With West Virginia finally getting invited to the Big 12 after some political haggling, we are one step closer to the settling the composition of all six BCS automatic qualifier conferences for a few years.  This has brought up a whole slew of questions from Slant readers, which I’ll address here:

1.  Is Missouri really leaving for the SEC? – I’m not sure why this keeps getting asked between the accidental “we f**ked up” web posting on the SEC website announcing the addition of Mizzou and the conspicuous absence of any mention of the Tigers in the Big 12’s press release regarding West Virginia, but there are still constant lingering questions about whether the Columbia-based school is going to stay in the Big 12 or receive a last-second Big Ten invite.  As I’ve stated previously, the SEC has turned the normal expansion process for most conferences on its head by making its candidates go through a public kabuki dance, which elongates the time frame for getting a deal completed.  Make no mistake about it: Missouri is heading to the SEC.  It would be the dumbest conference choice in college sports history if Mizzou were to stay in the Big 12.

2.  What did the Big 12 see in West Virginia over Louisville? – For quite awhile, I thought Louisville was the top non-BYU expansion choice for the Big 12.  My impression is that most of the Big 12 presidents agreed with me from a cultural fit standpoint (along with slightly better geography), which is why so much of the chatter over the past month seemed to be centered on the Cardinals.  However, let’s not forget that there’s one big-time reason why the Big 12 is still alive and kicking today: Fox and ESPN have decided to pay the same amount for a 10-school conference without a championship game as it would have for a 12-school conference with a championship game.  Without those TV deals, the Big 12 would have been executed last summer.  As a result, the Big 12 had to listen to its TV partners or else risk getting a reduction in its rights fees.  When the media people came down strongly in favor of West Virginia, that was enough to get most of the Big 12 presidents to change their tune.

Despite the geographic issues, I see where the TV networks are coming from.  If you’re Average Joe Sports Fan in Any Town, USA, West Virginia versus Texas or Oklahoma is probably going to be a much more attractive TV matchup in an average season than Louisville versus those same schools.  (If you need a reminder, we’re solely talking football here.  Basketball is, unfortunately for this hoops fan, pretty much irrelevant.)  The irony is that the main knock against West Virginia as an expansion candidate for various leagues was its tiny home TV market, yet the school ended up getting into the Big 12 because of the TV networks wanted the Mountaineers.

3.  Is the Big 12 really going to stay at 10? – As long as the Big 12 is unable to get a deal done with BYU, I see the conference staying at 10.  While Louisville has solid athletic assets, it’s simply not a single expansion candidate school that the Big 12 would be willing to go up to 11 for and then split the league’s TV money different ways.  The Big Ten stayed at 11 for many years, but that was because (a) Penn State was school #11 and (b) they had always been waiting for a legit football king (initially Notre Dame and eventually Nebraska) as school #12.  The schools involved for the Big Ten were more than worth going up to an uneven numbered alignment and waiting for in such alignment.  That’s not quite the case for the Big 12.  At the same time, schools like Cincinnati won’t really provide enough revenue to be taken instead of BYU in a 12-school alignment.  Now, I still have a hard time believing that BYU won’t end up in the Big 12 at some point.  If/when that happens, I’d fully expect Louisville to make the move to the Big 12, too.

4.  Would Notre Dame join the Big 12 as a non-football member? – I think the Irish will stay in a wounded Big East (more on that later), but I’d give it a 30% chance of them heading to the Big 12 for non-football sports, with approximately a 0% chance of joining the ACC or Big Ten for all-sports.  It doesn’t matter that the geographic and institutional fit would be horrendous for Notre Dame in the Big 12.  As long as the Irish have a strong non-football option that allows them to maintain independence, they will ALWAYS choose such option.  It might not be rational to anyone that isn’t a Domer, but independence in and of itself will always be the top priority for that school.  Now, I can’t see any reason why Notre Dame would agree to play 6 Big 12 opponents per year (as Chip Brown of Orangebloods reported), as that just sounds like the opening bargaining position of Chuck Neimas/DeLoss Dodds.  The Irish playing 3 Big 12 opponents annually (2 of which are Texas and Oklahoma), though, is certainly doable if that’s what it takes to preserve independence overall.  The overarching point: Notre Dame going to the Big 12 for non-football sports is NOT crazy.

(To be sure, all of the Notre Dame-to-the-Big 12 reports so far have originated from Texas.  This is important because I find it hard to believe that any Big 12 member outside of Texas would grant Notre Dame partial membership when it would provide the Longhorns a direct precedent to do the exact same thing in a few years.  The Texas “commitment” to the Big 12 is what’s keeping the league from splitting apart, so it would be a disaster to watch them use Notre Dame as leverage to get their own independence in football/member in non-football sports deal.  If I were running any Big 12 school that wasn’t located in Austin, I would stay far away from granting Notre Dame a partial membership.  That’s just me, though.)

5.  Why don’t the other AQ conferences just kill the Big East? – This is near the top of frequently asked questions during this conference realignment cycle.  Putting aside the potential litigation issues, there’s a pretty basic and easy answer to this: the other AQ conferences don’t want the remaining Big East schools alone.  Maybe those schools would be fine as complementary pieces (Rutgers or UConn heading to the Big Ten or ACC in conjunction with Notre Dame or the aforementioned Louisville and BYU to the Big 12 scenario), but not as sole additions.  While the other AQ conferences might be annoyed that the Big East has AQ status, they aren’t going to take other Big East schools simply as a mechanism to get rid of that league.  It’s a whole lot cheaper for the AQ conferences to allow the Big East to keep its AQ status than to expand with schools that don’t bring in enough revenue.

6.  Will the Big East football schools finally split from the Catholic schools? – I’ll point back to my comparison of the Big East to Netflix and Qwikster as to why I don’t believe the Big East will split.  If anything, the defections of Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia make the Big East’s basketball TV and NCAA Tournament credit revenue even more important for the remaining schools.  Also, don’t disregard the Notre Dame factor.  The Irish hold a ton of sway with both the football and Catholic sides of the Big East – the former because Notre Dame alone can prevent further expansion by the Big Ten and ACC (which in turn protects the Big East from further raids) and the latter as a result of all major Catholic institutions wanting a direct link with the South Bend school.  The Big 12 non-football option mentioned earlier is definitely a viable one for Notre Dame, yet when it comes to having a presence in the markets the Domers actually care about and live in (New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, New England), the Big East still fits them best.  It’s just that a split Catholic-only league wouldn’t provide a strong enough non-football home for Notre Dame’s sports outside of men’s basketball.  So, the Irish are going to do everything that they can to keep the Big East hybrid together.  If I’m wrong and the Big East splits, I’d expect that Notre Dame will take up the Big 12 on a partial membership offer if it exists.

7.  Why wouldn’t Boise State stay in the Mountain West Conference/Conference USA Alliance instead of joining the Big East? Won’t the Big East lose its AQ status, meaning that Boise State would be taking a huge gamble? – I keep seeing comments that the Big East is unstable.  This is obviously very true.  However, every single conference besides the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and maybe the ACC could be considered to be completely unstable.  The one thing that the Big East has is AQ status in-hand.  This fact cannot be emphasized enough and provides the conference with a ton more leverage than many fans give it credit for.  It would be one thing if the Alliance were some type of bastion of stability itself with some type of assurance of AQ status in the future.  However, doesn’t anyone remember what happened to the Mountain West within weeks of Boise State joining that league?  It lost its three most valuable members: Utah, BYU and TCU.  So, how the heck is the Mountain West stable?  On the C-USA side of the Alliance, are Houston, SMU and UCF going turn down Big East invites?  Their departures would deplete the depth of the Alliance even further.  At the same time, there isn’t a single non-AQ school besides Boise State that has the recent resume of current Big East member Cincinnati (which finished #3 in the final BCS rankings in 2009).  The Bearcats alone give more numerical credence to the Big East retaining its AQ status in the future than any amalgamation of the MWC/C-USA Alliance.

At the same time, we saw Senator Mitch McConnell get involved last week with Louisville’s talks with the Big 12, so how likely are the other AQ conferences going to be willing to strip away the Big East’s AQ status with at least one powerful Louisville backer along with 2 service academies?  I just don’t see the Big Ten, SEC and others risking killing their control over the college football world by inviting a political firestorm just to get back one BCS bowl bid per year.  Dealing with the Big East is the political cost of doing business for the power conferences.

Everyone knows the saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  Well, for any potential Alliance member (including Boise State), there isn’t even one bird in the bush to worry about.  The only chance that they have for long-term AQ status is to be in a rebuilt Big East that effectively annexes the top non-AQ schools and leaves behind the deadweight that have been dragging down the BCS criteria numbers for MWC and C-USA.  For those that think that Boise State has a lot of leverage, remember that this was a top 10 school last season that because of a single loss, ended up at the Las Vegas Bowl instead of a BCS game.  Even the most powerful programs go through down periods (see Notre Dame), so it would behoove Boise State to avoid becoming the football version of UNLV basketball (which was a 1990s powerhouse that quickly receded back into the midmajor masses as soon as it started losing more games).  Boise State and others might publicly posture over the coming days and weeks to make it seem like they have lots of options (similar to Missouri and the SEC or the Big 12 insisting that they were considering going up to an 11-school alignment), but ultimately, the only real choice is to take AQ status now because you never know when it might come around again.

(Even without the AQ status, the TV contract for a proposed rebuilt Big East that adds Boise State, Air Force, Navy, SMU, Houston and Central Florida is going to be significantly better on a per-school basis than whatever the Alliance could come up with.  So, there’s a financial incentive beyond AQ status to think about, too.)

8.  How is this all going to turn out? – Personally, I think “less is more”.  There has been and will continue to be a lot of school movement by historical standards, but not in a way where there’s an Armageddon scenario of 16-school superconferences forming.  Barring a choice by Notre Dame to give up independence, the Big Ten and ACC are settled.  The Pac-12 appears to have made Texas their equivalent of Notre Dame to the Big Ten and ACC, where no further expansion is happening for them without the Longhorns involved.  Once the anticipated move of Missouri going to the SEC is finalized, the SEC and Big 12 are going to be done with membership changes for the time being.

This means the action is going to be in the Big East.  As a form of AQ status triage, I actually like the Big East’s proposed plan of adding Houston, SMU and UCF as all-sports members along with Boise State, Air Force and Navy as football-only schools.  My guess is that Temple will be considered as a football-only member to replace West Virginia and get the Big East a football presence in Pennsylvania again, which would provide the Big East with 8 football members, 8 non-football members and 4 football-only members.  The MWC/C-USA Alliance may actually end up being a single all-sports league when all is said and done after any defections to the Big East.

As pretty much everyone knowledgeable about conference realignment likes to say, the situation is still fluid.  We just need Missouri and the SEC to get things going.

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

(Image from Wikipedia)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Can the Hawks get the first pick in the draft?

    Like

  2. herbiehusker says:

    Go Big Red!

    Like

  3. Jefferson says:

    WE ARE PENN STATE

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Feel really bad for the PSU fans…….on the whole, they’re great fans…..always had a high regard for the university as well…..

      Like

  4. Christian says:

    Hook ’em.

    Like

  5. M says:

    My pet theory about the BCS is that in the next cycle, they’ll get rid of AQ bids entirely. Conferences will be free to sign whatever bowl agreements they wish, except the #1 and #2 teams will still play.

    Like

    • I kind of suspect the same. The less organized it is, the less anyone can cry anti-trust. IMO this makes a LOT of sense for the powers of the game.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      I kind of think that too. I think the conferences would love to get rid of the AQ label as that invites controversy and isn’t necessary to hold their positions. I’m still kind of hesitant to think they’ll want to effectively drop the Big East as an AQ (which would be the practical effect of such a move even if not the official effect). If they do go this way though, I’d expect the top 6 conference champs each year to automatically be in and for any conference champion to automatically be eligible.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        But what’s in it for the bowls, then? The reason this happened was to prevent the bowls from having to scramble for the best match-ups, and to provide compensation if a traditional conference-tie-in team couldn’t play in your bowl because they were playing in the 1-2 bowl.

        In a world where there are only 4.5 MNC capable/ big time conferences, how are tie-ins going to work to make the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton bowls happy. When the Rose gets the B1G and P12 champs, that only leaves Texas/OU, the SEC champ, and the ACC champ to fight over.

        It may be in the NCAA’s best interest to be rid of AQs, but it isn’t in the best interest of the bowls. We know a play-off *is* in the NCAA best financial interest, and we know we don’t have one, so we know the NCAA is *not* the one making this call. All signs indicate that it is the conferences that are running college football in concert with their TV partners.

        I think in the next round with will see the Cotton reclaim it’s place as a major bowl with a BXII tie-in, the Big East losing its AQ status, up to three teams from any conference in a major bowl, a plus one, and as a bone to the little guys, any conference champ ranked in the top 12 makes it in.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          FLP_NDRox,

          In a world where there are only 4.5 MNC capable/ big time conferences, how are tie-ins going to work to make the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton bowls happy. When the Rose gets the B1G and P12 champs, that only leaves Texas/OU, the SEC champ, and the ACC champ to fight over.

          First, you’re assuming the Cotton becomes a BCS game. For the current setup, nothing has really changed. The BE doesn’t have a tie in, so the Orange (ACC), Sugar (SEC), Fiesta (B12) and Rose (B10 & P12) can stay the same. The only difference would be recognizing how weak the BE has been, so they don’t get in automatically. The Orange might wish to drop the ACC based on recent performance. Getting the third pick (assuming the CG teams had tie-ins) is better than getting WF in a down year for the ACC.

          It may be in the NCAA’s best interest to be rid of AQs, but it isn’t in the best interest of the bowls.

          Sure it is. Why be locked into having to accept an unranked 8-4 UConn when you could take #10 Boise (11-1) or #12 MO or #14 OkSU? #9 MSU and #11 LSU were ineligible due to the 2 team limit, and the top 8 plus #13 VT all went. The bowl want good teams that bring fans. If they had their choice, they’d probably drop the 2 team limit and the AQs that stuck them with some lesser BE and ACC teams.

          We know a play-off *is* in the NCAA best financial interest, and we know we don’t have one, so we know the NCAA is *not* the one making this call. All signs indicate that it is the conferences that are running college football in concert with their TV partners.

          The NCAA is the schools. The conferences are the schools. You can’t pit one against the other like they are very different. A playoff would make more money than bowls, but it would have to be run by the NCAA and thus the money would be redistributed much like the March Madness money. Is that in the best financial interests of all the member schools, or is it the bottom feeders leeching off of the rich? Are the top schools better off maintaining the status quo or funding the ADs at a bunch of lesser schools so they provide more competition?

          I think in the next round with will see the Cotton reclaim it’s place as a major bowl with a BXII tie-in, the Big East losing its AQ status, up to three teams from any conference in a major bowl, a plus one, and as a bone to the little guys, any conference champ ranked in the top 12 makes it in.

          I think you’re at least partially wrong. The Cotton could move up, but it has B12 #2 (first after BCS) versus SEC #3/4 (second after BCS, from SEC West) right now. Their game may not improve much by becoming a BCS bowl. I’m also not sure the B12 will drop the Fiesta for the Cotton. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that a condition of the Cotton joining the BCS is that the Fiesta keeps the B12 tie in for a few years at least.

          I don’t see the 2 team limit going away completely, but there may be a once in 4 years exemption. Why would the ACC, BE and P12 want to give away at large chances and money to SEC #3 and B10 #3? Why would the non-AQs want to give up those spots either?

          As far as I can tell, the B10 is still dead set against a plus 1. Is the P12 open to it under Scott? What about the ACC and BE since they’ve been struggling? I don’t think a plus 1 has the votes to get approved yet.

          They could go to a flat, any top 12 conference champ gets in, but I think they’ll stick to only 1 such team getting a guaranteed spot.

          Like

          • jamison says:

            The B1g and the Pac 12 would never ever ever ever ever agree to any scenario where they don’t have teams guaranteed to be in the Rose Bowl. Ever. Not going to happen.

            Like

  6. bullet says:

    I’m becoming skeptical that Air Force and Navy are going to join. I think the WVU lawsuit taints the BE. Without Air Force, does Boise join? And w/o those 3, do the bb schools still want UCF, UH and SMU? To use a Big 12 phrase, there’s still a lot of moving parts.

    Like

    • charlie says:

      the other side of the coin is that if the BEast can somehow manage to get in the academies + boise state along with ucf, uh, and smu, the BEast can say “we’ve been in negociations with these schools and were just working out the final details when wvu decided to bolt” to show as evidence to the countray of wvu’s argument. I think it behoove the BEast to make these additions as soon as possible if they want a fighting chance against wvu’s law suit

      Like

  7. M says:

    Also, add.

    Like

  8. Penn State Danny says:

    I think if the academies turn sown the BE, then Boise is a no go. I would still add UCF, SMU and Houston. I also agree with Pitino and would add Temple and Memphis.

    Ten teams that are pretty much in the east and are decent at both sports.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      It says something about the Big East that Memphis, perhaps the worst FBS program in the nation, has more of a shot at an all-sports berth than Temple, which has been to a bowl game in recent years.

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        When we were talking Big 10 expansion, wasn’t Rutgers given more of a chance than far superior Pitt? Temple duplicates a market, regardless of performance. Memphis would provide a reasonable rivalry with Louisville and add an urban market–what used to be cornerstone of the Big East. Even the SEC is loathe to take a team in a duplicate market.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          True, but is there any difference between Villanova/Temple and Seton Hall/Rutgers?

          Like

          • The difference is Seton Hall and Rutgers are already established. No one is talking about kicking schools out, but clearly the criteria for conference affiliations has changed from what it was in the “old days.”

            Think of it this way: If we were starting from scratch, forgetting tradition and rivalries, would anyone put Michigan and Michigan State in the same conference? It duplicates markets and waters down value. Better to take one or the other and find another school in a different market.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yes, they would still put UM and MSU together. Geography matters. Local rivalries matter. Who else would extend into MI to get MSU?

            If the B10 had everyone but MSU and was looking for #12, would they choose MSU? Yes, assuming ND still wasn’t interested.

            Like

        • SideshowBob says:

          But Temple doesn’t duplicate a market in football. In fact, it arguably allows the conference to maintain a presence in a big market/recruiting area of Pennsylvania that will be diminished with losing Pitt and WVU.

          Like

  9. swesleyh says:

    Temple, East Carolina and Southern Mississippi. Gig Em’

    Like

  10. Justin says:

    The Big 10 really should take a hard look at adding Oklahoma and Rutgers. There are so many advantages to this approach.

    (1) ND is never joining the Big 10. The Big 10 will not — and should not — make concessions to add Texas, and thus, Texas isn’t joining the Big 10 in its current form.

    (2) That leaves Oklahoma as the other college football power that could be tempted to switch leagues. Unlike ND or Texas, however, I think OU would bolt to the Big 10 in a nanosecond. Boren — the OU president — from all OU sources craves a Big 10 invite. OU would reignite its rivalry with Nebraska. Morevoer, they would join a league where every school makes a ton of money, and there is competitive financial balance.

    (3) So if the Big 10 agrees to take OU — a non AAU school — then Rutgers is the perfect complement. Rutgers is a top research AAU school, gives PSU a travel partner. In some ways, Rutgers is the opposite of OU. They wouldn’t add a lot to the national TV package (where OU would), but New Jersey would be a huge addition to the Big 10 network, and would give the Big 10 a fertile state for high school football talent.

    (4) Moreover, Rutgers and OU allow almost a perfect geographic split. East – UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers. West – OU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern and Illinois. Geographic balance and competitive balance.

    (5) This would be a shrewd move for the Big 10 to make in advance of the upcoming TV negotations. Adding OU would give the Big 10 5 of the winningest 8 programs of all time.

    (6) Moreover, if you add OU, the other consequence is if Texas ever joins a conference, they are more likely to look to the Big 10 with a longtime rival there.

    I think Delaney needs to sell this plan to the Big 10 presidents.

    Like

    • Seth9 says:

      To which the presidents would say absolutely not with regards to OU joining because of OU’s academics. OU is a completely logical athletic addition (provided that they aren’t attached to OSU), but they are, relative to the rest of the Big Ten, crap when it comes to being a research institution. It’s not just that they’re not an AAU member, but that they are not even close to being an AAU member. And for schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Northwestern, that’s a deal-breaker.

      Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        It’s a matter of numbers though. How many votes does someone need before they’re invited? Michigan opposed Penn State, and likely Nebraska too. That didn’t turn out in their favor.

        Like

    • bobo the feted says:

      OU will never lead Texas recruiting and therefore they will never leave the Longhorns. That’s why the OU/OSU to pac12 conference deal was never consumated. Pac didn’t want OU without Texas, and OU didn’t want the Pac without Texas either. OU doesn’t care about Nebraska either, that’s why when Big12 was formed they gave up the NU/OU rivalry to emphasize the Red River Rivalry.

      Big Ten won’t accept OU because of academic grounds and cultural fit.

      BTW WVU is now SUING the Big East to get out of the 27 month wait period….good luck getting that…

      Like

      • frug says:

        The PAC-12 fell apart because Larry Scoot couldn’t whip the votes for an OU and OSU only deal. The Sooners were prepared to break from the Longhorns. Bob Stoops even said he didn’t think the RRR had to be played every year.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Possibly. Or the Pac retracted when they got wind that Boren, having just gotten the Regents aproval to explore options, was using them as a bargaining tool against UT within the Big 12 rather than taking the next steps to leaving. Unusual to have a statement released near midnight eastern time. And also only a day or two prior to the Big 12 negotiation (UT owes the Pac a small thank you, they could have said nothing for a while).

          Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Not happening: A few months ago, when OU was flirting with the Pac-12, the Sooners made clear that they would not move anywhere without Oklahoma State. Even assuming the Big 10 would take the Sooners alone (which it probably wouldn’t), it certainly wouldn’t take the Cowboys, as well.

      Besides that, Oklahoma prefers the Big 12 for competitive reasons. In a league with only one other traditional football power (Texas), they should be able to win the conference roughly 4-5 times a decade. They would have a much tougher path to the BCS in the Big 10.

      Since there is no way that Oklahoma switches conferences by itself, your points about Rutgers are moot.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      Rutgers is not a great addition. They are bad at sports and have very few fans. OU academics are in no way up to par, the state of Oklahoma has very few people. Also, OU is not in a contiguous state. If the B1G were interested in OU, the natural pair to add would be OU and Mizzou.

      Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        The Big Ten will expand west if they expand at all. Notre Dame’s the only east coast school they want, and they’ll stop playing football before they have to sully themselves with the likes of us.

        Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        The last unranked Rutgers game outdrew the Syracuse v WVU (ranked) game in the NYC metro area…they might not be as followed as the big boys, but “very few fans” might be an understatement.

        Like

    • metatron5369 says:

      I don’t think Texas is welcome anywhere anymore. I don’t think they care either.

      As for Oklahoma, I can see them in the Big Ten a decade from now, but not next year. It’s like free agency for schools; the biggest tickets can and will wait and find the best deals for them. Neither Oklahoma or the Big Ten feel an urgent need to realign, else Missouri would be in the Big Ten and Oklahoma would be in the SEC.

      Like

    • Peter says:

      Oklahoma cannot be severed from OSU. They have been extremely explicit about that. Oklahoma State is valueless financially & academically. This was a problem for the Pac-12 and it would be a problem for the B1G – if OU was academically acceptable themselves, which they aren’t.

      The only remaining Big 12 member the B1G wants is Texas, if Texas is playing by everyone else’s rules. Texas won’t do that, so the B1G is done with the Big 12 schools.

      Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        The school won’t die, but their football program might.

        It’s like Kansas. OU is finding out they can’t bring along their little brother if they want to move. At what point does the situation become untenable?

        Personally, the Big XII is two schools away from becoming the Big East; a bottom rung AQ conference, but still there. WVU, Boise, BYU could give it enough life without Texas and OU propping it up.

        Like

    • charlie says:

      2 points:
      1) OU isn’t going anywhere without Texas and Ok State (as mentioned by other posters), and obviously, Ok State is a deal breaker for the B1G (also mentioned by other posters)
      2) if we get OU, what’s the point of getting Rutgers? the only way Rutgers makes sense is in tandum with ND – ND’s market is on the east coast, Rutgers is in NJ, near NYC, a perfect way to capitalize on that. if we somehow manage to pull in OU, I think it’d be better to compliment them with another midwest/Big-12 school to capitalize on those markets, such as Mizzou, Kansas (without KSU, obviously), ect

      Like

  11. Andy says:

    I mostly agree although I’m not sure about your predictions on the new Big East members. Rick Pitino recently lobbied for adding Temple and Memphis to the Big East for basketball. I think these would be good additions for them. Basketball really is the Big East’s strength and they shouldn’t stray to far from that with additions like SMU and CFU.

    Like

  12. joe4psu says:

    add

    Like

  13. duffman says:

    How can WVU sue the Big East if the Big East can not counter sue the B12 and ACC?

    Boston College BE CFB school 1991 – 2005 : poached by ACC
    Uconn BE CFB school 2004 – present : poached by ACC 20??
    Syracuse BE CFB school 1991 – 2014 : poached by ACC
    Pitt BE CFB school 1991 – 2014 : poached by ACC
    Miami (FL) BE CFB school 1991 – 2004 : poached by ACC
    West Virginia BE CFB school 1991 – 201? : poached by B12
    Virginia Tech BE CFB school 1991 – 2004 : poached by ACC
    Cincinnati BE CFB school 2005 – present : poached by B12 20??
    Louisville BE CFB school 2005 – present : poached by B12 20??
    TCU BE CFB school ???? – ???? : poached by B12
    Notre Dame BE CFB school 1995 – present : poached by ????????

    If the ACC gets Notre Dame and Uconn and the B12 gets UC and UL

    ACC poaches = 7
    B12 poaches = 4

    Throw in Rutgers, and you have a 12 team conference just from the poaches!

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I suspect BE was playing hardball, so WVU did a pre-emptive suit to control venue. WVU said their people were negotiating with the BE and the BE claimed they weren’t. Given the general competence of the BE, I presume they were the ones lying.

      Like

  14. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I just can’t believe the president of Mizzou canceled his trip to India because of all this. I imagine this can’t be going over well with those who he was scheduled to meet and do business with. How would he explain in a way that they would understand. “Well, I can’t’ make it because of our college’s sports conference.”

    “You’re not coming because of amateur sports?”

    What a mess…

    Like

    • bullet says:

      And its taken Missouri how long? to get just to this point.

      Slive really has pie in his face with his 16 schools in 15 minutes. Those 16 schools were A&M, Louisville, USF, WVU and the 12 members of CUSA. Even Missouri is taking something like 15 weeks.

      Like

      • Brian #2 says:

        Slive is laughing all the way to the bank after adding 31 million people and five new top 30 metro areas to his geographic footprint. While the initial comment was silly, Slive created incredible financial value for his members during this round of realignment.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          Ignoring the fact most of those people are in metropolitan areas not associated with the universities added to the SEC…

          SEC added some value, but I still maintain its not nearly as good as the Arkansas/S.Caolrina additions (but we’ll see).

          Like

          • frug says:

            Yeah, it will tough to top Arkie + USCe since they also added a CCG. It also had the added benefit of crippling the SWC.

            Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          Can we stop with this 31 Million people are now part of the SEC nonsense? A&M does not deliver anywhere close to the entire state of Texas.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Well, they also claim all of FL, all of GA and all of SC despite sharing all those states with the ACC and all of KY despite sharing it with the BE.

            Like

  15. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  16. cutter says:

    For Frank: On your sixth point, you seem to be inferring that the football schools in the Big East should be grateful for Notre Dame’s presence because that prevents the ACC and Big Ten from raiding the BE.

    I would argue the opposite. Connecticut and Rutgers probably see themselves either as the 16th ACC school or 14th Big Ten program if Notre Dame joined one of those two conferences. ND going into the Big Ten or ACC might also provide the catalyst for additional conference movement, so the remaining BE football programs (Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida) or even the new adds (Houston, SMU, UCF, etc.) could find themselves “moving up” as programs shift around.

    I also can’t imagine the Big East members are really too happy with Notre Dame in the first place. It’s not too tough to imagine a scenario that has ND in the BE as a full member from the onset, thus preventing the two ACC raids on the conference in 2003 and 2011 that involved five teams plus the move of WVU to the Big 12. I do realize the Big East agreed to the arrangement–it doesn’t mean the conference members have to be happy about it.

    Taking this a step further, do you think Louisville or Cincinati or even BYU would be happy with Notre Dame joining the Big 12 as an associate member? While ND would still retain its football independence (and probably play three Big XII games per year as you suggest), what does that do to the conference for all the other sports (and we’re talking primarily basketball here). It’d mean the Big XII would have to allow another school a similar arrangment in order to make sure there is an even number of football and basketball teams. While the Big XII might do what the Big Ten did with eleven football teams from 1993 to 2011, I suspect we’re agreed that conventional wisdom indicates the Big 12 would add a 12th member to get the conference championship game.

    I just don’t think there’s too much goodwill for Notre Dame in the Big East. Six football programs have left the conference since ND came on as an associate member and the post-season bowls have actually gotten worse (although one could argue that has little to do with Notre Dame and more to do with the Big East–thus illustrating what little worth ND has actually provided the conference). While the non-football programs in the conference, probably like having Notre Dame in the Big East (even with some of the major basketball programs leaving), I don’t think that’s an opinion shared by all the conference members.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I agree with you Cutter. ND may have helped at first, but they add almost no value to the BE for bowls now. Also, I was thinking the same thing about ND moving might help UConn, Rutgers and Louisville get out of the BE. At this point, they want some instability providing them some openings.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      An even number of basketball members isn’t that big a deal. Were the Big 12 to go to 12 football members plus Notre Dame for all other sports, it would be a 13-team conference, same as the Big East in the late 1990s. You play 18 conference games in men’s and women’s basketball, facing six opponents twice, the other six once.

      Also as stated earlier, an 11-member Big 12 is inherently self-defeating because it can’t play a 9-game football schedule (mathematically impossible), and going to an 8-game schedule actually leaves you with a smaller inventory than a 10-team round-robin (44 vs. 45).

      Like

    • @cutter – There are one or two individual Big East schools that could be helped out by Notre Dame moving to a conference (specifically Rutgers and/or UConn), but the rest of the football members could very well be screwed. That’s part of what I’m getting at with point #5, which is that the other AQ conferences have no reason to do a favor to the remaining Big East members by providing them new homes just to be nice. So, if we’re looking at all of the Big East schools together, Notre Dame’s presence prevents further defections which is a good thing for the league overall (if not for Rutgers or UConn). In the case of the Big 12 adding ND for non-football sports, I agree with vp19 that having an odd number of basketball schools isn’t a large issue (whereas 11 football schools don’t make sense unless football school #11 is Notre Dame itself).

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        Frank, what do you think of WVU’s Complaint? Seemed pretty weak to me. Also, I note that they don’t ask for a specific departure date–instead, seeking to invalidate bylaws. It would be funny if the Big East said… “fine, you win… you are out today. Good luck in football/hoops.”

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          Although, I am sure the WVU’s primary goal is establishing venue for the eventual Big East counterclaim for damages–which, as I have noted elsewhere, is likely to be fairly weak and speculative. WVU is done in the Big East one way or another.

          Like

        • @EZCUSE – To put it mildly, the arguments in West Virginia’s complaint are all pretty much garbage. WVU is relying heavily on showing that the Big East and John Marinatto breached their fiduciary duties to the football schools, but that’s going to be a tough sell.

          Now, from a practical standpoint, I can’t see the Big East actually keeping Syracuse, Pitt and WVU for 27 months after the league replenishes its ranks. The Big East’s current hardline stance is simply a tactical maneuver that they need to use until they officially invite new members. After that happens, I’d expect buyouts for Cuse, Pitt and WVU to be agreed upon fairly quickly.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Its just lawsuit talk, but its significant that BE members are saying that the Big East’s AQ is likely to go away. Its now been broached in public by Big East members, not just the press. The BE wants this discussion to go away quickly before it becomes a fait accompli.

            Like

      • vp19 says:

        The Big East is effectively holding the Big 12, SEC and ACC hostage. If WVU can’t participate in the Big 12 in 2012-13 (or 2013-14), Missouri will be forced to stay in that conference — otherwise it’s reduced to nine members and it won’t have sufficient football game inventory to satisfy its contracts. That means the SEC has to play with 13 members for at least one year (maybe two), causing all sorts of logistical headaches. The ACC can afford to wait on SU and Pitt, but would prefer to get them in the conference before the fall of 2014.

        What happens if Navy says no to the Big East, resulting in Air Force and Boise State declining as well and more or less wiping out its ideal 12-member format? Will the conference settle for schools some, or all, of its current members don’t want (e.g. Temple) just to make sure it has eight members once SU, Pitt and WVU leave? Or will it play stubborn and keep those three in another two seasons, much to the consternation of at least three other conferences? If that’s what happens, it could have a boomerang effect, as the rest of the BCS throws up its hands and tells the Big East that after the 2015 season, its BCS berth is history.

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Didn’t Mizzou leave already anyway? Is there a way to make them stay beyond 2012?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Missouri hasn’t officially left yet. Did someone post the article looking into the future? Year 2020, President Jenna Bush, UT grad, gives Missouri a huge grant to study decision making processes. After receiving the grant, Missouri finally decides to stay in the Big 12.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            That old Ella Fitzgerald classic, “Undecided,” is now the Missouri fight song.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        @Frank: There aren’t that many schools we’re talking about here that could get screwed. After West Virginia, Syracuse and Pittsburgh leave, we’re talking about a handful of current schools that play football–Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers and USF.

        One of those four would probably accompany Notre Dame to its new conference, so now that leaves four of them. We’re also actively discussing the possbility of Louisville and possibly Cincinnati joining the Big 12 if there’s further expansion, so they have a possible AQ conference possibility there. That leaves Rutgers and USF who have the longest shots in terms of getting to an AQ conference.

        The Big East may be able to put itself together in some way, shape or form when this is done. I know that they’ve issued their invitations and we’ll see what final form the conference will have in due course. We’ll also see what happens in terms of future television contracts, BCS status and post-season bowls. But right now, those are all unknowns.

        I suspect the schools I mentioned in the first paragraph would be happy to take the bet and see what happens if Notre Dame joined the Big Ten or ACC as a full-time member in order to keep the process moving and possibly getting into a more secure situation, or at the very minimum, into an AQ conference.

        But let’s say that Notre Dame does become a member of the Big Ten or ACC and takes a Rutgers or Connecticut with it–what happens next? If past is prologue, then the Big East would just add another replacement team for RU or UConn in the same manner as they replaced the other six teams that have left (Miami-FL, Virginia Tech, Boston College) or are leaving (Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia). Maybe that means one program that isn’t going to be invited by the Big East today would get an invite when that happened or Villanova would finally move to get promoted to Division 1-A in football. Would the Big East be much worse if UConn left with Notre Dame and Memphis took their place or Rutgers went to the Big Ten (w/ND) and was replaced by East Carolina? I suspect the answer is largely no.

        So what exactly is Notre Dame protecting here? Is it the loss of just one other school that can be readily replaced? Or is ND helping to keep a conference together whose members would like to be elsewhere, but is seeing further conference realignment being stymied because Notre Dame wants to remain independent in football?

        Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      @ Cutter
      “It’s not too tough to imagine a scenario that has ND in the BE as a full member from the onset, thus preventing the two ACC raids on the conference in 2003 and 2011 that involved five teams plus the move of WVU to the Big 12.”

      Sure it is. In ’95 Big East football was still a novelty. WVA and Rutgers had just been let in for all sports. ND was brought in at the same time to expand the conference footprint to Chicago and open up basketball recruiting to Indiana. ND then as now had no desire to join for football. Big East football’s decline is due primarily to Miami, the sole king in that era, leaving (which I know of no reason to think that ND joining would have helped), and Pitt and Syracuse playing at less than their historical level in the last 10-15 years. The ‘Canes wanted to go to an ACC with FSU and private schools closer to them, VT wanted to be with UVa, and BC wanted out if Miami was getting out I assume. Frankly I never understood why BC left like they did.

      As for the rest of the football schools, I do not care. They know they are glorified CUSA schools that got lucky…except for UConn, which without Big East football’s AQ would still be I-AA. Cincinnati is an afterthought in their own town. U of L’s football tradition is Johnny Unitas and a Fiesta Bowl bid in 1991 that was a result of a few teams passing because of the MLK Day controversy in Arizona. Rutgers proved that any team can have a bad century. I still am unsure if USF has dorms, but know didn’t have a football team in 1995.

      Big East football was likely doomed from the start…and that’s why they didn’t have it for the first dozen years. The Northeast was abandoned by big time college football generations ago by their traditional kings, the Ivies, deemphasizing, and their urban areas’ preference for pro sports.

      Like

      • M says:

        Arguing about hypotheticals never works out well, but if Notre Dame joins the Big East for football in ~1995-2000, there’s no way Miami or BC leave the conference. VT would have still wanted to leave, but the ACC wouldn’t initiate a raid if they couldn’t get Miami. The CUSA schools would have never been invited, and I don’t think UConn would have moved up.

        Either way, the conference would look something like:

        Pitt
        BC
        Syracuse
        Rutgers
        WVU
        Temple
        VT
        Notre Dame

        I’m not saying that ND should have joined, but the picture would look very different if they had.

        —-

        BC left the Big East for the exact reasons you list for the Ivies. They realized they were a small, private school in an area not known for college football up against a bevy of professional sports. They wanted the security of a major conference and the ACC was the best chance to assure that goal. I don’t understand ND’s perpetual dislike of other Catholic football schools, whether it was their 70 year boycott or their current vitriol towards BC.

        Like

      • cutter says:

        I disagree with your assessment on Notre Dame. If ND had joined the Big East for all sports between 1995 and 2003 (when the first three members left), the “novelty” conference you’re talking about would have included the 15 following members (9 for all sports and 6 non-football):

        Boston College (now in ACC)
        Miami-FL (now in ACC)
        Notre Dame
        Syracuse (transferring to ACC)
        Pittsburgh (transferring to ACC)
        Rutgers
        Temple (now in MAC)
        Virginia Tech (now in ACC)
        West Virginia (transferring to Big 12)

        Connecticut (Division 1-A in FB in 2004)
        Georgetown
        Providence
        St. John’s
        Seton Hall
        Villanova

        I do agree with you that the conference is largely northeastern in nature with the exceptions of Notre Dame, Miami-FL and perhaps even Virginia Tech and West Virginia. I would also say that this conference likely wouldn’t have been raided by the ACC. In fact, if the nine-member Big East ever did opt to expand to twelve teams for football, the ACC might have been the receiving end of the raid that did take place in 2003 and not vice versa.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      I agree with Frank here.

      Basketball schools: Notre Dame is the best known Catholic school in the country and a huge draw. They don’t play football and without Syracuse and Pitt, keeping this game remains hugely important. There is no advantage for them in losing them.

      Football schools: Sure they’d have liked Notre Dame as a full member, but that was never an option. Notre Dame would have gone to another conference if full membership was the requirement. Therefore, the real question is do the football schools prefer Notre Dame as a non-football member or would they prefer them in another conference entirely? Unless their school happens to be guaranteed a bid to another conference with an Irish move, I see no reason any of them would rather have the Irish out. Losing the Irish loses someone powerful who stands up for them in the BCS, loses someone who helps with bowl negotiations (no way the Gator Bowl ended up with the Big East last cycle without them), and who is a good draw in all the sports it does play. There is zero good reasons to want the Irish out in my opinion.

      Like

  17. duffman says:

    @ Frank

    1. Is Missouri really leaving for the SEC?

    Probability of event

    MU in SEC = 98% = marriage for money, but could lead to divorce
    MU in B1G = 1.9% = marriage for love, but no proposal
    MU in B12 = 0.1% = battered wife syndrome wins in the end

    .

    2. What did the Big 12 see in West Virginia over Louisville?

    #1 in small market vs #3 in bigger market, not hard to figure out for premium rate when you look at it as the Nebraska replacement for similar reasons.

    .

    3. Is the Big 12 really going to stay at 10?

    No, Louisville will offer TV’s for the LHN when it comes to basketball. As a basketball fan the tier 3 values are where it is at. UL men’s basketball will offer marquee match ups with UT and KU. UL women’s basketball fits well with UT, BU, and ISU. UL has a top 20 baseball team and that fits with UT baseball. All 3 of these sports will be fill for the LHN, and the LHN needs fill. As an added bonus UL can sell alcohol and Papa John’s and YUM brands are already on board. That gets you to 12 with MU, and 11 without, but figure 11 and MU is gone. B12 tries for BYU and / or Notre Dame, and failing at both, settles on UC.

    Why do I think this? Call it the Jim Host = Kevin Bacon theory :

    Jim Host got his start in Cincinnati working for Procter & Gamble
    Jim Host founded Host Communications which is now IMG College
    Jim Host was the force behind getting YUM Center built

    I could be crazy, but UT is an IMG school, so you know Host knows the landscape

    .

    4. Would Notre Dame join the Big 12 as a non-football member?

    Probability of event

    ND in ACC = 80% = only FBS conference filled with private schools
    ND in B1G = 12% = possible, but not probable
    ND in B12 = 6% = highly doubtful, but I did suggest the Texas – Dame here last year
    ND in BE = 2% = with the best schools gone, what is left for Notre Dame?

    The overarching point: Notre Dame going to the Big 12 for non-football sports is NOT crazy.
    My guess is that it is crazy because of the secondary sports at Notre Dame. Notre Dame has fencing, and the B12 does not. Notre Dame has soccer, and that is not the B12’s gig. Notre Dame is good in Lacrosse, and the B12 is not. In the non football sports I can see Notre Dame in only 3 conferences, the B1G, the BE, and the ACC

    .

    5. Why don’t the other AQ conferences just kill the Big East?

    I will agree to disagree with you on this one. I think the Big East is carrion now and will be picked on till all the good schools are gone {WVU / UL / UC / Pitt / SU / ND / Uconn} . If the ACC can not land Notre Dame I can see them adding Rutgers and Uconn to 16, and the BE goes back to a basketball conference with a “quasi – independent” football component. It will not be the BE as you know it, but a 12 basketball + 4 football schools half. A similar group will form in the west to mirror out the Big East so you have something like this:

    East = 12 basketball schools

    Saint Louis / Dayton / Xavier / Marquette / Depaul / Duquesne
    Georgtown / Villanova / Seaton Hall / Saint Johns / Providence / St Joe

    4 Football schools
    Notre Dame / Rutgers / Army / Navy / Umass / Temple = pick 4

    West = 12 basketball schools

    Gonzaga / Loyola / Pepperdine / Portland / Saint Marys / USD
    USanFran / Santa Clara / Denver / ???? / ???? / ????

    4 Football schools
    BYU / Air Force / Boise State / Rice / SMU / Tulsa = pick 4

    .

    6. Will the Big East football schools finally split from the Catholic schools?

    Nope, the top ones will get picked off and depending on what Notre Dame does they will either stay or head to the ACC. The Big East can go back to being a basketball conference by raiding the A10, and offering refuge for a few football schools.

    .

    7. Why wouldn’t Boise State stay in the Mountain West Conference/Conference USA Alliance instead of joining the Big East? Won’t the Big East lose its AQ status, meaning that Boise State would be taking a huge gamble?

    See above in BYU forming a BE mirror in the west, and stragglers like Boise State and Air Force find shelter.

    – However, every single conference besides the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and maybe the ACC could be considered to be completely unstable.

    I agree 100%, hence my long running predator and prey references

    “At the same time, we saw Senator Mitch McConnell get involved last week with Louisville’s talks with the Big 12” {who is also pals with Jim Host} 😉

    .

    8. How is this all going to turn out?

    I think we are in a temporary “cease fire” among the Big 3 while Notre Dame, Texas, and Oklahoma are still in play. If ND and Uconn go to the ACC, then we may be done on the macro level till 2015 and the contracts that get renewed then. Nothing below really affects these 3 and they can wait till the lower programs sort themselves out. In the next half decade or so the B12 {meaning Texas and Oklahoma} will know if they still get media love in a watered down conference. If they do, it will be calm, but if not, we could see the PAC 16 next.

    Like

  18. greg says:

    @Frank

    I still don’t see any reasonable chance for Notre Dame in the B12. They seem to have two core identity attributes: football independence and they are a Northeast school. Moving their Olympic sports to the B12 goes totally against being a NE school. Also, the B12 sports aren’t a great match for the ND sports.

    ND has both lacrosse teams, and the B12 doesn’t seem to have lacrosse at all, going by the B12 wikipedia entry. ND fencing, seemingly zero B12. We all know about ND hockey after recent discussions, no B12 hockey. Only 3 B12 mens swim & diving, 5 womens. B12 did just add rowing, so that is an additional match.

    ND cares about their Olympic sports, but do you think they care about them more than being a NE school? Or playing basketball in the Northeast?

    I don’t see it happening, even if the Big East hybrid splits. They’ll just stick with the hoops schools.

    Like

    • metatron5369 says:

      You’re assuming that Notre Dame is a rational agent.

      Proverbs 16:18 is apparently missing in their bibles.

      Like

      • greg says:

        If we’re not going to assume rational decisions, I look forward to Alabama in the Big Ten.

        Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Metatron, if we did what other schools like us did, we would have deemphasized football in the early fifties after the GI Bill contingent went through and dropped the program soon after in a cost-cutting move soon after. ND mythology is built on doing things over the top that should be utterly impossible from the University’s founding onward. Only ND can take the entire school practically burning down and view that as a sign from God that we weren’t being ambitious enough. Just sayin’.

        @Greg

        You’re looking at it improperly. Don’t compare ND’s list of sports to the Big XII’s, compare the Big East’s to the Big XII. The difference between the two from an ND perspective are Field Hockey and Lax. Big East Lax only began last year, and its historical power is Syracuse who is out the door anyway. I would imagine that ND can find an associate membership outside the BXII and just keep going.

        That said, I believe you are correct that ND would much rather stay with Big East, particularly if the bigger athletic departments like at U of L, UCONN, and Cincy stay. I think they likely will, since I like Frank I doubt any of the remaining BE schools football programs are good enough to justify expansion elsewhere.

        Like

  19. Carl says:

    PSU > Illinois

    Like

    • @Carl – Unfortunately, this is true. Granted, Saturday’s Illinois-PSU game was one of worst all-around games that I’ve seen in quite awhile. With apologies to the Nittany Lions fans here, I can’t believe this Penn State team is 5-0 in Big Ten play.

      Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        Being a Purdue fan, I have watched a lot of bad football recently, but that game was atrocious.

        Like

      • Todd says:

        We can’t believe it either…but we’ll take it. 🙂

        Like

      • gregenstein says:

        No apologies necessary Frank. They’ve won a lot of close games, which history tells us has as much to do with luck (like a kicker hitting a cross bar) as anything.

        They have a pretty good defense overall, a very good running back, an average line and receiving core, and have started the wrong QB for most of the year.

        All that said, they haven’t played a B1G team significantly better than they are. Illinois is about an equal as is Ohio State. They drew a bit of luck in not having to play Michigan or Michigan State this year, and their two (arguably three) toughest conference games remain.

        All their tough games are in November. Even Iowa really isn’t a good team this year, and they’ve been Penn State’s heart-breaker the past few years.

        Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        Be fair Frank…its easy to see the PSU defense being 5-0. Its just hard to see how the team could be 5-0 with this craptastic offense (all apologies to SIlas Redd).

        Like

        • greg says:

          PSU’s offense is good enough when they don’t let Bolden on the field.

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            I’m not defending Robinson, but I really think I hate McGloin more…he just seems to have this attitude like he’s awesome when he spends more time helping the other team win than helping his own.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            @PSUGuy from another PSU guy,
            I sort of agree with you on McGloin. He does come across as brash and arrogant with little to back it up. I, however, consider him offensive neutral when compared to Bolden. In the Illini game, Bolden looked like he should be playing Division II ball. The game, or rather, the Illini defense was too fast for him. He reminded me of a deer caught in the headlights, unable to make a decision. Sadly, I believe we are looking at three straight Ls. On a positive note, Tom Bradley is unquestionably one of the more underrated and unheralded assistants. Thankyou Pitt for not taking him from us.

            Like

  20. metatron5369 says:

    I have to wonder if bowl games are dead, at least in their current form.

    It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they merged FBS and FCS within a few years. The consolidation of conferences reduces the number of “haves”, and legislators are getting agitated in an election year. FCS already has a sixteen-team tournament, that would go a long way to stabilize conference realignment.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Disagree 100% on that bringing stability. Playoffs add money to the postseason and take it away from the regular season. All of these moves so far have been about regular season revenue. You suddenly make a postseason a bigger emphasis and smaller conferences become more desirable long term and you are likely to see conferences split.

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      How do you see a merger between FCS & FBS when all the current moves appear to be moving towards more stratification (BCS > FBS > FCS) rather than consolidation?

      Like

      • charlie says:

        I agree with lutefisk – I foresee FBS going the route of the premiership in english soccer (sorry for the soccer reference, but, there’s been enough talk of promotion/religation to merit it). the back story is that all of the soccer teams in england used to play in the FA (football association) which is divided into something like 15 tiers (obviously ppl only care about the top couple). the FA controlled all of the tv/advertising rights (sound familiar, NCAA). then the biggest clubs (manchester united, liverpool, chelsea, arsenal, ect) figured out that they could make more money if they broke off and formed their own league (which does tie back into the FA via promotion/religation), and they called this league the premiership (which technically is independent of the FA, the FA still exists, but the premiership has the top 20 (read: most profitable) clubs). while I know this has already kind of happened with the lawsuits which set up the bowl system tv rights, I think we’re going to eventually go a step further where the BCS conferences are going to break off from the FBS. this will also provide a clear break for the haves vs have-nots which the schools will hope will remove some of these antitrust issues (after the first set of them from the formation of this league)

        Like

  21. M says:

    “the SEC has turned the normal expansion process for most conferences on its head by making its candidates go through a public kabuki dance”

    Every conference has a kabuki dance to join. The SEC’s twist is that they want conference seppuku before they invite a school.

    Like

  22. frug says:

    New article from Washington Post:

    “If Big East can get its act together, huge TV deal could still be in league’s grasp”

    From page 2 of said article:
    “Turning down ESPN is not what’s tearing the league apart. If Marinatto can pull together the Big East’s plan, there could still be a billion dollar payoff — that’s what he has been selling to potential new members.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/if-big-east-can-get-its-act-together-huge-tv-deal-could-still-be-in-leagues-grasp/2011/10/31/gIQAVIEIaM_story.html

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      If that conference can land $1B, then every other conference is worth twice as much as they are now. Wow.

      Of course, him “selling” that and it being “true,” are two different things.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      “Turning down ESPN is not what’s tearing the league apart. If Marinatto can pull together the Big East’s plan, there could still be a billion dollar payoff — that’s what he has been selling to potential new members.”

      Right next to that bridge in Providence, er, Brooklyn.

      Like

  23. EZCUSE says:

    If that conference can land $1B, then every other conference is worth twice as much as they are now. Wow.

    Of course, him “selling” that and it being “true,” are two different things.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Pretty much this.

      There’s no way that a bunch of former C-USA/MWC schools (even the cream of the crop of those) + Rutgers/UConn is worth double digit millions per school. I’d be shocked if they get an offer like that.

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        Of course… what if another network has promised that if he keeps it together he gets $1B. My understanding is that ESPN was offering $1.4B, which meant $1B for the football schools and the rest for the remainder. Maybe now it drops to $1B total. With 12 football schools, rather than 9, it would work out to roughly $6.7M per year for them over 9 yaers. Math is very rough, but that’s still a raise for most schools.

        Like

  24. Mack says:

    1) I think that the BE rejecting Penn St and the PAC10 refusing to take Texas Tech to get Texas (this was prior to ABC’s creation of the B12) were the top two dumb realignment moves made by conferences.
    2) The B12 took WVU because the SEC would not. B12 would have rather just kept Mizzou, but that is not happening. The B12 has always been beholden to TV networks. ABC created it right after the SEC and its CCG signed with CBS. Since ABC needed a CCG to compete it told the B8 / SWC presidents (they had a joint TV deal since neither could get one on their own) that it would pay the same for 12 teams as all 16. The B8 opposition to merger with SWC (SWC had proposed this since Arkansas left) disappeared at least for adding 4 schools.

    Like

    • frug says:

      No question, Big East turning down PSU was the worst realignment decision in modern history, but I think Frank was talking about decisions made by schools not conferences. In that respect it would definitely be the dumbest since USCe left the ACC in the early ’70s.

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        Dumbest will remain Tulane leaving the SEC.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          loki – you beat me to the punch.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            Alan,

            I might rank the following top 5

            #1 B1G rejecting UNL in 1900
            #2 TAMU leaving the SIAA in 1914
            #3 Oklahoma (and oSu) leaving the SWC after WW I
            #4 Big Eight allowing minority SWC to rule from the beginning
            #5 Big East not inviting Penn State

            In defense of Tulane, they are a small, private, academic program who was left behind in the 50’s and the GI Bill. Chicago dropped sports in favor of academics and dropped out of the B1G, yet nobody would accuse Chicago of making the wrong decision. USC was an old SoCon school with all the other SEC schools, and the ACC did not form till the 1950’s. Granted 20 some odd years as an independent was not great, but they have made it back and then some since they have been in the SEC. Had the Magnolia Conference come to fruition it would have included Vanderbilt, SMU, Rice, Duke, Tulane, Emory, Wake Forest, and Miami FL. 5 of the 8 currently have AAU status. If they had attracted Georgia Tech when they left the SEC in 1964, and FSU in the Bill Peterson era that would have been a solid conference with very solid academics.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            duff – I think it was easier the quit conferences in the past as the money was not nearly the issue it is now. For example, when I was the student representative on the LSU Athletic Council back in the late 80s, and the entire LSU Athletic Department budget back then was smaller than LSU’s current share of the SEC TV contracts.

            Back in the 60s, Tulane quit the SEC because they were tired of getting crushed every Saturday. In hindsight, Tulane should have just kept quiet, kept getting beat, and waited for their check from the SEC office.

            With the highest amount of D-1 talent per capita located in Louisiana and Mississippi, Tulane could and should be successful. Mack Brown had some success at Tulane. Tommy Bowden was undefeated. Tulane plowed the field for Boise St., Utah, Hawaii, and TCU, because of President Scott Cowan’s actions. With Bob Toledo’s resignation, Tulane is talking about spending over $1mm/year on the next head coach. Names getting thrown around are former Tulane OC Rich Rod, former Tulane HC Tommy Bowden, Terry Bowden, and various SEC recruiting coordinators with NOLA ties. There is also serious talk about a 30K on-campus stadium.

            However, whatever positive steps Tulane makes in the future, it won’t make up for leaving the SEC back in the 60s.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            From a conference point of view, I’d like to go with every time the Big Ten turned down ND since WWI, but I really think it was the Big East NOT picking up PSU and founding a football conference from the begininng, even if it did work out for ND.

            From a school point of view, it’s Tulane and Sewanee leaving the SEC.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I don’t think the Big 10/Western Conference rejecting UNL was anywhere close to being the worst decision. Yes both sides (probably) would have been better off, but ultimately both sides did fine and you can argue they were even better off. I also don’t get your inclusion off OU and OSU bolting the SWC. The Big 8 ended up being better for them (especially the Sooners) than the SWC would have been.

            Again, from a conference POV I would have to say the Big East turning down PSU was the worst decision I can think of.

            (I will say that the Big XII decision to immediately isolate Nebraska was the worst decision off my lifetime)

            Like

          • duffman says:

            frug,

            I approached the Nebraska to the B1G from the time value of money position. In the sense that they had more time to double their money in 110 years. This is both in the athletic monetary sense, but more importantly the academic and research dollars. Using the Rule of 72 and a 6% average annual growth :

            year 0 = x
            year 12 = 2x
            year 24 = 4x
            year 36 = 8x
            year 48 = 16x
            year 60 = 32x
            year 72 = 64x
            year 84 = 128x
            year 96 = 256x
            year 108 = 512x

            Since TAMU left the SIAA in 1914 they would have 1 less doubling cycle in roughly the same time span. The bigger point being that Nebraska probably would not have lost the AAU status it did being in the B1G earlier, as opposed to being stunted in the Big 8 => Big 12. Granted if Nebraska got accepted in 1900, Michigan State might never have been extended the invitation in the 1950’s! The reverse winner in all this could be Michigan State as the biggest gainer!

            Like

          • frug says:

            Well in that case it may have hurt Nebraska, but it did little long term harm to the Big 10, particularly since UNL would have had a tougher time rising to prominence in the traditionally strong Big 10 than they would have in the Big 8 (which was referred to as Nebraska and the Seven Dwarfs until Oklahoma finally broke through at which point Nebraska had already established itself as a national power)

            Like

        • @loki_the_bubba – Good call.

          Like

        • metatron5369 says:

          Chicago – Big Ten

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Chicago and Tulane are both doing pretty well at remaining small, elite educational institutuions.

            Both knew they could not be competitive in their respective leagues and remain small, eilte, private educational institutuions.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            And……Chicago had not been competitive in football for many years prior to dropping out of the BIG….and I think the same is true for basketball…

            Like

          • charlie says:

            UChicago made a good move by still being affiliated with the CIC, though

            Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Add the BIG not taking Missouri to your list.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I would agree with Loki’s point about Tulane.

      Tulane really should be no different from Vanderbilt brand-wise but it is because of the difference that being in the SEC makes from the point of view of the national stage and $.

      Two other mistakes related to the Big Ten, although I consider them to be more minor, are UChicago leaving the Big Ten and the Big Ten not pushing really hard for Texas in the early 90s when they were something of a free agent.

      With UChicago though it’s a bit different from Tulane. They don’t need the Big Ten’s stage for their brand since they’ve totally de-emphasized athletics whereas Tulane still tries to play FBS, but for UChicago having Big Ten athletics could have given them something to differentiate themselves from the Northeast private schools.

      With Texas, I really have no clue how seriously they looked at taking the Big Ten’s #12 spot in the early 90s. But the match was way closer back then than it is now. Back then, Texas’ population was much more similar in size and composition to Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania. The fit might have been much better than it seems to be now, especially given population trends over the past 20 years. It’s something to think about, but the Big Ten had a 4 year expansion moratorium, and Texas just made some courtesy calls before engaging more seriously with the Pac-10 and later the Big 8.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        1. BIG’s probably better off having ignored TX.

        2. Would the Ivy League been better off continuing in big-time college athletics? It’s not for every school…….

        Like

        • metatron5369 says:

          Better off? It’s for their students ostensibly, so maybe.

          Stanford does just fine.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Stanford’s awfully unique for being an elite school. Isn’t their enrollment 30000 or so?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Stanford is as small as any of the other private schools; 7k undergrad, 8k grad.

            The point about the Ivy’s though is that their location made extended football success impracticable as well as the fact that the Ivy League conference has a tiny footprint (basically their alumni).

            Stanford being in North California with tradition-rich rivalries with USC, Cal, and UCLA is different (as well as being located in the Pac-12 for exposure).

            UChicago is much more similar to Northwestern in the Big Ten in that respect if they had kept sports.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            USC is the one that has around 30,000 students.

            Like

  25. DugHol says:

    VP19, I couldn’t understand your assertion that it was mathematically impossible for an eleven-team league to play a nine-game schedule, so I dismissed it. When you repeated your assertion, I decided to prove you wrong. I’m not great at math, so I decided to just work out a schedule. And lo and behold, I couldn’t.

    For anyone like me who hasn’t tried to work it out, the reason VP19 is right is because each team has to not schedule one team. So, teams A and B don’t play team each other, and likewise teams C and D, E and F, G and H, and I and J. But there’s no team left for K to not play, so team K has to play a 10-game conference schedule. Weird.

    Like

    • Alternatively, you can look at it this way: each game has two participants. Therefore the total number of games in a league is: (# teams) * (# games per team) / 2. If # teams and # games per team are both odd, the math CAN’T work. At least one needs to be even.

      Like

  26. M says:

    Another amusing poll at ESPN:

    “Which school would be a better addition to a new conference, West Virginia or Missouri?”

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=pollindex&pollId=125661

    I won’t spoil the results.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      What’s up with Alaska, North Dakota, and Maine. Is being extreme north harmful to making decisions?

      Like

      • greg says:

        EZCUSE,

        sample size. 18 votes in ND, 4(!) in Alaska, 8 in Maine.

        The most surprising thing about the graphic is Missouri winning its home state 57-43, not that large a margin. WV was 98-2!

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Ha Ha, and all the MU folks say they are 100% with the SEC ! I am guessing there are still many MU to the B1G that are not showing up in all the SEC rah rah! 🙂

          Like

    • zeek says:

      I can’t say I’m too surprised.

      A lot of the Gator fans I know down here in Florida don’t really care about Missouri or Texas A&M being added to the SEC. All they think is that it has them playing Alabama, LSU, and Auburn less, and they aren’t too big fans of that.

      Like

  27. Michael in Raleigh says:

    It looks as though ECU’s only shot at getting into the Big East is if:
    1) Boise, Air Force, and Navy all decline their invitations to join the league, and
    2) the Big East still decides to expand to 12 football members.

    In addition to existing members Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, and USF, the Big East would still add SMU, Houston, UCF, Temple (football only), Memphis, ECU (football only), and some random 12th school for football only like Tulane, UMass, or Buffalo.

    Otherwise, ECU and BYU would become even more dramatic outliers among the non-AQ’s, at least for attendance. In 2010, ECU averaged 49.665. The only remaining non-AQ’s with an average even over 30,000 would be BYU (61,381), Hawaii (37,311), San Diego State (34,133), Fresno State (34,120), and Army (31,667). BYU and Army would be non-AQ by choice, meaning that only 3 other schools who are unwillingly non-AQ’s are within 20,000 of ECU’s attendance.

    This is not to say the ECU deserves to be in the Big East. I could care less, but I’m just saying that it’s interesting.

    Like

  28. Mike says:

    Re: Dumbest conferense choice in college sports history.

    I think you are underrating the Big East basketball schools’ decision to refuse admission to Penn State. I know the split didn’t exist then, but that’s Mike TrainedGeese, Providence, GTown, Villanova, etc. etc.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Tranghese and Gavitt (was still commissioner) both backed Penn State. That said, I suppose you could blame Gavitt for not being able to corral the votes.

      http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/quad-qa-big-east-commissioner-mike-tranghese/

      Like

    • bullet says:

      honorable mention:
      BYU playing hardball in negotiations with the Big 12. The 10th spot was theirs to have-twice.
      Georgia Tech spending a dozen years in the wilderness after leaving SEC. They were one of the top teams in the SEC in the mid-60s. It took a quarter century to recover and they’ve never fully recovered.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The jury’s still out on Missouri (especially considering they STILL haven’t officially made a decision). It could cost them a lot of money in exit fees and if they fall on their face and the Big 12 thrives, moving to the SEC could be viewed as one of the dumbest decisions.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        One more honorable mention for the Big East:
        When the BE tried to stuff Villanova down the football schools throat last fall, they should have seceded and signed a grant of rights. Staying was a big mistake for the 5 remaining schools. They would have had:
        SU, PItt, WVU, UL, UConn, UC, USF and Rutgers which would have been an outstanding basketball conference. They could have signed up TCU for #9 and invited Villanova on their terms or Temple if Villanova wouldn’t cooperate (several years to build up their program and a realistic stadium proposal). Georgetown would have been the only significant TV value loss for basketball. Then they could have gotten to 12 by 1 of 3 routes:
        national TV value-military academies;
        local markets and competitiveness-UH and UCF;
        fans in the stands, bowl ties, markets w/o pro teams and Fedex $-Memphis and ECU.

        Like

  29. Michael in Raleigh says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7169711/clemson-tigers-become-latest-unbeaten-lose

    I know this is a Big Ten-oriented blog, but does anyone else find it unfair that Clemson gets declared “exposed” for losing on the road to Georgia Tech’s triple option, despite the fact that this year they started 8-0 and beat three straight ranked teams (Auburn, FSU, and VT), while Wisconsin’s TWO losses are chalked up as the results of playing in a tough conference? Wisconsin’s only victories over teams with a winning record have been Nebraska (granted, a good win, but not inherently better than Clemson’s win over 1-loss VT) and Northern Illinois.

    It just seems to me that the criticism on Clemson is based on its reputation from years past and on the ACC’s inability to produce a national championship contender, while Wisconsin, in spite of a weaker resume, gets all but a free pass because a few teams in its conference that it has NOT beaten happen to have decent records.

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      In hindsight, I think Wisky just has too many 2/3 *** recruits playing in their back 7 on D to be truly elite. Year in, year out they do as good a job as any staff in the country in developing players, but sometimes in the end talent wins out………..

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Another problem with the BCS. Its based on polls in which people refuse to let go of last year. Texas, was something like 31st and one of the lowest two loss teams last week. They’re still one of the lowest rated 2 loss teams. Yet the computers virtually all have them around #15. Well since Texas went 5-7 last year, pollsters are saying show me. Texas has beaten a bunch of solid teams and lost to 2 top 6 teams, but haven’t beaten any ranked teams. Texas lost big to OU, but Nebraska is top 10 with a 48-17 loss to Wisconsin. Clemson wasn’t expected to be so good this year. They have to prove it more. So some teams with flimsy resumes are ranked high because they were expected to be good and were good last year.

      Disturbs me people are starting to talk about an LSU-Alabama rematch instead of giving other teams a chance to prove it on the field.

      Like

      • footballnut says:

        Acccording to multiple sources, I’m reading that the Big 12 is playinag hardball with Missouri on the exit fee. They want 26-30 million. If WVA can wiggle out of the Big East now, rather than 27 months from now, then they can replace Missouri and the exite fees will be drastically reduced, and they will join the SEC next year. However, Big East wants WVA to stay or pony up a big exit fee too, hince today’s lawsuit from WVA against the Big East. So, it’s not really just Mizzou holding things up, it’s all intertwined. Big East is now driving the bus. Eventually, Missouri will join the SEC either now or next year, or wait until WVA can get out of the Big East. SEC was prudent in planning both a 13 and 14 team conference schedule for next year.

        Like

    • Ron says:

      @Michael in Raleigh, interesting argument you make, think I mostly agree with your conclusion that Clemson’s season thus far is arguably superior to Wisconsin’s but struggle with the reasoning. The Big Ten is proving to be a better conference in football this year than anticipated (in particular Purdue and Michigan are both exceeding expectations). Keep in mind too that had Wisconsin actually beaten Michigan State and Ohio State on the road (both of which were close calls) there would be no end to the analysis stating that the Badgers are truly a great football team and that Russell Wilson is surely the front-runner for the Heisman (reference this week’s Stanford/Andrew Luck analysis following their close call against USC). Wisconsin has clearly been a better team than Clemson in the last four or five years and that seems to me the real reason they’re getting more respect now. It’s not truly relevant to the discussion, but that’s the way most people think.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        @Ron,

        Your point about the Big Ten proving to be better in football than anticipated is true, but it should not matter when applied to Wisconsin. Wisconsin hasn’t played Michigan, so even if Michigan was as good as the Packers, it shouldn’t matter towards Michigan’s ranking. Clemson, on the other hand, HAS played and beaten Auburn, FSU, and Virginia Tech (who has not lonst one other game) and beaten all of them.

        It’s the same principle with Arkansas, who is ranked where they are because they’re in the same conference as LSU and Alabama, not because of what they’ve done on the field.

        Truth is that the ACC will never get the benefit of the doubt until FSU and/or some other team makes it into mid-November without a loss. The Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 will always get the benefit of the doubt because of the brand names that are in their leagues.

        Like

        • Ron says:

          I look at the Big Ten, Pac12 and ACC as three conferences that think football and finances should support a wider academic mission. They’ve all prospered in the recent conference realignments even though the quality of football doesn’t (currently) match that of the SEC and Big12. In BCS conferences like the SEC, Big 12 and Big East, football has had to come first. The SEC has been able to leverage its football superiority to pick up a couple of decent academic institutions in Texas A&M and Missouri, but that is really an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. If the SEC should ever start to slip in football prowess, it could prove vulnerable to losses in future conference realignment (just as the Big 12 and Big East are now). If you look at the big picture, you would find there is actually quite a bit of respect for what the ACC has done up to now. The weekly BCS team rankings and polls do not represent the highest values that college football has to offer.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            I’d like to agree with you, Ron, but I think the ACC has had to take this approach by default because college football in the mid-Atlantic and North Carolina has simply never been as big a deal as it is in the deep south states. I don’t believe North Carolina has spring practice in its high schools, and I know Virginia and Maryland don’t. OTOH, quality of living standards is higher in those three states than it is in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, where football is treated as a quasi-religion. So there.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Well, Bucky lost on a Hail Mary and in another close game, while Clemson got thumped by GTech. How competitve a team is matters in perception.

      Like

  30. OT says:

    Which “BIG EAST” is better in football?

    Old

    UCONN
    Rutgers
    Syracuse
    Pitt
    West Virginia
    Louisville
    Cincinnati
    South Florida

    (TCU never played a game as a BIG EAST member.)

    New

    UCONN
    Rutgers
    Louisville
    Cincinnati
    South Florida
    Central Florida
    SMU
    Houston
    Boise State (football only)

    (I am not counting Navy, Air Force, Temple or Villanova to join just yet.)

    ==

    My answer: the “new” BIG EAST will probably be better in football than the old one.

    Boise State replacing West Virginia – basically a push

    Central Florida, SMU, and Houston – probably better than Syracuse and Pitt

    (I am assuming that Boise State will join the BIG EAST as a football-only member no matter what because it has no choice.)

    Like

    • Bamatab says:

      My answer: They both suck as a football conference and nether should be an AQ conference.

      All their AQ status does in screw one of the BCS bowls out of decent ratings. I’d almost be more open to letting a combined MWC/CUSA/Big East leftover conference have an AQ spot as opposed to having the Big East have one all to theirselves. At least then there would only be one BCS bowl that would have to suffer as opposed to the possibility of two suffering when a MWC/WAC/CUSA team is eligible like TCU and Boise have been lately. JMHO

      Like

    • Mike says:

      This should have been West Virigina’s brief:

      Who Said I Would. You Ought to Know… Why Can’t It Wait ‘Til Morning. That’s Just the Way It Is. I Don’t Care Anymore. If Leaving Me Is Easy. You’ll Be in My Heart.

      Like

    • jj says:

      No time to read it. How many couches do they want in compensatory damages?

      Like

  31. mouse says:

    I’m curious to know what effect, if any, you all think the permitted extra scholarship amount of $2,000 will have on conferences. There are a lot of smaller schools that are already having budget problems without this potential added expense. Will some drop out of FBS ranks?

    Like

    • Purduemoe says:

      I like it a lot. Seems fair and balanced. The only problem with it is your are just going to start getting more complaints from the new non-AQ conferences. But that is destined to happen in any solution that doesn’t allow automatic bids for all conference champs ( which I do not support).

      Like

      • Phil says:

        Not a shock that an ACC fan wants to look at the champion’s number of losses to determine a conference’s worthiness for BCS status as opposed to say, how the conference’s champion actually performs in BCS games, because that might shine a light on how the ACC is 1-6 and the Big East is 3-4 since the first ACC raid.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          The ACC has a seat at the table, while the Big East’s is up in the air. Thought this proposal would allow things to even out.

          Teams with 3 or 4 losses rarely, if ever, win BCS games. If the Big East puts a 10 win team in the BCS, they do fine. Pitt and UConn with their 8 win seasons… not so much.

          Of course, that didn’t stop 8-4 Va Tech from being 10-2 Cincy…

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Being = beating

            Like

          • Phil says:

            I was just busting your chops. Actually I don’t have a problem with a champion that is weak enough missing a BCS bowl, but I don’t like the idea of a conference (esp. a one bid one) being penalized financially for having parity in its teams in a given year.

            The idea I had would be that if a conference champion was ranked outside the top 15 (which really would only be the BE or maybe the ACC in an off year) the BCS bowl picking last is allowed to skip them and pick an at-large team from another conference. The “weak” champion then gets the first non-BCS bowl slot from that at-large’s conference. The at-large team gets the $4mm BCS money, the “weak” conference champ still earns the $17mm, so it would cost the BCS an extra $4mm to get a better matchup. My big flaw is, would that non-BCS bowl feel saving on one of its payouts is worth getting a worse matchup?

            Example, last year Michigan St could have been picked as a 3rd Big Ten BCS team and UConn sent to the Capital One Bowl. Mich St would have earned $4mm BCS money, UConn would have earned $17mm for itself and the Big East. Would not having to pay UConn its $4.6 mm payout made it worth it for the Capital One Bowl to go along with such an arrangement?

            Like

  32. loki_the_bubba says:

    Big East voted to send out invitations, but won’t say to whom.
    http://twitter.com/#!/markcviera

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Big East voted to send out invitations, but won’t say to whom.

      Probably wants to minimize its embarrassment in case one, or all, say no (and in the case of Navy, I think that’s what will happen, leading to similar turndowns from Air Force and Boise State).

      Like

      • bobo the feted says:

        Its likely Navy and AF are not going to come in. but this makes BYU and Memphis more likely to be in, which might not be a bad deal. BYU adds a western counterpart to Boise, keeps their olympic sports in the WCC (something the LDS BoT wants to do), and has a “national” following – it’s also likely their only chance for AQ status in the near future.

        Memphis is a good basketball program with a terrible football program but has a bowl tie in, and the backing of Fedex. Football wise they are just as terrible as Temple, but are much better in BBall.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          Temple was in a bowl game in 2009. When did Memphis last appear in a bowl?

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            2008

            They actually played in 5 bowls from 03-08.

            When was the last time Temple appeared in five bowls over six seasons?

            Like

        • @bobo the feted – I actually like Memphis as a Big East expansion candidate in a vacuum. It’s just that the football team has been soooooooo awful in this last BCS evaluation period that they’re toxic to the numerical AQ criteria that the Big East is trying to prop up. If Memphis football had ANY pulse, they probably would’ve been near the top of the Big East’s potential invite list.

          Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        I wonder if I will get an invite.

        Like

      • OT says:

        I am betting that Boise State will join the Big East regardless of what Air Force or Navy decide to do.

        Boise State has NO CHOICE but to join the Big East if it wants to be taken seriously for the BCS title game.

        Like

      • Looks like the Big East is going to live:

        http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/33074577

        All of the targets (UCF, SMU and Houston for all-sports, Boise State, Air Force and Navy for football-only) look like they’re committed to joining the Big East. If the Big East can also somehow snag BYU as a football-only member by ensuring that the school’s TV rights situation will work, that’s about as good of a conference as the Big East could’ve reasonably put together considering the circumstances. Even without BYU, the Big East was wise to take the “Big Country” football-only concept to heart as a national league taking the best from C-USA and MWC was the best way to protect AQ status.

        As someone said, the Big East might never be more than the #6 conference, but these moves ensure that they’ll never be *worse* than the #6 conference, either. They’re solidly middle class in a world where there are 5 super rich leagues and 5 incredibly poor leagues. Boise State as the symbol of BCS busting and the 2 service academies also provide a ton of media and political protection for the league’s AQ status. One can quibble with the Big East’s leadership over the past 2 decades, but these latest moves are good ones.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          At one time, UCF, UH and SMU were conditional on everyone else saying yes. I haven’t seen that discussed lately. Has anyone heard anything on that? Its pretty clear its beneficial in fb, bb and $ for the CUSA schools (although its going to cost them $7.5 up front to CUSA and apparently $2.5 million to BE-but if they are only getting $1.5 million a year-it shouldn’t take long to make that up.).

          UCF has been discussing 2013 as their start date. UH has apparently been very close-lipped on it all. I read the President and AD have refused to talk to anyone about realignment issues.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/knights/os-ucf-big-east-expansion-1102-20111101-28,0,7843229.story

          Expects the 4 to accept on Friday. Boise has a board meeting TH, UCF and UH have already given authority to their Presidents. Also projects $8-$10 million a year in TV $. Given that the old BE was $11 million without bid, that doesn’t seem totally out of the ballpark.

          Like

          • @bullet – In this white hot sports rights environment, I could see the TV money approaching $8 – $10 million per year for the Big East. Boise State has turned into a consistent TV draw and the basketball side is retaining its core Northeastern markets.

            Like

        • Quiet Storm says:

          The Mendoza line…right where the basketball schools want them. Just good enough to be in the neighborhood but not strong enough for football to overshadow basketball. I think there will be a fight to get Temple or Memphis as number 12. Even after learning the hard way that football is king there is still some sentiment by members to add another school that has a strong basketball program to compensate for the loss of Syracuse and Pitt.

          The irony is that football may end up being better from a quality standpoint but the basketball side is going to take a hit; they still have some good programs but it definitely is not the same BE.

          Like

  33. bullet says:

    In general news, Georgia lost Samuels, the tailback who ran over the tails of the Gators Saturday to ankle surgery and suspended 3 other tailbacks for one game today. They will be awfully thin this week, but New Mexico St. is the opponent. Those 3 should be back for Auburn.

    Like

  34. frug says:

    This blogs Chicagoland readers may be interested to read that Bobby Rush compared the NCAA to the Mofia:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7177833/illinois-congressman-bobby-rush-compares-ncaa-mafia

    Like

  35. cutter says:

    This is just for information and consideration, but when the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was formed in 1998, the six conferences plus Notre Dame added up to 64 teams that were in AQ conferences or in the case of ND, was given a specific set of parameters to become part of the BCS bowls. Division 1-A had 113 teams at the time, so this represented 56.6% of all 1-A teams. Here’s how the confernces were divided up:

    ACC: 9
    Big Ten: 11
    Big XII: 12
    Big East: 9
    SEC: 12
    Pac 10: 10

    If you fast forward to the present, there are 63 teams in five conferences (not including the Big East) plus Notre Dame (50.8% of all 1-A teams by 2013). This assume that SEC and ACC end up at 14 and the Big XII is at 10 members in the short term.

    ACC: 14
    Big Ten: 12
    Big XII: 10
    SEC: 14
    Pac 12: 12

    This is just something to keep in mind when considering whether or not the college football really needs to keep the Big East in the BCS fold. Obviously, if the Big XII were to go to 12 members, then the AQ conferences (not including the BE) and Notre Dame would have 65 members out of 124 that are going to be in Division 1-A in 2013 (or 52.4% of all 1-A teams).

    If the Big East does expand to 12 football members, then we’re looking at 75 possible teams (60.5% of all 1-A temas) in the BCS Conferences. Would this be something the BCS would like to see going forward? Would it make the whole setup more politically palatable?

    If the BCS does add one more bowl game and allows conferences to go from two to three teams maximum in BCS bowls, is there room for the new Big East in this arrangement? Or would the five other conferences see this as an opportunity to have greater control to the bowl revenue and set the Big East aside?

    Like

    • Peter says:

      A resurrected Cotton Bowl would not want anything to do with the Big East. Their current tie-ins are SEC & Big 12, and the SEC will benefit HEAVILY from allowing up to three teams. No Big East team can possibly travel to Dallas in the numbers to justify taking them over either a quality SEC team or a “home” Big 12 team.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      I’ve assumed for a long time that adding a new BCS bowl would simply water down things too much. Adding a 5th has already given us less compelling match-ups. With two 14 team leagues though and an expanded Big Ten, PAC-12, and Big East, I think there may be consideration for moving up one more bowl. They probably wouldn’t be in the national title rotation (to appease the other BCS bowls), but it would be something which would allow for the end of the 2 team max rule (or at least relaxing of it).

      Like

      • @Eric – This is what I’ve thought about a 5th BCS bowl, too. In most years, it would end up just taking what is now the Capital One Bowl matchup and slapping a BCS label on it. Now, if we end up having a plus-one, then it makes sense to add in the Cotton Bowl as a 5th BCS bowl as that wouldn’t change the total number of BCS bids compared to today.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          True if often would be, but practically the extra 2 teams would be spread apart a little more between the bowls rather than always Big Ten vs. SEC. It would also probably be a 2nd ACC or PAC-12 team as often as 3rd Big Ten.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            One thing that doesn’t get brought up in the topic of a 3rd BCS bid is that it’s likely to be a compromise.

            The ACC, Pac-12, and Big 12 won’t want the appearance of the SEC and Big Ten getting ahead.

            So they’re likely to compromise around a “once in 4 years” kind of deal on the 3rd BCS bid. Delany mentioned that last month.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I think the once in 4 years makes some sense. I don’t see how 3 every year flies. That’s just basically saying you get 6 champs, 1 non-aq and 3 SEC or Big 10 teams nearly every year. The ACC, Pac and Big 12 will never vote for that.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Of course, the ACC needs to first work on getting a 2nd school.

            The Pac-12 in the no-USC era is not likely to get 2 either.

            Like

          • Dave says:

            You’d think that the Pac 10 without an elite USC would have trouble getting two teams in the BCS, but really two of the three teams they’ve gotten two teams in the BCS, USC wasn’t one of them, and only in the first year of USC’s most recent run (2002-2008) did the the Pac 10 get two teams in the BCS. For reference — 2000 Washington and Oregon State, 2002 Washington State and USC, and 2010 Stanford and Oregon.

            Like

  36. metatron5369 says:

    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/Super-conference.aspx

    Fascinating read.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Charter members of Southwest Conference circa 1914:
      Texas
      Oklahoma
      Baylor
      Oklahoma St.
      Texas A&M
      Arkansas

      Big 12 South 1996
      Texas
      Oklahoma
      Baylor
      Oklahoma St.
      Texas A&M
      Texas Tech

      Central superconference circa 2076?
      Texas
      Oklahoma
      Baylor
      Oklahoma St.
      Texas A&M
      Arkansas
      Texas Tech
      LSU

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        You left off two charter members of the SWC. Rice and Southwestern (Georgetown, TX).

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Rice and Southwestern played the first season, but weren’t in the original meeting setting up the conference.

          How about Rice for #7 expansion candidate in BE? SMU is a wild swing for a market. That’s probably the worst expansion choice anyone has made lately.

          Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Rice missed the first preliminary meeting. The conference was founded at a meeting at the Rice Hotel in Houston and the Rice Institute was a charter member.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Alright, we’ll make it an 18 team superconference. Rice will be the 9th team in the Central Superconference South.

            Like

      • duffman says:

        bullet,

        where did you get the 2076 list?

        Mississippi and LSU refused leaving the SIAA for the SWC back when TAMU did, and went through the SoCon and SEC cycle, so I can not see them leaving. Arkansas and now TAMU are in the SEC, and Arkansas has already turned down the B12. My guess is TAMU will now do the same going forward.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          “Its all happened before and will all happen again.” LSU actually considered joining the SWC back in 1914. OU and Okie St. left the SWC schools but rejoined them in 1996. Regional conferences do make sense and those states are tied economically. Of course, if Arkansas & A&M do ever re-unite with the Longhorns and Sooners, I’m pretty sure you and I and almost all the members of this board won’t be around to see it.

          Like

  37. Read The D says:

    If the Big East is going to do the foolish football expansion thing instead of the basketball expansion thing (Memphis and Temple), they should revisit Army to see if they would like to join. I think BYU is a pipe dream.

    Have all the service academies in the same division and only play 7 conference games. Allow the TV partner to choose 1 non-conference home game from each team to boost inventory. That would allow this crazy conglomeration of schools to schedule as they please.

    This creates the ability to schedule more local rivalry games and maybe build in some wins against weaker non-con opponents

    Like

    • M says:

      Grantland has little to no idea about college athletics. That how bold insights like this come out:

      “You can say that the university is entitled to the gate receipts from its games based on the value of the scholarships it grants to its players, and I might even grant you that, at which point I will lie down until this feeling passes. But the ancillary income — television revenues, the sale of jerseys and other gear, the use of a player’s “likeness” in video games, and on and on — completely overwhelms the equation and makes the relationship inequitable.”

      Television revenues are the new gate receipts. Specific number jersey sales (which do not even include a player’s name) and video game “likeness” licensing is a minuscule part of revenue.

      If they are so upset about 18 year olds not being able to earn millions of dollars playing professionally, they should take it up with the professional leagues. I’ll never understand how the NFL’s and NBA’s embargo against legal adults passes any scrutiny.

      If Grantland had any spine, it would go after the NFL for banning players from the draft until 3 years out of high school (or for that matter the MLB system of sweatshop-like farm systems in third world countries). Of course, given a choice between waxing self-righteously about college sports or exposing the all-powerful NFL, Grantland makes its predictable choice.

      Like

      • BoilerTex says:

        But isn’t that the point? The status quo as is – including minimum age restrictions – are bound to collapse under their own weight. This $2000 stipend is simply one more atom in the entire chain reaction that is starting to occur.

        Like

        • M says:

          That article has zero mention of why these players are inappropriately forced into college. It does repeatedly point out a lawsuit that at worst would remove “Ohio State 2002 team” from the latest game as its key piece of evidence, as well as containing several clumsy allusions to racism: a few equating the NCAA to Jim Crow laws and hundreds of years of slavery (been there, seen that), combined with an original comparison to the several hundred years of oppression and persecution against the Irish. I’ve seen more creative and informed writing on Bleacher Report. At least they would have the sense to make a decent slideshow (“15 Brutal Regimes from History and Why the NCAA is Totes the Same”).

          Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            So what’s your solution? Do you honestly feel dropping the minimum age requirement would solve anything in terms of collegiate (or amateur) sports? Why isn’t baseball the answer? Or junior hockey? No one is being inappropriately forced into anything. An 18 year old 4 star football recruit can play semi-pro or CFL football. It’s just that the chance for the NFL is greater in 3 years from playing college football (and the pay is probably better at some schools than the CFL). But what value would it serve to allow an 18 year to play in the NFL? Do you really think that serves the kid’s best interest? I’m not sure an 18 year old has any business on a football field with NFL players. Are 18 five star basketball players better off now that they have to go to college or worse off? I personally believe 18 years are better served spending time in college before the pros. But it shouldn’t be such a one-sided value equation for the school. Revenues should be shared. The questionis how much.

            Like

          • M says:

            I honestly believe that allowing players who want to play professionally the option to play professionally would remove many of the problems in college sports. If they would like a salary, college is the wrong place to go.

            You’re undercutting your own argument here. If an 18 year old can’t compete in a professional league, they clearly are not fit to be a professional. They are welcome to play in the CFL or a semipro league if their skill reaches that level. If they decide that they are “better served” receiving training in college athletics, they should do so under the college model. The fact that such semipro leagues aren’t nearly as popular as college football underscores the fundamental point: more than any professional league, college sports fans cheer for their school, regardless of who is wearing the jersey. If every single current college athlete left and joined a competing semipro league, college sports would be just as successful. Fans don’t buy tickets or watch games to see Joe Bauserman; they watch to see Ohio State.

            The “one-and-done” rule is the ultimate mockery by the NBA towards college athletics. The owners can’t stop themselves for overpaying and overdrafting hyped-up high schoolers, so they force those athletes to play a year for free to build up credibility and marketing buzz. Once drafted, the players are forced into below market rate contracts. If you want a clear cut example of capable legal adults banned from making money in a professional league, look no further. The hypocrisy of that rule never ends, especially because European and other international players are exempt.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Top level college hoops separates the real stars from the busts (much faster, bigger competition). There is a longer list of high school to NBA busts than the ones that become stars. By forcing the one and done the NBA makes the colleges a free farm system. It is not college buzz but the ability to star at the next level that the NBA is looking for. The union agreed to this because they have the revenue split and too much money was going to players that never made it in the NBA.

            Like

          • Ohio St fans don’t pay to see Bauserman, but they DO pay to see Ohio St win (attendance at many programs is a function of how good the team is). What this means is that they’re paying not for star power, but for player performance. So IMO they are paying for the players, but for what they do (win) instead of who they are (the star model exemplified by the NBA). I think this is an important distinction to make.

            Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            Thanks M, I largely agree with you. My concern is that an 18 year likely wouldn’t be able to compete in the NFL. Unfortunately, many would not have the support structure in place to tell them that prior to deciding they go pro. The true loser in this proposition is that 18 year who thinks he is a pro NFL player finding out he’s not and not having a fall back plan. If you’re OK with them deciding at that point to go to college, I think we’re on the same page. I just don’t want us to switch the “victim” here from a non-interested college student to an unemployed former NFL rookie camp player.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t want any sharing of revenues. Giving them the full cost of attendance like they do on certain academic scholarships is very reasonable. If basketball players want to be paid but aren’t ready for the pros, the NBA needs more development and minor leagues, like baseball has. Almost no football players are ready. If they are, there is the CFL. I’d like it better if college basketball were rid of the one and dones. You would be able to keep track of who is on the team and the teams would have a lot better fundamentals. Its painful to see NBA players who don’t know how to block out or shoot free throws. Its unusual to see any pure shooters anymore like a Larry Bird or Rudy Tomjanovich or Calvin Murphy or a score of others now retired. The one and dones are usually extraordinary athletes who don’t really know how to play the game.

            I can see some issues on the “images” when it comes to things like video games. But that is relatively minor $ and should simply be avoided. As for taped games, does Bill Russell get any royalties from the Celtics for any replays of his days in the NBA? I doubt it.

            These players get a scholarship that’s worth $40,000 a year at private schools just in tuition. They get training and access to facilities they couldn’t get anywhere else. There is a massive infrastructure at the big schools of tutors, note takers and advisers. If they want to be paid, they should take another path.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Fans don’t buy tickets or watch games to see Joe Bauserman.”

            —Ain’t that the truth.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          BoilerTex,

          But isn’t that the point? The status quo as is – including minimum age restrictions – are bound to collapse under their own weight.

          I don’t see that at all. The courts have upheld these age restrictions already since they were collectively bargained.

          Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        In contrast, I don’t understand why the NCAA doesn’t just say… “you are eligible until you get paid–regardless of whether you enter your name in a professional league draft.”

        Think of how embarrassing that would be… guys staying in college because they were drafted by the Clippers or Raiders. Well, not the Raiders. They would overdraft someone by 20 spots… do the opposite. Let’s go with the Bengals instead. The Clippers or Bengals.

        The NCAA would not have to look far for this rule. Look at Hockey. Guys are drafted… play in college… and then join the NHL team during the season. What’s the difference?

        Like

        • Read The D says:

          @EZCUSE your idea makes the most sense for the athletes. College baseball players that are drafted don’t have to sign with the team that drafts them. The team just holds their rights and the player can go back to college.

          Not sure why basketball and football treat it differently, especially since there is no minor league system in those leagues to compete with. It would definitely make the NCAA basketball product stronger.

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            I remain surprised that nobody has ever tried to make a racism argument based on the difference between hockey and basketball.

            Like

        • M says:

          I’m not sure exactly how college hockey functions, but I do like the MLB system for college players: either you go straight out of high school, or you stay at least 3 years in college. I think a lot of these problems would go away if basketball and football created such a system.

          Like

        • hinode says:

          Back in the old days, basketball players could do it as well. The most famous case was Larry Bird, who was drafted after his junior season but opted to return to Indiana State for his senior year.

          The eligibility of drafted players was repealed a long time back, so I can’t find any reasoning given for why the NCAA, but I can hazard a guess. A few years ago, a Kentucky freshman by the name of Randolph Morris declared for the draft, didn’t sign an agent, and ended up going undrafted. He petitioned the NCAA to restore his eligibility, which was ultimately successful. However, since he went through the NBA draft process once already, he was considered a free agent by NBA rules. This ended up causing a minor media panic in his senior season, when he had improved to the point where he was a genuinely NBA caliber player who, as an NBA free agent, could ditch his college team at any point to sign a pro contract. The NCAA later closed this ‘loophole’ so now anyone who goes through the NBA draft process loses his college eligibility, even if undrafted.

          It wouldn’t surprise me if college baseball and hockey players can leave for the pros in roughly this same fashion, but those get only a fraction of the attention that college football and basketball do, so the same the media/fan outrage potential isn’t there. There’s also a fraction of the revenue generation potential, so the NCAA doesn’t care anywhere as much about any negative backlash from losing players mid-season to the pros.

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            The fix to that is, once again, an MLB rule. If a player isn’t drafted he’s a free agent until he goes back to school and/or still a free agent until 1 week before the next draft. So the player has the chance to go back to school or remain a free agent, not both.

            I realize that this is on the NBA side but I would think this wouldn’t be too hard for the NCAA to sit down with the NBA and iron out.

            Like

          • hinode says:

            The problem is not negotiations between the NBA and NCAA, but between the NBA and NBA Player’s Association. Change to NBA free agency rules would have to be made as part of collective bargaining between the two, and you’re seeing how messy that gets. Even if you could somehow get the two sides to only revise that single point instead of attempting to renegotiate the whole CBA, agents (who wield enormous power in the union) would almost certainly object to even a minor reduction in the freedom of player movement without getting some sort of concession back, and the owners are not going to sacrifice anything on their behalf to help the NCAA unless the owners get some benefit out of it as well.

            That aside, I can’t imagine the current NCAA agreeing to allow this sort of eligibility regardless of what the NBA thinks or wants. Remember that men’s basketball coaches have managed to basically eliminate the early entry phase these past two years because they wanted earlier roster stability to make their recruiting job less complicated. There’s no way they would agree to a policy that basically means an underclassmen can wait until he is drafted to decide for good whether or not he’s returning for next season.

            Like

  38. vp19 says:

    So essentially you’re going to have a football conference called the “Big East” with none of the East’s traditional football powers. In fact, the only current members to have won the Lambert Trophy are Connecticut (last year) and Louisville (which won in 2006 and was eligible only because of conference affiliate). Possible candidate Navy has won four Lambert trophies and tied for another, but last grabbed the honor in 1963.

    Penn State has won the Lambert 28 times (24 since Paterno became head coach in 1966), Army seven times (last in 1958), Pittsburgh and Syracuse six each, Boston College five and West Virginia three.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Big East members were previously automatically eligible. With the loss of northeastern teams though and expansion in the west, I’m guessing they won’t be anymore.

      Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      The naming is really irrelevant. The Big 10 has 11 for, what 20 years? The Big XII has 10. The Pac-12 is inland. The ACC would go inland for Notre Dame in a heartbeat. There is nothing southeast about Missouri, other than it being south and east of Vancouver. Heck, the Southwestern Conference hasn’t been southwest since 1850. There are colleges with Ivy that are not in the Ivy league. And so on. They could call the Big East, the Irreverent Creepy Toad and it would not matter (and perhaps generate more attention).

      The real issue is the merits of the conference.

      Like

      • Phil says:

        The best name I saw was on the Rutgers board. The Big East should, in honor of its illustrious history, ability of all of the current members to get along so well, and confidence in it’s long term productive future, change its name to:

        The Middle East

        Like

      • charlie says:

        to be fair, Missouri did fight for the confederacy in the civil war…

        Like

        • Mike says:

          To be fair to Missouri, it’s more like some Missourians fought for the South. Missouri proper never actually left the Union. The (deposed) pro-South Governor declared succession only after being nearly driven from the state and didn’t meet Missouri law.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War

          On a side note, if you are not reading the Disunion series from the NYT you are missing some fascinating insights in to the Civil War.

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Screw Missouri. Tired of them taking eons to make a simple conference switch. You only get 15 minutes of fame… not 15 weeks…

            Like

          • Mike says:

            Are you sure its Missouri? Once the Big East is on solid footing and can relase WV, then the Big 12 can release Missouri. Then Missouri will be in the SEC.

            IMHO, complaints to the Big East.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            If WVU can’t escape the Big East’s clutches for 2012, expect the Big 12 to sue the Big East.

            Yet another field day for the lawyers.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            So you’re saying the fate of all these leagues depends on Navy and Air Force committing to the Big East?

            Reverse dominos. If Navy and Air Force say yes, the BE can bring in the other 4. WVU can go to the Big 12 in 2012. Missouri can head SE in 2012. The SEC can avoid a conflict with the NCAA over a 13 team schedule with a championship game (SEC seems inclined to thumb their nose at the NCAA rule-it would be interesting to see how the NCAA responded-Emmert doesn’t seem like a pushover).

            If somehow (unlikely) WVU can’t get out of the BE for 2012, the Big 12 sends Ken Starr to talk to Mike Slive and Missouri stays another year in the Big 12.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Bullet – while Mark Emmert is no pushover, he is a former chancellor of LSU, hired Nick Saban, and is friends with most of the SEC’s current chancellors/presidents. While I don’t think he would show any outward favoritism, Emmert could easily apply the MAC precedent to the SEC, especially for one season.

            That being said, I doubt the SEC will play with 13 teams next year.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Its pretty clear Neinas doesn’t expect them to.

            Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      How is that I’d never heard of the Lambert Trophy?

      Like

  39. Here’s a left field thought for today: what the heck is taking Missouri so long? Admin is canceling his exotic vacation to finalize conference decisions…a conference decision that has been “days away” for the last month or so. Really? Are we supposed to believe that after all this drama, Mizzou is simply going to wind up in the SEC. Maybe…

    Or maybe the Big Ten has decided to change the ball game…major negotiations with the Big Ten and counter-negotiations with the SEC sounds like something that would need all hands on deck…much more so than a simple move to the SEC that has seemed SO apparent for weeks.

    I’m not saying…I’m just saying…

    Like

    • Eric says:

      If it was simply a decision between two conferences, I think it would have been decided a long time ago. Problem is timing. The SEC super sped up A&M which leaves them in a dilemma with NCAA rules at 13 teams that can only be solved with a waiver or having some teams with more than/less than 8 games. Their solution is to take Missouri next year too. That puts the Big 12 in a difficult spot though as they need 10 teams for their own contract. TCU was an easy addition, but West Virginia has the 27 month rule hanging over them and the Big 12 can’t promise not to fight Missouri on a move until they are sure they can get West Virginia to replace them next year. In short, we’ll probably see Missouri move around the same time West Virginia gets permission to leave next year. If that doesn’t happen, then expect the move either to be delayed or for law suits to go against Missouri and maybe the SEC (probably the former given SEC reaction during the Baylor lawsuit threats).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The basic problem is that A&M decided to change conferences in the summer of 2010 but didn’t start moving forward until August 2011. And then the SEC cooperated instead of telling them to come in 2013. That has screwed with everybody’s scheduling. Arkansas actually stayed 2 full years in the SWC when they left for the SEC. And when the SWC broke up, the 8 schools decided to make sure everyone had a home before they set a definitive date for dissolution. A&M and the SEC have basically been giving the Big 12 their middle finger. These conference moves have gotten a lot less collegial. WVU seems pretty fed up with the BE.

        Neinas was asked what would happen if WVU didn’t get in the Big 12 in 2012. His comment was, “for the 1st time, you would see home and home. But Oklahoma St. doesn’t want to play Oklahoma twice.” They clearly expect to let Missouri go but would make them pay in some way if WVU can’t get out. Not that he was concerned about WVU getting out.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I agree this rushing for the door has not been a good thing. Based on the timing of the announcement, A&M should have said they’d leave for the 2013 season. That would have given the rest of the conferences time to work out everything. Now we have half the conferences trying to figure who is and won’t be members next year and trying to make things work.

          Like

  40. gregenstein says:

    Can someone explain why TCU is not being held to the 27 month notification for the Big East but still had to pay the $5 million? To me, this basically sets the precedent for WVU to leave without staying for that full time period…

    Like

    • Eric says:

      It’s probably in the specifics of the contract TCU signed with the Big East. By agreeing to join they agreed to the $5 million exit penalty, but apparently weren’t subject to the wait period having never officially entered the conference. West Virginia is a different story as a full member right now.

      Like

    • charlie says:

      the BEast has said that because TCU didn’t actually ever play a game in the BEast, they weren’t liable for the waiting period, but because they technically entered into the BEast via contracts, they were liable for the buyout (sorry, I don’t have the link on me atm)

      Like

  41. Justin says:

    I think the Big East isn’t going to have any BCS bids when this is all said and done after 2013.

    However, I think what is going to happen is the conferences will just scrap the automatic qualifying bids.

    I could see a scenario where the BCS simply makes a rule that the only automatic qualifiers are #1 and #2, and they play in the BCS title game.

    This would allow the other four (4) BCS bowls to make arrangements as they see fit. This would result in the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls simply making deals with their preferred conferences. In other words, the Rose makes a deal with the Big 10/PAC 12. The Fiesta cuts a deal with the Big 12. The ACC cuts a deal with the Orange. The SEC and Sugar continue their relationship. The four (4) bowls each have a provision that the champ of their host conferences is exempt if that team qualifies for the BCS title game. The bowls are then free to pick their replacement team.

    This would not be an antitrust violation, but rather similar to to old system before the BCS. There would be technically be no automatic qualifiers. The bowls would just be taking the teams they wanted.

    What is the Big East going to do? Sue because the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl won’t take their champ
    every season?

    Rather, the Big East champ would end up earning a bid to a BCS bowl in years in which it had an attractive conference champion. However, in years where the champ is an 8-3 SMU team, the bowls would likely pass on the Big East champ and take another team.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      You do that, and the ACC finds itself in the same boat as the Big East. Only a few of its members travel well (Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech), and if you don’t have any of them in the Orange Bowl, you are in trouble ticketwise.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I think he’s saying the bowls still get to contract with conferences. So B1G/Pac12 in Ro$e, $EC in Sugar, ACC in Orange and Big 12-?+? in Fiesta or Cotton.

        Like

        • frug says:

          There’s a decent chance that the Orange Bowl would pass on the ACC champ. They have already made clear they would dump their ACC tie in right now and go BCS at large vs. BCS AL if they could, and if the BCS were junked the Orange Bowl would be better off taking Big 10 #2 vs. SEC #2 (basically jumping in front of the other Florida bowl) than “generic ACC champ”.

          Like

          • Redhawk says:

            old Big 8 fans still long for the Orange Bowl trip. It was much better then the Fiesta Bowl/Phoenix trip.

            Although, not many left in the Big 12 from the old Big 8 days are left anymore.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            At least not too many from the old Big 8 who ever went there. OU and, I think that’s about it.

            Like

          • Redhawk says:

            @Bullett,
            Not counting Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado, all gone or soon to be, you have OU and Kansas who went in 1969 (and 2008) still in the Big 12 that went to the Orange Bowl during the Big 8’s tie in time with the Orange Bowl.

            Throwing frozen (from weather not the appliance) Oranges on to the field during OU-Nebraska games is a tradition I really miss.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The Orange Bowl would kill to get the Big XII champ as a tie in, but it would have to beat out the Fiesta, Cotton and possibly Sugar Bowls, which would be tough.

            Like

        • Redhawk says:

          @frug

          OU would vote Orange Bowl as the Big12’s bowl tie-in. Texas would vote Cotton Bowl…..so….COTTON BOWL it will be.

          Like

          • frug says:

            I see your point, but ultimately it all comes down to money. In the rare occasions somebody besides OU or UT wins the Big XII, simple geography makes a sellout more likely if the tie in is the Cotton Bowl than the Orange Bowl.

            That said, I think the Sugar Bowl would push hard to get the Big XII champ and turn the game into a creole seasoned Rose Bowl. It would be tough to come up with the money to do so since the game would have to put up a lot of cash to persuade the Texlahoma Ten to permanently ceded home field advantage, but its certainly possible.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t know that the Big 12 would want to be perpetually tied to the SEC. But the fans would almost all vote for Sugar over Cotton or Fiesta. The weather in Dallas can be nasty around January 1.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The problem for the Big XII is that if they don’t go the Sugar Bowl route then they are going to be stuck with their champion taking on some other conference’s #2, and I’m not sure they want to be stuck without a champions matchup.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            The problem for the Big XII is that if they don’t go the Sugar Bowl route then they are going to be stuck with their champion taking on some other conference’s #2, and I’m not sure they want to be stuck without a champions matchup.

            You say that like it’s a foregone conclusion the Sugar Bowl wants them. I’m not sure the SEC wants to be locked into playing the B12 champ every year, and the Sugar Bowl will listen to the SEC. I’ve always thought the fans of most conferences preferred to have a single tie-in to a bowl game and thought the B10 and P10 were backwards for keeping the Rose Bowl locked up.

            Everyone else may chime in, too, because creating 2 bowls with tie-ins to the top 4 conferences is getting real close to a plus one system that excludes the ACC, BE, non-AQs and ND. Are they all going to sit by quietly while pseudo-semifinals are created that they can’t be in? Or are they going to hope the Orange Bowl becomes a third semifinal with the ACC versus the best of the rest and some years that winner would make the championship?

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      That sounds to me like the best system, in sporting terms, assuming there is no playoff. The BCS should pit #1 vs. #2 in a championship game, and let bowls choose from the remaining teams according to whatever system or tie-ins they want. If a conference has three great teams, they should get three top-tier bowl bids. If they have none, they should get none.

      It solves the problem of giving AQ status to a conference as weak as the Big East, while denying it to the Mountain West. You just say to everybody: “You get a bid when you have teams that are good enough.”

      Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        Some bowls/conferences might be left unhappy.

        Under this system, you’d expect all bowls to try and set up 2 conference agreements.

        I could see the SEC deciding to stick with the Sugar and then trying to get either the ACC or Big 12 to send their best team (outside of the championship game) to travel to New Orleans every year.

        You could end up with something like this:

        Rose: Big 10#1/Pac 12#1
        Sugar: SEC #1/ACC #1
        Orange: SEC#2/Big 10 #2
        Fiesta: Big 12#1/choice of Big East#1, ND, BYU, MountUSA #1

        The Rose would be happy; the Sugar would be happy, but some years it will wish it had tried for the Big 12 instead of the ACC; the Orange would probably be happier most years than it has been, although it would never get the top teams from its conferences; The Big 12 and Fiesta might not be that happy never to get a high Big Ten/SEC opponent. The Pac 12 would be unhappy never to get a second teams in the ‘top bowls’ (I’d expect the Cotton to continue to match Big 12/SEC in this scenario, while no Florida Bowl would seek them).

        Like

        • frug says:

          The Sugar Bowl would much rather have the Big XII tie in than the ACC. ACC fan bases don’t travel well and only FSU and Miami are big TV draws, the ‘Canes are about get hit with sanctions that could set the program back 10 years. Meanwhile, a round robin schedule and no CCG means Texas and Oklahoma could combine to win the Big XII 4 years out of 5. The only question would be if the Sugar Bowl could come up with the money to convince the Big XII.

          Like

          • frug says:

            Actually, if the Sugar Bowl was able to grab the Big XII champ I think the most likely scenario would be the Fiesta Bowl becoming a matchup of the PAC and Big XII number twos, and the Cotton Bowl going ACC champ vs. ND.

            Like

  42. Brian says:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/greenstein/ct-spt-1102-big-ten-football–20111102,0,6575034,full.column

    Teddy Greenstein handicaps the B10 division races:

    Leaders:
    PSU – 35%
    WI – 34
    OSU – 30
    PU – 1

    Legends:
    MSU – 50%
    MI – 25
    NE – 23
    IA – 2
    MN – 0 I guess, since he doesn’t mention them (they are technically still alive)

    He gives his reasoning in the article, with it mostly based on schedules.

    I mostly agree with him, but I would swap OSU and WI based on OSU having the tiebreaker edge. I think their schedules are pretty even (both have PSU at home and both play PU, OSU has IN and @ MI while WI has @ MN and @ IL).

    I would rate PSU lower because I think they could easily lose all 3 games remaining, but it’s hard to argue with 35% too much.

    The most fair decision might be to give them all 33%.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      As a Nebraska fan, I’m probably a bit biased…. That said, I don’t know that I’d have Michigan State that high. They clearly have the easiest schedule, but they still don’t control their own destiny at this point needing a Nebraska loss (which even as a NU fan I fully acknowledge they may get). I’m also not sure I’d have Michigan ahead of Nebraska right now either. I’d probably slot the Legends 1) Michigan State at 39% 2) Nebraska at 34% 3) Michigan at 26% and Iowa at 1%. Northwestern and Minnesota at 0% even though neither has technically been mathematically eliminated.

      Agree with your comments on the Leaders swapping OSU and Wisconsin. Would probably leave the percentages relatively similar even though I agree there is a decent chance that PSU could drop all 3. The fact they are 5-0 and any combination of a PSU win and OSU and Wisconsin losses (or 2 PSU wins) locks it up for them though warrants them as the favorite for now.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I agree that Penn State as the favorite still makes sense. Odds are still that they are not the winner (well maybe co-champs, but not the one heading to the CCG), but individually they probably still have a slightly better chance than OSU or Wisconsin by themselves (since both must win out and hope for another loss outside their control).

        Like

      • M says:

        Northwestern is mathematically eliminated. There’s no scenario where Northwestern wins the division.

        Like

      • greg says:

        1 or 2% on Iowa is very nice of you all. Hawkeye fans are seriously thinking we won’t win another game this year. I remain optimistic, but getting to the title game appears to be nearly impossible.

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          Win out and Iowa’s there :). That Minnesota loss was God-awful, but I actually like Iowa’s chances to pull the upset on Saturday.

          Like

          • greg says:

            Nostradamus, I think the Hawkeyes have a chance to win any of their final four, even in Lincoln. But the odds of this team winning even 3 of 4 seem extremely unlikely.

            But I’ll be in Kinnick the next two Saturdays hoping for the best.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Nostradamus,

        As a Nebraska fan, I’m probably a bit biased…. That said, I don’t know that I’d have Michigan State that high. They clearly have the easiest schedule, but they still don’t control their own destiny at this point needing a Nebraska loss (which even as a NU fan I fully acknowledge they may get).

        I run through the basic math below. 50% for MSU is actually very reasonable.

        I’m also not sure I’d have Michigan ahead of Nebraska right now either.

        This is where I agree with you. I think NE should have about double the odds of MI.

        I’d probably slot the Legends 1) Michigan State at 39% 2) Nebraska at 34% 3) Michigan at 26% and Iowa at 1%. Northwestern and Minnesota at 0% even though neither has technically been mathematically eliminated.

        As others have pointed out, NW is eliminated.
        I’d go: MSU 50%, NE 33, MI 16, IA 1, MN 0

        Agree with your comments on the Leaders swapping OSU and Wisconsin. Would probably leave the percentages relatively similar even though I agree there is a decent chance that PSU could drop all 3. The fact they are 5-0 and any combination of a PSU win and OSU and Wisconsin losses (or 2 PSU wins) locks it up for them though warrants them as the favorite for now.

        Yeah, it’s a close call in the Leaders so I don’t think anyone can complain too much as long as the odds are close to even for all 3.

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          Yeah I just did a really quick look at records and Northwestern in baseball terms had an elimination number of two games. I didn’t take a closer look or think it out to realize there in possible scenario in which Northwestern could win the division.

          Like

    • BoilerTex says:

      1%? So you’re telling me have a chance.

      Like

      • gregenstein says:

        In other words, the most likely scenario means the Big Ten Champion takes home the Altoona Bowling League Trophy!!!

        This is the worst 8-1 Penn State team I’ve ever seen. They basically have to win 2 out of the final 3 to win their division. Tiebreakers won’t be kind to them if they lose to Ohio State or Wisconsin and they are tied with them. Their best hope would then be for Purdue to run the table and be tied with them.

        Like

    • Peter says:

      I disagree with the handicap of MSU. They are considered more of a favorite than PSU, when Penn State controls their own destiny & MSU does not? Penn State just has to win two games. Michigan State needs someone to beat Nebraska as well.

      Also – Wisconsin playing @ IL is nowhere near as tough a game as OSU playing @ Michigan.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        Handicapping is obviously all about the odds. Michigan State plays the 3 teams at the bottom of the Legends division and the bottom team from both the leaders and the entire conference in their remaining games. Yes they need Nebraska to lose a game, but Nebraska still has to play Northwestern, @ Michigan, @ Penn State and Iowa. As a Nebraska fan right now I’d but it about 50/50 they drop one of the two road games.

        Yes Penn State controls their own destiny in the technical sense, but if we are making that argument as of today greg’s Iowa Hawkeyes do as well. Penn State “just has to win two games” against 3 of the top 5 teams in the conference. Michigan State has to play the easiest schedule out of all of the contenders and hope for a Nebraska loss. I’d give Michigan State the slight edge there. Like 39% (my above for Michigan State) and something like Teddy’s 35% for PSU in the leaders. Things could change after Saturday especially in the leaders, but that is how I would handicap it right now.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Peter,

        I disagree with the handicap of MSU. They are considered more of a favorite than PSU, when Penn State controls their own destiny & MSU does not? Penn State just has to win two games. Michigan State needs someone to beat Nebraska as well.

        It’s all about the schedule and simple math.

        MSU: MN, @ IA, IN, @ NW
        I’d give them rough odds of winning out of 75%.

        NE: NW, @ PSU, @ MI, IA
        I’d put the odds of NE losing at least one game at 65%.

        MI: @ IA, @ IL, NE, OSU
        I’d put the odds of MI winning out at roughly 20%.

        That means my rough odds of MSU winning the Legends is about 50% (0.75 * 0.65 = 0.49), just like Greenstein. My odds for MI winning are lower than Greenstein’s, at about 15%, meaning NE would be at 35%. He must be giving NE greater odds of losing than I am.

        PSU is less of a favorite because they have a really hard schedule (NE, @OSU, @WI) and have to play at both of their top competitors for the division. For convenience, consider all three games as tossups.

        3-0: 12.5%
        2-1: 37.5%
        1-2: 37.5%
        0-3: 12.5%

        That would be a 50% chance of winning the division, basically, since 1-2 means at least 1 of the division rivals beat them and has the tiebreaker. I don’t think most people consider PSU equal in those games, though. At 40% for each game, the odds change greatly.

        3-0: 6.4%
        2-1: 28.8%
        1-2: 43.2%
        0-3: 21.6%

        That’s a 35% chance of winning the division. OSU and WI are roughly equally likely to win if PSU doesn’t, so it becomes 35, 34 and 31 (ignoring PU).

        Also – Wisconsin playing @ IL is nowhere near as tough a game as OSU playing @ Michigan.

        I didn’t say they were equal, but I’m not convinced they are as different as you say. Who has MI beaten this year that shows they are good? The only good B10 team they have played is MSU and they lost, and the OSU D has a pretty good track record against MI lately. IL is generally tough at home, especially with their wind tunnel stadium. At MN is a little more difficult than IN at home, which balances some of that difference, too.

        Like

    • greg says:

      I got MSU v. Wisky for the BTT.

      Like

      • jj says:

        Iowa is the only one that really worries me as a state fan.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I would hope so. If you were worried about MN and IN at home or at NW this year, then MSU shouldn’t be in the running for their division. MSU has been a bad road team, but IA hasn’t been great anywhere. I think your bigger worry should be MSU winning out but NE winning out too.

          Like

          • jj says:

            state fans. we got worry.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            jj,

            If you want to combine an MSU fan’s 2 favorite things (worry and outrage), see my BCS predictions below. I predict OSU, WI, NE and MSU to win out. Results:

            1. OSU – wins the B10
            2. NE – wins the Legends by tiebreaker but misses the BCS at 11-2 with the CG loss
            3. WI gets an at large at 10-2 with a 4 game winning streak and the win over NE
            4. MSU gets passed over at 10-2 despite beating WI head to head (2 years in a row of OSU and WI going over MSU despite MSU beating them when they played)

            Like

          • jj says:

            MSU will go 12 and 0 some year and get the capital one bowl.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            On the other hand, MSU will probably lose the bowl 41-14 anyway.

            Like

  43. bullet says:

    In terms of winning and losing additions, below are the number of times the various moving/to be moving/have moved teams have been ranked in the final AP poll since 1968 (top 20 to 1988, top 25 since):
    Nebraska 37
    Colorado 18
    Texas A&M 18
    WVU 14
    Houston 12
    Pitt 12
    Missouri 10
    Syracuse 9
    TCU 8
    Boise 7
    Air Force 6
    Utah 5
    Hawaii 2
    Fresno 2
    Nevada 1
    UCF 1
    Navy 1
    SMU 1 (1968) + 5 (1980-84) during professional years

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It seems fair to say the B10 won and the B12 lost. The BE also lost, but how much isn’t clear yet. The SEC and P12 were also winners.

      Like

  44. Penn State Danny says:

    If Navy indeed joins the Big East and Army does not, when will the Army-Navy game be played?

    Would it remain on “championship” Saturday with the provision that if Navy is in the Big East Championship then it will not be played?

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      It will be converted to basketball and shifted to January.

      Like

    • largeR says:

      This will, I believe be the second season that Army-Navy is played the Saturday after championship Saturday. Since it would still be an OOC, there should be no need to change that.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Yeah, I think the plan is to have Army-Navy always be the final pre-bowl game of the CFB season. Their is no way the NCAA or the Big East is going to stop that, even if it means bending the rules a little bit.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          If both join the BE and the BE gets a CCG, it will have to change. You can’t schedule a conference game for after the CCG. That game could impact the division winners.

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            The question was whether it could be played if Army did not join.

            It would certainly be terrible for the Big East if 8-3 Navy beats 12-0 Boise St…. but then loses to Army in between the CCG and the BCS bowl. But, hey, desperate times…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Even if Army doesn’t join, I don’t think you can do it. Overall record is probably a tiebreaker, and if not then BCS/computer rankings is. All regular season games would have to be done before the CCG unless they make weird rules that hurt Navy’s chance at winning their division (like they automatically drop out of the running before any tiebreaker that involves OOC games is used).

            I forget how the NCAA rule is worded, but I think it prohibits an OOC game after the CCG. I don’t think they would change it to accommodate Army/Navy if Navy joined a major conference.

            Like

          • @Brian – I think they’d have to move the Army-Navy game earlier, as well. It’s already an issue in my mind because of the cascading effect that it can have on the BCS rankings. For instance, Navy played Notre Dame who then plays national title contender Stanford later this year. So, Navy’s performance has a second hand effect on Stanford’s BCS ranking, yet one of the Midshipmen’s games isn’t played until after the final BCS rankings are released. This will be exacrbated even further with Navy actually being a member of an AQ conference. The problem really needs to be avoided all together by moving the Army-Navy game to a date prior to the Big East championship game.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank,

            I agree. I think that’s the price Navy (and thus Army) pays for joining an AQ conference.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            I don’t agree. I believe the Naval Academy will have the balls to tell the big east the game stays in December. Otherwise, add Temple!

            Like

          • largeR says:

            Additionally, Army-Navy is bigger than the BCS and the big least conference. It will severely piss me off if that game is moved. The academies are bigger than the bullshit of the BCS. If Army and Navy were to both join the big least, I can understand that it be conditional that the game be moved. However, without both in the conference, the game needs to stand alone. Too many in this country don’t value the contributions of our military, and to turn that game into just another of the 30 televised games on any Saturday would be a travesty..

            Like

          • @largeR – The Army-Navy game has only been played on the second week of December for the past 2 years. So, the current timing of the game itself isn’t really integral to its tradition. Now, I agree with your last point that we need to value the contributions of our military, but as a practical matter, it will be turning into a game that has a lot higher likelihood of national championship implications (even if it’s secondary in nature). Navy is likely going to be making a choice to be part of an AQ conference, so that means it’s going to have to deal with the issues that come with that.

            Like

          • frug says:

            If this becomes an issue I wonder if the Pentagon would step and kill the deal like they did the Air Plane Conference back in the ’50s.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            @Frank
            Slighly up the thread I pointed out that this is the second year the game has been played the second Saturday of December. I assume it was moved because it was being diminished by all of the conference championship games on the first Saturday.

            I will disagree with you twice more. The timing of the game is integral. To cover it up with all the ESPN, FX, CBS, ABC, NBC, ESPN2, ESPNU, ad nauseum games, severely detracts from Army-Navy. It needs to stand alone as a 1-A game, so this nation, if only for the briefest of periods, might appreciate its military and the sacrifices they make for all of us.

            As for BCS implications, simply treat it as a game that doesn’t exist. The Army-Navy play date should not be held hostage by the BCS. And I repeat, Navy should tell the big east, and/or the BCS where to go if they require a date change.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            largeR,

            @Frank
            Slighly up the thread I pointed out that this is the second year the game has been played the second Saturday of December. I assume it was moved because it was being diminished by all of the conference championship games on the first Saturday.

            The game wasn’t diminished by the competition, the ratings were. The changes in CFB since WWI are what have diminished the game. They used to be two of the powers. Now they are middling I-A programs due to size restrictions and such. They recognize that they have higher priorities than CFB.

            I will disagree with you twice more. The timing of the game is integral. To cover it up with all the ESPN, FX, CBS, ABC, NBC, ESPN2, ESPNU, ad nauseum games, severely detracts from Army-Navy.

            Bull. Two years does not equal a tradition, and there aren’t that many games on CCG Saturday anyway. They are big games, but there aren’t nearly as many as on a regular Saturday (ACC, B10, P12, SEC, MAC and CUSA all have just 1 game). The poor quality of play in recent years (esp. from Army) and the lower amount of talent is what detracts from the Army/Navy game.

            It needs to stand alone as a 1-A game, so this nation, if only for the briefest of periods, might appreciate its military and the sacrifices they make for all of us.

            With all due respect, what a load of crap. Most people watching the game aren’t thinking any more about the military and their sacrifices than they do on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, etc or during all the media coverage of the military and their sacrifices. Those who think about it during the game also think about it during the rest of the year. Trying to tie patriotism and caring about the military to this CFB game is crap.

            Army/Navy used to be an important game. Then both teams got bad. Navy is decent again and Army is on the rise, but the game is still suffering because it is on an island. It needs to be played on a day people think of as a college football day, and many people see the time between CCG Saturday and the holidays as a break from CFB.

            Here is the TV schedule so far for CFB in December: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1070530.html

            There is 1 game on Thursday, 12/1
            There are 18 games on 12/3 plus at least 2 unlisted ones (P12 CG and MAC CG)
            Then there is Army/Navy on 12/10

            I think Army/Navy would be better served being played at 12:00 on CBS as a lead in to the SEC CG at 4:00 than stuck a week later when nobody is paying attention. I’m talking for this year, not if Navy is in the BE. If Navy goes BE, then I think Army/Navy would be an ideal Thanksgiving game. There are only 4 FB games on T-Day (3 NFL, 1 CFB) that I know of, and I’d certainly rather watch Army/Navy than an NFL game.

            As for BCS implications, simply treat it as a game that doesn’t exist. The Army-Navy play date should not be held hostage by the BCS. And I repeat, Navy should tell the big east, and/or the BCS where to go if they require a date change.

            It really has almost nothing to do with the BCS, it is the NCAA (current rules may or may not allow the game) and the BE. As I said before, the BE could certainly make special rules so that if the divisional tiebreakers get down to considering the overall record or BCS ranking (whichever is first) and Navy is in the running, then Navy is automatically eliminated and the tiebreakers resume with the remaining teams. Navy would have to agree, which shouldn’t be a problem. The NCAA already made a special rule for the game, so the only question is if Navy going AQ changes anyone’s opinion about giving them an exemption.

            I’d say Navy needs to choose between playing major college football and wanting a special day to play Army. What happens the first time Navy plays for the BE title? The Army game will lose almost all meaning. What casual fan wants to watch a meaningless game? Move the game earlier and give it a better TV window.

            Like

      • jj says:

        I gotta believe this stays as is. We’ve seen a lot of traditions go, but come on.

        Like

  45. […] if you can’t get enough of the expansiopocolypse, Frank the Tank has a FAQ on various issues. Including why teams would leave the MWC (and C-USA) for the Big […]

    Like

  46. Here is what the Idaho State Board of Education will be voting upon today (it’s contained in the last 2 pages of the linked 602-page long agenda). Interesting to see the travel expense issue tackled directly and that Boise State expects to move in 2013 as opposed to 2012. Regardless, Boise State isn’t even couching this under the guise of “exploring conference options”. This deals with Boise State specifically joining the Big East and it looks like that’s where they’re headed:

    BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

    SUBJECT
    Boise State University requests permission to change conference affiliation for its intercollegiate athletics teams

    BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
    President Kustra has informed the Board, and news media organizations have reported, that Boise State is one of several institutions under consideration for potential membership in the Big East Conference for its intercollegiate football team. These discussions are a result of the conference realignment precipitated by the changing membership of many schools in the eastern and mid-west conferences. The domino effect of these changes has caused the potential for a conference change for Boise State. While no invitation to join has been extended at this time, the University anticipates an offer is imminent and is requesting Board approval to proceed in the best interests of the University should an offer be extended.

    IMPACT
    The primary impact will be the increase in conference revenue. Currently, the Mountain West conference-wide payout is roughly between $1,400,000 and $1,900,000 per year, depending upon football bowl and basketball post season performance of conference teams. If the expansion plans of the Big East proceed as reported, there will be 12 football playing schools in the Big East. Under the current Big East media agreements (which will lapse and come due for renegotiation in 2012), the payouts to the football playing schools would be approximately $3,700,000 annually. However, the Big East Conference is the only member of the BCS automatic qualifying conferences that has its media rights package coming due for renewal in 2012. The Big East expects that bidding its media rights on the open market in the fall of 2012 will result in a significant increase in the conference media revenue. Finally, the Big East is considered one of the premier conferences in men’s and women’s basketball. While Boise State will not be a basketball playing member, the increased exposure to the affiliation with such a strong conference will be good for the University and is part of what will drive the increased media value for the 2012 media rights bids.

    As noted, the Big East is also a member of the BCS. As such its conference champion is guaranteed a placement in one of the five BCS bowl games. This exposure is important to the University and its football program for various reasons. The Big East is guaranteed the automatic qualifying status through the 2013 season (for the January 2014 BCS bowl games). In addition, the Big East has bowl tie-ins with several other prominent bowl games.

    The Big East plans to adopt a 12 team football conference with an East and West Division. The two division alignment allows the addition of a championship game at the end of the season. A conference championship game is expected to also add value to the media rights of the conference.

    The University expects increased travel costs in association with the longer charter flights for conference games. However, since the University already charters planes for all away football games, the increased cost is only the incremental cost over the already chartered flights to Mountain West Conference games. The University estimates this increase at approximately $200,000 to $300,000 annually.

    Another important impact of joining the Big East as a football only member will be that the University will be required to have all other sports in a conference as well. The University has pursued this by inquiring of several potential conferences. Such discussions are ongoing and the University is confident its quality programs will be a welcome addition to one of those conferences. The conference change is anticipated to occur July 1, 2013. With more than one year advance notice the University will not pay the $5,000,000 exit penalty to the Mountain West Conference and will, instead, only forfeit the annual conference wide distribution for the 2012 season.

    BOARD ACTION
    I move to authorize the President of Boise State University to make the final decision as to whether it is in the best interests of the University to accept an invitation to the Big East Conference as a football only member and to another conference for the University’s remaining intercollegiate sports, and in so doing to comply with all Board policies and procedures.

    http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/meetings/board/current_year/11_03_11/agenda_all.pdf

    Like

  47. bullet says:

    WVU/BE could get nasty if 2013 is the date as indicated in the article:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/colleges/knights/os-ucf-usf-big-east-expansion-20111103,0,6367314.story

    UCF president intends to get it done in a week. Not following SEC model.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Your link is off by one letter. Try:

      http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/knights/os-ucf-usf-big-east-expansion-20111103,0,6367314.story

      “You look at all this and if it holds together as it’s shaping up, it could be a heck of a good conference,” Hitt said of the Big East. “Maybe stronger than it was.”

      That’s wishful thinking.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        He did say “maybe.” Boise has been stronger than anyone currently in the BE.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Part of Boise being better is their schedule, though. I think WV is at least Boise’s equal for the BE. Pitt and Syracuse certainly mean more to them than SMU or UH or UCF can bring. The loss of regionality will really hurt the BE.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        It may end up stronger in terms of football quality over the long run (than a Big East 8 or 9 that it was), but the problem is whether it’s BCS-bowl quality in terms of “style” points.

        The problem is that TV viewers/bowl committees would care more about a good West Virginia or Pitt or Syracuse over a good replacement team.

        Boise State’s become something of a constant cinderella, but who knows how well that will hold over the longer term.

        Like

  48. wmtiger says:

    Who is football team #12 in the Big East going to be? Do all of Boise State, Air Force, Navy, SMU, Houston, UCF appear set to join?

    As a football conference, this conference really needs a new name.

    Like

    • Redhawk says:

      Air Force beat writer for the Colorado Springs Gazette, is saying Air Force is NOT a lock. He says it’s 50/50. Air Force and Navy he says aren’t lured by the AQ, as that’s not a priority and while the money is great and who doesn’t need more money, that’s also not a priority.

      He seemed to think Air Force and Navy would both join, or would both NOT join.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I kind of hope they don’t. I think the academies work really well as independents. I kind of hope they decline and the Big East finds a few other western teams to enter.

        Like

    • OT says:

      Air Force might not want to join the Big East.

      BYU would be taking a pay cut and would have less control over its TV inventory (for BUYtv) if it were to join the Big East. I expect BYU to stay independent.

      San Diego State is the latest school to whore itself to the Big State.

      San Diego State.

      Not a typo.

      If the Big East were to take San Diego State, then the Big East can claim to be the only BCS league to have a presence in Florida, Texas, and California.

      ==

      In any case, the Mountain West may have to take both Utah State and San Jose State in order to rebuild itself even though 1) Utah State has practically no TV market to speak of, and 2) San Jose State has almost zero relevance in the San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland TV market.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Were San Diego State and Boise State to join, the Big East should rename itself the “Big America” conference.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Hawaii already has a conference for its non-football sports and has been in a BCS game. Its almost at the international date line, so you could argue its so far west its east.

          Like

        • OT says:

          One possible Big East Football alignment:

          BIG Division

          Boise State
          San Diego State (instead of Air Force or BYU)
          SMU
          Houston
          Louisville
          Cincinati

          EAST Division

          UCONN
          Rutgers
          Central Florida
          South Florida
          Two of the following: Temple, Villanova or East Carolina (assuming that Navy backs out)

          Like

    • jj says:

      The Big Uneasy

      Like

    • Brian says:

      wmtiger,

      As a football conference, this conference really needs a new name.

      For truth in advertising, how about Big Easy? It minimizes the amount of change necessary for logos and such, and recognizes the (lack of) strength of the conference.

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Brian – no conference can be named the Big Easy without including my Greenies from Tulane.

        Tulane, located in the Big Easy to join the Big Easy Conference . . . I like it.

        Like

  49. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Prediction on teams who will head to BCS bowls:

    BCS: LSU (13-0) vs. Stanford (13-0)
    Fiesta: Oklahoma (11-1) vs. Boise State (12-0)
    Sugar: Alabama (11-1) vs. Oklahoma State (11-1)
    Orange: Virginia Tech (12-1) vs. West Virginia (10-2)
    Rose: Wisconsin (11-2) vs. Oregon (10-2)

    Missing the cut:
    – A second Big Ten team, which can do no better than 11-2 and lacks a resume better than Oklahoma State’s 11-1, Alabama’s 11-1, and Boise State’s 11-1 and would not be placed in the Rose Bowl against another B1G team over the Pac-12’s Oregon.
    – A second ACC team (namely, 11-2 Clemson) for similar reasons.

    Maybe Big Ten fans should be rooting for Oklahoma State to beat Oklahoma so that Stanford goes to the Rose Bowl, which would bump Stanford to the Rose Bowl, Ok. State to the BCS game, and a second Big Ten team into the Sugar.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      “…so that Stanford goes to the Rose Bowl, which would bump Stanford to the Rose Bowl…”

      I like to say things twice. I like to repeat myself.

      Like

    • cutter says:

      Michael in Raleigh: Under your scenario, Michigan can end the season 11-1 if the Wolverines and the Spartans win out. Because the Big Ten’s first tie breaker beyond conference record (which would be 7-1 for both teams) is head-to-head matchup, Michigan State would go into the conference title game even though their overall record would be 10-2 (MSU’s two losses would be Notre Dame and Nebraska). If Wisconsin wins that game, the Spartans then end the season at 10-3.

      If Stanford does go undefeated and Oregon ends 10-2, I can certainly see the Ducks going to the Rose Bowl. Conversely, if Oregon ends the season 12-1 and Stanford goes 11-1, then the Ducks might be in the national championship game or the Rose Bowl, obviously depending on the final BCS standings and that might put Stanford “in play” as an at large team.

      Since an undefeated and highly ranked Boise State team would get one of the at large berths, you could see a 11-1 Michigan team competing with a 11-1 Oklahoma State team for a berth along with a 11-1 Stanford or a 10-2 Oregon (depending on how the Pac 12 ends up).

      The Fiesta Bowl gets the first pick and has the tie in with the Big XII Championship team. If that turns out to be Oklahoma, I suspect they wouldn’t want to match them up again with Oklahoma State–especially since the last regular season game was between those two teams.

      With the ACC and Big East each providing one team (probably for Orange Bowl) and with the Sugar Bowl ties to the SEC, that means the Fiesta chooses either 11-1 Michigan or 12-0 Boise State. At that point, it becomes a beauty contest in terms of television ratings, attendance, etc.

      If the Fiesta Bowl does choose Boise State, then the Sugar (with Alabama already in tow) gets to choose between 11-1 Michigan and 11-1 Oklahoma State. Once again, you have the beauty contest question that the bowl organizers in New Orleans would have to figure out.

      Using most of your predictions for a final record, it outcome might end up being something like this with Oklahoma State (11-1) on the outside looking in:

      BCS: LSU (13-0) vs. Stanford (13-0)
      Fiesta: Oklahoma (11-1) vs. Michigan (11-1)
      Sugar: Alabama (11-1) vs. Boise State (12-0)
      Orange: Virginia Tech (12-1) vs. West Virginia (10-2)
      Rose: Wisconsin (11-2) vs. Oregon (10-2)

      In an eight-team playoff where the BCS conference winners received autobids unless they weren’t in the Top 15 of the BCS standings, you might get Oklahoma State into the preseason with the 11-1 record, even if they lose their season ending game. It would depend on where WVU ended up in the BCS standings (must be in Top 15 to qualify) to see if the Big East would forfeit its autobid. But assuming they did win the BE and were in the Top 15 of the BCS standings, then the likely teams would be:

      ACC Champion: Virginia Tech (12-1)
      Big East Champion: West Virginia (10-2)
      Big 12 Champion: Oklahoma (11-1)
      Big Ten Champion: Wisconsin (11-2)
      SEC Champion: LSU (13-0)
      Pac 12 Champion: Stanford (13-0)
      At Large: Boise State (12-0) and one of Alabama (11-1), Oklahoma State (11-1), Michigan (11-1) or Oregon (10-2)

      LSU and Stanford would clearly be the #1 and #2 seeds and would host games in the first and second rounds of the playoffs at their home stadiums if they won out. Oklahoma and Boise State could possibly be the third and fourth seeds and would play host in the first round of the playoffs at the minimum (although I suspect BSU would be hard pressed to end up at #4 in the BCS with the other teams listed and they might slip to #5 or #6). The other teams–Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the other at large team–would be the visitors in those first round games.

      Teams not in the playoffs would go to the bowls–we could, for example, see Michigan and Oregon play in the Rose Bowl or Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl or Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Not a horrible consolation prize and those teams would certainly be high profile enough for these bowl games to be successful.

      Like

    • frug says:

      Anybody know the selection order this year?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Michael in Raleigh,

      Prediction on teams who will head to BCS bowls:

      BCS: LSU (13-0) vs. Stanford (13-0)
      Fiesta: Oklahoma (11-1) vs. Boise State (12-0)
      Sugar: Alabama (11-1) vs. Oklahoma State (11-1)
      Orange: Virginia Tech (12-1) vs. West Virginia (10-2)
      Rose: Wisconsin (11-2) vs. Oregon (10-2)

      I disagree on several points:
      1. I favor AL over LSU since they play at AL, so I’d swap them
      2. I don’t think Stanford wins out
      3. I don’t think VT wins the ACC
      4. I don’t think WI wins the B10

      Like

      • Brian says:

        To follow up:

        Conference winners:
        ACC – Clemson (11-2) over VT (11-2)
        BE – WV (10-2)
        B10 – OSU (10-3) over NE (11-2) *
        B12 – OU (11-1)
        P12 – OR (12-1) over ASU (10-3)
        SEC – AL (13-0) over GA (10-3)

        * I freely admit this is a homer pick, but I’ll pick them until they’re eliminated

        At large possibilities:
        ACC – 11-2 VT
        BE – 10-2 UC
        B12 – 11-1 OkSU (loses to OU)
        B10 – 10-2 MSU (wins out), 10-2 WI (wins out)
        P12 – Stanford (11-1) loses to OR
        SEC – LSU (11-1) loses to AL
        Other – Boise (12-0) wins out

        BCS – AL/OU
        Fiesta – OkSU/Boise
        Sugar – LSU/WI (and Sparty cries in outrage again)
        Orange – Clemson/WV
        Rose – OSU/OR

        Like

        • duffman says:

          nobody picked the JoPa’s?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Duffman,

            To be fair, I think only 3 people gave their picks. That’s hardly a fair sample.

            I didn’t pick PSU because they have a very tough schedule and a weak offense, but they could certainly make it.

            If they go 3-0 they make the CCG. Even losing the CCG, they might make a BCS bowl at 11-2 if the game was good and close.

            If they go 2-1 they still make the CCG. They’d have to win to go to the BCS at 11-2.

            If they go 1-2, they can’t be an at large team. They could still win the B10.
            Scenario 1: PSU beats WI but loses to NE and OSU, and OSU loses (to MI)
            Scenario 2: PSU beats OSU but loses to NE and WI, and WI loses (to IL)
            Scenario 3: PSU beats NE but loses to WI and OSU, OSU loses (to MI) and WI loses (to IL)

            If they go 0-3, they need a lot of help. Both OSU and WI would have the tiebreaker edge, so they’d need OSU to lose twice and WI to lose twice.

            I’m predicting PSU to lose at least 2 of their last 3, and I don’t think they get the help they need to win the division. I don’t think PSU wins at WI, so scenario 1 is gone. I don’t think IL beats WI, so scenarios 2 and 3 are gone. I really don’t see OSU and WI losing 2 games while each beats PSU, so the 0-3 scenario is gone.

            Like

  50. greg says:

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203716204577016110526669958-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

    The Super Bowl of ‘Oversigning’

    Football fans should ready their scrapbooks for Saturday’s game between No. 1 LSU and No. 2 Alabama: They may never see anything like it again.

    Based on their dominant results, the Tigers and the Crimson Tide may prove to be two of the best college-football teams in recent decades. To some, though, their achievements are partly due to a controversial practice that’s come under heavy fire recently: signing more players than you’re allowed to keep.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      It would be interesting to see where the “cut” signees ended up going. Are they going to JCs or the Sun Belt when otherwise they might have signed with Ole Miss or Vandy?

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        As with all things in life…”it depends”.

        Most kids that get cut do so late in the process (August) and may already be in school. I’ve read some stories of kids getting picked up by other BCS schools (which begs the question of where did they get the room for that guy?), some going to down a division, and others who flat out drop out (they don’t have the money and can’t find another school with room).

        Like

    • wmtiger says:

      Alabama signed over an entire recruiting class more than Texas & Ohio State, wow…

      You wonder why these teams always have a stud to come in and replace a graduating senior? Now you know why, its like playing poker with someone who has an extra card.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Nevermind the past. I’m really interested in what impact this has on the future. In the beginning, it would probably help the lower-level members of BCS conferences (like WSU) more, as well as the academically elite schools (who almost never revoke scholarships now anyway). It certainly would benefit the B10 as a whole (which, because it’s prohibited from oversigning, can more easily offer multi-year scholarships to elite recruits).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think you’ll see this universally accepted, so it should reduce the recruiting advantage these oversigning schools have enjoyed. It will be interesting to see which schools drop in performance in the next few years, and whether the SEC’s dominance continues or fades.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          I honestly think the SEC knows the writing is on the wall as far as its dominance on the field is concerned. For the past 10 years they’ve really been playing poker with an extra card when compared to everyone else and they parlayed that into a massive new tv deal and two additional members who literally begged to get in. But they are pushing hard to get the new members in now and a new tv contract (already) and this doesn’t even count the laughable NCAA rule changes they suggested to make the official LoI signing rules the same as what the SEC uses.

          As for recruiting…the joke is I think it’ll hurt the oversigners of the world, but not in the way most think. The 4 & 5 star recruits will get the multi-year scholarships, just as they got the single-year ones before it. The thing is the smaller schools will be able to do the same thing to the 2 & 3 star guys that used to be the real depth and replacement players on the big teams for when that 5 star didn’t pan out. At which point those schools might turn out like Notre Dame…plenty of highly recruited guys on the team that just don’t pan out to be as good at the college game as they are in highschool.

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            Then again it should be noted that none of this will stop the Saban’s of the world from cutting a multi-year scholarship player (I mean “encouraging him to tranfser” or “giving him a medical”) to clear the books for the next recruiting class.

            Which is maybe an SEC way of circumventing the public backlash that’s been surrounding over-signing. “Sure you can have multi-year scholarships back and full cost, but we keep getting to do business our way at the same time…”

            Like

    • zeek says:

      The plot thickens. Of course, we’re likely to see a settlement, but the compromise might require a year…, in which case Missouri’s move might be delayed a year…

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Zero chance of that. But Mizzou may end up paying a higher exit fee.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I think both West Virginia and Missouri might end up paying pretty high exit fees. The SEC needs Missouri next year to avoid big scheduling problems (or an NCAA waiver). The Big 12 needs Missouri or West Virginia next year to fulfill their contract and can more successfully sue if they beach it because of the short notice. I think the SEC wants 14 next year bad enough to encourage Missouri to do a lot to get out (and might even help a little if necessary). The Big 12 will be in the same shape with West Virginia. The Big 12 will get more out of Missouri which they can use to get West Virginia out of the Big East.

          The other decent possibility is the SEC caves and goes with 13 for a year making both transitions easier (and cheaper) in 2 years.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            The chances of the SEC staying at 13 are very, very, very low. Mizzou’s exit penalties may be somewhat higher if they can’t resolve the WVU issue soon, but they won’t be unreasonably high. It may take another week or two to settle this but in the end Mizzou will be in the SEC, WVU will be in the Big 12, the Big East will grab a team or two or three, and CUSA and the MWC will merge.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        It would be logical for all the remaining moves to happen in 2013. But the SEC doesn’t want to do 13 and the Big 12 can’t do 9. The problem is that its hard for the BE to do 7.

        Boise may have a $21 million exit fee if they leave for 2012 vs. $2 million if they leave for 2013. UCF, SMU and UH have passed the deadline to leave. Navy might be able to redo their schedule and replace WVU. The only other logical scenario where noone is in a bad position would be for UCF, SMU and UH to move in 2012 and the CUSA/MWC to initiate their merger in 2012 with Boise and Air Force still in.

        Like

  51. Andy says:

    Conference USA in 2013

    East

    Southern Miss
    East Carolina
    Marshall
    UAB
    Tulsa
    UTEP
    Rice
    Tulane

    West

    Fresno State
    Nevada
    Hawaii
    Colorado State
    UNLV
    New Mexico
    San Diego State
    Wyoming

    (Memphis and Air Force might be in there as well depending on what the Big East does)

    That is not a good conference. It will have been picked clean of almost every quality football program.

    The top 8 schools: Southern Miss, ECU, Marshall, Tulsa, Fresno State, San Diego State, Nevada, and Hawaii all have less-than-bad football traditions, but there’s nobody in that bunch to garner much national attention.

    Like

  52. Brian says:

    We talked a little about the AP poll 1/2 games a few days ago.

    Here’s a list:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Poll#No._1_vs._No._2

    There have been 45 such games so far, so I wanted to look at them from the standpoint of which were the greatest setups for games (in other words, ignoring how good the game itself was since few of us have seen most of these).

    21 of those 45 were bowl games, which I think need to be in a separate category from the others. 2 more were CCG, which are another category to me, leaving 22 in the regular season.

    Regular season:
    I’ll use a simple method of giving 1 point for every criteria met:
    Conference game/regular indy opponent
    Major rivalry
    September or later
    October or later
    November or later
    Last week of the season
    All tied games are listed in reverse chronological order

    6 – 2006 OSU/MI, 1988 ND/USC, 1969 TX/AR, 1945 Army/Navy, 1944 Army/Navy
    5.5 – 1996 FL/FSU (FL still had the CCG to play)
    5 – 1993 FSU/ND, 1991 FSU/Miami, 1987 NE/OU, 1971 NE/OU, 1946 Army/ND, 1945 Army/ND
    4 – 1966 MSU/ND, 1943 MI/ND, 1943 ND/IA Pre-Flight
    3 – 1989 ND/MI, 1985 MI/IA, 1963 OU/TX
    2 – 1968 PU/ND
    1 – 2006 OSU/TX, 1986 OU/Miami, 1981 USC/OU

    That’s not a bad list for the top 5 #1 vs #2 regular season games, and the next 7 are darn good too. LSU/AL would join the list with 4 points.

    Like

    • BoomRShine says:

      Anyone notice how the media is talking about a potential LSU-Alabama rematch in the National Championship Game without a sense of irony?

      Where was their logic five years ago, when an 11-0 Michigan team played at an 11-0 Ohio State team, and lost by just three points?

      Like

      • @BoomRShine – To be fair, there was a large contingent of the media that argued for a Michigan-Ohio State rematch in 2006. Remember that the SEC didn’t have the rep that it has today at that time.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        BoomRShine,

        Save your outrage until after the game at least. If someone wins big, the rematch talk will die. The polls prevented a rematch before and probably will again.

        Like

  53. duffman says:

    Bamatab will be watching the TV, Alan will be live. Was hoping you guys were both going and would meet up in the real world.

    .

    The SEC and the B12 have the most on the line today because the other 3 undefeated teams are facing a combined 5 wins against 18 losses! If Stanford, Boise State, or Houston lose today it would be no BCS game for them! [insert picture of Soup Nazi here]

    .

    6 undefeated teams left, 5 max by sunday :

    SEC 32% : Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, and Auburn remain
    LSU 8 – 0 : Alabama 8-0 11/05, WKU 11/12, OM 11/19, Arkansas 11/25
    Alabama 8 – 0 : LSU 8-0 11/05, MSU 11/12, Ga So 11/19, Auburn 11/26
    LSU 8-0 @ Alabama 8-0 : 8:00 pm

    B12 17% : 4 games left 23 – 9 = 72%, Oklahoma only obstacle
    Oklahoma State 8 – 0 : KSU 7-1 11/05, TT 5-3 11/12, ISU 4-4 11/18, OU 7-1 12/03
    Kansas State 7-1 @ Oklahoma State 8-0 : 8:00 pm

    PAC 17% : 4 games left 18 – 14 = 56%, Oregon only obstacle
    Stanford 8 – 0 : OSU 2-6 11/05, Oregon 7-1 11/12, Cal 4-4 11/19, Notre Dame 5-3 11/26
    Stanford 8-0 @ Oregon State 2-6 : 3:30 pm

    MWC 17% : 5 games left 17 – 20 = 46%, high probability of staying undefeated
    Boise State 7 – 0 : UNLV 11/05, TCU 11/12, SDSU 11/19, Wyoming 11/26, UNM 12/03
    Boise State 7-0 @ UNLV 2-5 : 10:30 pm

    CUSA 17% : 4 games left 13 – 20 = 39%, high probability of staying undefeated
    Houston 8 – 0 : UAB 1-7 11/05, Tulane 2-7 11/10, SMU 5-3 11/19, Tulsa 5-3 11/26
    Houston 8-0 @ UAB 1-7 : 7:00 pm

    Like

  54. frug says:

    So yesterday former PSU assistant (and JoePa heir apparent) Jerry Sandusky was indicted on 40 counts related to sexual abuse of a minor. Today it is revealed that Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and the school’s Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz have been charged with failure to report suspected sexual abuse of minor and perjury for their testimony to the grand jury hearing the case.

    This could get very very very bad for PSU.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/05/penn-state-ad-charged-with-perjury-failure-to-report-in-sandusky-sex-case/#comment-60753

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It doesn’t look good right now. The charges date back to the 1994 when Sandusky was still coaching. Allegedly a grad assistant saw him sexually assault a kid in a shower at the FB facility, and the GA immediately told JoePa. JoePa went straight to Curley, but allegedly Curley sat on the info for 10 days before speaking with the GA and the police were never told. Schultz was in that meeting, and part of his duties include running the PSU police.

      It’s important to remember that people are innocent until proven guilty and that almost always in big cases like this many charges get dropped or reduced. Still, no school wants to be tied to the sexual assault of minors in any way.

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        @Brian
        The incident the grad student saw (from what I read) occurred in 2002…AFTER Sandusky had left PSU. The incidents during the 90’s were all looked into by the police (again, from what I read) and found to not have substance (not that there wasn’t anything going on…police are less than impressive sometimes).

        Personally, I think JoePa believes in the old adage “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” and pushed him out in 1999.

        The Tim Curly thing is confusing and worrying…

        Like

        • Brian says:

          PSUGuy,

          Yes, I agree the GA incident was in 2002. I didn’t mean to cause any confusion there. The charges do date back to the 90s when he was still coaching, though.

          I certainly believe JoePa would not put up with it if he had any evidence. We’ll probably never know, though, because JoePa won’t talk about why Sandusky left unless he has to under oath.

          It would have really shaken my foundations if JoePa had been involved in a cover up of something this serious, so I’m glad he seems to be clear of this.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            PSUGuy,

            For those of us not following this, what does all this mean? Is it all in the past and surfacing now? Is it something current and will affect the current folks at PSU? Can you diagram it out so it is easier to understand?

            thanks.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            Ok so here’s how I understand it…

            1995/1996 complaints were made against Sandusky (though I think the warrant mentioned complaints going back to 1994). I do not know if a police report was filed, but nothing seemed to come it.

            1998 another claim against Sandusky is made. This was reported, and investigated, by the police where (from what I know) they found nothing to press charges. In July 1999 his retirement after the 1999 season is announced.

            Prior to the 2000 season it was noted Paterno seemed not as corgial with Sandusky, skipping a charity event and talking in strong negative terms about Sandusky’s coaching (not typical of Paterno).

            2002 a graduate student at PSU reports to Paterno that Sandusky was sexually assaulting a boy in the PSU shower. Paterno brought the issue up with AD Tim Curly (and another) who waited a week, interviewed Sandusky, graduate assistant, and Paterno (don’t know if anyone else) then told Sandusky he was not permitted to use PSU facilities any longer. He did not bring the matter up to police.

            In 2009 another complaint was filed against Sandusky in State College who recused themselves and pushed the case to the attorney general who spent the next 18 months investigating. During that time (according to the Attorney General) Curly and another man involved in the investigation said they didn’t know sexual molestation had taken place and thus why they did not turn the matter over to the police.

            I get the the 90’s. Before the 1996ish complaint I don’t think there was anything (if the 1994 thing holds true I have a feeling it was a silent victim) that popped up and I think Paterno and Co were willing to give a guy the benefit of the doubt. In 1998 though they went to the cops and they (cops) just didn’t press charges, at which point Sandusky’s quiet retirement was executed.

            The 2000’s is very strange though…it almost seems to me that Curly / Sandusky had a personal relationship (why else wouldn’t he have gone straight to the cops? and why was he permitted to use university facilities if he had been ushered out?). As for Paterno, I just don’t get why he wouldn’t go to the police, but then again in front of a grand jury the answer of “I brought it to the attention of the AD and kept out of it from there” would probably be sufficient to absolve responsibility.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            And just to throw another $0.02 on the pile…

            The more I think about it this has a rumbling on internal politics gone amuck. I love JoePa, but he’s known to be a viscious “street fighter” when it comes to political gaming (he’s arguably still the most powerful man at the university because of all the $$$ folks he has in his pocket).

            He’s had his issues with (PSU Pres) Spanier and AD Curly (they both went to his house in the early 2000’s to get him to retire) and if there is something to this “personal relationship between Curly and Sandusky” maybe Curly was pushing Paterno to retire earlier than early 2000’s so Sandusky could take over.

            Point being, Curly might have been a big proponent during the 90’s complaints while Paterno was pushing much earlier than 1999 to retire the guy, but “lost that battle” so the 2002 complaint became a “to hell with it, you deal with him” situation for Paterno and its coming back to bite Curly.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Just to flesh out the details a little, the allegations involve 8 different boys with at least one as young as 10 or 11.

            Like

          • Peter says:

            Fantastic, the PSU President is standing behind the felony-indicted AD & admin boss when most people are feeling more like “everyone involved should be executed.”

            Good crisis management.

            Like

    • Carl says:

      PSU < OSU

      😦

      Like

    • Brian says:

      So, PSU fans, I have a serious question:

      Are you already sick of the amount and type of coverage ESPN is giving this story?

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        Its a great story…legendary coach’s (who is known for impeccable character) career potentially ruined by something everyone can villify…not to mention it paints (another) bad brush over a business rival (BTN by associationvia the Big Ten).

        The sad thing, and really only reason why I would get sick of the coverage, is because the coverage is not about what Sandusky & Curly did or didn’t do…its national media rubbernecking hoping for plenty of “blood and guts”.

        Like

      • redwood86 says:

        Brian, you don’t think that massive cover-up a la the Catholic Church warrants massive coverage? You don’t think that the President of PSU continuing even today to ignore the facts and defend Curley and the VP is an outrage?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          redwood86,

          First, my question was neutral. I wanted the PSU fan’s perspective on the coverage. I wasn’t judging the coverage.

          Second, you can’t seriously compare this to the Catholic Church sex scandals. The Church scandal was orders of magnitude larger and lasted for decades if not centuries. It involved administrators knowing of the actions and moving perpetrators around to offend again while avoiding public notice. If all the allegations here are true, it’s one perpetrator and a couple of suits either covering it up or not treating it seriously.

          Third, nobody knows what the facts are yet. That’s why there are trials. It is not unreasonable for someone with a long relationship with an accused party to defend them until all the facts come out. It’s not like the PSU president was in the room to hear the grand jury testimony. I’d be outraged if the president defended the actions of which the people are accused.

          Like

          • maguro says:

            The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, orders of magnitude larger than PSU so the fact more abuse occurred in the church doesn’t invalidate the analogy.

            As for lasting for decades, you do realize that Sandusky was an assistant at PSU for 30 years?

            And “one perpetrator and a couple of suits” really trivializes the issue when one considers that Joe Paterno himself knew that Sandusky was anally raping 10 year old boys in PSU facilities and did nothing about it.

            As VP Biden would say, this is a big f***ing deal.

            Like

          • SideshowBob says:

            maguro — who says Paterno “did nothing about it”? He apparently reported the incident — which he did not witness, but was told second handedly by the witness — to the authorities, including the head of campus police (who would have jurisdiction over the crime since it occurred University Park, not State College). Furthermore, Paterno has apparently been involved in the investigation, was by the Attorney General for his efforts and ls apparently a witness for the prosecution in the perjury trial. I’m not really sure what he did wrong.

            Now, he may have acted unethically, the facts that have been reported, he actively followed up on the allegations he was told.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            maguro,

            The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, orders of magnitude larger than PSU so the fact more abuse occurred in the church doesn’t invalidate the analogy.

            How about the fact that the RCC has settled many lawsuits for a ton of money? How about the multiple convictions for proven cover ups? How about allegations dating back for decades with the direct implication of hundreds of years if not over a millennium of systemic child rape through multiple regimes? That doesn’t seem a little different from this case?

            And “one perpetrator and a couple of suits” really trivializes the issue when one considers that Joe Paterno himself knew that Sandusky was anally raping 10 year old boys in PSU facilities and did nothing about it.

            1. It doesn’t trivialize it to state the facts. One perpetrator and 2 suits in a possible cover up have been charged. I’m not aware of even allegations that go beyond those 3 people.

            2. You are making stuff up. There is no evidence that Paterno had any such knowledge. A GA witness to something (I wasn’t there, so I won’t say what he saw) told JoePa, and by all accounts he immediately told his superiors. Sandusky was no longer on his staff at this point.

            As VP Biden would say, this is a big f***ing deal.

            It is a big deal, but it isn’t the RCC scandal (thankfully). It’s like comparing someone to Hitler.

            Like

          • maguro says:

            Sideshow Bob – Paterno let Sandusky bring kids on campus for football-related activities for years after it was obvious he was a predator. Passing the buck to the campus cops may absolve him of legal responsibility, but morally he’s still culpable because he was certainly in a position to do something about it.

            Brian – It’s an analogy. Which is not to say the RCC and the PSU football program are exactly the same. The RCC is obviously much bigger than the PSU football program and there were many more cases of abuse, but both cases involve high-ranking institutional authorities looking the other way at abuse and enabling more of the same.

            Like

          • jj says:

            This is a bfd.

            I haven’t read this but I’ll just say that telling your supervisors is not enough. If one reasonable believes something like this is going on, you call the cops. All of them.

            Like

          • @jj – I agree. If anyone has read the details of what that grad assistant actually saw (and it’s sickening and deplorable at the highest level), I don’t see how one could say that telling your supervisor is enough. JoePa should be given a chance to tell his side, but at face value, this is about as awful as anything I’ve seen in college sports.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            I don’t think the Penn State fans (as a whole) have woken up to just how ugly this is likely to get. To save their own behinds Curley & Schultz are going to turn on the coaching staff & do their utmost to show that they were not actually made aware of the full extent of what was happening; in effect passing the buck back to JoePa.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            But that’s just it…they can’t.

            Like it or not, Paterno followed the letter of the law by notifying, immediately, law enforcement or a higher ranked member of the organization…in this case the highest level of the Athletic Department. Per the document (I read all of it) this seems enough to absolve him of further action, especially since he seems to have been involved at only one juncture (once the AD was notified it seems he was no longer consulted).

            I just can’t see how anyone could turn this around on Paterno (and the document and lack of charges by the AG seem to back that Paterno is not legally liable).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            PSUGuy,

            I agree the JoePa is legally in the clear. Morally is a separate issue, but that’s for him to live with and not for me to judge.

            However, just because the legal system won’t bring this back to JoePa doesn’t mean the defendants, media, and the community won’t put some blame on him. There are already all the rumors about this is why he fired Sandusky in 1999, so why did he let him keep being around kids at PSU? Why didn’t he call the cops when the GA came to him, regardless of whether he was legally required to do so? Why didn’t the GA beat the crap out of Sandusky on the spot and call the police? All these potential moral lapses could easily be put back on JoePa as the architect of the program and the most powerful man at PSU.

            I’m not saying he deserves more blame, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get it. This could get very ugly for PSU, especially if there was any CYA going on.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            There is certainly a possibility that Curley & Schultz can convince a jury that what they were told happened by JoePa wasn’t anywhere close to “Sanduskey was sodomizing a minor”.

            But that misses the point and the immediate fall back to “Joe Pa followed the letter of the law” underscores exactly what I am talking about.

            People at Penn State University knew that Jerry Sandusky was molesting children in 2002 at the very latest. He still maintained an office and campus privileges until at least 2009. In 2011 the school named a CHILDREN’S CENTER AFTER HIM. Neither law enforcement nor CPS was ever contacted by anyone associated with the school who was aware of the situation. Graham Spanier has voiced his full support for the two administrators who claim they were not properly informed by JoePa.

            This isn’t about JoePa’s legacy. This isn’t about whether he ‘followed the letter of the law’. This is about children being sexually abused at University and no one at the institution displaying the moral fortitude to stop it.

            Like

  55. Brian says:

    Big results today in the 12:00 games:

    Legends
    MN is eliminated
    IA passes MI for third place, 1 loss behind MSU and NE
    MI can’t lose again and make the BCS
    MSU really has to hope for PSU to beat NE

    Leaders
    OSU closed the gap on PSU but looked bad doing it
    WI and PU are playing an elimination game now

    BE
    WV drops to 4th after losing to UL
    UC is the leader at 2-0 with UL at 3-1 and Pitt at 2-1

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Brian, call it past history, but had the sinking feeling the first half would invert in the second half and it did. At least it was competitive, so congrats to your Buckeyes.

      I think Penn State could run it, but can also see every top B1G team with 2 or 3 losses which would hurt the B1G in the BCS games. Say PSU beats UNL then drops the last 2 to Ohio State and Wisconsin it will ensure a mess in the end.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Duffman,

        The depth of talent usually comes back to haunt IN against the top programs. They need to find a defense if they want to move up the conference ladder. But making the OSU game competitive is better than usual lately.

        Both divisions will probably be close and a bit jumbled. PSU could win out, but are much more likely to lose at least 1 game. There could still be 5 10-2 teams at the end of the season, but it seems more likely that NE wins out to go 11-1 while MSU and WI end at 10-2 and OSU at 9-3.

        In the spirit of the day, though, NE is losing to NW and PU is sort of holding on against WI.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          90 minutes later, PU is roadkill and NW is still beating NE. It’s entirely possible Bo Pelinin will have a coronary on the sidelines if NW continues to run on NE.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      I think it’s safe to say the 3:30 games had as much impact as the 12:00 games. What we know so far:

      Legends
      1. MN is officially eliminated
      2. IA is a contender
      3. MSU is in the driver seat with a 1 game lead over NE, IA and MI, but that game @ IA is looking a little scarier now
      4. NW would be the 9th B10 team to become bowl eligible (8 already are) with wins over Rice and MN (or MSU)
      5. MI’s record was largely due to their schedule, and they may lose several more games

      Leaders
      1. PU is eliminated
      2. WI and OSU stayed on track to catch PSU
      3. WI is clearly the best team, but OSU has the tiebreaker

      The B10’s odds of a BCS at large team have gone way down. At best the Legends can produce 2 10-2 teams, while the Leaders can also produce 2 10-2 teams. The best chance is to have NE, MI or PSU at 10-2 but missing the CCG due to tiebreakers. Those are big names that would be attractive to any BCS bowl. I don’t think MSU or WI are as likely to get picked at large.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        If the Big Ten indeed does not take one of the four at-large spots, who’s gain is it?

        -Boise is a virtual lock for one spot, unless TCU can pull an upset on the blue turf. (Sorry, Jake, I don’t think that’s happening this year.)

        -The LSU-Alabama loser is all but a lock for one spot. The only way this doesn’t happen is if the LSU-Bama winner loses to SC or Georgia in the SEC title game, bumping the LSU-Bama loser
        to the Capital One. (Slive would then do his best Jim Delany impression, complaining on behalf of the LSU-Bama loser as Delany did for Michigan State in 2010.)

        -The Oklahoma-Oklahoma State loser is all but a lock for one spot.

        -The Stanford-Oregon loser will probably duke it out with an 11-2 Virginia Tech or Clemson team for the final spot.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Bowl picks:
          BCS – AL/OU
          Rose – OSU/OR
          Fiesta – OkSU/Boise
          Sugar – LSU/Stanford
          Orange – Clemson/BE champ

          The at larges:
          12-0 Boise
          11-1 LSU
          11-1 OkSU
          11-1 Stanford

          If the B10 doesn’t get a second team, I think the P12 benefits. I think OR will beat Stanford, and the Fiesta will take Boise over Stanford. The Sugar would get the last at large and would take Stanford over WV.

          This scenario is why I think the B10 still has a decent chance at a second team. Would the Sugar prefer 10-2 NE or PSU or WI over 11-1 Stanford?

          Like

      • Peter says:

        WI is very attractive to BCS bowls. They travel in huge numbers (65k in Pasadena last year) and that’s what matters. Wisconsin can also finish 10-2 & in a qualifying position for the BCS without going to the CCG due to OSU’s tiebreaker.

        Penn State can only play in an at-large if they win out and lose in the CCG.

        After Nebraska’s loss today, Michigan State can’t go anywhere except the Rose Bowl. If they lose again anywhere, they are ineligible for BCS. If they win out, they will win the CCG and go to Pasadena.

        Like

  56. duffman says:

    Loki,

    Your Owls are viewable in B1G country right now. Just saw the second TD against UTEP.

    Like

  57. Big Ten Jeff says:

    GO U NU!!!!

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Woot! Woot!

      I have to say that I was a bit surprised that UNL didn’t launch hardly any deep balls against our secondary today. I know that TMartinez is an inaccurate passer, but any team has a better than even chance of scoring a TD throwing deep against us (granted, with TMartinez, the ball may be picked off close to half the time as well).

      How did UNL beat tOSU? They don’t seem to be as athletic as tOSU or have as dominant an O-Line as Wisconsin.

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        Especially being down in the score all game like they were… He seemed like a much better QB when I watched him all of last year, but I guess ‘Bo knows’ that UNL had a better chance running than they did passing.

        On another note, Nebraska shall henceforth be relegated to UN, UNL or Nebraska status for the next year. Plus we were here first! I love NU, and really appreciate our improvement over the last 15 years, but Stanford’s all around success and Duke’s basketball success makes you wonder why not us? Drives me nuts.

        Like

        • M says:

          The Duke basketball comparison reflects badly on Northwestern, but Stanford football hasn’t exactly been gangbusters before the last two years. Even if you look at just the last 5 years, Northwestern has a better overall record than Stanford.

          It’ll be interesting to see how they do without Harbaugh and Luck.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            The Duke bball record doesn’t reflect as badly on NU as you think when you realize that Duke will take top ballers in to their program even if their academics are less than stellar while NU requires their athletes to have better academics than an average state school athlete.

            I’m pretty certain that UNC’s bball team has had a higher average SAT score than Duke’s over the recent past, for example.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Do you have any facts, or just biased opinion?

            While making Duke sound bad, your statement is virtually meaningless. A player can have “less than stellar” academics and still be better “than an average state school athlete.”

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Brian:

            I suppose I was being a bit too polite for your tastes when saying that Duke bball players have “less than stellar” academics. I should have said Duke bball players have academic credentials that are far below the Duke student body average and not any different from the players on state school bball squads.

            Did you read the rest of my post?

            I’m certain that I read somewhere that Duke’s bball team’s average SAT score over a certain time period was lower than UNC’s bball team’s average SAT score over the same time period. Northwestern and Stanford bball teams’ average SAT scores, on the other hand, while lower than their schools’ average student body SAT scores, are still higher than pretty much all state school bball teams’ average SAT scores.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            OK, here’s a blog post that compares the academic credentials of Stanford and Duke bball players:
            http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/05/stanford-vs-duke-basketball-the-difference-in-admissions-standards/

            I’m pretty certain that there a time period where UNC bball actually had better SAT scores than Duke bball, but in the period Wilner gives, Duke bball has a bit better SAT scores than UNC bball (though they are still far closer to UNC than they are to Stanford).

            In the interest of disclosure, I’m quite certain (from the source I read) that Northwestern bball is between Stanford and Duke in academic requirements.

            Duke bball should be considered on the same tier as ND football when it comes to how strict their academic requirements are. Sure, they won’t take kids who are barely literate (unlike some power programs), but you can be a below-average student and join those teams if you have athletic ability in a particular sport.

            I’m quite certain that’s not true with Stanford, and mostly not true with Northwestern.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            To be clear, I also believe that NW has higher standards than Duke for MBB players. If nothing else, it’s the only logical explanation for NW consistently sucking at MBB. I also have some experience with Duke athletes as I know a former tutor for several MBB players. I’m not claiming they are all geniuses.

            However, it looks bad for a NW alum to claim the only reason they aren’t Duke is because Duke plays idiots that NW would never admit without any evidence that it is true. You’re welcome to believe it, but you should have evidence before claiming it publicly.

            I suppose I was being a bit too polite for your tastes when saying that Duke bball players have “less than stellar” academics. I should have said Duke bball players have academic credentials that are far below the Duke student body average and not any different from the players on state school bball squads.

            Of course the players are well below the student body. That was never at issue. Your assertion that they are no different from an average state school is what was at issue.

            Did you read the rest of my post?

            Yes, which is why I commented on it. You made another claim of how bad Duke’s standards were without providing any evidence.

            I’m certain that I read somewhere that Duke’s bball team’s average SAT score over a certain time period was lower than UNC’s bball team’s average SAT score over the same time period.

            It’s nice that you’re certain, but that does no good if you don’t have a source for the rest of us. Otherwise it’s just a belief.

            Northwestern and Stanford bball teams’ average SAT scores, on the other hand, while lower than their schools’ average student body SAT scores, are still higher than pretty much all state school bball teams’ average SAT scores.

            What is the average for all state schools for the average SAT score? Do you know that Duke is near or below it? If not, it’s just another baseless accusation.


            OK, here’s a blog post that compares the academic credentials of Stanford and Duke bball players:
            http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/05/stanford-vs-duke-basketball-the-difference-in-admissions-standards/

            I’m pretty certain that there a time period where UNC bball actually had better SAT scores than Duke bball, but in the period Wilner gives, Duke bball has a bit better SAT scores than UNC bball (though they are still far closer to UNC than they are to Stanford).

            Unless you have evidence, I’m going to stick with Wilner’s numbers. There are two things he doesn’t provide, however:
            1. NW’s numbers
            2. The average for all state schools

            Without those numbers, you can’t support your accusations. It’s entirely possible than NC is better than most state schools.

            In the interest of disclosure, I’m quite certain (from the source I read) that Northwestern bball is between Stanford and Duke in academic requirements.

            And I find that completely plausible. But without some evidence, you shouldn’t denigrate Duke. However, you should probably try to explain why Stanford has had periods of MBB success when NW never has. It clearly isn’t academic standards preventing it. It can’t be impossible to recruit MBB players to Chicago. There have to be some players that would rather stay closer to home than go to CA.

            Duke bball should be considered on the same tier as ND football when it comes to how strict their academic requirements are. Sure, they won’t take kids who are barely literate (unlike some power programs), but you can be a below-average student and join those teams if you have athletic ability in a particular sport.

            I believe that is a reasonable comparison. Earlier, though, you compared Duke to the schools that do take the barely literate (the average state school). That’s why I was calling you on it without some evidence.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “However, it looks bad for a NW alum to claim the only reason they aren’t Duke is because Duke plays idiots that NW would never admit without any evidence that it is true.”

            Brian, did I say Duke only plays idiots or that the only reason NU isn’t Duke is because our academic standards for bball players are more stringent than their’s? No, so don’t put words in my mouth. It makes you look not only like a dick, but a dick with reading comprehension issues. It is, however, true that NU would never admit bball players of an academic quality that Duke would admit, so I’m not sure why you have a beef with that point.

            “Of course the players are well below the student body. That was never at issue. Your assertion that they are no different from an average state school is what was at issue.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “Yes, which is why I commented on it. You made another claim of how bad Duke’s standards were without providing any evidence.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “It’s nice that you’re certain, but that does no good if you don’t have a source for the rest of us. Otherwise it’s just a belief.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “What is the average for all state schools for the average SAT score? Do you know that Duke is near or below it? If not, it’s just another baseless accusation.”

            Since you’re too lazy to check to see whether I’m making a baseless accusation or whether you’re ignorant, I’ve decided to use Google for you:

            http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2008/12/28/acadmain_1228_3DOT.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

            Georgia’s average football SAT score is 949, which is 22nd out of 53 teams.

            Next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            “Unless you have evidence, I’m going to stick with Wilner’s numbers. There are two things he doesn’t provide, however:
            1. NW’s numbers
            2. The average for all state schools

            Without those numbers, you can’t support your accusations. It’s entirely possible than NC is better than most state schools.”

            Again, Brian, next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            Here’s a comment on the Wilner thread:
            “Ancient thread, but in the event anyone else stumbles across it . . . .

            @ lesliemedford – Stanford does indeed have the highest admission standard in Division 1A athletics, but it’s an overstatement to say it has “by far” the highest admission standards. The numbers I’ve seen put Northwestern only a hair’s breadth behind Stanford. Rice and Vanderbilt are also to be commended. See http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html. Yes, this data is for football and is old, but I believe it to be reasonably consistent with ongoing admissions practices. Duke, it should be pointed out, relaxed its football admission standards significantly in the early 2000s.

            My 2¢:

            – All D1 schools, obviously, relax admission standards for scholarship athletes.

            – You might criticize Stanford, Northwestern, Rice and Vanderbilt for giving scholarships to athletes who’d otherwise have little hope of getting into such selective schools, but you might also praise them for fielding 1A teams composed of athletes who are smarter than the average person on the street.

            – Boston College, Duke and Notre Dame may deserve praise for graduating their athletes, but the notion that they face severe recruiting restrictions because of academic standards is false (especially in the cases of Duke basketball and Notre Dame football). You could easily argue that the average Duke basketball player or Notre Dame football doesn’t belong at any four-year university, let alone a school like Duke or Notre Dame.

            – The academic programs for scholarship revenue-sport athletes at places such as Southern California and the non-Vandy SEC schools are an absolute joke.

            – Slightly OT: The Ivy League’s “no scholarship” stance is largely symbolic and semantic. Admission standards are relaxed to some degree at those schools too, and athletes obviously receive financial help in many cases, even if it’s not called an “athletic scholarship.” This is not to bash the Ivy League but rather to point out that they too are D1 schools (1AA). They’re not fielding DIII or club teams, where the typical athlete is far closer to the typical student at his or her school in terms of both athletic and academic ability.”

            “And I find that completely plausible. But without some evidence, you shouldn’t denigrate Duke. However, you should probably try to explain why Stanford has had periods of MBB success when NW never has. It clearly isn’t academic standards preventing it. It can’t be impossible to recruit MBB players to Chicago. There have to be some players that would rather stay closer to home than go to CA.”

            I have evidence. Just because you’re too lazy to look it up yourself doesn’t mean I shouldn’t denigrate Duke. it does mean that you should do your own Googling before baselessly accusing another person of making baseless accusations. It just makes you look bad. Also, why should I have to explain why Stanford has been more successful at bball than NU? Do you go up to PSU fans and demand that they explain why PSU is worse at bball than Maryland?

            “I believe that is a reasonable comparison. Earlier, though, you compared Duke to the schools that do take the barely literate (the average state school). That’s why I was calling you on it without some evidence.”

            However, their SAT scores for their bball players are similar. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they don’t take functionally illiterate kids. BTW, in the late ’90’s, ND’s standards were no higher than an average state school:
            http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “However, it looks bad for a NW alum to claim the only reason they aren’t Duke is because Duke plays idiots that NW would never admit without any evidence that it is true.”

            Brian, did I say Duke only plays idiots or that the only reason NU isn’t Duke is because our academic standards for bball players are more stringent than their’s? No, so don’t put words in my mouth. It makes you look not only like a dick, but a dick with reading comprehension issues. It is, however, true that NU would never admit bball players of an academic quality that Duke would admit, so I’m not sure why you have a beef with that point.

            “Of course the players are well below the student body. That was never at issue. Your assertion that they are no different from an average state school is what was at issue.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “Yes, which is why I commented on it. You made another claim of how bad Duke’s standards were without providing any evidence.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “It’s nice that you’re certain, but that does no good if you don’t have a source for the rest of us. Otherwise it’s just a belief.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “What is the average for all state schools for the average SAT score? Do you know that Duke is near or below it? If not, it’s just another baseless accusation.”

            Since you’re too lazy to check to see whether I’m making a baseless accusation or whether you’re ignorant, I’ve decided to use Google for you:

            http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2008/12/28/acadmain_1228_3DOT.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

            Georgia’s average football SAT score is 949, which is 22nd out of 53 teams.

            Next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            “Unless you have evidence, I’m going to stick with Wilner’s numbers. There are two things he doesn’t provide, however:
            1. NW’s numbers
            2. The average for all state schools

            Without those numbers, you can’t support your accusations. It’s entirely possible than NC is better than most state schools.”

            Again, Brian, next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            Here’s a comment on the Wilner thread:
            “Ancient thread, but in the event anyone else stumbles across it . . . .

            @ lesliemedford – Stanford does indeed have the highest admission standard in Division 1A athletics, but it’s an overstatement to say it has “by far” the highest admission standards. The numbers I’ve seen put Northwestern only a hair’s breadth behind Stanford. Rice and Vanderbilt are also to be commended. See http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html. Yes, this data is for football and is old, but I believe it to be reasonably consistent with ongoing admissions practices. Duke, it should be pointed out, relaxed its football admission standards significantly in the early 2000s.

            My 2¢:

            – All D1 schools, obviously, relax admission standards for scholarship athletes.

            – You might criticize Stanford, Northwestern, Rice and Vanderbilt for giving scholarships to athletes who’d otherwise have little hope of getting into such selective schools, but you might also praise them for fielding 1A teams composed of athletes who are smarter than the average person on the street.

            – Boston College, Duke and Notre Dame may deserve praise for graduating their athletes, but the notion that they face severe recruiting restrictions because of academic standards is false (especially in the cases of Duke basketball and Notre Dame football). You could easily argue that the average Duke basketball player or Notre Dame football doesn’t belong at any four-year university, let alone a school like Duke or Notre Dame.

            – The academic programs for scholarship revenue-sport athletes at places such as Southern California and the non-Vandy SEC schools are an absolute joke.

            – Slightly OT: The Ivy League’s “no scholarship” stance is largely symbolic and semantic. Admission standards are relaxed to some degree at those schools too, and athletes obviously receive financial help in many cases, even if it’s not called an “athletic scholarship.” This is not to bash the Ivy League but rather to point out that they too are D1 schools (1AA). They’re not fielding DIII or club teams, where the typical athlete is far closer to the typical student at his or her school in terms of both athletic and academic ability.”

            “And I find that completely plausible. But without some evidence, you shouldn’t denigrate Duke. However, you should probably try to explain why Stanford has had periods of MBB success when NW never has. It clearly isn’t academic standards preventing it. It can’t be impossible to recruit MBB players to Chicago. There have to be some players that would rather stay closer to home than go to CA.”

            I have evidence. Just because you’re too lazy to look it up yourself doesn’t mean I shouldn’t denigrate Duke. it does mean that you should do your own Googling before baselessly accusing another person of making baseless accusations. It just makes you look bad. Also, why should I have to explain why Stanford has been more successful at bball than NU? Do you go up to PSU fans and demand that they explain why PSU is worse at bball than Maryland?

            “I believe that is a reasonable comparison. Earlier, though, you compared Duke to the schools that do take the barely literate (the average state school). That’s why I was calling you on it without some evidence.”

            However, their SAT scores for their bball players are similar. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they don’t take functionally illiterate kids. BTW, in the late ’90’s, ND’s standards were no higher than an average state school (look at the link posted).

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “However, it looks bad for a NW alum to claim the only reason they aren’t Duke is because Duke plays idiots that NW would never admit without any evidence that it is true.”

            Brian, did I say Duke only plays idiots or that the only reason NU isn’t Duke is because our academic standards for bball players are more stringent than their’s? No, so don’t put words in my mouth. It makes you look not only like a dick, but a dick with reading comprehension issues. It is, however, true that NU would never admit bball players of an academic quality that Duke would admit, so I’m not sure why you have a beef with that point.

            “Of course the players are well below the student body. That was never at issue. Your assertion that they are no different from an average state school is what was at issue.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “Yes, which is why I commented on it. You made another claim of how bad Duke’s standards were without providing any evidence.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “It’s nice that you’re certain, but that does no good if you don’t have a source for the rest of us. Otherwise it’s just a belief.”

            And I put out the evidence.

            “What is the average for all state schools for the average SAT score? Do you know that Duke is near or below it? If not, it’s just another baseless accusation.”

            Since you’re too lazy to check to see whether I’m making a baseless accusation or whether you’re ignorant, I’ve decided to use Google for you:

            http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2008/12/28/acadmain_1228_3DOT.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

            Georgia’s average football SAT score is 949, which is 22nd out of 53 teams.

            Next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Unless you have evidence, I’m going to stick with Wilner’s numbers. There are two things he doesn’t provide, however:
            1. NW’s numbers
            2. The average for all state schools

            Without those numbers, you can’t support your accusations. It’s entirely possible than NC is better than most state schools.”

            Again, Brian, next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            Here’s a comment on the Wilner thread:
            “Ancient thread, but in the event anyone else stumbles across it . . . .

            @ lesliemedford – Stanford does indeed have the highest admission standard in Division 1A athletics, but it’s an overstatement to say it has “by far” the highest admission standards. The numbers I’ve seen put Northwestern only a hair’s breadth behind Stanford. Rice and Vanderbilt are also to be commended. See http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html. Yes, this data is for football and is old, but I believe it to be reasonably consistent with ongoing admissions practices. Duke, it should be pointed out, relaxed its football admission standards significantly in the early 2000s.

            My 2¢:

            – All D1 schools, obviously, relax admission standards for scholarship athletes.

            – You might criticize Stanford, Northwestern, Rice and Vanderbilt for giving scholarships to athletes who’d otherwise have little hope of getting into such selective schools, but you might also praise them for fielding 1A teams composed of athletes who are smarter than the average person on the street.

            – Boston College, Duke and Notre Dame may deserve praise for graduating their athletes, but the notion that they face severe recruiting restrictions because of academic standards is false (especially in the cases of Duke basketball and Notre Dame football). You could easily argue that the average Duke basketball player or Notre Dame football doesn’t belong at any four-year university, let alone a school like Duke or Notre Dame.

            – The academic programs for scholarship revenue-sport athletes at places such as Southern California and the non-Vandy SEC schools are an absolute joke.

            – Slightly OT: The Ivy League’s “no scholarship” stance is largely symbolic and semantic. Admission standards are relaxed to some degree at those schools too, and athletes obviously receive financial help in many cases, even if it’s not called an “athletic scholarship.” This is not to bash the Ivy League but rather to point out that they too are D1 schools (1AA). They’re not fielding DIII or club teams, where the typical athlete is far closer to the typical student at his or her school in terms of both athletic and academic ability.”

            “And I find that completely plausible. But without some evidence, you shouldn’t denigrate Duke. However, you should probably try to explain why Stanford has had periods of MBB success when NW never has. It clearly isn’t academic standards preventing it. It can’t be impossible to recruit MBB players to Chicago. There have to be some players that would rather stay closer to home than go to CA.”

            I have evidence. Just because you’re too lazy to look it up yourself doesn’t mean I shouldn’t denigrate Duke. it does mean that you should do your own Googling before baselessly accusing another person of making baseless accusations. It just makes you look bad. Also, why should I have to explain why Stanford has been more successful at bball than NU? Do you go up to PSU fans and demand that they explain why PSU is worse at bball than Maryland?

            “I believe that is a reasonable comparison. Earlier, though, you compared Duke to the schools that do take the barely literate (the average state school). That’s why I was calling you on it without some evidence.”

            However, their SAT scores for their bball players are similar. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they don’t take functionally illiterate kids. BTW, in the late ’90’s, ND’s standards were no higher than an average state school:
            http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Unless you have evidence, I’m going to stick with Wilner’s numbers. There are two things he doesn’t provide, however:
            1. NW’s numbers
            2. The average for all state schools

            Without those numbers, you can’t support your accusations. It’s entirely possible than NC is better than most state schools.”

            Again, Brian, next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            Here’s a comment on the Wilner thread:
            “Ancient thread, but in the event anyone else stumbles across it . . . .

            @ lesliemedford – Stanford does indeed have the highest admission standard in Division 1A athletics, but it’s an overstatement to say it has “by far” the highest admission standards. The numbers I’ve seen put Northwestern only a hair’s breadth behind Stanford. Rice and Vanderbilt are also to be commended. See http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html. Yes, this data is for football and is old, but I believe it to be reasonably consistent with ongoing admissions practices. Duke, it should be pointed out, relaxed its football admission standards significantly in the early 2000s.

            My 2¢:

            – All D1 schools, obviously, relax admission standards for scholarship athletes.

            – You might criticize Stanford, Northwestern, Rice and Vanderbilt for giving scholarships to athletes who’d otherwise have little hope of getting into such selective schools, but you might also praise them for fielding 1A teams composed of athletes who are smarter than the average person on the street.

            – Boston College, Duke and Notre Dame may deserve praise for graduating their athletes, but the notion that they face severe recruiting restrictions because of academic standards is false (especially in the cases of Duke basketball and Notre Dame football). You could easily argue that the average Duke basketball player or Notre Dame football doesn’t belong at any four-year university, let alone a school like Duke or Notre Dame.

            – The academic programs for scholarship revenue-sport athletes at places such as Southern California and the non-Vandy SEC schools are an absolute joke.

            – Slightly OT: The Ivy League’s “no scholarship” stance is largely symbolic and semantic. Admission standards are relaxed to some degree at those schools too, and athletes obviously receive financial help in many cases, even if it’s not called an “athletic scholarship.” This is not to bash the Ivy League but rather to point out that they too are D1 schools (1AA). They’re not fielding DIII or club teams, where the typical athlete is far closer to the typical student at his or her school in terms of both athletic and academic ability.”

            “And I find that completely plausible. But without some evidence, you shouldn’t denigrate Duke. However, you should probably try to explain why Stanford has had periods of MBB success when NW never has. It clearly isn’t academic standards preventing it. It can’t be impossible to recruit MBB players to Chicago. There have to be some players that would rather stay closer to home than go to CA.”

            I have evidence. Just because you’re too lazy to look it up yourself doesn’t mean I shouldn’t denigrate Duke. it does mean that you should do your own Googling before baselessly accusing another person of making baseless accusations. It just makes you look bad. Also, why should I have to explain why Stanford has been more successful at bball than NU? Do you go up to PSU fans and demand that they explain why PSU is worse at bball than Maryland?

            “I believe that is a reasonable comparison. Earlier, though, you compared Duke to the schools that do take the barely literate (the average state school). That’s why I was calling you on it without some evidence.”

            However, their SAT scores for their bball players are similar. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they don’t take functionally illiterate kids. BTW, in the late ’90’s, ND’s standards were no higher than an average state school (see link above).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            First, let me say that it’s great how often you prove your parents chose well in naming you Dick.

            Brian, did I say Duke only plays idiots or that the only reason NU isn’t Duke is because our academic standards for bball players are more stringent than their’s?

            Yes, you did. Not in those specific words, which is why i didn’t quote you. You said they will take a “below-average student,” which based on the total population of college students is someone I’d consider an idiot for the common usage of the word (especially when discussing students at elite academics institutions). You also only mention the alleged difference in academic standards for athletes as a reason why the Duke MBB comparison to NW doesn’t reflect as badly on NW. If you had any other reasons why that comparison shouldn’t reflect poorly on NW, you neglected to mention them.

            It is, however, true that NU would never admit bball players of an academic quality that Duke would admit, so I’m not sure why you have a beef with that point.

            As I clearly stated, I don’t have a problem with that concept. I have a problem with you stating it as fact without providing any supporting evidence.

            And I put out the evidence.

            After I mentioned your complete lack of evidence, you provide some data that doesn’t directly support your point. It’s better than nothing, but numbers for Duke, UNC and Stanford don’t say anything about how NW or the “average state school” compare.

            Since you’re too lazy to check to see whether I’m making a baseless accusation or whether you’re ignorant, I’ve decided to use Google for you:

            You made the claim, so it is your job to provide the supporting evidence. It is never the audience’s job to track down the data to confirm or refute your statements. Since I made no counter claim that you were factually wrong, my reply can’t show ignorance on my part. I stated that you hadn’t proven your point, and you still haven’t.

            In yet another reply you give a second source that provides a reasonable approximation to one of the missing numbers I pointed out in your first source. That’s three levels in and there is still a complete lack of data on NW athletes.

            So far you’ve shown that athletes have worse credentials than regular students at all schools, that Stanford >> Duke > UNC, and that Duke > an average state school.

            You have claimed that NW > Duke (you make it sound like >>) and that UNC > Duke at some point. You have yet to provide any numbers that would support those positions.

            Next time, you mind checking to see whether an accusation I’m making is baseless or not before making your own baseless accusation?

            I didn’t make any accusation, baseless or not, and your accusation is still baseless because you haven’t provided any supporting evidence. I’m not saying you are wrong, but I have no way of actually knowing whether you’re correct at this point. You made the claim, so you should either provide evidence or indicate that it is your opinion.

            Here’s a comment on the Wilner thread:

            Yes, here is your key evidence. A comment on a trustworthy blog that links to a Stanford blog on Scout.com that presents information from 1997. According to their analysis of FB teams, NW is #2 and Duke is #4 and both are well above the level of the average state school. Is that your big evidence for how much harder NW is than Duke? Being #4 is a bad thing?

            I have evidence. Just because you’re too lazy to look it up yourself

            After several requests for facts, you finally managed to show that Duke was #4 in the country. Somehow that means NW can’t compete since they were #2 for admissions standards for athletes in that same time period. Is 2 spots really the difference between multiple National Championships and never making the NCAA tournament?

            Also, why should I have to explain why Stanford has been more successful at bball than NU?

            You shold explain that because you used admission standards as the basis for explaining why Duke outperforms NW in MBB. Since you admit that Stanford has even tougher admissions policies, it requires some explanation why Stanford has been to multiple NCAA tournaments while NW has never been there.

            Perhaps there are more important factors that factor into the success at both Duke and Stanford versus the continual failure at NW.

            Do you go up to PSU fans and demand that they explain why PSU is worse at bball than Maryland?

            Only if they gave some excuse for why PSU was failing to reach a reasonable level of achievement, and the supporting data showed that MD was even more hindered by that fact.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Yes, you did. Not in those specific words, which is why i didn’t quote you.”

            Which means I didn’t. Look Brian, you’ve made it clear that you have reading comprehension issues and would prefer to make up fantasies about what I think rather than what I actually said. No need to keep pointing that out.

            “I didn’t make any accusation, baseless or not . .”

            You accused me of calling Duke bball players “idiots”. Maybe to you, “below average” = “idiot”, but since I don’t think the same, you did make a baseless accusation. Thinking more about it, Brian, by your standards, I’d have to consider you an “idiot” from now on. Are you sure you still want to equate “below average” = “idiot”? Oh, and BTW, I said some Duke players must be below average academically, not all.

            Here are the facts, Brian:
            Stanford bball average SAT: 1123
            Stanford football average SAT in 1997: 1108
            Northwestern football average SAT in 1997: 1102
            Duke football average SAT in 1997: 1068

            Duke bball average SAT: 968
            UNC bball average SAT: 918
            average football SAT (in 1997): somewhere between 915 (WSU) and 925 (ND).

            With the average Duke bball SAT score just above average, is it so hard to believe that some Duke bball players are below average academically? Is it so hard to believe that those would be the athletes who can ball, and not the backups?

            BTW, Duke bball’s average SAT scores are actually closer to the 88th school’s (out of 108 schools), Tennessee, average football SAT scores than they are to Northwestern football’s SAT scores.

            “You shold explain that because you used admission standards as the basis for explaining why Duke outperforms NW in MBB.”

            Again, Brian, you’re showing that you’re good at jumping to conclusions and not very good at reading comprehension. I said that I don’t want NU to be like Duke. You interpret that mean that I give that as an excuse for why NU bball isn’t as good as Duke’s. You may do that if you like, but if you could wrap your brain around the concept that maybe I’m not giving an excuse and rather am simply stating that I don’t want my school to be like Duke, then maybe you’d understand why I’m pissed at you for putting words in my mouth.

            “Only if they gave some excuse for why PSU was failing to reach a reasonable level of achievement, and the supporting data showed that MD was even more hindered by that fact.”

            Except that Duke isn’t more hindered. So not only do you fail reading comprehension, but you also fail logic, Brian.

            You know, I’m getting a kick out of this. Am I sadistic?

            Like

        • Richard says:

          . . . which is also why I don’t think Jeff should let Duke’s bball success drive him nuts. NU could adopt the same strategy Duke has in bball, but I prefer that we try to win with integrity.

          Stanford has done well, and hats off to them, but they have a few advantages over NU. Certainly, if I had had the choice between attending Stanford in the Bay Area and NU besides frozen Lake Michigan, I don’t think it would have been a tough decision.

          Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            Well stated. Actually, I’m more curious as to why we haven’t had a year of singular acceptable success (maybe we did in ’95 but we still lost to Keyshawn’s Trojans – what a jerk). Can’t we at least win ONE bowl game or make the NCAA basketball tournament ONCE? Why do we have to be the ONLY team in D1 not having made the tourney?

            I know it’s not easy; Hell, look at the Illini (what a failure that is – and I also have a degree from there, so that’s not a potshot). It goes without saying that if we ever did it, we’d do it the right way. Still, based on the potential we show, coupled with the lack of ultimate success, every now and then I have to get talked off the ledge.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        OSU had a big lead until the QB got hurt in the second half. As bad as the OSU offense is, it couldn’t afford to lose Miller on top of the players that were suspended. Also, NE seemed a little more excited about playing OSU.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          The late game defensive melt downs can’t be blamed on the anemic offense. They did the same thing against Wisconsin.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I do blame the offense. The D gets tired when the O can’t sustain any possessions. That’s why TOP matters.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            It has happened in too many games where the O was at least somewhat effectively moving the ball. The D hasn’t looked tired…they’ve looked positively lost & befuddled. That fault lies squarely on their (and the defensive coaching staff’s) shoulders. Outside of the front 4 this is a defense that is not getting the job done.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            We were talking specifically about late game meltdowns by the D. That’s happened twice – NE (which he asked about specifically) and WI (which you mentioned). In both games the D was working fine before falling apart. One symptom of fatigue is a loss of focus, so young players start to miss assignments or get confused by different looks. That’s different than them stinking all game against IN, for example.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            And in those two games Ohio State had lead 2nd half TOP 17 1/2 to 12 1/2 min in one and had a 14 to 16 min deficit in the other. I neither case was the defense on the field for extremely long periods of times. Two of Nebraska’s TD’s were drives of under a minute and if you take away the final drive of the 4th quarter Nebraska didn’t have the ball much longer than Ohio State.

            Fatigue had nothing to do with the collapse in either one of those games.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Of course it didn’t. It’s pure coincidence that a defense that was doing well before suddenly falls apart at the end. I’m sure NE and WI saved all their good plays until they were way down late in the game.

            Like

  58. metatron5369 says:

    There’s not a lot of separation in the Big Ten this year, well, except for Minnesota and Indiana.

    I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing, but it makes for interesting TV. At least until bowl season comes around…

    Like

    • redwood86 says:

      Yep, all the teams are mediocre, or worse.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        You seem to have the BE and B10 confused.

        The B10 has 6-7 good teams but no great ones. The B10 already has 8 bowl eligible teams with 3 weeks left.

        Like

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      Brian, have you noticed that over the last ten years, during the B1G’s down years, they already do exceptionally well during bowl season, then everyone notes how underrated we were in passing? It’s been tOSU’s failure to beat an SEC team that has gotten us demoted in the public’s view.

      Can you believe not a single of our teams will likely be in the BCS top 10 this week? That’s ridiculous; we are much better than that.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Jeff,

        The B10’s bowl record hasn’t been great lately. Part of that is the difficulty of the pairings, but part is also a lack of production from several teams. OSU’s 2 NCG losses hurt the reputation, but overall OSU has been a leader in bowl success. Things like 1/1/11 are what really hurt. The B10 has really suffered from not having other teams step up to OSU’s level. The B10 needs to have a winning bowl record again, including at least 1 win over the SEC.

        I can believe nobody is in the top 10 next week because the top team with 2 losses is #17 right now (MSU). That leaves PSU as the only candidate, and PSU has been ugly all year. PSU will still be in the top 15 with NE, WI and MSU all close behind. PSU can easily climb up if they start winning their last 3 games. Honestly, nobody in the B10 deserves to be in the top 10 right now. I can find 10 better teams elsewhere.

        Like

        • greg says:

          Iowa under Kirk is 6-3 in bowls, 3-1 vs. the SEC. So we’re pulling our weight.

          Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            I’d like to tease the data, but I believe there’s a pretty clear demarcation between recent years when expectations were higher versus lower. In any event, Wisky and Iowa have done quite well; it’s too bad our Princes haven’t risen to the level of having a title shot when they’ve been especially good and our kings haven’t. OSUs record speaks for itself (0-9, not including the vacated victory against Arkansas).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I took the high road and didn’t name names. The offenders know who they are, and they don’t all wear purple.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Big Ten Jeff,

            OSUs record speaks for itself (0-9, not including the vacated victory against Arkansas).

            Yes, it does. And for the purposes of reputation, the vacated win still counts since a loss would be held against the B10.

            OSU – 1-2 in National Championship Games, 6-3 in BCS bowls, 1-2 in other bowls
            Bowl losses to SEC – Tressel 1-3, Cooper 0-5 (3-3 against others), Hayes 0-1

            Other B10 – 0 NCG, 5-9 in BCS bowls
            MI – 1-3
            WI – 2-1
            IA – 1-1
            PSU – 1-1
            IL – 0-2
            PU – 0-1

            Like

  59. greg says:

    Iowa > UM

    Now 6-0 at home 0-3 on the road. Slightly above average team who can do enough to protect the home field. Hopefully it holds up against MSU next week!

    Like

    • jj says:

      It seems our paths to football happinesss have crossed yet again. This is a big one.
      I swear to god I will throw my tv out if 2010 repeats itself. We’ve come too far this time to be denied. We’ve already dropped our required road turd. But its still early for a prediction – other than dogs will be kicked somewhere when the dust clears.

      Like

  60. Jeepers says:

    In case you missed it, they did a cool story about college football bars in NYC during halftime of the RU/USF game. Don’t know if it’ll ever be online.

    In related news, I’ve been keeping a list of colleges I see represented while walking around the city. Doesn’t mean much, but it has been interesting and keeps me busy.

    Like

  61. Playoffs Now says:

    Really enjoying the Overthrows of the Century, Timeout Call of the Century, Encroachment of the Century, and blown Blocking Assignments of the Century.

    Sure hope these 2 teams can play 10 more times for the national championship, rather than, ya know, see if they can beat the best team outside of the incestuous SEC…

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I think the calls for a rematch will die with the lack of entertainment value in this game unless the second half is a lot different. If it was a 27-24 (final) type of game more people would want to see it again.

      Like

    • jj says:

      Is sabin’s hair perfect? That’s really the most important thing.

      Like

  62. Brian says:

    3-3 at half in the “game of the century?” I’m glad I’m not watching that.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Brian,

      You should like it, It means defense, and a running game. I remember watching that Mississippi – Auburn game a few years ago that ended 3 – 2. I was a lineman tho so I like games in the trenches.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        There are some good 3-3 games, but most are full of unimaginative offense, penalties and turnovers. A quick look at the stats show AL is 1/4 on field goals. How exciting.

        If this was just a generic game, I might like it more. After all the hype about this being the true NCG, I’m underwhelmed.

        These are 2 good defenses, but neither offense is very impressive to me.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          3 missed field goals were from 44, 50, and 49 yards, which is due to both defenses letting the opposing offense in to the red zone once each during regulation (from my memory).

          Very few offenses in college football would look impressive against these defenses.

          Like

          • M says:

            Here are the offenses that have scored 6 or more points against Alabama or LSU:

            Kent State
            Penn State
            Arkansas
            Florida x 2
            Mississippi
            Tennessee x 2
            Oregon
            Mississippi State
            WVU
            Kentucky

            I don’t deny that LSU and Alabama have excellent defenses, but their offenses are horrifically bad.

            Like

          • 84Lion says:

            Not to be snarky, but if the LSU and Alabama offenses are “horrifically bad,” then why did LSU and Alabama head into their game with undefeated records? Obviously both teams scored enough to win all their games.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            84Lion,

            Not to be snarky, but if the LSU and Alabama offenses are “horrifically bad,” then why did LSU and Alabama head into their game with undefeated records? Obviously both teams scored enough to win all their games.

            I wouldn’t say they are horrifically bad, but both passing games are weak. A main reason both teams are undefeated is because their defenses keep them from needing to do a lot on offense.

            As M points out, though, AL has given up more than 6 points in regulation to 5 teams. LSU has given up more than 6 to 6 teams. I realize some of these scores came late against back ups, but both OR and WV had a lot of success against LSU for example. Perhaps one of the reasons SEC defenses look so good is because they aren’t facing a lot of top offenses.

            LSU has the second highest scoring offense in the SEC, but they don’t have a QB. AL is #3. If those were 2 of the 3 best offenses in the SEC, perhaps that partially explains the stats defenses put up in the SEC. In SEC games, AL is #1 and LSU #2 in scoring and that’s after last night.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Top quality defenses and Richardson’s probably the best RB in college football now. The reason why this game isn’t high scoring is because you need NFL-quality QB’s to score against these defenses (which ‘Bama and LSU don’t have).

      I’d really like to see Kellen Moore (or even Luck) against either of these defenses, though.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        No you just need a competent passing offense which neither of these teams have.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Quite hard to have a competent passing offense against a stellar defense with mediocre QB’s, though granted, I am mystified by why neither coach cared to give their QB’s outlets most of the time.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      This is perfect. The follow up an exciting 3-3 first half with a scintillating 3-3 second half, and the road team wins 9-6 in OT after the home team misses another FG.

      There’s no need for a rematch when the home team loses and nobody scores a TD.

      Like

    • Bo Darville says:

      You’d think that after oversigning that much that either team would be able to score a td.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The ASU/UCLA game had a really strange ending which most people probably missed since it was opposite the boring game of the century. UCLA who runs all the time made a 3rd and 29 pass to lead to a TD in the final minute, but missed the 2 point conversion 29-28. ASU’s receiver, with 1 timeout left after getting a 1st down near mid-field throws the ball out of bounds with 21 seconds left for a penalty which also runs 10 seconds off the clock per new rules. ASU has to lose their timeout. Replay-he was down when he made the illegal forward pass (which of course was completely unnecessary). And ASU didn’t have to take a timeout and ASU is already lined up when the clock starts, so they saved 2-3 seconds with a spike or 5 seconds with a play. There was some bad clock management and bad defense but suddenly they are on the 30 with 4 seconds left down 1. They miss the 47 yard FG as time expires.

        Mack Brown and Texas want to be more like Alabama and LSU. Basically Mack doesn’t want to have to rely on one player–having a Major Applewhite, Chis Simms, Vince Young, Colt McCoy. Texas threw only 9 times against Tech vs. 54 runs-and scored every time they had the ball except when running out the last 30 seconds or so of the two halves. Are we heading to the power teams trying to run over people like the 70s instead of out-quicking them with explosive offenses? I wouldn’t be surprised if the last time Texas threw the ball less than 10 times was when Darrell Royal was coach. Less than 20 has been pretty rare since the Fred Akers era.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Bullet,

          UCLA/ASU was a very entertaining game. I enjoyed it.

          I think part of the change in offense is the standard cycle of CFB. When everyone is moving to spread principles, power offenses are rare and harder for a defense to prepare for. Also, power is often the best way to oppose a defense built on speed. I think the bigger thing is that UT hasn’t had a solid running game for several years, so Mack is trying to get back to having a power running game in the mix. It’s not like he had to keep a QB superstar underwraps to run that much.

          Like

  63. Michael in Raleigh says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7197599/missouri-move-sec-planned-week-source-says

    We might finally have something substantial here with the Missouri-to-SEC business.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      They still have that pesky issue of the B12 needing 10 teams for 2012 and the BE not letting WV go. I fully believe MO has decided to move, but until I hear all the details explained I won’t believe they’re going for 2012.

      Like

  64. Brian says:

    So my guess at the BCS standings:
    1. LSU
    2. OkSU
    3. Stanford
    4. AL
    5. Boise

    AL may only drop to 3, but I think Stanford will squeeze past them.

    Like

  65. Brian says:

    BCS preview:

    ACC – Clemson over VT
    BE – UC (2 game lead)
    B10 – OSU over NE (complete homer pick)
    B12 – OU
    P12 – OR over ASU
    SEC – LSU over GA
    Other – Boise and Houston still perfect

    For sure at larges:
    12-0 Boise
    11-1 AL
    11-1 OkSU

    Maybes:
    12-0 Houston
    11-1 Stanford
    11-2 VT
    10-2 MSU
    10-2 WI

    BCS – LSU/OU
    Rose – OSU/OR
    Fiesta – OkSU/Boise
    Sugar – AL/NE
    Orange – Clemson/UC

    The second pick for the Sugar is the toughest choice. I’m guessing they take the biggest name on the board.

    Notes:
    1. If OkSU beats OU, they just swap places.
    2. If Stanford beats OR, Stanford goes to the NCG if OkSU loses and the Rose if OkSU wins out. 10-2 OR would not be an at large.
    3. If VT wins the ACC, they swap with Clemson (GT can’t be an at large)
    4. If any of the maybes gets an extra loss they are out
    5. I think the Sugar is the B10’s best shot at a second bid, with the exception of the Fiesta making an OU/NE match up if it’s possible

    Like

    • Robber Baron says:

      I think a 10-2 Oregon would be an at-large if Stanford goes to the BCS CG. The Rose Bowl would take them to replace the Pac-12 champ. They took a 9-3 Illinois not too long ago.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Yeah, the Rose Bowl hates having any matchup besides PAC-B1G. It’s one of the reasons they were willing to support a separate BCS NC (which meant the Rose Bowl game would never again feature a national champ), since it basically guaranteed them a PAC-B1G game three years out of four.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Robber Baron,

        I agree. I meant they wouldn’t be one if Stanford went to the Rose. I just assume the Rose will always take a conference replacement for any team they lose. I apologize for not stating that more clearly.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Things are really setting up nicely for Arkansas. We could have a 2007 Big 12 South all over again. Highly unlikely LSU or Arkansas loses before they meet (WKU/@Ole Miss, TN,MSU at home). With road games against MSU and Auburn, Alabama has a tougher road.

      Like

    • redwood86 says:

      Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl cannot take a Big-10 team unless it is ranked #14 or better in the BCS standings. So, the likes of Nebraska and Wisconsin have their work cut out for them.

      And your defense of the BiG this year based upon bowl eligibility is lame. Most conference teams (OSU duly excepted) schedule 4 cream puff OOC games (at home) every season. So it then just takes a 2-6 or 3-5 conference record to become bowl-eligible. That defines mediocrity. This is how Northwestern has been getting to bowl games the past few years.

      I would argue that this type of scheduling really worked against Wisconsin this season. Had they even played a somewhat competitive road game before MSU they would have been better prepared for battle.

      Like

      • Peter says:

        Wisconsin can go 10-2 and climb to 14 or better just by winning out, with either PSU winning 2/3 or WI in a tie with OSU not letting WI go to the CCG. Since they can’t go to the CCG, they can’t lose there, and so will remain eligible. If MSU wins out, Nebraska can also finish 10-2 and not go to the CCG.

        So its not actually that hard for it to happen, as neither controls their own destiny. If OSU wins out, it’s possible that BOTH Wisconsin & Nebraska can quality at 10-2 without going to the CCG (by both mauling Penn State).

        Like

        • Peter says:

          Michigan could theoretically do 10-2/miss CCG/go to BCS as well because they don’t control their own destiny either due to MSU.

          Ironically, MSU is the only one who can ONLY go to the Rose Bowl, due to controlling their own destiny with two losses. They lose at any point, they not only will not go to the Rose, they will drop at least to the CapOne bowl.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        redwood86,

        Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl cannot take a Big-10 team unless it is ranked #14 or better in the BCS standings. So, the likes of Nebraska and Wisconsin have their work cut out for them.

        Continued winning will move the B10 teams up the ranks. The coaches’ poll has 3 B10 teams in the top 14, plus #17 and #21 (no BCS rankings yet). #13 MSU (@ #31 IA, IN, @ NW) and #14 WI (@ MN, @ IL, #12 PSU) have favorable schedules to win out, while #17 NE has the chance to beat #12 PSU, #21 MI and #31 IA and #21 MI plays #17 NE and #29 OSU. So both MSU and WI have good odds of staying in the top 14, while NE and MI both have a chance to climb back up there by winning out. #12 PSU has the hardest schedule (#17 NE, @ #29 OSU, @ #14 WI) but might be able to afford 1 loss and get in the top 14.

        There are way too many variables to predict what will happen (losses for other top 20 teams, etc), but it is certainly possible for the B10 to have multiple top 14 teams.

        And your defense of the BiG this year based upon bowl eligibility is lame. Most conference teams (OSU duly excepted) schedule 4 cream puff OOC games (at home) every season. So it then just takes a 2-6 or 3-5 conference record to become bowl-eligible. That defines mediocrity.

        I’d largely agree with your position if I made that argument at the end of the season. However, I made it after 9 games, meaning the B10 has 8 of 12 teams at 6-3 or better. FYI, 7 of the 8 have a winning conference record (3-2 or better). As a comparison, the ACC has 6/12, the BE has 3/8, the B12 has 4/10, the P12 has 5/12 and the SEC has 6/12.

        As for OOC games:
        Bowl eligible
        OSU – Miami, CO
        PSU – AL
        WI – OrSU
        IL – ASU
        MSU – ND
        MI – ND
        NE – UW
        IA – ISU, Pitt
        Not bowl eligible
        IN – UVA
        MN – USC
        NW – BC
        PU – ND

        Nobody played 4 cream puffs in 2011. Do B10 teams play more home games than P12 teams? Yes. The 9 game schedule plays a role in that, as does the more fervent fan support in the midwest. Do B10 teams play fewer BCS opponents? Yes. Again, that is partially due to the 9 game schedule. Remember that the B10 is headed to 9 conference games, which will make the schedules more similar.

        Let’s look at the P12 as a comparison:
        Bowl eligible
        Stanford – ND, Duke
        OR – LSU
        UW – NE
        USC – MN, Syracuse, ND
        ASU – MO, IL
        Not bowl eligible
        WSU – nobody
        OrSU – WI, BYU
        Cal – CO
        UCLA – TX, Houston
        AZ – OkSU
        Utah – BYU, Pitt
        CO – Cal, OSU

        If you count the better non-AQs and bad AQs (which I did here), then the P12 plays 1.5 decent teams per school versus 1 for the B10. USC is the only school that really pushed themselves, and their AQs were fairly weak.

        I would argue that this type of scheduling really worked against Wisconsin this season. Had they even played a somewhat competitive road game before MSU they would have been better prepared for battle.

        If OrSU wasn’t so bad, WI would have been more prepared for MSU by playing a tougher OOC game. The game is at OrSU next year, so they didn’t have a tougher road game this year. In fact, WI has a P12 road game in each of the next 3 seasons. Do you think playing at Duke prepared Stanford for anything? Some years your first road game is a tough one, and some years it isn’t. You can’t always change that.

        Like

        • redwood86 says:

          Are you trying to claim that 1.5 v. 1.0 is not a statistically significant difference? Really? I would say Oregon, Oregon St., UCLA, and ASU pushed themselves. Oregon’s LSU game was kind of last-minute for the purposes of getting to the NC. Oregon St. and USC historically often play two very tough OOC teams – this year is a bit anomalous. USC is on probation and who knew BYU would be pretty lame? UCLA, UW, and ASU always play at least one really tough one, and sometimes two. So does Stanford, as long as ND is good (basically the equivalent of Purdue and MSU). Utah and CO are new, so I am not familiar with them. The biggest lame-ass OOC scheduler in the Pac-12 has always been Cal.

          But anyway, to your point on bowl eligibility, you acknowledge that the Big-10 teams generally schedule almost-guaranteed 3 wins. That means 3-5 conference record is what it takes to become bowl-eligible – assuming a loss in the one tough game. This year a lot of teams have 3 conference wins already because of parity and 2-3 (depends on how you view Purdue) really bad teams. You argue that parity signifies a lot of good teams beating each other up. I argue that the parity indicates a lot of mediocre teams beating each other up. And my argument cannot be easily dismissed.

          Regarding Wisconsin, the future is not the past or present. I am very happy that Wisconsin will be deigning to visit Pac-12 stadiums going forward, because I don’t think (aside from the Rose Bowl) that they ever have in the last 25 years. The fact is that when choosing Pac-12 teams to play, Wisconsin aims for the middle not the top. It is also a fact that MSU was Wisconsin’s 1st road game of this season, and it was their 7th game! You may diss the relevance of Stanford visiting Duke (it visited Wake 2 years ago) in terms of prep, but playing a road game like that (a la at Fresno St. by Wisconsin a couple of years ago) does prepare one for the travel routine (long flight, jet lag, etc.), hostile environment, and often uncomfortable weather that comes with road games. Wisconsin would have learned the hard way this year, had they gone 13-0, that OOC scheduling matters if you want to win an NC. I hope they learned the lesson anyway.

          Like

          • greg says:

            redwood, the computer rankings have a consensus with B10 as the 3rd best conference in the country.

            Like

          • greg says:

            redwood, I’d also love to see any proof that the entire conference schedules “4 cream puff OOC games (at home) every season”. Go over the last 10 seasons and find every Big Ten team with 4 OOC cream puff home games in a single season. It will probably take a while. Let alone your lie that they do it “every season”.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Go over the last 10 seasons and find every Big Ten team with 4 OOC cream puff home games in a single season. It will probably take a while. Let alone your lie that they do it “every season”.

            —Well except for Wisconsin.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Wisconsin is a terrible scheduler, but even the worst team in the conference doesn’t do what redwood was claiming. 2011 NIU at Chicago, 2010 @ UNLV, 2009 at Hawaii, 2008 at Fresno St., 2007 at UNLV, 2006 BGSU in Cleveland, 2005 at North Carolina, 2004 at Arizona, 2003 at West Virginia, 2002 at UNLV, 2001 at Oregon.

            Wisky loves them some UNLV.
            http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Wisconsin.htm

            Like

          • Brian says:

            redwood86,

            Are you trying to claim that 1.5 v. 1.0 is not a statistically significant difference?

            No, I wasn’t at the time but I could make that argument. Subtract non-AQs and known cellar dwellers from each side and it gets closer. On top of that, subtract CO/Cal since playing 10 conference teams is an anomaly and the game is double counted for the P12. Now the numbers are almost equal (10 vs 12), and the P12 has 2 teams with no decent AQ OOC while the B10 has none.

            I would say Oregon, Oregon St., UCLA, and ASU pushed themselves.

            OR only played LSU. That’s the same 1 good OOC game you are complaining about the B10 playing.

            Ignoring the Cal/CO game, the only P12 teams with 2 or more AQs were:

            ASU – MO and IL
            Stanford – Duke and ND
            USC – MN, Syracuse and ND

            I give ASU credit for their schedule, but Duke, MN and SU barely qualify as AQ opponents for a decent team.

            Oregon St. and USC historically often play two very tough OOC teams – this year is a bit anomalous.

            [snip a paragraph to continue on this point]

            Regarding Wisconsin, the future is not the past or present.

            So the past counts for the P12, but next year is meaningless for the B10. OK, that seems fair.

            I am very happy that Wisconsin will be deigning to visit Pac-12 stadiums going forward, because I don’t think (aside from the Rose Bowl) that they ever have in the last 25 years.

            WI road games at the P10 in the past 25 years:
            2004 AZ
            2001 OR
            1995 Stanford
            1992 UW
            1989 Cal

            Four of those were parts of a home and home, while the UW game was a one off (someone probably bought out the contract for the other game).

            WI also plays 2012 at OrSU, 2013 at ASU, 2014 at WSU and 2018 at UW.

            The fact is that when choosing Pac-12 teams to play, Wisconsin aims for the middle not the top.

            So now, the B10 has to not only play more AQs but also restrict themselves to the top of each conference? OR was preseason #7 in 2001. UW was preseason #2 in 1992. OrSU has been competing for the P10 title lately. Or when you say top of the P10 do you mean only USC?

            Everyone here would agree that WI has a reputation for scheduling lightly OOC. Unfortunately for your argument, they played a P12 team this year.

            It is also a fact that MSU was Wisconsin’s 1st road game of this season, and it was their 7th game!

            First, WI has no control over when their first conference road game will appear. It could just as easily have been week 5. Second, played NIU in Chicago in game 3 and NIU was the home team, so it’s not like they played 6 straight home games first.

            You may diss the relevance of Stanford visiting Duke (it visited Wake 2 years ago) in terms of prep, but playing a road game like that (a la at Fresno St. by Wisconsin a couple of years ago) does prepare one for the travel routine (long flight, jet lag, etc.), hostile environment, and often uncomfortable weather that comes with road games.

            1. Duke does not have a hostile environment. They have a handful of fans in the stands, many of whom are not paying attention.

            2. Jet lag wasn’t a problem against MSU

            3. WI weather is at least as bad as anywhere else (except southern heat, but again that wasn’t a problem versus MSU)

            4. They did travel to Chicago to play NIU, so they learned their travel routine.

            Wisconsin would have learned the hard way this year, had they gone 13-0, that OOC scheduling matters if you want to win an NC. I hope they learned the lesson anyway.

            13-0 WI wouldn’t have to learn anything. The computers love the B12, so they’d need OkSU (only road OOC game – at Tulsa, best OOC – AZ) to lose to OU anyway. 13-0 WI would probably be ahead of 13-0 Stanford (only road OOC – at Duke, best OOC – ND) based on all the highly ranked B10 opponents they would have beaten and the computers liking the B10 more. If WI wasn’t ahead of Stanford, it wouldn’t be the OOC slate that made the difference.

            Now, back to something you wrote earlier but I moved down to keep all the scheduling/WI stuff together:

            But anyway, to your point on bowl eligibility, you acknowledge that the Big-10 teams generally schedule almost-guaranteed 3 wins.

            Most teams do schedule 3 easyish games, expected wins even. Almost-guaranteed win is stretching it a little.

            That means 3-5 conference record is what it takes to become bowl-eligible – assuming a loss in the one tough game.

            No, it means a 3-2 conference record is needed to become bowl eligible after 9 games assuming a 3-1 OOC start. And as I pointed out, no other conference is close to the number of B10 teams that have achieved that. That doesn’t make the B10 full of great teams, but it does mean it has a lot of good teams.

            This year a lot of teams have 3 conference wins already because of parity and 2-3 (depends on how you view Purdue) really bad teams.

            The luck of the schedule is part of it. Having teams good enough to win 6 of 9 games is also part of it. It’s not like everybody only played the bad teams.

            Conference games against currently winning teams in conference (remaining):
            IA – PSU, MI (MSU, NE)
            IL – OSU, PSU (MI, WI)
            MI – MSU, IA (NE, OSU)
            MSU – OSU, MI, WI, NE (IA)
            NE – WI, OSU, MSU (PSU, MI, IA)
            OSU – MSU, NE, WI (PSU, MI)
            PSU – IA (NE, OSU, WI)
            WI – NE, MSU, OSU (PSU)

            PSU is the only team to have a back-loaded schedule. After 5 of 8 conference games, 3 teams are halfway through their tough games and 4 are over halfway through them. That’s what you’d expect.

            You argue that parity signifies a lot of good teams beating each other up.

            I didn’t argue that. Parity signifies a bunch of teams are of equivalent strength. It never indicates how good those teams are or aren’t. I believe that WI, NE, MSU, OSU, MI and PSU are all reasonably close in strength. I don’t think any are elite teams, but I think they are top 25 type teams.

            I argue that the parity indicates a lot of mediocre teams beating each other up. And my argument cannot be easily dismissed.

            Yes, it can. Here are some objective data on the subject.

            Sagarin rankings:
            B10 – 17, 21, 24, 28, 29, 38, 44, 48, 70, 71, 102, 136
            OSU at 38 is dragged down by their early performance without several key suspended players and Miami’s subsequent collapse, so I mentally lump them with the higher ranked teams. There are clear tiers of the top bowl teams (17-29), the lesser bowl teams (44-48), the teams trying to get eligible (70-71) and the ineligible teams (102-136)

            P12 – 6, 7, 19, 20, 36, 42, 49, 52, 67, 93, 94, 130
            The P12 lacks a bit of the depth of the B10, but the top teams are better. That’s why the B10 rates just a touch higher than the P12 (well behind B12 and SEC).

            Unless you are defining top quartile teams as mediocre, which would be an idiosyncratic definition, your point is dismissed.

            Like

      • Tyler says:

        Northwestern went 5-3 in the Big Ten in 3 of their last 4 seasons where they went to bowls (2005, 2008, 2009). In 2003, they went 4-4 and went to the Motor City Bowl. 2010’s 3-5 conference record and bowl berth is the only instance where they were under .500 in conference and went to a bowl.

        Like

  66. Richard says:

    Here’s delicious scenario:

    Say
    1. Boise wins out.
    2. Oregon beats Stanford.
    3. Oklahoma beats OK State.
    4. Georgia upsets LSU in the SEC title game.

    For kicks, say PSU wins out and takes the B10 title (and all the aforementioned teams win otherwise).

    Who goes to the national title game? Who deserves to go?

    Like

    • Eric says:

      No one deserves to go then (other than maybe Boise State), but since 2 have to go anyway,

      Boise State vs. LSU

      I hate having non conference champs in the national championship, but I think this probably makes most sense and is definitely what would happen. Having beat Georgia (which LSU wouldn’t here) and gone unbeaten, Boise State almost has to be chosen. Georgia is out of it via 2 losses. Meanwhile LSU beat 12-1 Oregon who beat 11-1 Stanford and LSU also beat Alabama who beat 11-1 Penn State. I don’t see how you can justify rank any of those other than maybe Georgia ahead of LSU.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Oklahoma would also have 1 loss and be a conference champ (assuming they win out). Also, I have a tough time seeing the voters allowing a non-conference champ to play for the NC. Plus, because of the 9 game schedule and strength of the Big XII, the computers will view OU and LSU on the same level.

        That said, I still think BSU vs. Oregon would be the most likely outcome for reasons I outlined before.

        Like

    • frug says:

      I was thinking about his earlier and assuming that Oregon and Oklahoma win out (including the PAC-12 CCG) it would have to be Boise and either Oregon or Oklahoma (with UO more likely than OU since losing to LSU in Dallas is more justifiable in voters eyes than losing to TTU at home). There’s just no way the voters would allow a non-conference champ the chance to play for the title (adios LSU and ‘Bama) and BSU (which would already be the only unbeaten outside of maybe Houston) be able to note that they were able to do something that not even LSU could; beat UGa in Atlanta.

      Like

  67. duffman says:

    5 undefeated teams left :

    SEC 20% : 3 games left, Arkansas and CCG remain
    LSU 9 – 0 : WKU 5-4 11/12, Mississippi 2-7 11/19, Arkansas 8-1 11/25
    Western Kentucky @ LSU : 7:00 pm

    B12 20% : 3 games left, Oklahoma only obstacle
    Oklahoma State 9 – 0 : TT 5-4 11/12, ISU 5-4 11/18, OU 8-1 12/03
    Oklahoma State @ Texas Tech 5 – 4 : TBA pm

    PAC 20% : 3 games left, Oregon only obstacle
    Stanford 9 – 0 : Oregon 8-1 11/12, Cal 5-4 11/19, Notre Dame 6-3 11/26
    Oregon @ Stanford : 8:00 pm

    MWC 20% : 4 games left 17 – 20 = high probability of staying undefeated
    Boise State 8 – 0 : TCU 7-2 11/12, SDSU 5-3 11/19, Wyoming 5-3 11/26, UNM 0-9 12/03
    TCU @ Boise State : 3:30 pm

    CUSA 20% : 3 games left 14 – 14 = high probability of staying undefeated
    Houston 9 – 0 : Tulane 2-8 11/10, SMU 6-3 11/19, Tulsa 6-3 11/26
    Houston @ Tulane : 8:00 pm – Thursday

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Arkansas certainly has a chance of upsetting LSU, which would really throw things into turmoil.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Vincent,

        I think it is what everybody keeps overlooking. That is the rival game for the “Golden Boot” and it is a day game, not a night one. Granted it is still at LSU, but you never know when it is the last game of the season and you have some riled up Hogs looking for the upset. Arkansas has the harder games in between, but who knows come gameday.

        Like

  68. Eric says:

    Missouri to SEC is official. http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/229185/university-of-missouri-to-join-southeastern-conference.aspx

    They do say its for 2012. They don’t mention divisions or schedule.

    Like

    • John says:

      Great day for Tiger fans!
      Joining a conference were all teams are on a equally footing w/ the league. A conference that will increase the University’s revenues. A conference that is a step up academically. And a conference that provides long term stability across the board.
      Proud day to be a Tiger!

      M-I-Z…

      Like