noted was the case for both Satan’s Spawn (AKA Kelvin Sampson) and SMU.
I feel that USC’s recent punishment was actually fairly strong, so that’s certainly an example of a “big market” school getting reprimanded. My big problem is that the coaches virtually always get off with few repurcussions while the schools and players are the ones that bear virtually all of the pain. Pete Carroll can just jump to the NFL while his old school gets screwed. How John Calipari has avoided anything sticking to him after having 2 Final Fours vacated at separate schools is astounding. Even in the case of IU, Satan’s Spawn was able to get an NBA assistant job while the school got hammered for his texts. Granted, Satan’s Spawn was a known scumbag and IU had a buyer-beware warning. (In case you can’t tell, the Eric Gordon controversy from a few years ago has made me just a tad bit unsympathetic to that particular situation.) The NCAA can punish its members and students vigorously, yet has unbelievably weak controls on the coaches that are the ones actually enabling the violations to take place. There no real way for there to be restrictions on coaches moving to pro jobs, so I think we’ll have to see the individual schools that got hit with violations going after their former coaches in court to get some recourse.
LikeLike
Or the ADs (and presidents) will have to consider downside risk as well as upside potential. It still may not deter a UMass or even Memphis (who would be languishing in obscurity otherwise), but if the sanctions hit hard enough, top brands like USC football & IU basketball may think twice before jeopardizing their brands. In fact, it’s far from certain that IU will record their former glories. Would a school like USC (or Auburn) football (or IU basketball) be willing to go through a decade of sub-500 play for one vacated title?
This reminds me of the banks during the financial crisis. Like the bank CEO’s, the coaches have skewed incentives, but they get away with it because the people who oversaw them were too greedy (in the case of the banks, because the corporate governance model is, IMHO, broken).
LikeLike
I like the idea of suing the former coaches for interference with a business expectancy. Counter-claim fears probably scare the crap out of some of the schools though.
I’m not big on regulation. But any thoughts on a coaching license program with NFL/NBA/NCAA? Could be antitrust issues I suppose, but I don’t know.
LikeLike
I mean a lawyer or doctor, in theory, can’t just violate all of their duties in one state and then move to another and be fine.
Also, the schools could build these issues into their contracts, but have not. Is this insurable? Probably not intentional things, but similar to O&D insurance, I would think that something is out there. Hell, LLyods will insure just about anything.
LikeLike
frank,
I think we have a similar opinion of the former IU coach, and the current UK coach. Still, this does not mean that because of how we feel about them (to greater penalty) to someone like Wooden (to lessen penalty) should influence the decisions, and yet it does. For years the “elite” schools have had “sugar daddies” that take care of them after the fact, which keeps certain schools off the radar. At a state school when you are recruiting a less intelligent kid they pay prior to, during their time in college. I know of at least 3 Ivy’s and 1 ACC where they get around this by delaying the “payoff” till after the kid is out of school. I am thinking of 1 Ivy in particular that had strong Wall Street ties, and the “payoff” was a very profitable job upon graduation (and not contingent on actual academic ability). It works because the smarter poor kids have a better grasp on longer term windows. The older I get the stronger I feel that something must be done to correct all forms of corruption when it comes to college athletics (but I am not holding my breath).
The serious issues are:
Gambling
Drug Abuse
Improper gain of large sums while in college
Improper gain of lager sums after college
On the other side would be the issues like:
Texting
Food (a hot dog has minor value)
Lap Dances
etc.
I feel that any and all penalties should follow not just a school, but players and coaches as well. It should also be meted out fairly no matter who the school or TV market, the penalty is the same. I am no fan of U$C, and have made that clear in all of my posts, I am not singling them out because of that.
The issue with USC was the “loss of institutional control” that the NCAA tagged U$C with. You and the other lawyers on here should see the bigger issue in the NCAA’s use of that term. If it had just been the football program I would think the punishment fit the crime, and even a school like UK is smart enough to confine the cheating to a single program (except for the brief Hal Mumme stint UK has usually hired guys that stay off the probation radar – While I feel Sutton had issues, they had the opposite in Clairborne, who kept the football side clean). With U$C it was football, basketball, tennis (and I was told there were issues with volleyball and golf as well, that were not pursued). Hence, the “loss of institution control” and why the Death Penalty should have been on the table to send the strongest message possible about what was going on at U$C (how bad is it when you have to cheat at tennis, golf, and volleyball !!).
I agree that IU should have been aware of it’s former coach (and I know many IU fans and alumni who were scratching their collective heads at the hire in the first place). That said, it did not involve massive sums of money. More importantly it did not extend across the board to swimming and soccer at IU. Had such a thing come to light, then the hammer should have fallen hard on IU as well. This fall saw UNC football in the press for NCAA issues, but you did not see it for their basketball program, or their women’s soccer team.
Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but when the NCAA says a school has “lost institutional control” it carries a greater weight in my book as this usually means the whole athletic department has a cancer, and not just a single part.
I think you are on the right path, but Richard goes further and hits what I am really thinking when he says:
“if the sanctions hit hard enough, top brands like USC football & IU basketball may think twice before jeopardizing their brands.”
To go a step further, and using richard’s bank point. At the top the greed (via incentives and fame) is so far out of touch with the common man that on mush feel we are back to the days of the romans when the emperor was feasting, while the average man in the stands wanted the dead for food. In the end it is still “entertainment” and does not contribute to society the same way that “research” does.
@jj,
your idea of a “license” that follows coaches, players, administrators, and schools would be a great idea. However, will never see the light of day.
LikeLike
Duff:
That corruption of which you speak is not limited to athletics. I did a stint at a certain bank where there certainly was a preference from the head guy (who was an athlete at an Ivy) for those who wore the orange & black (bonus points for being an athlete). What makes this type of corruption worse is that not only do poor athletes who didn’t start out with advantages (except maybe natural athletic ability) benefit, but rich kids (who were more likely to get in to that school because Senior had gone there as well and most certainly had helped out the endowment) as well. I have in mind a particular individual, who, ironically enough, was a die-hard libertarian. I say it’s ironic because he had ended up at the same Ivy Pappy (who was a self-made man) had gone to, got his first job through a family friend, had gotten his current position leading a team because he skiied with the guy who headed the department (went to the same school as well), yet we were never sure if he had made money in all the places he’d been. He was smooth, for sure (and that’s certainly a skill in itself), yet I wonder if he’d have embraced libertarianism (or developed such good politicking skills) if he had been born under different circumstances.
Everybody talks about China and how over there, it’s rule by man, not law, and how connections are paramount (because you can only trust those people you have faith in; not the law) which is certainly true, yet how different is it in this country?
Was this as true 50 years ago, or are we going down a path towards becoming Italy/Mexico/Argentina?
LikeLike
richard,
my first stint in college was engineering, and my second stint was finance. I have never conducted business on the golf course or at lunch. It never ceases to amaze me how many dumb decision get made because of sports ties (we used to call them LSD deals, as the only way they made sense was you were on drugs). The problem is the average american pays the price for this “hidden” incompetence, and why we are in the current financial mess. Here is a list, tell me what is wrong with this picture?
A) Harvard
B) Yale
C) Yale
D) Yale
E) Eureka
F) USNA
G) Yale
H) Duke
I) Georgetown
J) Harvard
K) USMA
L) Missouri
It is pretty easy to figure out, but when you look at the list with no names attached, it is telling indeed! Only 1 in 12 is a public school, 2 are military, 1 is a small private, and the other other 8 (66.67%) are “east coast elite”. We fought to escape the feudal system, but appear to be heading right back there.
LikeLike
@Duffman
Presidents? If that’s Presidents and you think that is bad, you should look at the Supreme Court. 5 Harvard, 3 Yale, 1 attended Harvard before graduating from Cornell. 6 born in NY or NJ, 2 in CA, 1 in GA.
NCAA just voted down a rule on verbal scholarship offers before July 1 of the senior year because they couldn’t figure out how to enforce it. I don’t know how you enforce the unwritten promise that alumni from State U. will get football players a good job when they leave school. And sometimes its good business-a former fb player as a car salesman is a draw for the dealer.
LikeLike
To avoid putting out bad info-Supreme Court-the one who attended Harvard Law School graduated from Columbia, not Cornell. Cornell was her undergrad.
LikeLike
Duff:
Ford was a Michigan Man (and was a dominating lineman & linebacker), though he did go to law school at Yale.
Nixon went to tiny Whittier College but earned a scholarship to Duke Law (interesting tidbit from Wikipedia; tobacco money goes a long ways: “Nixon received a full scholarship to Duke University School of Law. At the time, the law school was new and sought to attract the top students by offering scholarships. This high-expense approach to building a law school applied to the faculty as well, which was given high salaries; most professors had national or international reputations. The number of scholarships were greatly reduced for second and third year students, forcing the students into intense competition. Nixon was elected president of the Duke Bar Association and graduated third in his class in June 1937. Nixon later spoke about the influence of his alma mater, saying, “I always remember that whatever I have done in the past or may do in the future, Duke University is responsible in one way or another.””
LBJ went to Southwest Texas State Teachers’ College (now Texas State University-San Marcos). He never graduated from Georgetown Law. Another good snippet from Wikipedia: “When he returned to San Marcos in 1965, after having signed the Higher Education Act of 1965, Johnson looked back:
“I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was closed to practically every one of those children because they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my mind that this nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any American.””
Clinton went to Georgetown for undergrad (with the aid of scholarships).
Many of these men earned their place (and sometimes scholarships) at prestigious institutions of higher learning (I don’t think Dubya would have gotten in to Yale & HBS if pappy wasn’t who he was), but what is troubling is the recent trend of nearly all our powerbrokers in both politics and finance more and more going to the same schools and becoming the same class.
Capitalism is a great system, but the inherent tension is that it’s most vulnerable to . . . capitalists. Once you get to the top through a fair system, your incentive is to tilt the playing field towards you to protect your position and your heirs: http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0609610708
LikeLike
@ richard & bullet,
To be fair here is the full list (from WW II to the present day):
Harry Truman
U – no degree
G – no degree
“helping hand”
William Kemper – banker
elected to office
Dwight Eisenhower
U – West Point
G – no degree
“helping hand”
US military
elected to office
John Kennedy
U – Harvard
G – Stanford, no degree
“helping hand”
father/prohibition
elected to office
Lyndon Johnson
U – TSU-SM, in texas
G – Georgetown, no degree
“helping hand”
texas politicos
assumed office
Richard Nixon
U – Whittier, private religious
G – Duke, law degree
“helping hand”
military/communism
elected to office
Gerald Ford
U – Michigan
G – Yale, law degree
“helping hand”
Richard Nixon
appointed to office
Jimmy Carter
U – Naval Academy
G – no degree
“helping hand”
us military/cox communications
Ronald Reagan
U – Eureka, majored in “extracurricular activities” 🙂
“helping hand”
media/GE/walter annenberg
frank, as eureka is in your home state, I find it interesting that is was founded by abolitionists who left kentucky because of slavery, and yet it is now a school that is almost all white.
George Bush
U – Yale
G – no degree
“helping hand”
daddy
Bill Clinton
U – Georgetown
G – Yale, law degree
“helping hand”
Al Gore, Sr.
George Bush
U – Yale
G – Harvard, MBA
“helping hand”
daddy
Barack Obama
U – Columbia
G – Harvard, Law degree
“helping hand”
family ties/ ????
odd that he and dick chaney are related!!!!
To be fair, we did not vote for Ford, as he was appointed, so you can argue that since WW II nobody has occupied the Oval Office from a “state” school at least since WWII (Johnson assumed office upon Kennedy’s death). The Ivy’s, and the elite (georgetown/duke/etc) have had considerable domination of who has become the leader of the United States. It really is a small gene pool to lead the United States (and to keep it football related), as the large public educational institutions in the US have had no impact, and could be considered the “ultimate” underdog! 😉
If IMG is under Ivy league control, so goes all hopes of a playoff! 🙂
LikeLike
Not really a gene pool. The Ivies do let in legacies more easily, but the gene pool’s quite diverse. They do all join the same class, though.
LikeLike
My Dad had a friend who told him he was making 10k a year playing football at a SWC school in the 50s. With inflation, that would be pushing 6 figures now.
LikeLike
UK also got virtually their entire team banned from the tourney in 1950. Although that was gambling, so it was pretty serious. Only reason they didn’t win 4 in a row.
LikeLike
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2011/01/ncaa-wac-action-at-the-national-convention/
WAC got some good news. Continuity clause is gone, meaning they still have a bb bid as long as they keep their 2012 lineup together.
LikeLike
OSU President Gee has apologized to the Little Sisters of the Poor.
No, seriously.
http://toledoblade.com/article/20110114/NEWS16/101130388
LikeLike
“He said the nuns asked the school president to bring along some members of the football team.”
Chicka bow wow.
LikeLike
More likely the nuns wanted to buy some memorabilia items with the donation.
LikeLike
@Jeepers – I had to do a double-take on the website address of the local chapter that the article referred to:
littlesistersofthepoornwohio.org
LikeLike
littlesistersofthepoornwohio.org? They should get together with the First Cumming Methodist Church (cummingfirst.com).
LikeLike
loki,
as always thanks for the link! I note the following….
“Along with his letter, Mr. Gee included a “sizable” donation, Mother Cecilia said.” I guess my next question is what is sizable? Say tOSU took in 120 million (brian or others feel free to provide link to most current data) and they gave the following:
10% (annually – standard religious tithe in many churches) = 12 Million per year!
1% = (again annually would denote real contrition) = 1.2 Million, still not a shabby fee, and 1% is a drop in the bucket to tOSU (and my guess is the good sisters would use such a sum in a much better way than tOSU would.
1/10th of 1% = 120,00 (a princely annual sum for the good sisters and their good deeds).
1/100th of 1% = 12,000 (a paltry annual sum, but still at least making and effort, and the good sisters can use every dollar).
I guess my question is what do the good sisters “sizeable” and does it pale in comparison to what tOSU considers “sizeable”. Any way to find the exact donation that tOSU made? I am not singling out only tOSU (tho they put themselves in the spotlight with their own comment), but raise the greater issue of sports budgets swelling at much greater speed than the general economy, and if sports “donations” are sucking $$$$’s from real “non profit” organizations.
LikeLike
ps, loki, interesting that the article was in the toledo paper (where there is a large catholic community) and not in the Columbus paper! Not sure if this was your intent, but it did catch my eye.
LikeLike
No intent. I got the link from someone else. But since you raised the subject, I looked to see where LSOTP is located. The letter is addressed to Oregon, OH. That appears to be a suburb of Toledo. Which would explain where the story came from.
LikeLike
The story was in the Columbus Dispatch weeks ago (12/2). Not sure why it was in the Blade today.
LikeLike
duffman,
Gee made a personal donation, not OSU.
OSU athletics donates millions to the academic side of the university every year, not to mention what they bring through scholarships and such.
I would have a problem with state schools making charitable donations. Why should taxpayer money be spent on charities that way? Leave that to the individual. As for athletic departments, I’d rather they lower the ticket price and let the ticket buyers do the giving. Most schools do give a lot of time to charity with their athletes in fundraisers and hospital visits. Don’t overlook how much that can mean to the kids in the cancer ward.
LikeLike
brian,
agreed, but it also accrues “goodwill” to the university that “promotes” such acts of “volunteer” effort by athletes at no “hard” cost to themselves. My point was not aimed directly at tOSU (they just were in the spotlight), but at the bigger issue of how much is enough to college athletics, as wealth is finite and had to be allocated (the old “guns” vs “butter” debate). If the money currently “pouring” into sports was redirected to infrastructure (engineers vs athletes) or public good (libraries vs stadiums), would we be a world leader in the coming generations? If one has children or grandchildren, you become more aware of this point as you watch them grow.
LikeLike
There is never enough for any entity. That’s basic economics. Everyone always wants more.
There are always better ways to allocate money, but people don’t choose to allocate it that way. The money in college sports does employ a lot of people, though.
If being a world leader is all that matters, all entertainment dollars should be redirected into infrastructure and education. All extraneous spending beyond the necessities should also be redirected. Life would be no fun, but people would be better educated and spend more time focused on work.
LikeLike
@Frank
Thought-Is an 8 team playoff using the bowls as quarterfinals actually less of a change than a +1? There are 2 more games, but everyone gets their traditional bowl slot, especially B10 and Pac12 (as if 12 team Big 10 and Pac 12 are traditional). And the semi-finals would be played no later and probably earlier than this years BCS game.
You have to figure out whether you have neutral or home semi-finals, but that is a detail, not the big picture.
LikeLike
@Bullet – I once thought that way:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2006/07/28/the-best-of-both-worlds-a-modest-proposal-for-a-college-football-playoff-that-keeps-the-bowls/
However, I’ve come to realize that the neutral field vs. home field issue is a much more than a detail. By definition, bowls are played at neutral sites (or at least sites pre-determined before the matchups are made). Having Pac-10 champ Oregon play Big Ten champ Wisconsin at Eugene simply isn’t the Rose Bowl. Therein lies the practical problem – realistically, you can’t expect fans to travel to 3 neutral site games in a row, and the entire premise of the bowl system (and the money they make) is based upon such traveling fans. Having teams play on home fields, on the other hand, is by definition removing the bowls from the equation (even if it’s just for the semifinals). In that regard, the plus-one is less of a change because you can still probably get fans to travel to one extra neutral site game that’s the national championship in addition to the bowl. Plus, the national championship is much more “team-proof” in terms of ticket sales just like the Super Bowl or Final Four – you don’t have to worry about selling out that game no matter who is playing. That’s much different for the bowls, whose ticket sales rely heavily on the motivation of the teams’ fan bases to travel. The plus-one has the selling point that you can win your BCS bowl and then possibly get into the national championship. You’re probably still going to get people to travel in that scenario. If those BCS bowls are just quarterfinal games, though, then I can see the motivation for fans to travel drop dramatically.
Personally, I like the 8-team playoff idea using the bowls a lot, but I don’t think it’s realistic now (especially with 10 teams in the BCS today instead of 8 a few years ago).
LikeLike
That’s an interesting perspective that fans would hope they win and choose to wait if the bowls on their traditional dates were the quarters. I think it would generate more interest overall, especially since all 4 would be part of the playoff instead of simply UConn/OU.
They have taken several steps to make it more difficult to implement a playoff-10 BCS teams, 12 games.
You could keep 10 giving an exclusive time slot to the 5th bowl, but it would be much diminished relative to the 4 that counted. You could also do something similar to the MWC proposal where the top 8 of 10 get in the playoff. I like that idea, but don’t know how the Big 6 would react, knowing their champ could be relegated to the 5th bowl. In recent years it would have been ACC/BE frequently (the Orange Bowl!).
I do like your idea of reducing the empty time. But I don’t see it happening short of a 16 team playoff. This year screams that the delay should be reduced with either a plus 1 or moving the BCS game closer to 1/1. Both teams’ offenses looked the worst I had seen them all season and it wasn’t because they were facing great defenses.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Maybe your finances are unlimited, but most people’s aren’t, and as most fans would have to fly to a neutral site, the cost is fairly substantial (especially if you’re bringing a family).
To take your OU/UConn example, UConn fans go now because they get to say they experienced UConn’s first ever BCS bowl. Getting to say that you were there to see UConn get blown out in a quarterfinal playoff game doesn’t exactly have the same ring to it. OU fans have even less incentive to go if that was a quarterfinal of a playoff. Right now, the Fiesta would be the only postseason trip available to OU, so if you’ve already budgetted for a bowl trip (and most OU fans probably expect one every year), you might as well go and experience the bowl atmosphere. If that game was the quarterfinal of a playoff, however, why the heck would any OU fan blow a wad of money to see OU take on UConn? If they win (as you expect), you have much less money to see OU in a semifinal game that matters more and promises to be more exciting. If they lose, you just came out there to see OU be the victim of one of the biggest upsets of all time.
LikeLike
Richard,
I agree on the finances thing, as why I still have yet to understand why 16 seems to be the number most used in a playoff. To me a playoff should reward the “best of the best”, and not just the “good” teams. What more what accomplished by 16, that can not be reflected in 4 (aside from more revenue for the media)?
This year Auburn, TCU, and Oregon were undefeated going into the bowl season. Sure you had a 3 way tie in conference losses for the B1G, but that will be corrected next year with a CCG. The same can be said for Stanford when the Pac 12 has their CCG next year. so who is left?
ACC => Only Va Tech went undefeated in conference play, and they had 2 losses going into bowl season.
Big 12 => Every team had at least 2 conference losses
BE => Every team had at least 2 conference losses, and the best team had 3 losses during the regular season
B1G => 3 one loss teams will sort out better with a CCG
CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, and WAC => none finished the season undefeated, and they all play softer schedules, so once 1 loss hits, they are done. The “majors” (SEC, B1G, PAC, and B12) might get some slack on a second loss.
Pac 10 => Only 2 teams were in serious consideration, and one played for the MNC.
In the end are you rewarding excellence, or just pandering to the public for upsets? I follow the CWS, and like their format in a best of 3 series, that I would much rather see in college basketball than the current format. As a best of 3 from the top teams is a better reflection of who has the best team amongst 16 teams, than 64 team single elimination system that let’s some team with no chance eliminate a team early, so the teams that play in the Final Four may not have gotten there with equal ease.
LikeLike
UConn fans didn’t go. They sold about 1/4 of their allotment. OU fans didn’t go in normal numbers. Same for Stanford and VT in the Orange. OU and VT have great fan followings. TCU and WI sold well as neither had been in Rose recently (or ever). AR sold well as they hadn’t been in a BCS bowl recently (probably never). Didn’t really hear about OSU.
The existence of a “championship game” now diminishes the other bowls. A playoff does, as you point out, add extra rounds for the winners, but it also increases the importance of the bowl game.
LikeLike
@ Duffman
Reasons for 16:
a) inclusive-you can easily include a couple of non-AQ teams and all conference champs if you want.
b) No byes-its a multiple of 2.
c) Relatively consistent with the numbers in other sports and divisions.
d) Complete-you will get anyone who has a realistic chance of winning it all.
I used to favor 16, although now I’m inclined to favor 8 over 16, with 10-12 what I consider the ideal number. 10-12 is reasonably complete (and will almost always include anyone with an argument of being the best), reasonably inclusive of non AQ teams who have a shot, and I don’t consider byes and consistency important issues.
If you had a 16 team tourney with 8 champs included automatically (AQ+MWC+CUSA), the wild cards would have been: #4 Stanford 11-1, #6 Ohio St. 11-1, #8 AR 10-2, #9 MI St. 11-1, #10 Boise 11-1, #11 LSU 10-2, #12 MO 10-2, #14 OK St. 10-2.
In 2009: #5 FL 12-1, #6 Boise 13-0, #10 IA 10-2, #11 VT 9-3, #12 LSU 9-3, #13 PSU 10-2, #14 BYU 10-2, #15 Miami 9-3
In 2008: #3 TX 11-1, #4 AL 12-1, #7 TX Tech 11-1, #9 Boise 12-0, #10 OH St. 10-2, #11 TCU 10-2, #13 Ok St. 9-3, #14 GA Tech 9-3
Even in a 16 team tourney, there are no slouches among the wildcards. Going back 10 years (No, I didn’t just calculate this-I’ve kept it up each year for a while) the top 8 wildcards would only include 16 3 loss teams and 1 4 loss team. The conference champs would include 16 3 or more loss teams but 8 of those were CUSA champs (who I arbitrarily gave the 8th autobid to). Its a field that would be consistent with most other NCAA championships if that were an important consideration.
LikeLike
bullet,
thank you for your 4 points.
In looking at your 2008 and 2009 numbers, I just can not in good conscience allow a 3 loss team a shot at the MNC!
2009 3 loss teams – VT, LSU, Miami
2008 3 loss teams – oSu, Ga Tech
why reward them if they could not get it done in the regular season? and for a weaker conference 2 losses should never put you in position for a MNC?
I can maybe see 8 teams, but I can just not see 16 teams in any way, shape, or form.
a) 4 or 8 team is still a multiple of 2
b) does not “water down” regular season
c) do we really need to include the Sun Belt?
LikeLike
@ Duffman
I also don’t think we need to include the Sun Belt-or the MAC-or the 2012 WAC, unless their champs clearly earn it. Actually, I started keeping a spreadsheet on who would be in a 16 team playoff back when the clear top 8 conferences were B10,P10,BE,ACC,SEC,Big8,SWC and WAC. MAC hadn’t had a ranked team since mid-70s and I doubt the Big West (the other conference back then) ever had one, so I excluded them.
The MWC has distanced itself from the other 4, but still hasn’t caught up consistently with the 6AQ conferences. And they have lost their top 3 programs. In fact 3 of their 4 good programs (Air Force has been solid). So, I like the current 1 slot for “best of the rest” and no more than 2 slots. I don’t think 11 AQ slots in a 16 team field is worthwhile (and it also is not NCAA policy which limits AQ slots to half the field).
LikeLike
Guys -here’s my stab at a realistic seeded plus-1.
I understand that the B1G/12-Pac relationship with the Rose is special, that the Rose doesn’t want to host a semi-final, and that the Rose Bowl always wants to play on January 1st. The Rose gets special treatment under my plan.
I understand that non-AQs need continued access to BCS games.
I understand that the genie is out of the bottle and the BCS must continue to allow 10 teams into the BCS.
I understand that the BCS Bowls like the current double-hosting set-up.
I understand that no more than two teams per conference get access to the BCS.
With those requirements, I’ll add a few more (or slightly modify existing) rules.
1. Another bowl must be added to the mix so I choose the Cotton Bowl.
2. An AQ champion must be ranked in the BCS Top 25 to qualify for the BCS, ie no more unranked UConn. Although, if this rule is not adopted its not a deal-killer to my plan
3. The highest ranked non-AQ team in the BCS Top 15 gets automatic access.
4. Notre Dame also gains automatic access if it is ranked in the BCS Top 15.
The BCS bowls will include the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and the Cotton. The TV contract will be for a six year term. The Rose will host two BCS NCGs during the 6 year term, but will not host any semi-finals. The Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Cotton will host one BCS NCG and three semi-finals during the 6 year term.
The Rose will be able to maintain a B1G/12-Pac match-up if conference teams ranked in the BCS top 15 are still available after the semi-final pairings and their selection does not exceed the two team per conference limit. The Rose will always keep its same time slot on New Year’s Day. When the Sugar doesn’t host a semi-final, they maintain their SEC ties, if a SEC team is still available. When the Cotton doesn’t host a semi-final, they maintain a tie-in with the Big XII, if a Big XII team is still available. When the Orange doesn’t host a semi-final, they are free to choose the highest ranked available team from the Big East or the ACC. When the Fiesta doesn’t host a semi-final, they recieve the first choice after the tie-in requirements of the other bowls are fulfilled.
The bowls that don’t host a semi-final match-up will all be played on January 1st. In order to make these bowls special again, the BCS TV contract will contain a clause that prohibits the television network with the BCS rights from televising any other bowl games on January 1st. The semi-finals will be played on the next two available dates (that don’t conflict with the NFL) after January 1st. The BCS NCG will be played on a Monday night not less than two weeks and no more than three weeks after January 1st. This will allow fans sufficient time to make travel arrangements and the teams adequate time to prepare. I know that it extends the season, but its only for two teams.
In the semi-finals, #1 will play #4, and #2 will play #3, unless that results in a re-match from the regular season. For example, in 2007 LSU was ranked #2 and Virginia Tech was ranked #3 in the BCS rankings, so for that year, #1 Ohio State would have played #3 Virginia Tech, while #2 LSU would have played #4 Oklahoma. Winning your conference is not required to qualify for the semi-finals. For example, in 2005 both #3 Penn State and #4 Ohio State would have qualified under this plan.
Looking back at 2005 through 2010, here’s how the plan would have played out.
2005 – BCS NCG in Pasadena.
Semi-final (A) in the Sugar Bowl: #1 USC v. #4 Ohio State
Semi-final (B) in the Orange bowl: #2 Texas v. #3 Penn State
Fiesta Bowl on Jan 1: #8 Miami v. #11 West Virginia
Cotton Bowl on Jan1: #7 Georgia v. #14 TCU
Rose Bowl on Jan 1: #5 Oregon v. #6 Notre Dame
2006 BCS NCG in New Orleans
Semi-final (A) in the Orange Bowl: #2 Florida v. #3 Michigan
Semi-final (B) in the Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State v. #4 LSU
Cotton Bowl on Jan 1: #10 Oklahoma v. #14 Wake Forest
Sugar Bowl on Jan 1: #6 Louisville v. #11 Notre Dame
Rose Bowl on Jan 1: #5 USC v. #8 Boise State
2007 BCS NCG in Miami
Semi-final (A) in the Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State v. #3 Virginia Tech
Semi-final (B) in the Cotton Bowl: #2 LSU v. #4 Oklahoma
Sugar Bowl on Jan 1: #5 Georgia v. #10 Hawaii
Orange Bowl on Jan 1: #6 Missouri v. #9 West Virginia
Rose Bowl on Jan 1: #7 USC v. #13 Illinois
2008 BCS NCG in Pasadena
Semi-final (A) in the Cotton Bowl: #1 Oklahoma v. #4 Alabama
Semi-final (B) in the Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida v. #3 Texas
Orange Bowl on Jan 1: #10 Ohio State v. Cincinnati
Fiesta Bowl on Jan 1: #6 Utah v. #14 Georgia Tech
Rose Bowl on Jan 1: #5 USC v. #8 Penn State
2009 BCS NCG in Glendale
Semi-final (A) in the Cotton Bowl: #2 Texas v. #3 Cincinnati
Semi-final (B) in the Orange Bowl: #1 Alabama v. #4 TCU
Sugar Bowl on Jan 1: #5 Florida v. #10 Iowa
Fiesta Bowl on Jan 1: #6 Boise State v. #9 Georgia Tech
Rose Bowl on Jan 1: #7 Oregon v. #8 Ohio State
2010 BCS NCG in Arlington, TX
Semi-final (A) in the Sugar Bowl: #1 Auburn v. #4 Stanford
Semi-final (B) in the Fiesta Bowl: #2 Oregon v. #3 TCU
Orange bowl on Jan 1: #6 Ohio State v. #13 Virginia Tech
Cotton Bowl on Jan 1: #7 Oklahoma v. #8 Arkansas
Rose Bowl on Jan 1: #5 Wisconsin v. #12 Missouri
LikeLike
Alan, that’s pretty close to what I came up with except I had the Rose lucking in to being a semifinal in those years where both the BigTen and Pac12 champs are in the top 4 (which means some other bowl gets the shaft and the semifinal rotation gets shuffled). We could have the “shafting order” go Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta. That could be more than made up for by giving them an extra championship game next round. I also had the semifinals starting out as Fiesta-Sugar and Orange-Cotton so that they’re fairly far away from each other geographically (so more top seeds can find a homefield advantage, or at least avoid a home field disadvantage; for instance, if tOSU #1 and LSU #4, yet the semifinal sites were the Sugar and Cotton, it would be unfair to tOSU; likewise if Florida was #1 and Texas #4 but the only semifinal sites were the Cotton and the Fiesta).
Also, I had the top seed choosing its semifinal site. More importantly, I had the semifinals on the 30th and 31st of December (and the championship on the Monday that’s a week or more away from NYD) so that students (who aren’t just the football players but also band members and cheerleaders; and also regular students going to see the championship game) don’t have to miss second quarter/semester if at all. The way it works out, you’ll always have 8-12 days between the last semifinal and title game (with 3 years being 10 days).
LikeLike
#4 is a deal killer to me. I don’t understand why any conference would agree to a deal where Notre Dame is treated any different on paper than any other wildcard. And Notre Dame and the bowls shouldn’t really care since they know ND will be picked if available.
One issue with your system is putting 3 games on January 1. The reason for the strange dates now is to get prime time for TV. I like your arrangement, but I don’t think ESPN would.
@Richard
For TV reasons December 31 is a non-starter. People are out partying instead of watching fb. The Sugar Bowl tried that date periodically and, if not for the decline of the SWC, might have been the bowl left out instead of the Cotton.
LikeLike
Bullet – I’m pretty sure that Notre Dame gets more special treatment under the current BCS arrangement. I agree that they shouldn’t get special treatment, but they currently do. Ideally, I don’t think think the Rose Bowl should get the special treatment I gave them either. I was just recognizing that for this deal to work, people do view the Rose Bowl and Notre Dame as “special”. For all interested parties to agree, you’ve got to make a few compromises.
LikeLike
Bullet – I put the three non-semi-final bowls all on New Year’s Day in an attempt to make them special again. Being a New Year’s Day bowl used to mean something. This season, so many unranked teams played on January 1st.
If ESPN is going to continue to carry the BCS, I think they would want to enhance its value. Having an uncluttered New Year’s Day lineup should increase those ratings. The Gator, TicketCity, Outback and CapOne can find other windows and do just fine.
Putting the Gator, Outback, and Cap One, along with the Chick-Fil-A on New Year’s Eve would be a great lineup creating 2 straight days of great bowl games.
The other bowls will play when ESPN tells them to play.
LikeLike
Actually, they could be played on January dates before the title game.
LikeLike
I agree totally with your last paragraph. I just don’t think ESPN would want one of its biggest bowls or more than one bowl on New Year’s Eve. And the previous BCS broadcasters liked prime time on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th more than noon on New Year’s Day, so I don’t see that changing. On the other hand, the Rose in the afternoon slot is the best paying bowl, so maybe noon would work for them.
LikeLike
Bullet:
OK, 29th and 30th for the semifinals, then.
LikeLike
@Alan – This is pretty good. My only quibble is that while the Rose wants its Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup, the intent of that is to maintain its superiority over the other bowls. If it becomes the only bowl that never can host a semifinal, though, then that actually has the opposite effect – it truly becomes a second-tier bowl compared to the others as it’s the only one that will always be a “consolation” bowl. That’s not the effect that the Rose is looking for – it wants those Big Ten and Pac-10 champs no matter what in a plus-one scenario and especially if they’re in the top 4 of the rankings.
One way to deal with this is to essentially take your proposal and combine it with the semi-seeded concept in this blog post. The Big Ten and Pac-10 champs always play each other in the Rose. Assuming that the Cotton is added as another BCS bowl, the other 4 BCS bowls would rotate hosting 2 “quasi-semifinal” games every year, where they set up the best matchups possible excluding the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs. The years where there are no top 4 teams in the Rose, like 2008 and 2009, you can set up #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #4 games. In a season like 2010, where #2 Oregon would play in the Rose Bowl, it would depend on whether you want to set up a de facto play-in game (#1 Alabama vs #3 TCU) or 2 quasi-semifinal games (#1 Alabama vs. top at-large pick #6 Ohio State and #3 TCU vs. #4 Stanford). I actually think there are some advantages to the latter even though it doesn’t have a clear play-in game. Potentially, there would be 3 BCS bowls that could have an impact on the national championship race, which addresses the issue of giving more meaning to more of those games. Also, it’s more “fair” that the #1 team isn’t having to play a higher ranked team than the #2 team, which I admit is a problem that could happen regularly under my semi-seeded proposal. The BCS rankings would be re-calculated after the bowls are completed and the championship game would rotate among the 5 BCS bowl sites.
LikeLike
Well the Rose would get an extra championship game. Plus, I think the Rose has enough tradition, history, & uniqueness to (almost) never be a semifinal game. Finally, that’s why I prefer my plan of having the Rose be the semifinal if both the BigTen and Pac12 champ finish in the top 4. That way, teams in both conferences would still aim for the Rose every year. In fact, the Rose Bowl would be more relevant than now since it could be a path to the national title (unlike now).
LikeLike
So in my system, here’s how it would have played out:
2005 – BCS NCG in Pasadena.
Semi-final (A) in the Rose Bowl: #1 USC v. #3 Penn State
Semi-final (B) in the Fiesta bowl: #2 Texas v. #4 Ohio State
(Sugar Bowl semifinal bumped to 2006; ironically, winning the B10 in my setup means a tougher road for PSU than OSU)
2006 BCS NCG in Arizona
Semi-final (A) in the Orange Bowl: #1 Ohio State v. #4 LSU
Semi-final (B) in the Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida v. #3 Michigan
(tOSU would never choose to play a semifinal against LSU in Louisiana)
(Cotton got bumped out of a semifinal slot)
2007 BCS NCG in Miami
Semi-final (A) in the Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State v. #4 Oklahoma
Semi-final (B) in the Sugar Bowl: #2 LSU v. #3 Virginia Tech
(Sorry, I don’t have a “no rematches” rule, and I don’t there should be one because it discourages schools from scheduling touch opponents)
2008 BCS NCG in New Orleans
Semi-final (A) in the Cotton Bowl: #1 Oklahoma v. #4 Alabama
Semi-final (B) in the Orange Bowl: #2 Florida v. #3 Texas
(OU choosing the Cotton forces Texas to play Florida in Miami)
2009 BCS NCG in Arlington
Semi-final (A) in the Sugar Bowl: #1 Alabama v. #4 TCU
Semi-final (B) in the Fiesta Bowl: #2 Texas v. #3 Cincinnati
(We could see the battle of Texas in Texas for the national title)
2010 BCS NCG in Pasadena
Semi-final (A) in the Orange: #1 Auburn v. #4 Stanford
Semi-final (B) in the Cotton Bowl: #2 Oregon v. #3 TCU
(Auburn chooses the Orange, forcing Oregon to play a road game)
LikeLike
I thought of something else which is that Delaney likely wouldn’t sign off on a system where a B10 team has to travel to 2 southern locations (possibly against a home-town team) to win a national title. Thus he may very well demand some title games in the north. He most likely can get the BE to support him as well as the ACC teams in NC and north if FedEx Field is the championship site for 1 (or even 2) years in an 8 year cycle. So the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton get 1 title game and (up to) 4 semifinals. The Rose gets 2 title games and maybe some semifinal games. DC (and/or nother northern site) gets 2 title games.
Would the Rose be satisfied with this arrangement, or would they demand 3 title games in 8 years?
Maybe a compromise where the title game is held once in DC (getting support from the BE and most of the ACC) and once in St. Louis (getting support from the Big12 and probably SEC).
LikeLike
@Richard – I see what you’re saying, but I still don’t think that’s good enough for the Rose. The extra championship game is nice, but the core asset for the Tournament of Roses Committee is the Rose Bowl itself – they literally own that game, while the BCS NCG is “leased”. When the 4 other BCS bowls get guaranteed semifinals every other year but the Rose can only have one when they shoot the moon on the rare occasions that both the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs are in the too 4, that’s what I mean by the Rose being relegated to a lower status compared to the other BCS bowls. The way to maximize the opportunities for the Rose to have an impact on the championship race again is to simply ensure that they always get the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs no matter how high they’re ranked (as it’s very common that at least one of those two teams is in the top 4). That’s why I believe the semi-seeded and unseeded plus-one options that guarantee the “true” Rose Bowl matchup are the most likely scenarios over a straightforward seeded plus-one (even if that’s more logical as a whole). An unseeded plus-one is a way for the Big Ten and Pac-10 to get back the real Rose Bowl matchup again while still being part of the national championship BCS system and those entities have the clout to push that through. At the very least, they’re all going to block a seeded plus-one right now, so an unseeded/semi-seeded option is the compromise solution.
LikeLike
Unlike in the past, this year the Rose Bowl had to give concede the Pac-10 tie-in in exchange for something it didn’t want to get (a non-AQ team). Basically, the Rose Bowl made a concession to the other three bowls who had grown tired of hosting non-AQ’s and poorly-traveling ACC & Big East teams while the Rose never had to worry about hosting unpopular teams. In hindsight, though, the Rose Bowl is probably thrilled with the good TV ratings (considering it was on cable) and attendance it got from TCU’s victory. TCU-Wisconsin actually may have been a better deal for the Rose Bowl itself than if the game had been Stanford-Wisconsin. So, at least for this four-year cycle, it’s easy to see how the Rose Bowl itself came out a winner with the new rule allowing non-AQ’s access to the game.
The Rose Bowl’s concession to the other three bowls clearly pales to the concessions made by the Big Ten and Pac-10. On average, each league will only lose their own Rose Bowl access once every eight years, but that’s still very frustrating for Delany because those leagues have got virtually nothing in return out of the new rule.
The pressure for the new non-AQ Rose Bowl rule was coming primarily from the other three BCS bowls; the non-AQ’s just happily welcomed the idea. After all, the non-AQ’s lacked the leverage to demand Rose Bowl access, especially when you consider that more powerful leagues like the SEC and Big 12 don’t have Rose Bowl access, either.
Instead of directing his complaints about the new Rose Bowl access rules, Delany and Larry Scott ought to be negotiating with the Orange, Sugar, and Rose. In the process, more exciting bowl games could be made.
In years when a Pac-10 or Big Ten team would have gone to the Rose Bowl, prior to the new rule’s implementation, Delany/Scott should demand for that team to be granted the right to choose its own destination. This year, since Stanford would have been Rose Bowl-bound under the 2009 rules, it should have gotten to choose between the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta. If such a rule had been in effect, Stanford’s great season still wouldn’t have ended in Pasadena, but it at least could have ended at the much more travel-friendly Fiesta Bowl. In the future, if Boise State was taking the Big Ten’s spot in the Rose Bowl, a 12-1 or 11-2, Big Ten runner-up Nebraska team would love the chance to choose nostalgia in an Orange Bowl against Miami or Florida State as its consolation for not going to the Rose Bowl rather than be forced to face one of its divorcee’s from Texas in the Fiesta.
LikeLike
Basically, it makes no sense that Delany and Scott didn’t sit down with the other three bowl games and say, “Sure, we’ll give a little bit more for the non-AQ’s just so you guys’ don’t get the less attractive teams every time. But we’ll only concede if our teams get to choose where they go when they miss they miss out on a Rose Bowl.”
Obviously, there’d have to be some stipulations. For example, the Rose Bowl might be willing to take the second-place Big Ten or Pac-10 team no matter what, but the other three bowl games should still have some mimimum expectations. Perhaps the teams would have to be in the Top 14 in order to have the right to choose their game.
LikeLike
@Michael in Indy – I’m still quite surprised that the other BCS bowls even got this concession from the Rose Bowl. Usually, the Rose Bowl response would be “GFY”. It makes me wonder if the other bowls basically promised something (i.e. guaranteeing the “real” Big Ten champ/Pac-10 champ Rose Bowl if there’s a plus-one) in order to get them to move. That being said, the Rose pretty much got the most desirable non-AQ it could ever get in TCU – an undefeated #3 team that had just been invited to an AQ conference. They probably would’ve been a whole lot more upset if they had to take, say, the 2007 Hawaii team.
Having teams actually choose their destinations is a bit touchy. It would’ve worked in the case of this year’s Stanford squad, which automatically qualified as a top 4 team. However, it wouldn’t have worked in the case of then-#6 Ohio State if Wisconsin had made it to the championship game, where no bowl is actually obligated to take the Buckeyes as an at-large, so they can’t really demand to be placed in a particular location. Now, maybe bowls will just say “Thank you sir, may I have another?” to Ohio State making a demand (as everyone wants them), but what if a “lesser brand” is a potential at-large at #6? Let’s say Illinois is the Big Ten runner-up at #6. Maybe a bowl would rather pass up on that Big Ten runner-up than being dictated to, which is certainly something the conference doesn’t want.
LikeLike
As I think about this more, I’m certain that the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-10 gave in on the non-AQ provision for future considerations. The other BCS bowls could complain all they wanted, but the Rose had a separate TV contract and iron-clad relationships with the Big Ten and Pac-10. Certainly, the Big Ten and Pac-10 weren’t going to push for this. ESPN is paying more for the Rose Bowl than the other BCS games, so they’d have more of an interest in preserving the traditional Rose Bowl than helping out the other bowls. The other BCS bowls literally had no leverage whatsoever to demand anything from the Rose Bowl. So, the only thing that I could see them offering to the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-10 for the non-AQ rule was some future chits. Namely, they get the “real” Rose Bowl back in a plus-one system that may very well happen after the current contract expires. BCS Director Bill Hancock has openly talked about a 5th BCS bowl in 2014, which is an indication that this has discussed in detail already – he wouldn’t just say something like that off the cuff.
LikeLike
Geographically and historically, the logical 5th bowl would be the Cotton. Plus, it seems Orlando is quite happy with their Big 10/SEC matchup, so financially, the Cotton would likely be the next best bowl with their new stadium.
Without a championship game anymore, there’s a fair chance the Big 12 would seriously consider moving to Dallas from Phoenix. However, if the Big 12 were to go back to 12, it would be a loss for Jerry as they wouldn’t want the championship game in JerryWorld and then go back for a bowl.
LikeLike
Interesting thought.
But its also possible the other 4 AQ conferences and 3 bowls gave the your proposed answer to the Rose. The Pac 10 was a distant 5th in TV contracts. And the Big 10 was a distant 5th in national championships over the last 40 years. The Rose/B10/P10 may have simply been outvoted and wanted to keep the BCS title game more than they wanted to take their marbles and go home.
Texas did say no to both B10 and P10. Maybe the SEC, ACC, BE and B12 as well said, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You have to put ante up if you want to play.” (mixing metaphors, but they both fit-and this could be why Delaney is always so grouchy about the whole thing).
LikeLike
Good point. The other conferences, specifically, the Big 12 and the SEC, might have been getting tired of matchups with non-AQ’s as well. The SEC’s two games both worked out poorly. Alabama vs. Utah was a loss for the SEC. Georgia vs. Hawaii was non-competitive and boring, leading to poor TV ratings and with Georgia having not had any challenge at all. (That game almost felt like 1-AA vs. Georgia.) And of course the Alabama worked out badly as well. In the Big 12’s case, Oklahoma endured ridicule for years for their loss to Boise, even though OU was only a 7-point favorite.
The ACC and Big East didn’t have much leverage. West Virginia travels well, but NOBODY else does. In the ACC, Virginia Tech has traveled well, although repeated trips to the Orange Bowl are starting to lose interest for Hokie fans. Georgia Tech doesn’t travel well. Wake Forest hardly even has a fanbase in football. The only teams with fans who travel dependably well are Clemson, FSU, NC State, and maybe UNC.
Anyway, Bullet, I think you’re right. The Rose/B10/P10 probably got outvoted. But Delany and Scott still should have negotiated to get something back since they were giving up Rose Bowl access. So if Purdue goes 10-2 and finishes in the Top 12, and they can’t go the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl just has to deal with them if that’s where Purdue wants to go. It shouldn’t matter that much anyway. All Big Ten teams would travel well to BCS bowls.
LikeLike
I wonder if Jim Cornelison puts down “heroic tenor” as his title on his business card.
LikeLike
@Richard – He’s the best there is singing the National Anthem. His rendition sounds even more amazing at Blackhawks games where the acoustics are better and the organ backs him up.
LikeLike
I finally heard a clip.
I hate it when people don’t sing it straight. Yes, it’s a bad song, but it’s not a pop song to be sung however an artist wants. He clearly isn’t as bad as many, but it’s still annoying to me.
And Chicagoans need to either sing along or shut the F up, too. Calling it a tradition doesn’t make it any less wrong.
LikeLike
@Brian – We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. A quote from the one person in America that pretty much has earned the final say on this issue:
“To be able to stand on the ice and hear the national anthem … and hear the reaction of the crowd and feel the rumble and see the American flag just waving in all of its glory at the top of the stadium was truly incredible… This is the only place that I’ve actually seen them cheer for the anthem and I didn’t know how I’d feel about that. Standing down there on the ice, I thought it was great. Everyone has opinions, I guess.”
– Staff Sgt. Salvatore A. Giunta, first living recipient of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War, on being honored before the Blackhawks game on December 15, 2010
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/12/kuc-hawks-anthem-tradition-earns-respect.html
http://video.blackhawks.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=88023
LikeLike
He’s wrong, you’re wrong and Chicago is wrong. You don’t have to like the law, but it is the law.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why the promoters of a 4-team playoff are willing to let two spots go to teams from the same conference. Why should both Oregon and Stanford get a shot while the B1G, ACC and Big 12 Champions miss out? Just because the BCS poll says Stanford is 4th and Wisconsin is 5th, doesn’t make it true. If we are supposed to believe the BCS on who is 4th, why don’t we just give the Crystal Football to the BCS number 1 and forget about semi-finals and finals?
I do not trust the BCS rankings — that’s why I want the teams to settle things on the field. But Oregon already beat Stanford on the field, so Stanford is out. Send the conference losers home — they’ve had their chance and they lost. The semi-finals should be played between conference champions. Yes, we can use the BCS ranking to decide which four conference champions play (including Notre Dame if they rank in the top four). But please no conference losers.
LikeLike
A strict rule can get sticky. What about years when things like the 2008 Big 12 South 3-way tie happens? You have to eliminate TX because the conference tiebreaker was BCS ranking?
I agree that a round-robin conference should probably not get two teams in a 4 team playoff, but you would allow two teams that played OOC to both get in. How is that any different?
Do you write the rules to prevent any possible rematches? You could take the 4 highest ranked teams that did not play each other that season.
LikeLike
A strict rule can get sticky? Really? What’s sticky about 4 conference champions playing each other? I don’t care what tie-breaker rules a conference uses to determine its divisional winners. The conference champion should be the only team eligible to play in the NCG.
I don’t see OOC games as an issue here; however, if you want to eliminate conference champions that lose OOC games, I won’t object. But keep in mind that such a rule will compel the top teams to play more OOC creampuffs.
LikeLike
You could have a situation where Team A beats Team B and loses to Team C (say they’re all undefeated otherwise), yet by your logic, Team B gets to enter the playoff but Team A doesn’t even though Team A beat Team B head-to-head just because Team B is in a different conference from Teams A & C.
Heck, let’s say Team A murdered Team B on Team B’s home turf. How exactly is that fair or reasonable? I really don’t understand people who think you have to win your conference in order to make the playoffs. I don’t see you guys requiring NFL teams to be divisional champs (where only the divsional games count for determing division champion) in order to make the playoffs there.
LikeLike
Look at it this way: the CCGs serve as quarterfinals. The winners go to the semi-finals. I don’t care if team A beat a team that subsequently won a CCG. If team A fails to win a quarterfinal (CCG), it’s not going to a semi-final.
Unfortunately we have only four semi-final slots for eleven conference champions, so we need to use the BCS rankings to determine which four get in. Personally I would prefer an 8-team playoff for conference champions (six AQs plus two determined by BCS rank), but at this point I think a 4-team playoff is the best we can hope for.
LikeLike
Except the CCGs aren’t quarterfinals, no matter how much you want them to be. If an 8-4 team faces a 12-0 team in a CCG, that 8-4 team isn’t advancing to a 4-game playoff even if it wins, which means that CCG isn’t a quarterfinal.
LikeLike
StevenD,
You start with the faulty premise that everyone agrees with you that conference champs are more deserving. If everyone agreed with that, then your rule would make sense. However, since the BCS has rejected such a rule for a two team playoff, other people clearly don’t agree with you. Plus, the polls often say two teams from the same conference are in the top 4.
There are plenty of circumstances I can see where two teams from the same conference are worthy of inclusion – the three-way tie, losses due to extenuating circumstances, clear superiority over other teams, split series and even not having played each other.
You ignore OOC games, but in ’07 VT and LSU played OOC and both won their conference and were in the top 4. How is that any different from Stanford getting in this year?
LikeLike
The goal of any college football playoff should be to have the x-best teams in it (whether 2 or 4 or 8 or 16 or whatever). Not the x-best conference champions; the x-best teams. And that’s why a “conference champs only” rule is a bad idea.
If you have a large playoff like the basketball tournament, where there are 37 at-large berths as a “safety valve” for good teams that are not league champions, it does not unduly distort the competitiveness of the tournament to do the “politically correct” thing and guarantee spots to all league champions. As a comparison, take a look at all of the heat generated by the NFL playoffs, where a 7-9 division champion (Seattle) got in ahead of 10-6 Giants and Buccaneers teams — in my view, the NFL clearly needs to increase the size of its wild card safety valve by allowing 3 or even 4 wild cards per conference.
LikeLike
This is an interesting debate, as I can see the arguments for both sides. However, I still contend the most important fact is that the BCS conferences have continuously refused to ever institute a conference championship requirement for the #1 vs. #2 national title game. If they don’t do it for the top 2, then there’s definitely no chance that such requirement will be in place for a top 4 playoff. I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do, but it’s how the conferences think for better or for worse.
LikeLike
A History of BYU and conference expansions:
http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=6423675
I can’t vouch for every detail, but it seems very credible and comprehensive. Very interesting details about how close the MWC came to AQ status.
LikeLike
An interesting read for sure. A key passage:
“According to insiders, the negotiations were real. The BCS, the MWC, and others had come together and had a rough draft for a specific sequence of events that would culminate in automatic qualification. The events were to happen as follows:
Boise State would be invited to join the MWC in time for the 2011 season. This would put the MWC close enough to meeting AQ standards that the BCS could justifiably offer them a Big East-type “exemption” without upsetting C-USA, etc. This would also eliminate the only school outside of the MWC that the BCS considered a threat to compete for a national championship in the next 10 years.
The MWC would later invite Fresno State and Nevada, split into divisions and host a championship game. The BCS was adamant about this. The main intention of the requirement was to make the MWC’s schedule more difficult. It would also gut the WAC, making it extremely difficult for any of its remaining teams to become as dominant as BSU.
The Big East would gradually expand to 12 football teams over the next 3-5 years, specifically targeting the top C-USA teams. This would gut the only other conference capable of producing another high-profile nuisance, while solidifying the Big East’s football standing
When the new BCS contract was negotiated for 2015 and beyond, the Cotton Bowl would be added as a sixth BCS game. The Cotton Bowl would be tied to the Big 12 champion, making the Fiesta Bowl available for the MWC.
The MWC would make a handshake agreement to include ESPN in TV negotiations once its contract with Comcast/CBS ran out.”
I just don’t buy the big plan. Such a plan would have required the coordination of the 9 schools in the MWC, the 16 in the Big East, a dozen or so schools expected to move conferences, and the BCS bowl games. The plan would have also gutted the WAC and CUSA conferences. That he claims the whole idea was negotiated with “the BCS” (whatever that means) makes it even less plausible.
How many much simpler agreements have fallen apart in conference realignment? Texas to Pac-10, the WAC signing the pact to stay together, even Syracuse’s invite to the ACC all failed at the last moment.
LikeLike
That plan actually seems realistic because all the interests are aligned. The BE wants more conference games and would benefit from expansion if they add some good mid-majors and strengthen their hold on an AQ bid (plus I’m sure the 5 more powerful BCS conferences have warned the BE to strengthen up in order to remain an AQ conference. The MWC would definitely benefit from becoming an BCS conference. The 6 BCS schools would like to to eliminate/incorporate all the non-AQs that could challenge the current power structure (and if they gave the MWC a bid, they could take away/severely restrict the non-AQ bid as well as eliminate a lot of the political outcry if all the strong non-AQ schools are absorbed in to the Borg).
The agreements that fell apart didn’t have the same alignment of interests (in the case of Texas to the Pac12 & WAC pact) or was thwarded by (Virginia) politics (in the case of Syracuse). If the BTN hadn’t show itself to be all that successful & the Pac10 still had it’s old fogey commissioner, we could very well have seen this alternate reality.
What seems unrealistic is that no one in the B12 (according to the author) thought Nebraska would leave. I had long ago concluded that UNL was target #3 of the B10 (after Texas & ND), and would be the only other school that could induce the B10 to expand to 12 and stop. I can’t imagine that Beebe & company didn’t consider that possibility. The BYU author also makes it sound like BYU found the new B12 North to be unattractive, which I seriously doubt is the reason why BYU isn’t in the B12 now.
LikeLike
The interests of the various schools in the Big East hardly seem aligned with each other, let alone with any larger plan. There is no scenario that involves the Big East losing its autobid so I don’t think that would be a legitimate threat.
LikeLike
Interesting look and I’m sure pieces of it could be true. However, I largely agree with M – the large-scale coordination between the “BCS”, MWC and Big East seems unlikely. In particular, I didn’t see any indication that the AQ conferences wanted anything to do with the MWC. Now, the AQ conferences were feeling political heat (particularly from Orrin Hatch), so maybe they would’ve eventually thrown the MWC an auto-bid in order to placate the Washington crowd, but I’d be very surprised if the BCS powers were actively aiding the MWC with a plan to move up.
LikeLike
Yeah, this seems to be drawn from internet posts that BYU boosters wanted to believe were true, rather than anything that was true.
LikeLike
Pingback: The argument against a Playoff Model in College Football « The Pole's Position
Probably shouldn’t give this link the time of day but would appreciate a “smell test” from the experts. Does this have any shred of credibility:
http://gameolosophy.com/games/big-xii-sec-big-10-shocker/
LikeLike
@84Lion – This might be possible… in the college football video game world.
LikeLike
Things wrong with this article that I can see:
1. Texas to SEC. This will not happen, especially right after signing their TV deal.
2. Info leaked to Scout this week that no more than 2 Big 12 schools were under consideration. Has anyone else heard about this info? It seems strange that the rest of the media would ignore such a story.
3. Insiders say Oklahoma is a given, and that Ok St and TT deserve consideration. None of those schools are coming, and probably none of them could get in.
4. Delany has announced a major press conference for Friday? Has anyone heard about this, either?
5. Delany only has 1 “e” in it.
6. It’s on a video game site.
This is just someone trying to start a rumor.
LikeLike
brian,
I was thinking it was just a post from this time last year!
go back and read some of FtT’s from about this time last year.
LikeLike
Yes, but there are new facts in evidence this year. I’m all for speculation, but it should be at least marginally based in reality. TX and A&M to the SEC and OU and MO/TT/Ok ST to the Big Ten don’t clear that hurdle.
And claiming there is a leak from Delany’s office (that nobody else seems to have heard) and a major press conference (that nobody else has mentioned) is scheduled for Friday?
LikeLike
“A radio station in Kansas City is reporting…”
LikeLike
Texas is going to announce a 20-year, $300 million deal with ESPN to create the Longhorn Network, which will launch in the fall. Combined with a separate $10 million per year multimedia rights deal with IMG, UT is going to average $25 million per year in athletic media revenue above and beyond what it receives from the Big 12:
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2011/01/19/Texas-ESPN.aspx
I can’t blame UT for going it alone on its TV network with those kinds of numbers.
LikeLike
I was just coming over to post that (saw it on a Nebraska board). Fox reportedly bid $2 Mill a year yet ESPN is paying Fifteen Million annually?!
Something just doesn’t smell right there.
LikeLike
That is absolutely incredible!!! How is that conference going to stick together? Does UT even care that much about the conference revenue? I think they’re making more on their own – without football included.
I’m guessing UT goes independent and gets a sweetheart BCS deal like ND in 5 years.
LikeLike
I think this deal helps the long term health of the B12. Texas is fat and happy. Why go independent? It loses its nice home for all its other teams. Texas cares about its entire athletic program; as others have pointed out here, its not going to start competing with Stephen F. Austin in most sports.
Oklahoma is likely to stick with Texas. The dwarves don’t have better options. As long as TAMU doesn’t get too uppity, the B12 is stable.
LikeLike
If UT is getting $15 mil annually for the non-football sports, they’re going to start asking themselves how much they could make on football if they didn’t have to share with the conference. With the Longhorn Sports Network already up and running, there’s a very good place for their football to go. Plus what would the networks pay? UT doesn’t have to go the ND route and commit to a specific network either. They can always fall back on the LSN and can thus take the best offers.
I agree that UT loses the home for it’s sports, but there are a number of independents and teams willing to play independents out there. I think UT is better off in a conference, but I also didn’t think the LSN would make anywhere near what it is. It’ll come down to whether the money is right.
BTW, how smart does the UT admin look now for turning down the P10 offer?
LikeLike
Given the size of their athletic budget, I don’t think a few million extra a year would prompt Texas to go independent. That’s assuming they can even generate an extra few million a year as an independent. While Texas has to share their football gains with the rest of the conference, they also get to monetize virtually all their football games as part of a conference (and it’s not as if OU, TAMU, KU basketball & some others don’t contribute as well). As an independent, unless they somehow get virtually everyone to play them in Austin (very unlikely), they’d get to monetize only about 2/3rds of their schedule (their home games) and half of the most desirable matchups (because even if Georgia schedules Texas as an independent, they’re not going to give them a 2-for-1).
Plus, you have to consider that Texas would likely lose national exposure if they went independent. Not too many places outside of Texas would carry the Longhorn Network on a basic tier. They aren’t ND, after all.
Right now, as part of the B12, Texas gets the best of both worlds (national exposure + home for other sports within a conference but not sharing the extra money the Texas brand brings). I don’t see why they would want to get out of what looks to me like an ideal arrangement for something worse.
LikeLike
@RedDenver,
Technically, yes, ESPN is paying this gargantuan sum to Texas for a network that mostly will feature non-revenue sports and a few non-conference baseball, basketball, and football games.
But the reason ESPN is paying so much isn’t for the opportunity to get obscure Texas teams on television. Rather, ESPN was buying off any chance Texas would leave the Big 12 for another conference. ESPN would gladly pay one school, Texas, $20 million a year if it prevents them from having to pay 16 schools in the Pac-16 $20M/year. Even better, with Texas’ incentive to join a Pac-16 now gone, the chances that there will be a 16-team Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Big East are now reduced dramatically. 16-team conferences would have commanded a much greater cost to ESPN than what it’s currently paying.
LikeLike
I agree with Michael and Richard. This ESPN deal effectively binds UT to the Big 12 for the next 20 years. Could UT possibly receive some more TV money if they went independent? Sure, but that’s ignoring the fact that UT isn’t in complete control of its own affairs in the same manner as, say, Notre Dame. ND only has to answer to its alums. UT, on the other hand, has to answer to state politicians whose loyalties may lie with A&M, Tech and/or Baylor (the latter two needing the Big 12 to survive at all costs). With the ESPN deal, UT gets to (1) play its primary rivals in ALL sports, (2) keep the state politicians happy and (3) make a ton of TV money. Going independent might improve point #3, but truly kill off points #1 and #2. That’s not going to be an acceptable trade-off. As long as UT is happy, they’re going to stay exactly where they are… and I see UT as being VERY happy.
LikeLike
@Frank,
I figured you’d agree with me. I was pretty much regurgitating your own argument from a few months back when Texas was in negotiations with ESPN. 😉
Congrats on your Bears’ great season. It was a tough NFL season for me. My favorite team, having grown up and gone to college in the Carolinas, is the Panthers, and they were the worst team in the NFL. My next-favorite is the hometown Colts, and they were one-and-done. It’s simply remarkably that Peyton Manning’s been to the playoffs 11 times in 12 years but only two Super Bowls and one championship…
LikeLike
@Michael – I honestly think this season was one of Peyton Manning’s best. The talent on the Colts’ offense was nowhere near where it was in 2006. He basically willed that team to the playoffs by himself, which is a testament to his abilities.
LikeLike
The Atlanta Braves of the NFL.
Of course, the percentages suggest that he shouldn’t have done much better (unless the Colts were simply the best team in the league for s stretch of time). In a 3 round playoff of equal teams, you have a 12.5% chance of winning it all. In a 4 round playoff of equal teams, you have a 6.25% chance of winning it all. About 1/3 of the teams get a bye. The Colts started in the divisional round 3 times. 3*12.5%+8*6.25% = .875 expected championships.
Looked in that light, Manning and the Colts really haven’t underperformed.
LikeLike
According to the article that Hopkins posted on the other thread, your numbers are a little inflated.
”
If the new network, which is scheduled to begin rolling in the fall, brings in just the guaranteed $10 million or so in the first year or so of the contract, the university’s total annual broadcast revenue would rise into the $30 million range.
”
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/bears-packers-and-rupert-murdoch-synergy/#comment-93722
LikeLike
That link: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/highereducation/entries/2011/01/19/ut_espn_reach_20year_300_milli.html
If you read it, TX is guaranteed $247.5 M over the 20 years ($12.4 M per year average) with the rest going to IMG.
TX also says it will give $5 M to the academic side for the first 5 years at least. After that, it may go up or down. Since the contract starts at about $10 M per year, that is half for academics.
It is not specified how any extra profits might be split between ESPN, IMG and TX but implies that TX could earn more than their guarantee.
LikeLike
To me, this seems like evidence that there’s NO WAY Texas would leave the Big 12.
-Even before this news came out, Texas was guaranteed to make Big Ten/SEC-type money from the Big 12’s TV money distribution.
-The Pac-12 would not allow Texas to have its own media rights for non-conference games. Clearly, Texas is benefiting beyond belief by getting its own media rights.
-The Big Ten wouldn’t offer Texas its own media rights, either. The Big Ten also does not offer the same type of comforts that the Pac-12 offered, i.e., allowing Texas’ friends to come along (OU, Okie State, Texas Tech, and if possible, A&M).
-Although the Big Ten and Pac-12 present a desirable academic association in addition to athletics, Texas has clearly shown that its first preference is to stay in the Big 12. The Big Ten and Pac-12 would have to present an astounding increase in payouts for UT to leave.
-Texas has absolutely zero interest in joining the SEC. The SEC is aware of that, and that league would not waste its time pursuing UT. If the SEC ever gets into Texas, A&M would be the first one to join.
-Independence would make zero sense for Texas. They’re going to get about $20 million from the Big 12 on top of this huge new TV deal. UT is not in a situation like BYU, who was dealing with an atrocious deal with the MWC. They’re in the Big 12, who’s giving Texas a sweetheart of a deal packaged exclusively for themselves.
If I was in charge at Texas, my next move would not be to go for independence or another conference. It would be to start making amends with the other conference members. Again, this deal from ESPN for the Longhorn Network would not be possible if Texas had to go to the Pac-12 or Big Ten, and clearly UT doesn’t want to go to the SEC. So Texas needs to make sure all the other members won’t have a reason to leave for other conferences.
A few years from now, who knows? Maybe the Big East will start getting better television contracts and will be able to give a competitive to the Big 12 North schools. Being as dependent as they are on the Big 12’s existence, UT ought to make sure those schools would not want to leave. Same goes for A&M with the SEC. If UT is able to smooth out the sticky relationships with Missouri and others it has butted heads with in the past, maybe the Big 12 could actually stick together for the long haul.
LikeLike
Can we assume Oklahoma and A&M will also get network deals with ESPN? If not, some real jealousy could develop between the schools.
LikeLike
OU has been talking about starting a network, possibly/probably in combination with Ok State. ESPN would probably be interested, but for a lower price. Texas has almost 7 times as many people, and it would be hard to also get this channel on basic cable in Texas I think.
TAMU is not as popular as Texas, so they would get a lower offer too, not that I’ve heard anything about them starting a channel.
I think the rest of that conference already is jealous and just has to get used to it. TX has had much higher revenue than anyone else for years. This is just one more revenue stream.
LikeLike
OU is talking about a network: http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OU/article.aspx?subjectid=92&articleid=20110119_92_0_TheUni869373
The UT deal might not be as big as it looks on the surface depending on what all is in it. Currently OU makes $7.5 million from it’s media rights holder (which includes Internet, Radio, and games on Syndicated TV)
If UT’s also includes Radio and Stadium rights they are getting about what Ohio St got this summer when tOSU got 11.5 million a year.
Another rumor: This is ESPN heading of Fox for a Big 12 Network. IF ESPN rolls the UT deal into the Big 12 Network only they can say “we are the only ones that can do a Big 12 Network with UT in it”
LikeLike
Why would TX agree to be part of a Big 12 network when they have their own now, unless they keep what they have and the Big 12 network is a bonus?
LikeLike
I am going to put this here instead of the Bears post.
Mountain West still discussing expansion.
Utah State, Texas-El Paso, Houston and Southern Methodist are reportedly under consideration, as well. But a source familiar with the landscape said Houston and SMU are happy in Conference USA and unlikely to join the MWC.
“There aren’t a lot of options’’ for the Mountain West, the source said. “San Jose State could be attractive because of its location and Fresno State and San Diego State being in the conference.
LikeLike
Source : http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/01/18/san-jose-state-to-the-mountain-west-its-on-the-table/
LikeLike
For sure SJSU (and it’s boosters) are desperate to join the MWC, but if a conference championship game is attractive to the MWC, why didn’t they expand before?
LikeLike
Richard and Mike – I don’t quite understand what the MWC would be trying to do here. Richard is right – why didn’t they expand before this if they’re supposedly so hell-bent on getting to 12? The X-factor for me is whether adding Utah State would somehow allow The Mtn to continue getting basic cable carriage in the state of Utah (which has been that network’s most valuable market). If that was case, then Utah State would be a financially prudent addition as school #11 and maybe they’d concurrently go up to 12 with San Jose State or a different school. I don’t find any of that likely as I see the state of Utah as a lost cause for the MWC at this point.
LikeLike
Well, according to the article they want a multimillion dollar CCG. SJSU would be considered to get the Bay Area TV market (Comcast is dominant there, and Comcast has the MWC TV deal), and the Cal State system chancellor would like to get SJSU, SDSU and Fresno State in the same conference. As you say, Frank, USU would have to be for the same reason (Utah TVs).
I’m not sure they could get the multimillion payout for a CCG, but you can never tell with the TV deals that have been signed recently. The current deal is $120 million for 10 years for 9 teams ($1.33M per school per year), so they’d need to get $4M for the CCG. Maybe they’ve been told by Comcast a CCG would be worth at least that much.
LikeLike
I read a rumor that the MWC would take Utah State, and UTEP, while CUSA would replace UTEP with La. Tech.
Then MWC and CUSA would split a BCS spot, as the only other D-1 conferences left would be the mangled WAC and the Sunbelt.
all…internet rumor of course
LikeLike
The problem with that rumor is that UTEP has to be guaranteed a secure path to the BCS to leave CUSA (because they want to be in the same league as a bunch of other Texas schools). Well, that’s one problem. One of the others is how is CUSA going to have 12 teams and still split a BCS spot with the MWC?
LikeLike
A MWC-CUSA merger would be fun to think about, however unlikely it would be.
You could have 4 6-team divisions and a 4-team playoff could be accomplished by having a set 11-game regular schedule and reserving the 12th game for Thanksgiving week when the top team in Division A meet the top team in Division C, the 2nd best in those divisions meet, and on down the line (same thing with Divisions B & D).
They may even do this if there was an automatic BCS berth on the line, and the AQ conferences may even be inclined to give them one if it means preserving the BCS.
The beauty with this setup is that it could handle new powers somehow arising out of the WAC, SunBelt, and MAC as well because the divisions don’t have to be set at 6 schools each; they could be 7, 8, 9, maybe even 10 schools (and at 40 schools, you’d have virtually all the non-AQ schools out there within the BCS structure).
LikeLike
@Richard
No..sorry I wasn’t clearer. MWC and CUSA would have their own conferences. The highest rank champion from the 2 conferences would get the auto-bid.
I also heard the pitch will be one auto BCS spot for the highest ranked conf. champion from MWC, C-USA, and the WAC and Sunbelt. Which should almost always be MWC or CUSA..especially if the WAC dies.
and UTEP has ties west as they were part of the old WAC for years and rivals with New Mexico and Colorado State.
LikeLike
@Redhawk – It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the BCS removes the top 12 requirement for the highest ranked non-AQ champ to receive an auto-bid. Just don’t forget about the MAC! If I’m the other AQ conferences, though, I don’t see much incentive or necessaity in providing that type of bid AND an auto-bid for the best from the MWC and C-USA. It would seem to be one or the other – an MWC/C-USA auto-bid would need to replace the current non-AQ auto-bid (instead of being in addition to it).
I’ve bantered with some UTEP people and the general feeling that I get is that they aren’t going to separate from the other Texas schools in C-USA. Even though they make more sense geographically in the Mountain West, their students and alums are still largely based in the Metroplex, San Antonio and Houston.
LikeLike
@Frank
I’ve talked to a few UTEP fans on the interwebs, and most seemed fine with the MWC as they like joining up with their old WAC foes, especially New Mexico.
However, that was before TCU left.
The biggest concern I got from them was C-USA was stable where they didn’t see the MWC being the same.
As far as the BCS bid goes, I think that was from the side of MWC and C-USA. I’m sure the current AQ would have problems with it. It would give them cover for law suits which MWC commish Thompson is contemplating.
LikeLike
The Longhorn Network schedule
[i]1:45 Leaders and Legends: You need an entire conference to have a network? How quaint[/i]
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/slant/201101/longhorn-network-programming-schedule
LikeLike
I hate that some sites use instead of [ ]
LikeLike
Pingback: The Delany Party Like It’s 1997 BCS Bowl Proposal: Why It’s a Brilliant Chess Move (Unless You Want a Playoff) « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
Pingback: Playoffs?! The Final Four College Football Playoff (or Plus-One or “Event”) Options and Why “Four Team Plus” Helps More Than the Rose Bowl « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT