The Halfway There Compromise: A BCS Plus-One Proposal That the Big Ten and Rose Bowl Could Live With

Posted: December 22, 2011 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , , , , ,

In my last post, I went over four proposals that the FBS commissioners were evaluating to add a plus-one national championship game to the BCS system.  What is apparent is that the firmest resistance to a plus-one is coming from the Big Ten (led by Jim Delany) and the Rose Bowl.*  When I wrote my “BCS Final Four” seeded plus-one proposal last year, I stated that “for any college football postseason proposal to have even a whiff of a chance of succeeding, forget about “fairness” and think like Jim Delany.”  It might be even more pointed this year where the Big Ten and Rose Bowl are specifically the biggest obstacles to getting a plus-one proposal passed.  In theory, the other conferences and BCS bowls could just roll over those two entities with a super-majority, but the reality is that while everyone technically has an equal vote, they don’t have equal voices… and Delany has the biggest voice of them all.  Even “Death to the BCS” author Dan Wetzel stated that with the plus-one debate coming down to Delany versus everyone, he would take “Delany as no worse than even money”.  It’s very unlikely that you’re going to see a plus-one system that doesn’t have the backing of the Big Ten regardless of the support of everyone else.

(* Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott appears to be much more open to a seeded plus-one system, although still not wanting to give up the Rose Bowl.)

As a result, the purpose of this post is to try to find a compromise that could at least be plausibly acceptable to the Big Ten and Rose Bowl in real life.  What I’m not trying to do is find a system that is “perfect”.**  Personally, out of all of the college football postseason proposals that I’ve written over the years (which includes an 8-team playoff using the bowls, an unseeded plus-one and a semi-seeded plus-one), my favorite is the BCS Final Four mentioned above that would likely be the most popular with the masses, as well.  However, my feeling is that we’re not going to see something that straightforward and simple if we get a plus-one at all.  Therefore, I acknowledge that the compromise proposed here isn’t a clean system, where it might look wonderful in some seasons and be controversial in other years.   The goal is to find a plus-one formula that I think Jim Delany would actually agree to while making the fans and TV networks happy the vast majority of the time.

(** I put this caveat in virtually every BCS proposal and still invariably get a comment to the effect of, “This idea SUX AZZ. We need a 16-team playoff with every conference getting an auto-bid or else it’s worthless.”  While I sympathize with the sentiment for massive change, it’s just not realistic and, therefore, not worth writing about in my view.)

One model that drew traction among Big Ten and Pac-12 athletic directors is to have the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange host #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 semifinal games on a rotation while the Rose Bowl would “opt out” of the semis and keep a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup annually.  What’s unclear is whether the Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents along with the Rose Bowl are actually on board with this (as those are the real decision makers as opposed to the ADs).  Most observers seem to believe that the Rose Bowl keeping a Big Ten/Pac-12 game would be enough, but I take a narrower view of what is “acceptable” to the people in Pasadena.  While the Big Ten and Pac-12 tie-ins are certainly critical, there’s also a matter of the Rose having an elevated status compared to the other bowls.  It’s one thing if the Rose is the #2 college football game of the year after the national championship game, but my impression is that being only the #4 game of the year at best after the national title and the 2 bowls that are semifinal hosts isn’t what they’re bargaining for.

So, how do we create a plus-one that doesn’t systematically turn the Rose Bowl into a consolation prize behind the other BCS bowls?  As with the BCS Final Four, we should have a “less is more” approach:

THE HALFWAY THERE COMPROMISE

The main principles of this system:

(1) Traditional Rose Bowl – The Rose Bowl always takes the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions.

(2) Cotton Bowl is added as a 5th BCS bowl –  Under this system, the Cotton Bowl would share the Big 12 tie-in with the Fiesta Bowl (to be further explained in point #4).

(3) Quasi-Semifinals Using 4 Highest Ranked Auto-bid Recipients Outside of Rose Bowl Participants – 2 of the BCS bowls besides the Rose Bowl will hold games featuring the 4 highest ranked teams that received BCS auto-bids outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 champs in a seeded format.  For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll call them “Quasi-Semifinals” and assume that the auto-bids are the same as today (6 AQ conference champs, top 4 teams in the BCS rankings, top ranked non-AQ conference champ provided that it’s in the top 12 and a top 8 Notre Dame team*).  In a season like this one where the Rose Bowl does not have any top 4 teams, there would actually be 2 true semifinal games with #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 games.

(* AQ status may technically disappear, but as I’ve stated before, it will likely be a matter of semantics since the Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, Big 12 and ACC will continue to have virtual AQ status with their contractual bowl tie-ins. The Big East is really the only conference with a real risk of facing a major loss if the BCS system changes dramatically.)

(4) Quasi-Semifinal Site Tie-in Preferences – The Quasi-Semifinals will rotate on an annual basis between the 4 BCS bowls besides the Rose Bowl and receive preferences to get games that involve their conference tie-ins.  For example, if the Sugar Bowl were holding a Quasi-Semifinal this year, it could take #1 Auburn vs. #4 Stanford since it has the SEC tie-in.  The higher ranked team gets priority if both Quasi-Semifinal sites have a claim to the same game (i.e. if there is a #1 ACC champ vs. a #4 SEC champ, the Orange would get that game over the Sugar).  The Fiesta and Cotton would host Quasi-Semifinals in opposite years, so they can rotate the Big 12 tie-in.

(5) Other BCS Bowls Select Teams Like Today Except for (a) 3 BCS Bids from Conference Allowed and (b) Ranking Priority – The 2 BCS bowls that aren’t hosting Quasi-Semifinals in a given year would generally select teams in the same manner as today (i.e. conference tie-ins and first dibs on replacing tie-ins from that conference if they make it to a Quasi-Semifinal, at-large pool consists of teams in top 14, etc.).  However, the cap on BCS bids from a conference would be raised from 2 to 3 in order to garner more Big Ten support (and the SEC would be on board, too).  At the same time, the bowl with the higher ranked tie-in (or applicable conference tie-in replacement team) would get the first at-large selection.

(6) Two Highest Ranked Winners of Their Bowls Advance to the National Championship Game – I’ve kicked around the idea of having another BCS ranking after the bowls are completed to determine the #1 vs. #2 matchup, but I’m wary of strength of schedule components being altered during the bowl season (as it opens up way too many avenues to be attacked if bowl matchups are set up in a way that helps or hurts a team computer-wise).  I actually feel relatively comfortable setting it up where simply the two highest ranked winners of their bowls advance to the national championship game because between the Rose Bowl and the two Quasi-Semifinal Games, there 3 games with auto-bid vs. auto-bid matchups based on merit (so there aren’t at-large teams that are simply there to sell tickets based on name brand or traveling fan bases).

Again, if this system was in place this year, it would be fairly simple as #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 games would be set into place.  Assuming that the Orange and Cotton would be the Quasi-Semifinal hosts, the bowl lineup would look like this:

2011

Rose Bowl: #10 Wisconsin (Big Ten champion) vs. #5 Oregon (Pac-12 champ)
Orange Bowl (Quasi-Semifinal 1): #1 LSU (SEC champ) vs. #4 Stanford (top 4 auto-bid)
Cotton Bowl (Quasi-Semifinal 2): #2 Alabama (top 4 auto-bid) vs. #3 Oklahoma State (Big 12 champ)
Sugar Bowl: #13 Michigan (at-large bid 1/SEC champ replacement) vs. #23 West Virginia (Big East champ)
Fiesta Bowl: #8 Kansas State (at-large bid 2/Big 12 champ replacement)* vs. #15 Clemson (ACC champ)

(* I’m assuming that the Fiesta Bowl would have taken Kansas State to preserve its Big 12 ties instead of Virginia Tech, who received the Sugar Bowl at-large bid in real life.)

Where this system would have really come into play was last season, where the bowl lineup would have turned out this way:

2010

Rose Bowl: #5 Wisconsin (Big Ten champ) vs. #2 Oregon (Pac-12 champ)
Sugar Bowl (Quasi-Semifinal 1): #1 Auburn (SEC champ) vs. #7 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)
Fiesta Bowl (Quasi-Semifinal 2): #3 TCU (non-AQ auto-bid) vs. #4 Stanford (top 4 auto-bid)
Orange Bowl: #13 Virginia Tech (ACC champ) vs. Connecticut (Big East champ)
Cotton Bowl: #6 Ohio State (at-large bid 1) vs. #8 Arkansas (at-large bid 2)

Depending upon your point of view, 2010 would have been either awesome (3 BCS bowls had an impact the national championship race, including the Rose Bowl) or horrible (no true semifinals).  The Rose, Sugar and Fiesta would all actually have been fairly evenly matched.

Personally, I like this setup (even though it’s not as clean as the BCS Final Four) and, at the very least, it’s better than what we have now.  It’s almost like a return to the 1990s Bowl Alliance, but with a plus-one national championship game held afterwards, so the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl trifecta would be participating in the end.  The main disadvantage is that if a plus-one system is not seeded, there could be mismatches on paper.  For instance, the Rose Bowl could theoretically feature a #1 vs. #2 game or, alternatively, have a #2 vs. #14 matchup.  That’s simply something that’s going to happen at times under this system.  (Of course, no one gets bothered by the fact that the NCAA Tournament isn’t re-seeded after games are played, so one Elite Eight could feature a #1-seed vs. #12-seed while a different one could be a #1-seed vs. #2-seed.  The Final Four teams usually all have played very different levels of competition in their regional brackets.) Once again, the purpose of this proposal is to find a compromise that the Big Ten and Rose Bowl would agree to as opposed to one that’s perfect.  There’s certainly a nostalgic part of me that wants to see the Rose Bowl and the other major bowls become blockbusters again, which is what this system could virtually guarantee.

So, add the Halfway There Compromise to the pile of BCS bowl proposals out there for your holiday enjoyment.  One of these days, a plus-one proposal is going to click with all of the powers that be (and it might be sooner rather than later).  In the meantime, Merry Christmas, everyone!

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

(Image from Wikipedia)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. duffman says:

    MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !!!!!!!!

    (hey, IU is 12-0 heading into a date with Sparty, Santa already brought what I wanted) 🙂

    Like

    • jj says:

      we’re on an 11 game, i believe run.

      now. can the student show the master?

      good times ahead.

      Like

    • jerry Prall says:

      Sheehey and Jones are hurt, so we have a built-in excuse.

      This opening schedule couldn’t be worse—esp. having OSU in when the students are gone.

      In the long-run, IU basketball is back and many people should be afraid, very afraid.

      Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        As a Purdue fan, I am glad IU is back. (I do have degree from there as well). The rivalry means more when both teams are at least decent, and if we win one of the games this year it will mean more than the last four wins.

        Like

  2. ccrider55 says:

    Pac champ not possibly included in a theoritical 2011 NC game, but another Pac team is? That seems a problem. The regular conference season should count as pool play, and champs shouldn’t be eliminated while lower placers advance.

    Like

  3. Mack says:

    Sounds good except for the 3 bid limit which I do not see the PAC, B12 rolling over for, and maybe even the ACC since it finally got two bids this year despite a dismal 2-11 BCS record, since the extra game will be at those conferences expense. Maybe could get 3 if it can be limited such that it only takes 1 more bid per year vs. 2. Something like every other year (B1G would go for this), or the first conference to get a third bid can have it, but after that selection no other conference could have 3 for that year (SEC would like this).
    :
    Anyone that thinks a 16 team playoff would be fair, or include all conferences needs to study how the FCS playoff is run. When there was a 16 team playoff (2009 and before), it was harder for one of the FCS non-AQ conference to get a bid than for a BCS buster to make it. The 4 power conferences got 28 of the 32 at large bids between 2006-2009. Expanding to 20 teams in 2010 allowed seeding of 12 teams, with 4 play-in games. This has made it even harder for the non-power conferences to get in the final 16 since they are now usually knocked out in the play-in games. As the Pioneer league was told, it was not worthy of an AQ bid, and in 2010 neither of its 10-1 teams were worthy of a bid. What you do get in the FCS playoffs is a 3rd place team in its conference being declared the national champion. May have that in the FBS this year.
    :
    This year the FCS is fairly clean with MVC’s champ N.Dakota St. playing Southland’s champ Sam Houston. Sam Houston was ranked #15 when all other undefeated teams from power conferences were in the top 5.
    :
    Comparisons of how FCS conferences rank in their world compared to FBS conferences:
    Colonial = SEC; Southern = B1G; Big Sky = B12; MVC = PAC; Southland=ACC; Patriot=BE; Ohio Valley=MWC. Others are zero-one and done.

    Like

  4. Aaron says:

    Still think the “best” way would be to have all bowl games completed on or before January 1st. After that, you figure out your top two to next weekend in the title game.

    It creates an extra week (which is something that they are trying to get away from), but it gives us a NC matchup after the bowls, based on the bowls and keeps the Rose with its B1G/P12 tie-in and it’s status as no-worse-than-the-No.2-postseason-game.

    Like

  5. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Frank, this compromise favors the Pac-12 and B1G just fine, but why should the equally powerful SEC be okay with this?

    Let’s say you’ve got #1 Alabama, #2 USC, #3 Oklahoma, #4FSU #5 Florida, and #12 Michigan State. Alabama would face FSU, OU would face UF… and USCwould face the #12 team? The SEC (and everyone else) would not sign off on that.

    Like

    • @Michael and duffman – Regarding the SEC:

      (1) Both the SEC and Sugar Bowl are on the record of being fine with rotating semifinals. They were already switching the SEC champ out in the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance days. The relationship is important, but nowhere near what is in place with the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-12. While the Rose Bowl may have had a history of not having that matchup in pre-WWII days, that was also almost 70 years ago. Since the spread of television, the Big Ten-Pac-12 Rose Bowl is a clear brand association that people make which goes far beyond the Sugar-SEC connection.

      (2) It’s an acknowledged flaw that the matchups could end up lopsided on paper under this system. Unless we have a pure seeded top 4 playoff/plus-one, it’s simply going to happen. The whole idea of this is, of course, the “real” Rose Bowl (the actual champs from the Big Ten and Pac-12) is preserved. Now, I don’t buy the notion that the SEC is always going to get a harder matchup than a top 2 Rose Bowl participant as a result of this system (or even more often than not). It certainly wouldn’t have happened last year and would have been relatively balanced out over the life of the BCS system.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Interesting. This sounds like something that would happen and it sounds like a total cave in to the B1G and not much better than the current system. I hope the other conferences play some hardball with Delaney and don’t go for a proposal like this.

        We’re at a point in time where everyone else has the leverage, and its time to bring the B1G and the Rose Bowl kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The one interesting proposal i read about last month was the BCS completely breaking away from the bowl system and having only the title game after the bowls, or a 4 team tourney that was outside the bowl system, which I would prefer. I hope this concept is given consideration as I don’t think the Rose Bowl’s status of the great game that it is would be affected long term. People will still watch January 1st if we have say a Pac 10 champ and a Big 10 runner up. Especially if you offer the city of Pasadena some nice concessions like no competition on that New Years day time slot and a 3 year rotation for 30 years for the title game or something like that.

        Now i’d like to see that, however i’m well aware thats Frank’s realistic proposal is much more likely.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          This is another new Brian, not me.

          Like

        • frug says:

          The key to leveraging Delaney is getting the PAC on board. If the PAC is willing to make a deal then their is no way for the Big 10 to make an independent deal with the Rose Bowl like they did back in the Bowl Alliance/Coalition days.

          Like

  6. bullet says:

    I’m with Mack on the 3 bid. One of the proposals was to lift the 3 bid limit once every 4 years. I don’t see the other conferences giving the SEC and B1G 3 bids nearly every year. I also don’t see the SEC pushing that hard. They are already in all of the next 3 highest paying bowls (and the B1G in 2).

    As for the overall proposal, while you explain it succinctly and it achieves the goals, it sounds like something Congress would write for tax law. I can’t see the Presidents being able to explain it to the ADs, let alone the public. While the BCS calculations are arcane, that’s the behind the scenes stuff. In this the pairings are complicated.

    Like

  7. greg says:

    Hawks -16 in the Insight.

    Like

  8. duffman says:

    @ Frank

    Not sure if this works at all, and here are some points floating in the background :

    a) Like it or not, right now the SEC is dominating the top of college football
    b) If this is the case then you must protect the Sugar as well as the Rose
    c) The Fiesta rose in power due to IND schools, only ND remains and they are down
    d) The Cotton fell due to IND matchups, but this is no longer the norm
    e) Cotton needs the B12 to get back to 12, and a CCG
    f) The B1G and SEC sell tickets better than the ACC / BE / PAC / ????
    g) The Orange has fallen because the Big 8 is gone, and the BE and ACC are weak
    h) Unless the ACC / B12 / BE / PAC / IND / OTR get it together, $$$$ = B1G and SEC
    i) The Rose Bowl was open until after WW II
    j) Rose must decide between B1G vs PAC or MNC vs MNC contenders

    While we in the B1G might cringe at the thought of a Rose Bowl without a B1G vs PAC matchup, this has only been the norm since WW II. The Sugar Bowl was founded by an SEC team (Tulane, when they were a SEC team) and has been tied to the SEC since its inception in 1935. Looking at the long term history here is a breakdown of team participation in the Sugar Bowl by current, former, and future SEC schools :

    Both teams were SEC teams = 10 of 78 / 13% of total
    40, 53, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 69, 70, 80

    One team was an SEC team = 60 of 78 / 77% of total
    35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11

    Neither team were SEC teams = 8 of 78 / 10% of total
    39, 46, 49, 72, 95, 98, 00, 12

    This means that 90% of the Sugar Bowl games have involved at least 1 SEC team. I think it is safe to say the Sugar Bowl is to the SEC what the Rose Bowl is to the PAC and B1G. If Delany wants favorable games for the B1G and PAC with the Rose, I am willing to bet Slive would make a similar demand to have an SEC team in the Sugar Bowl every year. This year it will be an ACC team vs a B1G school, and that probably does not sit well with the folks in Birmingham. As outlined in your last thread that means the Rose would only be assured of a Semi Final Site if both schools were in the top 4 in the final BCS. The other option would be to accept the lone Top 4 team as a Rose Bowl lock, but exclude the team from the conference B1G or PAC that did not make the final 4 in the final BCS. This would go back to the roots of the Rose Bowl, but could lead to exclusion of a B1G school if they did not qualify.

    Also of note is that to qualify for a Semi Final game, you must participate in a similar number of games. Right now the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC / OTR play the CCG and the B12 / BE / OTR do not. This creates an unequal number of games played, and balance should be returned. If the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC all have to play the CCG, then the B12 and BE should as well. If neither has at least 12 schools, then the BE winner should play the B12 winner the same week the other conferences play their CCG’s. This way all major conferences would play 13 games for consideration of a shot at the MNC. This year it would have meant Oklahoma State played West Virginia the same weekend Wisconsin played Michigan State. It also means the schools without a CCG would have to finish their schedule a week early so they did not get an extra week off. Again, level the playing field for all.

    Then the bowls are much easier to do, and you need fewer to be considered for the MNC game. Entry would not rotate, but be based on actual performance. You only need 2 bowls every season, and actual play determines which one you use :

    Rose Bowl used if PAC school and B1G school are both in the top 4 in final BCS
    Sugar Bowl used if SEC school is in the top 4 in the final BCS
    Orange Bowl used if ACC school is in top 4 in final BCS
    Fiesta Bowl used if IND school is in top 4 in final BCS
    Cotton Bowl used if B12 school is in top 4 in final BCS
    BE / IND / ???? is second team in one of the above bowls

    Since the first BCS game it would look like this Bold indicates Rose Bowl as play in year:

    1998 – Tennessee (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Sugar = Tennessee vs Ohio State – Tulane went 11-0
    Q2 Orange = Florida State vs Kansas State
    Rose = UCLA vs Wisconsin (same as actual)

    1999 – Florida State (ACC) wins MNC
    Q1 Orange = Florida State vs Alabama – Marshall went 12-0
    Q2 Fiesta = Virginia Tech vs Nebraska
    Rose = Wisconsin vs Stanford (same as actual)

    2000 – Oklahoma (B12) wins MNC
    Q1 Cotton = Oklahoma vs Washington
    Q2 Orange = Florida State vs Miami FL
    Rose = Oregon State vs Purdue (Washington vs Purdue was actual)

    2001 – Miami FL (BE) wins MNC
    Q1 Orange = Miami FL vs Oregon
    Q2 Fiesta = Nebraska vs Colorado
    Rose = Stanford vs Illinois (Miami FL vs Nebraska was actual)

    2002 – Ohio State (B1G) wins MNC
    Q1 Orange = Miami FL vs Georgia
    Q2 Rose = Ohio State vs Southern Cal
    Rose is qualifier bowl this season as both are in top 4 in final BCS

    2003 – Southern Cal (PAC) & LSU (SEC) split MNC
    Q1 Cotton = Oklahoma vs LSU
    Q2 Rose = Michigan vs Southern Cal
    Rose is qualifier bowl this season as both are in top 4 in final BCS
    This would have unified the MNC as Southern Cal could play LSU for MNC

    2004 – Southern Cal (PAC) wins MNC : This setup solves the Auburn & Boise State issues
    Q1 Fiesta = Southern Cal vs Texas – Utah 11-0 in MWC & Boise State 11-0 in WAC
    Q2 Cotton = Oklahoma vs Auburn
    Rose = Cal vs Michigan (Texas vs Michigan was actual)
    The Utah issue would have been solved being in PAC / U$C could play BSU instead of UT

    2005 – Texas (B12) wins MNC
    Q1 Rose = Southern Cal vs Penn State (Southern Cal vs Texas)
    Q2 Cotton = Texas vs Ohio State
    Rose is qualifier bowl this season as both are in top 4 in final BCS

    2006 – Florida (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Fiesta = Ohio State vs LSU – Boise State went 12-0
    Q2 Sugar = Florida vs Michigan
    Rose = Southern Cal vs Wisconsin (Southern Cal vs Michigan was actual)
    If Boise State went undefeated with decent SoS they play instead of LSU

    2007 – LSU (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Cotton = Ohio State vs Oklahoma
    Q2 Sugar = LSU vs Virginia Tech
    Rose = Southern Cal vs Illinois (same as actual)

    2008 – Florida (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Cotton = Oklahoma vs Alabama or Utah 12-0
    Q2 Sugar = Florida vs Texas or Boise State 12-0
    Rose = Southern Cal vs Penn State (same as actual)
    If you drop Alabama and Texas, this would have been the way to settle the BSU / UT debate
    If Oklahoma demolishes Utah, and Florida demolishes Boise State you have an answer

    2009 – Alabama (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Sugar = Alabama vs TCU / BSU winner
    Q2 Cotton = Texas vs Cincinnati
    Rose = Ohio State vs Oregon (same as actual)
    TCU in MWC plays Boise State in WAC when ACC/B12/CUSA/SEC play CCG games

    2010 – Auburn (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Sugar = Auburn vs TCU
    Q2 Rose = Oregon vs Wisconsin (TCU vs Wisconsin was actual)
    Rose is qualifier bowl this season as both are in top 4 in final BCS (slight fudge)

    2011 – LSU / Alabama (SEC) wins MNC
    Q1 Sugar = LSU vs Stanford
    Q2 Cotton = Oklahoma State vs Alabama
    Rose = Oregon vs Wisconsin (same as actual)

    .

    With the slight fudge in 2010 the Rose Bowl is a Qualifying Bowl 4 of 14 years (29%)

    It forces conferences with no CCG to play each other to advance a team

    It forces the ACC / BE / IND / MWC to settle it on the field to qualify, and culls the herd

    It keeps the Rose as a B1G vs PAC game, while allowing it to remain relevant in the MNC race

    It puts emphasis on winning teams over fixed Bowl pecking orders

    It probably makes Delany happy, which means it is actually possible

    It keeps the Sugar as a SEC bowl which makes Slive happy

    It forces the B12 to get back to 12 teams and a CCG like the norm in the power conferences

    ……..

    The downside is it rewards Stanford which did not win their conference, and Oklahoma State (which did not have to play the added CCG) to qualify, while excluding CCG winners Oregon and Wisconsin. Maybe that is the price Delany has to make to allow the Rose Bowl to remain a B1G vs PAC only game (no more TCU, Texas, Miami in the Rose – Nebraska could go tho as they are now in the B1G) with no teams from non B1G or PAC playing ever. The bigger issue may be how to make the final BCS ranking more accurate (maybe putting Oregon in Stanford’s position because they beat Stanford head to head & won their CCG) in selecting the Top 4.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Not sure why you are singling out Stanford and not Alabama.

      As for the Sugar, its a nice place to visit, but I don’t think the SEC cares that much whether they go to New Orleans or Miami.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        I was singling out Stanford because they were the PAC school and I was relating it back to the Rose Bowl, last time Alabama played in a Rose Bowl the big war had just ended. On the flip side Alabama has a proven defense, and I am still not sure about Stanford or Oklahoma State. In a 2 team playoff I suggested LSU vs Stanford and oSu vs Alabama as offense vs defense games in the pre MNC games.

        I thought about why have LSU play Alabama in the first place and both are closer to NOLA and would both sell well. I envision oSu and Stanford selling far fewer seats because of both “brand” and distance. If Boise State traveled better, would they have gotten a better game than a 6-6 ASU. I feel you have 3 B1G vs SEC bowl games BECAUSE both conferences travel well. I would like to think it is all about competition, but bowls are out to make $$$$ and they want the folks who will fill the most seats at the highest prices the market will bear.

        Like

  9. Carl says:

    Peterson? or Munchak?

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Hard to see Peterson leaving. He has a good situation at Boise; even if they’re mediocre for the next decade, his job is safe, and after joining the BE, Boise has a chance at the national title & BCS bowls. Plus, PSU is in a completely different part of the country, while Boise has gotten under-the-radar guys from out west (meaning he knows that area well). Don’t know why Munchak would join either. I think either Dave Cutcliffe or Jim Grobe would be good choices. They could extend PSU’s recruiting reach in to NC and probably burnish VA recruiting as well, which PSU needs.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        To add to that, Peterson saw what happened to Dirk Koetter and Dan Hawkins when they left Boise for bigger programs. No doubt both had regrets.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          With so many coaching changes it is interesting they are reaching back into the past. Terry Bowden and Bob Davie. Charlie Weiss got another chance.

          Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Bradley.

      Like

  10. Red Dog says:

    Why in your 2010 hypothetical does #6 OSU not get into the ‘semifinals’ over #7 Oklahoma?

    I also tend to think this would be a hard sell to the SEC for the reasons mentioned – it will give a freer pass to a top-2 B10 or P12 team more often than not.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      @Red Dog:

      In Frank’s model for BCS quasi-semifinals, Ohio State would have been ineligible. OU had an autobid; Ohio State was an at-large.

      “2 of the BCS bowls besides the Rose Bowl will hold games featuring the 4 highest ranked teams that received BCS auto-bids outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 champs in a seeded format.”

      Now, Stanford had an autobid last year because it was ranked in the top four.

      Like

      • Red Dog says:

        So if, for example, TCU was not an AQ (and assuming Boise wasn’t in the mix), VT would be the next in line as the highest remaining AQ? I could see the ACC loving this deal – all they would basically have to do is beat out the Boises of the world (no easy task though) and Big East. And if the 3 & 4 slots are occupied by AQ champs, then they don’t have to beat out anybody but the Big East.

        Like

  11. jamesinsocal says:

    You can’t have the BCS bowls be part of a play-off…well, you could, but if you want to fill seats with fan bases, you can’t. Travel, hotel, tickets, food, etc.etc to see one BCS bowl game is one thing, but if my team wins and makes it to the championship game…I can’t afford that unless I decide that college for one of my kids isn’t really important. I think the only way to make this happen and profitable regarding ticket sales is to have the #1 and #2 teams hold the “Play-off games at home while #3 and #4 travel. The winner of those 2 games play in the Championship game and the lossers get chosen to one of the other BCS games. This would alow the current BCS bowl schedule to happen as is and the rotation of the BCS Championship game to switch thru the 4 Bowls each year as it has been doing.

    These 2 games could be played after the Army/Navy game on Saturday and then the following Sunday we get the Bowl Selection and the current schedule we have now doesn’t change.

    Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      I agree that the bowls hosting first rounds games won’t do very well in attendance unless 1 team is close by, and even then they won’t make the ticket revenue they currently do.

      If a +1 is added (and I’m on record as being opposed to the idea), I believe the postseason will eventually change drastically. I think there will eventually be 4-5 postseason tournaments of 8 teams. Maybe the ‘NCAA tournament’ on ESPN/ABC, the “Tostitos Invitational” on Turner/CBS, the “Nike Elite” on Fox/FX, and the ESPNU tournament (ESPNU/ESPN2).

      These games won’t make a lot of money on attendance (multiple rounds during the holidays, some games on weeknights), with maybe the title game at a Neutral site, but they’ll get enough viewers during the holiday seasons for the networks to pay the teams. Moreover, even if the big conferences are forced to allow 1 or more minor conference teams in the NCAA tournament, the other tournaments can sign agreements to take multiple teams from the name conferences every year (ensuring matchups that draw ratings).

      Once you decide college teams can play multiple postseason games, there’s no reason to keep other teams from playing extra games in an NIT-equivalent.

      For the TV networks, this is good programming strategy. With a Bowl game they’ll get to show teams like Georgia and Nebraska (who don’t make the NCAA tournament) just once; with a tournament they might play multiple times. The MountUSA and MAC-level conferences will find themselves with much less representation in the post-season (though I expect something like an ‘ESPNU tournament’ will be around to guarantee the small conferences 1 representative each) as the bowls are replaced with tournaments.

      Of course, the NCAA tournament would have strong competition from the other tournaments in this setup. If some upsets happen and you get Clemson vs. West Virginia in the NCAA tournament title game, it might be less watched than a couple of other tournament finals (imagine USC vs. Arkansas in the Tostitos Invitational Final and Michigan vs. Georgia in the Nike Elite Final). This format would reward the conferences with depth; even if 1 team suffers a fluky upset there are others that will play to their abilities.

      Like

      • jamesinsocal says:

        I agree, and that thought of more teams being included in a play off is what Jim Delany is doing his best to prevent. I think there will be a full playoff in the future but I think it will be in 20 to 30 years. That being said, looking at the obstacles that are in the way of going to a play off, I think the plus one before the bowls is the only solution.
        I for the record, am also against the plus one idea. I opt for tradition.

        Like

  12. I would like to see

    BCS CG SEC1 vs BCS2
    Rose B1G 1/2 vs P12 1/2
    Orange ACC 1/2 vs B12 1/2
    Sugar SEC 2/3 vs B1G 2/3
    Fiesta SEC 3/at large vs at large

    That means the SEC is guaranteed 3 spots. The B1G is guaranteed 2 spots, and get three spots if the put a team in the NCG. The P12, B12, and ACC will get two spots if they put a team in the NCG. Then there is at least one at large spot for ND, the BE and the rest of the schools.

    So this year it would be

    BCS CG LSU vs Bama
    Rose Wisconsin vs Oregon
    Orange Clemson vs Okie St
    Sugar Arkansas vs Michigan
    Fiesta Stanford vs VT

    Last year

    BCS CG Auburn vs Oregon
    Rose Wisconsin vs Stanford
    Orange VT vs Oklahoma
    Sugar Arkansas vs Ohio St
    Fiesta LSU vs TCU

    Like

  13. cutter says:

    I have a fairly simple solution that will put the Rose Bowl in the position as being the primary bowl of the college football season while still running an eight-team playoff.

    The Big Ten and Pac 12 agree that they will send only one team apiece from their respective conferences into an eight-team playoff, i.e., the conference champion. The next best available teams from both conferences then go to the Rose Bowl.

    I’ve written about setting up an eight-team playoff in earlier posts with the champions from the top 5 conferences getting autobids provided they’re in the top 14 of the rating system used. The remaining three teams (or more if a conference or conferences doesn’t get an autobid) listed highest in the rating system would then fill out the eight-team field.

    The top four conference champions would be seeded 1 thru 4 with the autobids and the fifth conference champion going 5 thru 8 (this means a high rated team like this year’s Alabama or Stanford that didn’t win their division or the conference doesn’t get a higher seed over a conference champion). The first and second round games would be played at the home stadium of the higher rated team with the final game at a neutral site. These games could be played on the third and fourth Saturdays of December with the championship game being played two weeks after that. The major bowl games could be scheduled on 1 January wth all the primary bowls taking place between the semi-final and final games.

    If we were to have a playoff using the BCS rankings and capping the Big Ten and Pac 12 at one team apiece, here’s what the opening round would look like (since ACC champion is Clemson is ranked #15 in the BCS standings, the ACC doesn’t have a representative in the playoff) :

    #8 Kansas State (10-2, Big 12 At Large) at #1 LSU (13-0, SEC Champion)
    #6 Arkansas (10-2, SEC At Large) at #3 Oregon (11-2, Pac 12 Champion)

    #7 Boise State (11-1, MWC At Large) at #2 Oklahoma State (11-1, Big 12 Champion)
    #5 Alabama (11-1, SEC At Large) at #4 Wisconsin (11-1, Big Ten Champion)

    Kansas State would replace Stanford (11-1, #4 in the BCS) in the playoffs because Oregon is the sole Pac 12 representative as the conference champion. As the highest ranked Pac 12 team not going to the playoff, Stanford would play Michigan (10-2, #13 in the BCS) in the Rose Bowl (versus the current system with 11-2 Oregon playing 11-2 Wisconsin).

    In this manner, the Big Ten and Pac 12 can insure they have representation in the playoff system while providing quality representatives to the Rose Bowl (whose main interest is tourism, tickets and television) . I don’t think the networks would have too hard a time promoting Stanford and Michigan in the Rose Bowl (Andrew Luck v. Denard Robinson, etc.) on New Year’s Day either–especially since the sole represenatives from the Big Ten and Pac 12 conferences may have already been eliminated from the playoffs.

    Because the other conferences have the possibility of providing more than one representative, that means the Big Ten and Pac 12 teams that aren’t in the playoffs have a likelihood of being placed in the bigger name bowls. Michigan State, for example, would probably be promoted to a BCS bowl, with Nebraska also being an outside possibility. If USC was eligible for post-season play and participated in the Pac 12 CCG, then the Pac 12 would have two representatives in major bowls (Stanford and the loser of USC/Oregon P12 CCG). The Pac 12 and Big Ten conference championship games would also be elevated because the stakes of winning that game would be high-end and perfectly clear every season. Win and you get into the playoff. Lose and you go to a bowl game.

    The other conferences would be happy with the setup because it gives them the opportunity to put more teams in the playoff. In the setup above, the SEC would have three teams, the Big 12 two and the non-AQ MWC has one team. I don’t think the commissioners from the ACC, Big 12 or SEC would have much of a problem with that setup–especially the ACC and SEC seeing that they’ll soon be 14-team conferences.

    What about the bowls? There are still plenty of interesting matchups that can be put together. The Fiesta Bowl could pair up Nebraska and Oklahoma, for example. The Sugar Bowl could pick one of Georgia or South Carolina to play in New Orleans. Virginia Tech, Clemson, Baylor, Michigan State and TCU could end up in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl–and all these games could be played on the same day as a showcase for some of the best teams in college football (although I think that third Saturday in December in the first round of the playoffs would blow people away more).

    Like

    • duffman says:

      cutter,

      I cringe at the thought of 8 teams

      a) it rewards mediocre teams
      b) it promotes going to 16 – and the $$$$ will make this happen
      c) it adds games that interfere with academics and time off from school
      d) it adds travel expense for faculty, students, staff, alumni, and fans

      Like

      • cutter says:

        duffman,

        A. What exactly is your definition of a mediocre team? In the setup above, this year we’d see four conference champions, two 1-loss at large teams (including one that’s in the BCS national championship game) and two 2-loss teams. Three of those four teams would be in a Plus One and the only reason why the fourth isn’t included (Stanford) is because of the special B10/P12 rule I proposed.

        B. Well, if a Plus One (which is essentially a four-team playoff) were to be implemented, then by your logic, we’re one step away from an eight-team playoff (and making more money). With that reasoning, you would be against any of the setups Frank has talked about in his last two posts because it could lead to an eight-team playoff, followed by a 12- or 16-team playoff.

        C. Actually, because the games are at the home stadiums, at least four of the teams would never have to leave home in the first round and the other four would be in on Friday morning and out by Saturday evening. Contrast that with a typical bowl trip (especially the ones that took place last week) and this is actually less burdensome to the players.

        D. Again, if the teams are playing on their home fields, then at least half the teams don’t have to travel (four) in the round one and two more will play at home for the semi-finals. If a higher seed manages to win it’s first game, then it’s likely that team would have to travel two weekends in a row. That would happen perhaps once or twice out of the four first round games. The higher seeded teams may not even have to leave their campuses until the finals.

        That means the travel expenses for all the interest groups you listed above might actually be rather less than a typical bowl trip. This also means the schools that participate aren’t spending large sums of money to do all the things required by the bowls–buy large ticket allotments and sponsorships, stay in selected hotels for a week plus, etc.

        The other divisions in college football manage to play during these time frames, so we know it’s a doable do. If you want to make it more palatable to the academic schedule, then have the first round the fourth Saturday of December (which would be tomorrow, 24 December), the second round on 31 December and the final game with the two remaining teams on 14 January.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          cutter,

          Looking at the history year by year that I posted above, the most you had undefeated teams was 5 with Boise State, Utah, U$C, Oklahoma, and Auburn. Most years it is a single team like this years LSU who is still undefeated, or 2 – 3 teams in question. I am not for a “playoff” per se which is why I was limiting it to 2 bowls a year, and even then only when necessary. I like to see you reward the best of the best, and not give second best another chance. As with this years MNC, LSU has already beaten the PAC and BE winners on the road, beaten the east division winner in a CCG and won its own division without a single loss. This years MNC is redundant and unnecessary, yet it will be played because we demand it and there is money to be made.

          If LSU loses to Alabama, who they already beat, who is the MNC?
          Same can be said if LSU plays Oregon again.
          Everybody else has at least 1 loss, so what does that solve?

          LSU should be MNC already this season for doing what no other team did and remained undefeated in the regular season and the CCG. The only time you really need a “playoff” is in the random year when you have 3 or more undefeated teams at the end of the season. So far the only year really in question was 2004 as it would have meant only 1 undefeated team in the end, and no split title.

          Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            Duffman,

            Was 2009 not a season in question, when Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State all went undefeated in the regular season/CCG’s? That season seemed to call for a playoff about as much as 2004 (USC, OU, Auburn, Utah, Boise).

            Like

  14. Junker says:

    @frank

    So in 2010, TCU or Stanford would have needed to win the Fiesta and hope for an upset in the Rose or Sugar? If Wiscy and OK State won those games, it would be Wiscy vs. TCU/Stanford for the title? Am I processing this right?

    Like

  15. Eric says:

    I have one weird idea about what might actually work. I’ve been going through, trying to figure out something that I don’t think anyone would be opposed to (even if it’s not ideal for everyone).

    This is going to sound strange, but given the different priorities of Delaney and Scott, maybe the Rose Bowl’s link to the Big Ten can be stronger than the PAC-12. If that compromise can be made, then I think the rest can work out. It could work like this:

    1. The Cotton Bowl is added. The Cotton and the Fiesta Bowl share a Big 12/Big East/Notre Dame/non-AQ tie. (Big 12 champ normally going to one bowl and the highest of the non-AQ, Big East, or Notre Dame to the other)

    2. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl agree to be the primary semi-final bowls and will host games if their primary representatives the Big Ten and SEC champs are in the top 4.

    3. The top 4 teams make the semi-finals. If the Big Ten champ or SEC champ is not in the top 4, then the another bowl or 2 will replace them (on a rotating basis).

    4. If the Big Ten champ is in, then the Rose Bowl is a playoff spot and features the Big Ten champ. If a PAC-12 team is in as well, then they are also are automatically in the Rose. If an SEC team is in, they are automatically in the Sugar Bowl.

    5. If a Big Ten champ is not in the top 4, the Rose Bowl is not a semi-final game and is guaranteed to feature the Big Ten champ vs. the PAC-12 champ or highest available team. Normal top rankings ranking requirements do not apply here.

    6. The championship game continues to rotate among the current 4 bowls as the hosts. The Orange, Fiesta, and Cotton move up to semi-finals when a Big Ten or SEC champ is not in the top 4.

    With this 2010 would have been kind of a mess thanks to 2 PAC-10 teams making it and none other ranked, but that’s not a very common occurrence:

    Sugar: Auburn vs. Stanford (semi-final)
    Cotton: Oregon vs. TCU (semi-final)
    Rose: Wisconsin vs. random PAC-10 team (there was no else ranked).
    Orange: Virginia Tech vs. Arkansas
    Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Ohio State

    2009 could have looked like this:

    Sugar: Alabama vs. TCU (semi-final)
    Fiesta: Texas vs. Cincinnati (semi-final)
    Rose: Ohio State vs. Oregon
    Orange: Georgia Tech vs. Iowa (at large)
    Cotton: Florida vs. Boise State (both at large)

    While the 2010 result is a little messy, I think almost everyone would have a reason to support this:

    The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowls: Guarantees them being the best non-championship games over the long haul. The Rose Bowl would still have hosted a Big Ten vs. PAC-10/12 game all but 3 year of the BCS’s existance.

    PAC-12: Better chance at a 2nd BCS bid (or very rarely a 3rd). Especially important for them given their bowls aren’t as good. Would still have a team in the Rose Bowl any year that the Big Ten didn’t qualify for the semi-finals or any year both conferences did, which would mean ALL BUT 3 years of BCS history.

    SEC: Ups the importance of the Sugar, gives them the very good possibility of multiple teams in the playoff many years.

    ACC/Big East/non-AQ: Makes it much more likely that they will have a team competing for the national championship.

    Big 12: Gives them an affiliation with 2 BCS bowls, increasing likelihood of 2 BCS teams.

    Big Ten: Preserves Rose Bowl and gives greater ability to play for championship.

    Fiesta and Orange: They won’t like officially being below the Rose and Sugar, but they will still host the semi-finals fairly often and their match-ups really on average probably aren’t going to drop any.

    Like

  16. Abe Froman says:

    This will never happen. Bottom line, very soon the B1G is going to have to choose between the past and the future.

    Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Bravo, Abe…

      This is where some of these leaders (i.e. Delany, Larry Scott) need to wake up and smell what an increasing number of fans (particularly younger fans) are interested in… the future.

      These fellows blindly keep holding on to yesterday and today. While, today everything is fine (because the old guard is in control), tomorrow will be different.

      If you fail to take an educated look at the future, you will be left in the past…

      In my mind, these guys are so stuck on the old-traditions, that they will be left behind in the future… Change is inevitable… Let go of the past… that milk has already dried up…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Young fans may prefer a playoff but older fans are the ones who actually donate money and they don’t seem to prefer one. It’s dumb to alienate your major donors.

        Like

        • mnfanstc says:

          Brian,

          I understand the concept that you are trying to get across; however, many young(er) people are/can be major donors, too… Ya don’t have to be Boone Pickens to be a major donor (or minor donor for that matter).

          Of course, there are other drivers out there, like the numbers watching/attending these games and the age groups represented (for reclaiming advertisement/sponsorship revenue). Ultimately, the question becomes… Who are the games really being sold to?

          Or, maybe none of us really know what’s going on… and it all that gets thrown out the window if the major players do what the B1G/Pac-12 are starting—the “agreement” to regularly schedule each conference’s sports teams across the board on a yearly basis—with potential for purposely scheduled post-season match-ups (not necessarily BCS sanctioned)… could change everything…

          Like

          • Brian says:

            mnfanstc,

            I understand the concept that you are trying to get across; however, many young(er) people are/can be major donors, too… Ya don’t have to be Boone Pickens to be a major donor (or minor donor for that matter).

            The numbers say that older alumni give more often than younger alumni, and they tend to give more as well. And we all know that the Pickens-type donors get much more input than the little guys. Until people in there 20s start giving $100M, they don’t have a prominent voice outside of the internet. People also seem to forget that most CFB fans spend little or no time on the internet, so the opinions in online polls and such are not in any way representative of the body of CFB fans. Message board fans are the minority.

            I’m not saying the total numbers favor one postseason over another because I don’t know what they are, but expecting the internet to be representative is ridiculous.

            Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        There is no such thing as an educated look at the future, only guesses. Look at some old guesses at what the future would hold, they are pretty funny, filled with monorails and hover cars. The fact is we don’t know what is going to happen. I mean look at the B1G/PAC agreement that just broke, where they will be playing more games together throughout all sports. Who would have thought that was coming? My guess is twenty or thirty years from now there will still be bowls, and there will still be a BCS like system. Maybe at that time it will be a plus one or a four or eight team playoff, but who knows.

        Like

  17. Chas. says:

    As much as The Rose Bowl values their relationships with the Big Ten and Pac-12, the Grand-daddy of them all is not going to be relegated to the status of the Capital One bowl with runners-up playing in it. The only change that Delany and the CoC presidents will sign off on is when the Rose Bowl is restored to prominence as more important than the mythical national championship. Think of the glorious 1980s when the NFC championship game was more competitive than the Super Bowl. When Delany has assurances that his schools won’t have to play an extra game when the scheduled Rose Bowl is #1 vs. #2 is when the BCS will disappear.

    Like

  18. Eric says:

    I should add, in the end, if we are going to have a plus one (I’d still prefer none), then I’d be OK with Franks idea.

    Like

  19. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  20. Eric says:

    If we switch one basic tenet almost all these proposals have gone on, this actually gets a little easier. Only allow conference champs into the semi-finals.

    1. The top 4 conference champs (limit 1 per conference) make the semi-final bowls.
    2. If both the Big Ten and PAC-12 champs make the semi-finals, the Rose Bowl is a bowl game between them.
    3. If either the Big Ten or PAC-12 champ isn’t a top 4 team, the Rose Bowl is not a semi-final game and is simply between the two conferences (or replacement team).

    This proposal:
    1. Puts a tremendous amount of importance on winning your conference, which I think is a good thing.
    2. It would almost always allow for a Big Ten vs. PAC-12 Rose Bowl and would allow the bowl to keep its place as the best of the non-championship bowls.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Eric,

      Isn’t that sort of what worked out in my long post above?

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Looking back (I missed it, sorry), basically the same, except I only have conference champions in the semi-final bowls. This should theoretically lead to the Rose Bowl being a semi-final a little more often (although practically it doesn’t look like it would have worked that often in the available data, I only counted 1 extra year). It would also prevent the possibility of two Big Ten or PAC-12 teams making it to the semi-finals without one or the other and downgrading the Rose Bowl in the process.

        I also like the idea of conference champs only to keep as much emphasis as possible on the regular season. If you don’t win your conference, you don’t deserve to be called national champs.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      I prefer the automatic qualifier exclusion. It would still allow 1 non-champ if they were high enough. Imagine if UGA had upset LSU this year. LSU might still have been #1 but left out of the tournament. OU was #1 in the BCS the year they lost the ccg to Kansas St. In 2008 Texas got knocked out of their division title by BCS points by a team they defeated on a neutral field. With divisions in most of the conferences, there will be more situations like that. If Arkansas could have upset LSU, we would have something similar in the SEC with 3 11-1 teams.

      The problem with the current system is that it eliminates margin of victory in the computers, contributing to bad results, and uses biased, often unknowledgable poll voters. Stanford shouldn’t be 5 places ahead of Oregon this year. So you get some non-champs rated too high.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I understand where you are coming from bullet and its one of the reasons that I hate CCGs (giving a team who hasn’t earned it a shot at a conference title).

        I think that would put a tremendous amount of importance on the conference races though which is where it really should be for most of the season and think you shouldn’t be able to be national champs if you aren’t conference champs.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          The problem with CCG’s is that they can resolve equals, but in unequal years, it can promote the less deserving team. If the Legends and Leaders both had undefeated teams going in the CCG, then the CCG gives you a winner. The problem is when unequal teams meet and the lesser team wins – say a 12-0 Leader plays a 10-2 Legend, and the Legend team wins. Putting a 10-2 team in the MNC seems folly as the CCG winner, but in turn it can knock a 12-0 team out of the MNC by having to play the extra game.

          Like

  21. cutter says:

    duffman – With a normal eight-team playoff system, a team that went 12-0 and lost it CCG would almost certainly get an at large bid and be seeded according to the rules of the system. The discussions we have about a playoff is what sort of rating system should be used and how the seeding should take place.

    If the Big Ten and Pac 12 did cap the number of teams they’d put into an eight-team playoff at one apiece, then yes, it does put a huge premium for teams to not only win their divisions (thus making the regular season extremely important), but also their conferences (thus making the post-season extremely important. There would be no at large teams from those two conferences.

    But it would certainly make the Rose Bowl one of the preemininent bowls in the entire bowl lineup. If Wisconsin had gone 12-0, lost to Michigan State and ended up 12-1, then they’d be right where they are now–playing a Pac 12 team in the Rose Bowl. If they’d won, they’d be going to the playoff as one of the top seeds and with an excellent likelihood of being the host for games in the first and second rounds.

    If this were a system that Delany and Scott would want to pursue in order to keep the Rose Bowl at the top of the heap while a playoff was taking place, then that’d be their call. I don’t know if all the conference members would be happy about the arrangement, although I imagine the other major conferences would be happy to make the concession because it’d likely mean more of their teams with a shot at the national championship.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      cutter,

      In a perfect world the CCG’s should weed out teams by adding an extra game for the better teams. LSU won theirs to qualify for the MNC. Houston fell and was exposed before being put in a MNC game. A 12-2 Southern Mississippi barely beat a 7-6 WAC team. The path to the MNC should be a reward for those who were the best of the best, not a second chance to reward a second place team with another chance to be considered a winner. 8 teams is too many “also rans” and not enough winners. Any given year the MNC should be 1-2 teams, with maybe a 3rd or 4th in exceptional years like 2004 when you had Southern Cal, Oklahoma, and Auburn as undefeated teams from the AQ’s and Utah and Boise State from the non AQ’s. Even in that year you could have had the following to resolve the issue:

      Utah 11-0 MWC champion and Boise State 11-0 meet the first weekend in December with the winner advancing to play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl

      Sugar = Auburn 12-0 SEC champion vs Boise State / Utah winner
      Orange = Oklahoma 12-0 B12 champion vs Southern Cal 12-0 PAC 10 champion

      Winner of Sugar Bowl meets winner of Rose Bowl in MNC game 2 weeks later.

      In 2003 you had a 12-1 LSU (LSU had to play an extra game against Georgia in the CCG) splitting the MNC with a 11-1 Southern Cal (who did not have to play the extra CCG) and single MNC. Oklahoma was out for not winning its CCG, and Ohio State had 2 regular season conference losses. Miami got blown out by Virginia Tech in the regular season. Only Miami OH and Boise State had 1 loss seasons. in that year you could have resolved it 1 of 2 ways:

      a) LSU and U$C meet head to head in MNC game

      b) Use bowl games in a mini playoff
      Southern Cal plays Boise State in Fiesta
      LSU plays Miami OH in Sugar
      winners meet in MNC (most likely U$C and LSU) but allow the AQ’s a chance

      Issue is solved in a single game, or 3 games at most without resorting to an 8 or 16 team playoff. Sure there were many good 3 loss teams that year, but did any of them really deserve a shot at the MNC?

      Like

  22. duffman says:

    Apology if already posted

    http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/21/big-ten-financials-10-11/

    B1G financials from Business of College Sports

    Like

    • Purduemoe says:

      I am a bit amazed at how much IU makes from Football according to that. I thought they were having major problems selling tickets, etc.

      Like

  23. bryandagamer says:

    Under your proposal here, how come Arkansas doesn’t get an invite to a BCS bowl? You said that the conference limited would be be raised from 2 to 3 so Arkansas would be eligible for a BCS bowl, presumably the Sugar Bowl.

    Like

    • rich2 says:

      Rumor but from a source that I bet is accurate more often than not: ND and Michigan will announce the end of their series in the next week or two. ND will replace on an annual basis with Texas. I don’t know if Michigan will pick a single new opponent. Again, interesting in light of the conjecture on this board. Still it is not a fact.

      Like

      • Pat says:

        @rich2
        I have been hearing rumors for the past year, up here in Detroit and Ann Arbor, that Michigan wants to play Notre Dame maybe 4 of 10 years when the 9 game Big Ten conference schedule starts. The other six games would be filled by a variety of “high profile” opponents such as the game with Alabama in Jerry World to start 2012. Also hearing rumors that Michigan State might cut back to 8 of 10, or 6 of 10 with ND.

        Like

      • Eric says:

        If this is the cost of a 9 game conference schedule I’m less of a fan of the move than I used to be. I kind of liked Notre Dame-Michigan and definitely don’t want to see Michigan State-Notre Dame decline (having played so long).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          It makes for a very repetitive schedule if you have 9 CG and a locked OOC rival, too. That just leaves two cupcake slots, so there is little chance for national exposure or bringing the team to major alumni areas outside the footprint.

          How many B12 teams are keeping a locked OOC rival now? ISU and …?

          The P12 is the best about keeping a locked OOC rival (USC/ND, Stanford/ND, Utah/BYU, CO/CSU?), but they play fewer cupcakes generally. ND brings a new region as well as major coverage, while BYU brings a huge local audience. Maybe the P12 scheduling will start to change with their new TV deal.

          It was expected that MI and MSU would reduce their games with ND. Maybe the schools will take turns playing ND home and home.

          Like

        • frug says:

          I’ve never liked 9 game schedules for 12 team leagues. They make sense for 10 team conferences (so you get a round robin) and 14+ team conferences (so you face non-divisional opponents more than once a decade) but for 12 team leagues a 9 game conference schedule defeats the purpose of a CCG.

          That said, if 9 game conference schedules are going to become the new normal (and with PAC and Big XII already there, the Big 10 doing so soon and the ACC and SEC likely to follow suit) they should petition the NCAA to add a 13th game. In exchange they could agree to make some concessions to the athletes (putting the $2000 back on the table or letting players without penalty if the coach who recruited them leaves or is fired prior to the expiration of his contract.)

          Like

          • frug says:

            should read:

            letting players leave without penalty if the coach who recruited them leaves or is fired prior to the expiration of his contract.

            Like

      • @rich2 – Nothing would shock me, but it would be shortsighted (IMHO) by both schools if this were to happen. This is a non-conference game with some legit blood on both sides and there was a fairly lengthy period of time through the 1990s where this was consistently the most watched college football game of the year. I could understand ND wanting to cut back on Purdue and Michigan State games if they feel it’s too Big Ten-heavy at the beginning of the year or they want to work in more Texas games, but the Michigan series ought to be untouchable if I were running things. Same thing with Michigan – sure, it’s great to be able to get an Alabama-type non-conference opponent every once in awhile, but that’s getting harder and harder to do on a consistent basis. The Michigan-ND series is something that the TV networks want, the fans want and the schools make a lot of money off of. My feeling is that we’ll see it continue on – every time we’ve heard about it threatened in the past, the schools end up signing a long-term contract shortly thereafter.

        Like

        • frug says:

          I can’t see ND cutting back on the Purdue series. While ND is a private school, I seriously doubt the Irish want to risk irritating the local pols by unilaterally announcing they want to suspend the series and I can’t see the Boilermakers agreeing to give up their most valuable game.

          Like

          • Purduemoe says:

            Our athletic director has always said the ND game was a priority for Purdue. We have played them as many times as almost any other school, and it is the second biggest game to the fans. I could see ND wanting out, but their fans always show up in force in West Lafayette when the game is there, as it is an easy drive from Chicago.

            Like

        • Rich says:

          Until a system is put in place where teams are not penalized in the national title chase for losing a high-profile non-conference game, the frequency of games like Ala-Mich will decline.

          Like

          • joe4psu says:

            This is why I believe that a playoff should consist of conference champions and at-large teams selected by a committee. Any use of subjective rankings negatively effects scheduling, IMO.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            A committee is less subjective than pre programed computers essentially serving as a committee? One that won’t change on whims or eyeball tests or fan travel potential?

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            You mean the computer models like they use today? All these models reach different results based on the biases built in. Biases we can’t judge because we aren’t privy to the formulas used. Give me a committee like the NCAA uses for the tournament for at-large berths. It is exactly because of choices made today based on things like fan base that I prefer the alternative.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yes, though one agreed upon program would be enough. The introduction of variability and beauty contest after the season has started into even a single post bowl plus one removes the varacity of a won on the field title claim.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        The Texas schedule is full until 2018. If Texas/ND is annual, it would have to wait until then. They do play between now and then, but not every year.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      bryandagamer,

      Under your proposal here, how come Arkansas doesn’t get an invite to a BCS bowl? You said that the conference limited would be be raised from 2 to 3 so Arkansas would be eligible for a BCS bowl, presumably the Sugar Bowl.

      He has the Sugar opting for MI over AR. It may have been an oversight, or else it was because AR played there last year.

      Like

  24. duffman says:

    B1G Bowl games :

    Purdue 6-6 vs Western Michigan 7-5 MAC

    Iowa 7-5 vs Oklahoma 9-3 B12

    Northwestern 6-6 vs TAMU B12
    Illinois 6-6 vs UCLA 6-7 PAC

    Penn State 9-3 vs Houston 12-1 CUSA
    Ohio State 6-6 vs Florida 6-6 SEC
    Michigan State 10-3 vs Georgia 10-3 SEC
    Nebraska 9-3 vs South Carolina 10-2 SEC
    Wisconsin 11-2 vs Oregon 11-2 PAC

    Michigan 10-2 vs Virginia Tech 11-2 ACC

    who do you think will win each game? by how much?

    Like

  25. Terry says:

    Frank,

    The reason that the BCS are abandoning the AQs and might agree to a +1 is Anti-Trust pressure from the DoJ.

    How would your plan lower the AT risk from the level of the current system?

    IIUC, the AT risk comes from:

    1) The BCS owning/selling the broadcast rights to the 5 games.
    2) The AQ system provides a method for collusion, against non-AQ schools. The old system, with 4 bowls owning their right and making their own rules, gave at least some measure of competition.
    3) Above all the AT issues, if the Executive Branch really gets ticked, it can have the IRS review the non-taxable status of the Athletic Depts, which is the Neutron Bomb of College Football.

    Thinking like Jim Delaney, these are the 3 “problems” with the current system. So in what way does your plan address these areas?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Terry,

      The BCS doesn’t believe there is an AT case. That threat isn’t driving anything. Eliminating AQs to make it more fair conveniently has the side effect of taking away BCS bowl spots from non-AQs and bad BE teams. That’s why they would do it.

      Like

    • @Terry – I don’t think antitrust concerns are a driving factor behind the BCS changes. To the extent that antitrust scrutiny is lessened by the elimination of your points 1 and 2, it’s a positive side benefit. For point 3, the review of tax status of athletic departments is even more of an empty threat than an antitrust suit. As much as people hate the BCS, you’re not getting Congressmen from the state of Alabama to agree to have Bama and Auburn send 40% (or whatever the tax rate would be) of their athletic department income to Washington, or the Ohio delegation allowing that to happen to Ohio State, etc. Those flagship schools that make up the BCS have exponentially more lobbying power than those who are fighting the BCS and local politicians inherently don’t like taking money away from their popular home state schools (particularly when they fight for so much federal research funding for those very same schools). It’s easy to attack the BCS as a faceless evil blob if you’re a Washington politician. It’s not so easy to see the schools that have the most fans and alums in your home states get hammered with a bunch of taxes. The perception of it changes entirely when looking at the micro school level as opposed to the macro BCS system level.

      Like

      • Terry says:

        Right now, the BCS owns 5 games. The contract to broadcast those games goes from ESPN to BCS, not to the bowls (except Rose/ABC which had a pre-existing contract until 2014). The bowls are the subcontractors to the BCS in producing those games. Loss of the AQs means that the BCS will retreat to owning 1 game, and contracts with ESPN et al will be for 1 game.

        It is unusual for a business to go from having 5 products to having 1 product, when the business is thriving.

        If you don’t think AT/DoJ/US Govt concerns are behind the radical reduction from 5 games to 1, then what do you think IS behind it?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Even if they drop the AQ, I’m not convinced they won’t still market the 5 games as one group. All I’ve seen for sure is that they would let the other games pick their own teams. They could still negotiate as one for TV.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          Well, the BCS “business” was agreed to by the bowls and (most importantly), the conferences and ND. If the conferences decide to downsize the BCS “business”, it will downsize (just like a law firm with partners splitting off).

          Like

  26. Brian says:

    TAMU and Arkansas will no longer play in Dallas. They’re switching to home and home supposedly because they can’t bring recruits to neutral site conference games. How do UT, OU, UF and UGA deal with it?

    Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7392725/schools-object-ncaa-multiyear-scholarship-plan

    Now the FCS and non-FB schools are whining about multi-year scholarships. They are just begging for I-A to become a separate division or organization.

    Like

  28. Mike says:

    WVU Lawsuit update

    http://dailymail.com/Sports/WVUSports/201112270158

    Judge refuses to dismiss Big East Conference suit against WVU

    Like

  29. Mike says:

    Big 12 expansion update.

    http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/texas-best-served-by-remaining-in-big-12-2058838.html


    It’s too early to say the Big 12 won’t expand further. Dodds said he expects more Big 12 talks on the subject in a month, but the league wants to do so thoroughly and more deliberately than the pell-mell rush that occurred this fall.

    Like

  30. Eric says:

    SEC releases schedule. It says this is for next year only and not based on past or future schedules (meaning crossover could alter if I read it right). Missouri is still working on getting Kansas (both have open dates on November 17th) to stick on schedule and has to reschedule other games thanks to SEC schedule (I’m surprised that wasn’t worked around).

    http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/2324
    http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/230227/sec-releases-2012-conference-football-schedule.aspx

    Like

    • Brian says:

      What a ridiculous gift for UGA. Again. They skip LSU, AL and AR and get @AU and vs Ole Miss instead. SC gets @LSU and vs AR. UF gets @TAMU and vs LSU. Pencil UGA in as the SEC East winner now.

      AL has @ LSU and @AR, plus MI OOC. LSU has @AU, @AR, @UF, AL and SC, but not much OOC. AR has 2 games left to schedule, but hosts AL and LSU and plays @SC. Is this finally their year to break through?

      OOC UGA gets Buffalo, FAU, GA Southern (I-AA) and GT. Pencil in UGA as 12-0 and #1 going into the SECCG, but they could easily lose the CCG.

      Another interesting schedule quirk: UF finishes the season with 3 OOC games. That’s just wrong.

      Like

  31. Eric says:

    While the other comment is awaiting moderation (links), the SEC has announced its schedule for 2012. Missouri is still hoping to play Kansas next year (November 17th, a week early), but isn’t sure it can be worked out. It sounds like the schedule is just for 2012 and permanent scheduling details will be worked out later (meaning crossovers could still be altered). Texas A&M and Missouri will play a season ending game against each other this year.

    Like

  32. Eric says:

    Major announcement from the Big Ten and PAC-12. They are going to start a partnership which will (by 2017) have all 12 Big Ten teams playing one of the PAC-12 teams in football. The partnership is for all sports though and will start before then in other sports.

    They’ll cross-promote their networks and form cultural and academic exchanges.

    The Big Ten is going to reconsider going to 9 conference games as a result of this. The PAC-12 plans to stick with 9 games anyway.

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      This increases the likelihood of a Big 10 transplant in California or a Western transplant to Chicago, etc., wanting the opposite network. Makes a lot more sense than either school adding a 13th school. Also, cuts down on slots for Notre Dame games for everyone.

      Like

    • greg says:

      Major partnership across all sports including inter-network advertising. Wow, that Jim Delaney is still “stuck in the past”.

      Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        This almost sounds like the beginning of a break from the NCAA. Even though Delaney specifically denies that in the article (which I found kind of curious). This could be a harbinger of things to come.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Seriously… if you were doing a 4 x 16… why not have 9 conference games, plus a game against one team from each other major conference.

          Heck, with that much symmetry, you could almost led the teams schedule themselves. #1 in ACC East plays #1 in Big 10 East, #1 in SEC East, and #1 in Pac-12 East. And so on.

          Not saying this is going to happen, but this type of scheduling arrangement would make me nervous if I was running a school currently on the outside.

          Like

          • charlie says:

            @acaffrey – the issue you would have in that situation would be that the ADs like scheduling “body bag” games. the B1G has biiiiiiiig stadiums which need to get filled. it’s alot easier for ADs to pay a school like Toledo or Western Michigan to come in and lose so that they can fill their stadium and not have to do a home-and-home with them than it is to negociate a bunch of home-and-homes to make sure everyone gets their stadiums filled enough. even if the BCS conferences break off and form their own league or division (which I think is the endgame currently), the BCS schools will still continue to schedule MAC and Sun Belt teams to fill their stadiums

            Like

    • Eric says:

      Anyone else feel like the PAC-12 benefits a lot more from this than the Big Ten. The PAC-12 teams on average have a harder time selling out their stadiums and there are fewer of the biggest names. Now the Big Ten is going to see some combination of these:

      1. 6 home game seasons regularly for even big name teams
      2. see fewer big games other than against the PAC-12
      3. Instead of adding another Big Ten school to the schedule (which could potentially save Iowa-Wisconsin or at least make it more regular), we get a PAC-12 team.

      Based on the articles, #3 sounds the most likely with the conference sticking to 8 conference games instead of going to 9 as originally planned.

      On top of all this, the Rose Bowl becomes much more likely to be a rematch.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        I don’t know… Avoiding a 9th conference game, getting games in California or at least more attention out there every other year for recruiting, potential BTN expansion in the West all seem like strong benefits to me for the Big Ten.

        1) we need to see more how the scheduling works.
        2) They’re haven’t been many big games against other conferences lately as it is. In the past 6 years, the Ohio State series with Texas and the Penn State series with Alabama are the only two that jump out.
        3) I understand for some of these rivalries like Iowa-Wisconsin the 9th game would’ve helped, but there were still plenty of disadvantages as well.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          Illinois – Cal & Missouri
          Iowa – Texas
          Sparty – Cal
          Minnesota -USC & Cal
          Ohio State – Texas, USC & Miami (FL)
          Penn State – Alabama, ND & Oregon St.
          Purdue – Oregon
          TSUN – Oregon

          Of course Purdue, TSUN & Sparty all have their usual ND matchups.

          Like

      • SideshowBob says:

        I think having an 8 game conference schedule with an annual Pac-12 game is far far better than having a 9 game conference schedule. Variety is more interesting, plus this gives Big Ten schools more exposure to the weast coast for recruiting and alumni networking purposes.

        And if it helps get the BTN on more TVs in the western half of the US, great.

        Like

        • charlie says:

          @SideshowBob – I think that continuing the 9 game conference schedule is necessary for the B1G – Pac-12 football challenge. think about schools like Iowa and Purdue which have OOC games every year against Iowa State and ND, respectively. if the B1G were to go to a 9 game conference schedule and Iowa kept Iowa State as OOC (which it will), that means that Iowa would only have 2 open slots per year for its schedule. by maintaining the 8 game conference schedule, Iowa will have 3 open slots on top of its B1G and Pac-12 commitments

          Like

          • SideshowBob says:

            I think we are in agreement. This new information makes it look like the Big Ten will stick with 8 conference games. I am happy if that is the case.

            I’d much prefer 8 conference games, an annual Pac-12 matchup and then 3 other OOC slots.

            Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          As a college football fan who doesn’t have a rooting interest in the Pac 12 or Big Ten, I prefer more big out-of conference games to more conference games. Gives us more information for our arguments over how teams from around the country match up.

          Of course, if this prevents Pac 12 & Big Ten teams from scheduling SEC, Big 12, or ACC teams, we could end up with 2 top tiers that have even fewer scheduling connections between them.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I’m pretty sure it will on that last point.

            Pac-12 schools will have 9 conference games and 1 Big Ten game (along with 2 or more schools having ND games possibly). How are they going to fit anyone else into that other than a cupcake.

            Big Ten schools will have 8 conference games and 1 Pac-12 game along with the (usual 3 schools having ND games).

            No way the Big Ten schools schedule anyone else. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Big East will lose access to those schools from the perspective of scheduling…

            Like

          • charlie says:

            @m – I think this is why Delany pitched the idea of continuing with the 8 game conference schedule instead of going to the 9 game conference schedule. with 9 games + a Pac-12 game, there’s only 2 open spots, which will inevitably be body bag games. by staying at 8 conference games + a Pac-12 game, there are 3 open spots: 2 body bag games + 1 SEC/Big 12/ACC game, the strength of which will probably be determined by who the Pac-12 opponent is for that year

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Zeek:

            The Pac schools, as they really don’t have big stadiujms to fill (other than the SoCal schools, and they need to bring in brand-name opponents to gets fickle California sports fans to show up) are generally fine with only 1 body-bag game a year. They’ve typically scheduled 2 home and 1 away game OOC with the 9 conference game slate.

            As for the Big10, I fully expect NU to keep on scheduling peer academic institutions, as the quality of opponent matters more for attendance for us than having 7 home games a year. IU certainly could schedule other BCS teams if they wanted to as well. PSU will still schedule 1 eastern school. Wisconsin, UNL, Illinois, and Minny certainly could schedule home-and-homes as well. Likely also PU, as they probably don’t mind 6 home games from time to time either. Even tOSU (unless they want 8 home games every other year). Only Michigan, MSU, and Iowa are really constrained.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Just to add some data, OSU already has 2 AQs scheduled OOC for 2013-5 and 2017 (2012 too if UCF counts).

            2012 – Cal, UCF, Miami OH, UAB
            2013 – Vandy, @Cal (& FAMU, open)
            2014 – VT, UC (& @Navy, Kent St)
            2015 – UNC, @VT (& NIU, open)
            2016 – @OU, (& BGSU, open, open)
            2017 – OU, @UNC (& open, open)

            Having 8 B10 games and 1 P12 game wouldn’t prevent them from continuing to schedule a mid-level AQ from elsewhere.

            http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/42337/delany-discusses-partnership-with-pac-12

            I like that TV will play less of a role in the scheduling than for the ACC/B10 challenge, and that the games will be in weeks 2-4 primarily. I’m less excited about them supposedly scheduling the games for competitive equity, meaning the same teams may see each other a lot. I’d rather see them form pods (P12 – NW, Cal, SW; B10 – W, middle, E) and you pair the pods for only 1 year before rotating them. That gives everyone equal SoCal exposure and the SOS balances out. I’m curious to see how neutral site games fit in.

            Like

      • charlie says:

        @Eric – while, yes, this means that the Rose Bowl may potentially be a rematch, and, yes, this move is probably more about getting more B1G subscriptions on the west coast and Pac-12 subscriptions in the midwest, this move will also soften the blow if D1-A goes to a plus-one and the Rose Bowl loses a bit of prestige

        Like

    • Rich says:

      I’ve always wondered why they didn’t do something like this. Almost like a football version of the ACC-Big Ten basketball challenge.

      Like

      • charlie says:

        @Rich – what is the status of the Big Ten – ACC Challenge? I know the contract goes through 2011, is there plans to re-up it after this year? or will it turn into the Big Ten – Pac-12 Challenge? while I don’t mind having a B1G – P-12 challenge, it doesn’t have the same prestige as the B1G – ACC Challenge

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I’m guessing they’ll do both if the ACC still wants it. The ACC is a much better MBB league than the P12. It’s only 2 games a year.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      Remember that the B10 originally looked at expansion because of demographic and recruiting concerns as well. The problem for the B10 is that the schools that would meet both the academic and athletic standards in growing, recruit-rich parts of the country (Texas, UF, UGa, and TAMU) have no interest in joining.

      In the Pac, WSU wouldn’t get in the B10, and possibly OregonSt. as well, but the vast majority of schools are B10 peers.

      Culturally, the West Coast fits the Midwest (and Northeast) far better than the south or Texas does (unsurprisingly, as the west was settled mostly by Midwesterners and New Yorkers in LA).

      Expect the 2 conferences to become more intertwined, and eventually possibly even put their TV deals up for bid together, combine their networks, and maybe even join togther all media rights.

      Like

      • Mack says:

        B1G:PAC bowl matchups will not happen in FL or TX except maybe the Sun Bowl (El Paso)…not enough local interest. The B1G will not give up the $EC matchups. The Texas and/or Ticketcity bowls might be replaced with the Holiday, Sun, and/or Las Vegas bowls. Sort of a slight upgrade to the Kraft UCLA:IL matchup for any added bowl games between the conferences.
        :
        Utah, WaSt, OrSt, and AzSt are not peers of B1G. Only about half of the other 8 generate sports revenue typical of a B1G school.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I can see Utah athletically, but in what way is ASU not a peer?

          Also, I wasn’t speaking of bowl matchups; with the frequent games on the west coast, the B10 would definitely want to keep playing bowl games in FL, TX, and other points south for alums and recruiting there.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            However, Delany did mention bowl partnerships with the Pac. They want to maintain the Rose, but probably are tired of bowl execs skimming off the money when the 2 conferences could just set up bowls themselves (likely in AZ; bye bye, corrupt Fiesta; maybe in Cali or Texas as well).

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Scott mentioned more bowl matchups. As I said, if it happens, it will be at the bottom of the pick list (which for the B1G are the two Texas based bowls) because the B1G will not give up its high payout bowls in FL with the SEC.

            The PAC did not invite ASU to join, but was told by the joint AZ regents they needed to take ASU with AZ (invited) or neither. The PAC took both. B1G would have passed on both. Weak academics combined with so-so athletics as compared to B1G schools, not all schools in US.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ASU has improved a lot academically/research-wise since the ’70’s.

            In research, the only schools that rank lower in ARWU rankings than the lowest of the original B10 (Iowa; UNL is one tier below) are WSU and Oregon.

            In fandom fervor, granted, most Pac schools can’t reach the B10 average, but they also have better recruiting grounds and more population growth.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      USA Today article, doesn’t quote anyone, but says they won’t do the 9 game schedule.

      Like

  33. duffman says:

    SEC releases composite schedule

    http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/230227/sec-releases-2012-conference-football-schedule.aspx

    here is just TAMU and MU

    MISSOURI
    Sept. 8: GEORGIA 10-3
    Sept. 22: at South Carolina 10-2
    Oct. 6: VANDERBILT 6-6
    Oct. 13: ALABAMA 11-1
    Oct. 27: KENTUCKY 5-7
    Nov. 3: at Florida 6-6
    Nov. 10: at Tennessee 5-7
    Nov. 24: at Texas A&M

    TEXAS A&M
    Sept. 8: FLORIDA 6-6
    Sept. 29: vs. Arkansas 10-2
    Oct. 6: at Ole Miss 2-10
    Oct. 20: LSU 13-0
    Oct. 27: at Auburn 7-5
    Nov. 3: at Mississippi State 6-6
    Nov. 10: at Alabama 11-1
    Nov. 24: MISSOURI

    Looks like they will pair MU and TAMU for the EoY game to fill holes left by Texas and Kansas. MU will face 53-32 vs 55-30 for TAMU. While it looks close, MU is going to get more middle competition, and TAMU is going to get more top and bottom teams. It just lists SEC games, but Alabama is playing Michigan next season @ JerryWorld that I am looking forward to open the season. Any B12 folks on here have any idea about the B12 schedule? I thought the deadline to file was this week or next.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Articles are still talking about Missouri trying to work out something with Kansas for November 17th next year (far from a guarantee though).

      The SEC has also said this is only for this year, so it’s possible they alter the permanent crossovers next year (but probably not).

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      Yeah, this is clearly a 1 year schedule. For one thing, A&M has 2 home division games with 4 away. Alabama has that reversed.

      I don’t think A&M and Missouri will play the last week of the year every year; but all accounts are it’s difficult to schedule non-conference games at this late date.

      Like

  34. duffman says:

    So far this is the B12 OOC for next season :

    Baylor : SMU 7-5 CUSA, SH State 11-0 FCS, La Monroe 4-8 SB
    Iowa State : Tulsa 8-4 CUSA, Iowa 7-5 B1G, W Illinois 2-11 FCS
    Kansas : S Dakota St 5-6 FCS, Rice 4-8 CUSA, N Illinois 9-3 MAC
    Kansas State : Miami FL 6-6 ACC, N Texas 5-7 SB, TBA
    Oklahoma : Notre Dame 8-4 IND, TBA, TBA
    Oklahoma State : Arizona 4-8 PAC, La Lafayette 8-4 SB, TBA
    TCU : Grambling, UVA 8-4 ACC, SMU 7-5 CUSA
    Texas : Wyoming 8-5 MWC, New Mexico 1-11 MWC, Mississippi 2-10 SEC
    Texas Tech : Texas State 6-6 FCS, New Mexico 1-11 MWC, TBA

    West Virginia : Marshall 6-6 CUSA, Florida State 8-4 ACC, James Madison 8-4 FCS

    They better hope WVU gets in because FSU at 8-4 may be the toughest team they face for their SoS! Wow, at least Oklahoma trying to schedule tough OOC is something, but the rest of the conference leaves much to be desired! Looking at just current AQ schools :

    ACC = Miami 6-6, Virginia 8-4, and Florida State 8-4
    B1G = Iowa 7-5
    IND = Notre Dame 8-4
    PAC = Arizona 4-8
    SEC = Mississippi 2-10

    Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      About a month ago it was reported that A&M and OU had a mutual interest in playing each other next year. Haven’t heard anything since, but A&M needs at least 1 top non-conference game.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      All of those schools looked pretty good 3 or 4 years ago when the schedules were made.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Agreed. This is also why I don’t come down too hard on Wisconsin versus Oregon State among other matchups. You just don’t know ahead of time.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          zeek,

          Fair enough, but you can schedule IU well in advance and know what you will probably play. I would put Virginia and Arizona a step above that as a win for a historically good program. Texas picks an SEC school and it is Mississippi? I think odds are good the longhorns were scheduling for the win. Miami has been down for a bit, and Iowa is solid mid level, but who was playing the high end of the schedule? WVU and Oklahoma playing Florida State, and Oklahoma playing Notre Dame. As I said before, Oklahoma is the exception in the B12 when it comes to scheduling good OOC opponents. I think West Virginia will schedule tough, but they are not in the B12 yet. The bulk of the future B12 just seems to schedule weak OOC.

          Like

    • vp19 says:

      So West Virginia did drop Maryland from its 2012 schedule in order to fit nine Big 12 games?

      Like

  35. XOVERX says:

    The object is to get a plus one playoff system into place regardless of its flaws.

    Once plus one is in place, then it will be a very short step to expanding to plus 3 and even 4.

    Baby steps.

    Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      Is ‘Stay Tuned’ at the end of an article a requirement for internet journalists / bloggers today? I can’t decide if it snuck in subconsciously, or if they’re making a subtle joke about Chip Brown’s style.

      Like

  36. Sean says:

    Close but not quite there. The “quasi-semifinals” would be based on the host team. SEC champ to Sugar, Big 12 to Fiesta, ACC to Orange. Bowl w/ top ranked champ gets to pick first. Rose Bowl stays the same. Cotton Bowl gets added and, in exchange for the title game every 5 years, takes the Big East champ as an anchor.

    This year:
    Sugar – #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford
    Fiesta – #2 Oklahoma State vs. #3 Alabama
    Orange – Clemson vs. Michigan (purely for tickets, still)
    Cotton – West Virginia vs. Arkansas (over K-State, South Carolina, Boise, etc. for tickets)
    Rose – Oregon vs. Wisconsin.
    (note, the Sugar could still do LSU/Alabama and the Fiesta could still do OK St/Stanford. bowls won’t be forced to do semifinal matchups if they don’t want to. I could see the games staying the same as they are this year, just the Sugar/Fiesta winners playing in the plus-one)

    Last year:
    Sugar – #1 Auburn vs. #3 TCU
    Fiesta – #7 Oklahoma vs. #4 Stanford
    Orange – Virginia Tech vs. Ohio State
    Cotton – UConn vs. Arkansas
    Rose – #2 Oregon vs. #5 Wisconsin

    The bottom line is that there WILL NOT be a true 4-team playoff. Period, end of story. The Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership announced today basically assures that.

    We’re trending far more toward an “old-school” plus-one than the 4-team playoff everyone wants.

    Which is funny since, short of a playoff, all fans really wanted in 90s was a plus-one for all the split titles and controversy. Think about how well it would’ve played out:

    1990: Colorado vs. Georgia Tech
    1991: Miami vs. Washington
    1993: Florida State vs. Notre Dame
    1994: Nebraska vs. Penn State
    1996: Florida vs. Ohio State
    1997: Nebraska vs. Michigan

    Even in 1992, Florida State was going to play for the title if Bama lost in the 1st SEC title game against Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, so they’d get a shot.

    Only the results of 1995 provided no real plus-one scenario.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I don’t think the B1G/Pac 12 partnership implies anything about the postseason. Its about getting TV $ during the regular season.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I think the BTN, and even more so the P12N’s just dramatically increased in value.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          This may finally get the BTN available in LA, the one major market they hadn’t cracked IIRC. It helps both networks have some better OOC games to cover, and the best games can go to broadcast or ESPN.

          This tightens the ties between the B10 and P12, hopefully meaning they will stand with the Rose against a playoff.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      Sean,

      We’re trending far more toward an “old-school” plus-one than the 4-team playoff everyone wants.

      I don’t think the word “everyone” means what you think it means. There are millions of people who don’t want a playoff.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        What he said.

        Like

      • joe4psu says:

        There are more people who want a playoff today and the number will continue to grow. It is only a matter of time until fbs football joins ALL other sports in college and professional leagues by deciding a champion based on results on the field not biased opinions.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I hate to burst your bubble, but CFB isn’t that different from MBB, WBB and many other sports. The only difference is they pick 2 teams to compete for the title while other sports pick bigger fields. Who gets in still comes down to opinion, and then the results are decided in competition.

          Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          ….once a committee says a team is worthy of taking the field.

          Like

        • Purduemoe says:

          Actually Joe, there are hundreds of leagues around the world that have no playoffs, in the worlds most popular sport. Yes it is soccer, but the fans around the world have no problem with the fact that there is no playoff at the end of the year. Most of those leagues also have a tournament that is played throughout the year. That winner is not the champion however, and has less prestige than winning the league. So please don’t say all, unless you just mean all in the U.S.

          Like

  37. greg says:

    A more definitive statement from Delany on 9 games not happening:

    The scheduling partnership means the Big Ten won’t be moving from eight conference games to nine beginning in the 2017 season. The league had announced the increase in August.

    “If it’s not off the board, it’s coming off the board,” Delany said. “When this opportunity was raised, it’s pretty much the understanding that it’s in lieu of.”

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/42337/delany-discusses-partnership-with-pac-12

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m absolutely loving this Big Ten-Pac-12 quasi-merger.

      In essence, it’s like a 10% cross-scheduling merger which is essentially adding a team or two to the conference without actually doing it.

      This is probably the smartest thing that Delany and Scott have done for the respective conferences outside of the formation of their networks and actual expansions.

      Huge implications for the other conferences as well given that the Big Ten and Pac-12 are going to be much less likely to schedule them non-conference for football. Both sides get big upside (Pac-12 exposure against Big Ten’s brands for exposure East of the Mississippi as well as the Big Ten’s gains in the fertile recruiting areas out west, which is also going to happen through the networks).

      It’s basically like going to 14 teams without actually going to 14 teams…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        One other thing, this arrangement is a pretty big olive branch to Notre Dame (if they’re ever interested in joining).

        While the ACC is moving to 9 conference games, the Big Ten is adding a Pac-12 game instead of a 9th conference game. The possibilities of making that work out better for an ND -> Big Ten scenario are pretty strong.

        Of course, I don’t see Notre Dame joining any conference in the next 5-10 years, but a more national scheduling philosophy for the Big Ten through this partnership has to be something that appeals to ND.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          The ACC is moving to 9 conference games?

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Well from what the ADs have said, I’m just guessing. Heck Va Tech’s AD said he wanted 10 (although I couldn’t tell if he meant that in jest or not). Regardless, I’d expect the ACC to be at 9, since they were looking at 9 pretty hard. Unless I’m mistaken and they’ve made it clear they’re staying at 8…

            Like

          • frug says:

            They have said they have no plans to move to 9, but have not ruled it out. Obviously they won’t make any changes until Pitt and ‘Cuse join in a couple years, but after that I would be surprised if they didn’t make add a conference game.

            Like

        • imho says:

          Olive branch to Notre Dame… I don’t think so. More like a middle finger as we throw down four aces!.. Delany uas effectively destroyed half? Of ND’s schedule. USC, Stanford, Mich, Mich St, Penn State… all gone… And don’t forget about Pitt and Cuse in the 9 game ACC… Gone too! Delaney has effectively removed the West coast, Midwest, and Pennsylvania from ND’s “national” schedule! Point Set Match… The man is an animal.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, I mean this move is clearly way way way more valuable than a 9th conference game. This is such an outside the box move as a way to really bump up the TV deals and create interesting matchups in the first 4 weeks.

            I’ve always slammed the Big Ten’s macfest weekend, and now it’s finally going to be gone and we’re actually going to get a really interesting 3-4 week Big Ten-Pac-12 challenge to open the season. Should make for a really interesting first 1/3 of the season.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            I posted awhile back on the OOC’s for each conference. This past year I think the B1G vs PAC cross was 5 games (the most for either conference) while the ACC vs SEC crossed 5 games as well. I would be surprised if the ACC and SEC go to 9 games because ESPN owns both AND they have several in state OOC games already.

            Florida State vs Florida
            Clemson vs South Carolina
            Georgia Tech vs Georgia

            I am guessing all these have decent rating numbers. I could see ESPN pushing for more of these type of games. Tennessee & Kentucky could renew old games with the ACC schools in Virginia & North Carolina from the old SoCon days.

            Like

          • @rich2 – This makes more sense to me. I think a lot of fans want to “stick it” to Notre Dame, but the conference commissioners are much more pragmatic. To the extent that the Irish continue to be independent, it’s beneficial for the Big Ten and Pac-12 to maintain rivalries with them as it enhances their respective TV packages. Being able to guarantee 1 or 2 high profile games with Notre Dame in your conference TV package every year is fairly significant. Everything that the Big Ten and Pac-12 are doing here is to be in addition to the ND games (as opposed to taking away from them).

            On another note, I’ve never heard of Jack Swarcbrick and Jim Delany as having a “close relationship”. Interesting that Forde mentions that in his article.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Well, I think the Big Ten is going to be at 8 games for sure. The bigger question is the Pac-12. The USC-ND game is so entrenched though, and Stanford-ND is worth a lot in terms of exposure for Stanford, so ND probably won’t have trouble keeping those.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Yeah, I don’t think this threatens ND in any way. Is USC going to drop ND? MSU? Both Stanford and PU would dearly love to keep having an annual ND game. Only Michigan can replace ND with an equally compelling matchup every year and may have an inclination to do so (to play outside of the B10 & P12 footprints).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            I’ve always slammed the Big Ten’s macfest weekend, and now it’s finally going to be gone and we’re actually going to get a really interesting 3-4 week Big Ten-Pac-12 challenge to open the season. Should make for a really interesting first 1/3 of the season.

            I think that’s a mistake. This would be a much bigger deal if all the games are played in one week (3 on Thursday, 9 on Saturday) than if it’s spread out. How much coverage and hype would the ACC/B10 hoops challenge get if it took 3 weeks to be played versus 2-3 days? I don’t really mind the MAC weekend, but it can be fixed by shifting a couple of conference games to week 4. I think it was mostly an artifact of the move to 12 games and ADs being very conservative at first.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Brian, that’s too much for one weekend though. Basketball is a different story because you need to put it all in 2 days to maximize the impact.

            I mean could you imagine:

            Week 2
            Michigan-USC
            Michigan State-Washington
            Indiana-Oregon State
            Northwestern-Colorado

            Week 3
            Ohio State-Oregon
            Nebraska-Cal
            Purdue-Arizona
            Minnesota-Washington State

            Week 4
            Wisconsin-Stanford
            Penn State-Utah
            Iowa-Arizona State
            Illinois-UCLA

            That’s 3 weeks of big matchups. A headliner or two plus two undercards (in a way).

            You don’t want to overload a lot of brands playing each other on the same weekend. You’re just wasting too much national attention that way.

            I love the idea of just taking over the month of September for college football. It’d put the spotlight squarely on the Big Ten and Pac-12.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            From a contrarian standpoint, it could also trap them like the bowl alliance did. They played each other but didn’t test themselves against the rest of the country and got viewed as inferior.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            Brian, that’s too much for one weekend though.

            I don’t think so. Most of the games aren’t appealing nationally anyway. Spread them out over 3 weeks and it’s really no different than now except for more P12 opponents than other conferences. Remember that other conferences play a few elite games too, so it only take one LSU/OR type game to steal the thunder on that weekend. Having a bunch of games on one weekend makes it the center of attention.

            Basketball is a different story because you need to put it all in 2 days to maximize the impact.

            Media coverage is the same for both. ESPN won’t treat it like the ACC/B10 if it’s so spread out. It won’t get as much mention on CFB Live, Gameday or Sportscenter. Each weekend another conference’s elite OOC game could trump the B10/P12 games.

            I mean could you imagine:

            Week 2
            Michigan-USC
            Michigan State-Washington
            Indiana-Oregon State
            Northwestern-Colorado

            A neutral fans probably only really cares about MI/USC, depending on rankings of the other teams. Another national game could steal the coverage.

            Week 3
            Ohio State-Oregon
            Nebraska-Cal
            Purdue-Arizona
            Minnesota-Washington State

            Again, only 1 game of note.

            Week 4
            Wisconsin-Stanford
            Penn State-Utah
            Iowa-Arizona State
            Illinois-UCLA

            I don’t think any of these would draw a lot of attention since people don’t really believe in Stanford, especially once Luck leaves.

            That’s 3 weeks of big matchups. A headliner or two plus two undercards (in a way).

            That’s 2 big games in 3 weeks, and other conferences will play some big games on those weeks, too. B10 and P12 fans might be excited, but that doesn’t mean everyone else will be too. How is that schedule an improvement nationally over the usual B10 schedule except for fewer MAC games in week 4?

            You don’t want to overload a lot of brands playing each other on the same weekend. You’re just wasting too much national attention that way.

            You are wasting a chance at the spotlight by spreading the games out so much. Don’t forget that playing the P12 adds the late time slot. That makes 2 slots on Thursday and 4 on Saturday, or 6 total for 12 games. You could even add another weekday (Tuesday or Wednesday) to get some national coverage of lesser games.

            I love the idea of just taking over the month of September for college football. It’d put the spotlight squarely on the Big Ten and Pac-12.

            No, it wouldn’t. You greatly overestimate the attractiveness of most of those games to neutral fans. You need a match up of top 10 teams or 2 kings to get media attention. By spreading out the games, you make this deal no different from any other year OOC and that’s how the media will treat it..

            Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        I’m absolutely loving this Big Ten-Pac-12 quasi-merger.

        I more at the liking it pending details stage. Outside of FB, I think it helps the BTN and PTN more than the teams themselves. That’s potentially a lot of cross-country trips for minor sports that don’t need the extra wear and tear.

        For FB, it’s hard to know what to think until they detail a scheduling philosophy. It sounds like they want pair everyone up, so in 24 years you’ve played everybody twice. 24 years is forever in college athletics. I’d rather see them pair brand tiers and rotate through them more quickly. Maybe lock some pairs for a decade or more based on history (NE/CO, maybe OSU/USC and MI/UCLA, even PSU/OR possibly) to build some rivalries for better TV?

        I think they will miss something if they don’t schedule this over 1 weekend. Play 4 games on Thursday (2 @ 7:00 in the midwest, 1 @ 10:30 out west), and 8 on Saturday (2 @ 12:00 in midwest, 3 @ 3:30, 3 @ 7:30, 1 @ 10:30 out west).

        Huge implications for the other conferences as well given that the Big Ten and Pac-12 are going to be much less likely to schedule them non-conference for football. Both sides get big upside (Pac-12 exposure against Big Ten’s brands for exposure East of the Mississippi as well as the Big Ten’s gains in the fertile recruiting areas out west, which is also going to happen through the networks).

        I don’t see this having that much scheduling impact. The SEC rarely plays any B10 teams, so no impact there. The BE and ACC have plenty of mid-level teams or worse that the B10 schools might play. The B12 doesn’t play the B10 that much except IA/ISU, so no big loss there. I think the biggest impact is on teams like OSU that try to always schedule an elite opponent OOC. They may well play another AQ OOC, but it probably won’t be an elite one unless they know their P12 opponent shouldn’t be elite.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Brian:

          I think they’ll spread it out (over 3 weeks) to ensure that every week there are 4 P12-B10 matchups, 2 for each TV deal.The key reason for doing this is to enhance the TV product, after all. Furthermore, I don’t see the B10 playing more on Thursdays (other than opening weekend), much less 4 games on a single Thursday.

          I also believe they’re going to match up tiers (kind of like the B10-ACC challenge). As football scheduling has to be set far in advance, one way to make it work is to separate it in to 3 tiers of 4 (based on success over the past 10 years). Each cycle lasts 6 years, so everyone plays 3 of the 4 schools in their tier (maybe the top tier teams play all 4, if they play 2 neutral site games as well as 2 HaHs). 2 years before the current cycle ends, determine the new tiers & scheduling for the next 6 year cycle.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I wasn’t saying what I think they will do, just explaining what I think they will miss out on by spreading it out. The lower B10 teams play some Thursday games already, and many P12 teams do as well. Delany could learn to live with it. Instead, he will probably find a way to minimize the positives of this while driving schools to schedule even more cupcakes.

            If you match up tiers, why not finish the rotation before resetting the teams?

            Will the teams accept matching tiers, or do more of them want to play everybody? I don’t know.

            What system for selecting tiers could they agree on? Conference W%? Overall W%? Conference titles/CCG appearances?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Huh? P12 teams definitely play Thursday games, but what lower B10 team has played a Thursday night game outside of opening week?

            Like

          • @Richard – I think they’ll spread the games out over 3 weeks, too. When you think about it, the ACC/Big Ten Challenge is over the course of 3 days and that’s basketball where you can load up on more games in a more compressed time period. 4 games per week throughout September means that there can be at least one Big Ten-
            Pac-12 game in every TV time slot during that period, which seems to be the best way to maximize the value of this (compared to one single day of games).

            Like

  38. Cliff's Notes says:

    From the Woj article on ESPN:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7393687/partnership-pac-12-big-ten-benefits-expansion-legal-mess

    According to Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis, the future event list could include multicourt and multigames between Pac-12 and Big Ten teams at Dodger Stadium, the Rose Bowl, Ford Field in Detroit or Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. Madison Square Garden also remains a possible venue, as do other NBA arenas, such as Staples Center in Los Angeles.

    To me, this means that the conferences could approach an arena for a four-day event; perhaps Michigan, Northwestern, UCLA, and Utah men’s and women’s basketball at the Staples Center (or United Center), with men’s on Thursday/Saturday and women’s on Friday/Sunday.

    Or they could do four teams playing in Dallas, Atlanta, Vegas, Orlando, Madison Square Garden…

    Same thing for some of the Olympic sports. Have a few teams travel to the same campus for a meet.

    This would split up some travel costs, and by partnering a marquee program with a less marquee program in the distant markets, it would help shoulder the burden. Pac-12 folks may not care about Nebraska or Penn State basketball, but if they traveled with Michigan State or Indiana or Ohio State, it would be tolerated.

    Like

  39. Playoffs Now says:

    First off, I wouldn’t assume that this closer B1G-P12 Alliance is intended to result in a merger, so don’t want to necessarily make too much of it. However, if it is the first step toward a B1G-Pac super conference, it could be the missing link that makes 4×16 and a 64-school pull away from the NCAA possible.

    Why? Because while the P12 or B1G could only offer 4 slots to Texas and friends, a B1G-Pac can easily absorb 8 schools. One of the rumors during the expansion frenzy was that UT AD Dodds was trying to find good homes for fellow B12 schools if the Longhorns were going to change conferences. With the commitment and promises that UT has made to fellow schools to keep the B12 alive, that would make sense if they ever decided to leave. TCU and WV were asked to take risks to join the B12, and KS agreed to move its game to the LHN this season, so it wouldn’t be crazy for UT to have promised protection to get their agreements.

    If the B1G and P12 were competing for Texas, it would be harder to work out a deal like that. But if they become financially tied together, such as a B1G-Pac package bid for future contracts or equal (or near equal) revenue sharing between the conferences, then who gets Texas and who gets the less profitable schools may no longer be a deal breaker. The B1G-Pac absorbing most of the B12 would make it a national conference in 3/4 of the country, a greater reach than the likely SEC-ACC reaction could match. Even if the SEC’s advantage continued in TV negotations, you’d now have at least overall parity, with the B1G-Pac likely bringing in more per school than the SEC would get by itself or in any combo with the ACC+.

    Here’s how it might play out:

    A)

    TX, Baylor, ND, Rutgers to B1G
    KS, OU, Okie St, TTech to P16

    Some say ND is a better fit in the ACC, but would it pass up the higher $, schedule fit of USC, Stanford, UT (and perhaps Baylor to provide a game in Texas every year), Michigan/MSU/PU, and NYC games with Rutgers, plus the academic prestige that would please the faculty? Given the choice of this or an SEC-ACC pairing and a new college football paradigm that would likely freeze out anyone not in the 2 super conferences/alliances, I could see enough of the Irish fans grudgingly come to accept it. If the B1G-Pac took these schools, the SEC would likely grab TCU (to get greater presence in Texas, the furthest market west possible for them, and a game in the state each year for most SEC schools) and perhaps WV (though BYU might get the 16th spot.) ACC would probably settle for UConn and either Louisville or Cincy among the remaining options, though BYU might talk its way in, or WV if the SEC passes on them.

    Or maybe the P16 takes TCU instead of KS, which would almost surely be picked up by the SEC or ACC. While the P12 was strongly against adding Baylor or BYU, the more secular nature of TCU (motto: “TCU, don’t let the middle name fool you.”) and financial windfall of reorganizing to 4×16 might make it possible. Landing Texas, ND, and transforming the college sports landscape where the B1G-Pac is the dominant conference and resulting financial windfall might be enough for the B1G to accept Baylor. And let’s be objective, Baylor and TCU are excellent schools at the undergrad level.

    One other note, Texas has been quoted as preferring to play in the central and eastern time zones, so as long as a pod system was adopted that gives flexibility to continue to play most of their rivals most years (and OU annually) then this split could work for UT (and ND, too.) Larry Scott has hinted before that things might evolve into 4-school pod-champions playing off an extra week to determine conference champions.

    B)

    TX, Baylor, TCU, Rutgers to B1G
    KS, OU, Okie St, TTech to P16

    Should ND decide to go to the ACC. TCU/KS might be swapped, giving the P16 more presence in Texas. ACC adds UConn, and WV has a decent shot at the SEC considering the remaining likely candidates (BYU and Louisville.)

    Now of course the B1G could move in a totally different direction and try to peel off some ACC schools, and the SEC might try the same (perhaps in tandem.) You could also see the B1G-P12 pull up the drawbridge and consider an alliance of 24 optimum. Perhaps looking for a long-term paradigm or 3 super alliances and 72 schools pulling away. SEC and ACC at 14 partnering with the B12 and BEast-west at 10, maybe with 2 schools from each competing in the other conference for football only at some point. But the potential of cornering the majority of the college football market and all the power and $ it implies might be tempting, and a B1G-Pac solution offering the right package for Texas and friends to move while satisfying most political requirements.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Regarding my prior post, some might get hung up on how scheduling could possibly work. If the B1G-Pac and SEC-ACC form the 2 major super conferences, they can rewrite the rules anyway they see fit. So I’d think we’d see a move to pods, where you win your pod and make the conference playoffs, and then scheduling within conference could be anyway that suits it. Or you might see 4 divisions of 8 schools with their champs meeting 4 wildcards in the conference playoff, with the divisions changing every year or two as 4-school pods or 2-school pairings are mixed and matched. Lots of ways to work it out where major rivalries are preserved annually and important ones maintained for the majority of years while also making geographic sense yet offering the chance for enough cross-region mixing to enhance viewership, TV attractiveness, the ability to get multiple channels on basic cable, and avoid monotony.

      Another potential windfall: a 32-school conference allows it to potentially partner with the NFL and serve as a more organized farm system for the Pro’s. More $ if done right.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Last paragraph-making it look more like a farm system is the absolute last things the President’s want.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I don’t pay attention to NBA and NFL til near playoffs. Sounds like a system that those who want to limit conference games in order to sellout another home ooc game will jump at (sarcasm).

          Like

    • acaffrey says:

      As if TCU would ever join a conference and then have to find a new conference rather soon. 🙂

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      Don’t see Baylor, a non-AAU school, fitting into the Big Ten mindset (and even in this alliance, Big Ten members would want some academic autonomy). I could see Texas and Kansas both going there (perhaps flanked to the east with the additions of Rutgers and Maryland), while the Pac takes Kansas State, Oklahoma, Okie State and Texas Tech. As for Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Christian, the Big 12 would be replenished with the likes of Big East football members Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida, Houston, Southern Methodist and Central Florida. (In this scenario, I expect Connecticut to fill Maryland’s spot in the ACC.)

      Like

      • redwood86 says:

        My god, will you guys ever put yourselves in others’ shoes when conjecturing?

        The Pac-12 just nixed OU and OSU and you are suggesting that it will take those two PLUS KSU and TTech? What are you smoking??

        Like

        • frug says:

          I think his overall point is correct though; neither the Big 10 nor the PAC-1X will ever take Baylor.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            If Texas and OU say take Ok. St. and Baylor to get us, the Pac will be glad to take them.

            I thought there was actually a remote chance of brokering a dismantling of the Big 12 prior to this summer. But the loss of A&M and Missouri loses a lot of leverage the league had.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:
            Baylor in the PAC? That was the price a year and a half ago. Not even if it was hypothetically able to deliver UT, OU, LSU, UNL, Fla, etc. Jeez! Boise St has a far greater chance at an invite, and that chance is microscopic.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Baylor was never in the PAC mix. The 6 schools were TX, A&M, OK, OKSt, TxTech, and CO (KS also mentioned as substitute). Even back when the Southwest conference was dying, Texas only wanted the PAC to take Texas Tech (due to politics), but the PAC was only interested in a TX and A&M deal despite taking AzSt a few years before.
            :
            Baylor was able to take it out on the PAC in the ALamo bowl with a 67-56 over Washington.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Won’t happen. When the PAC gave Scott unilateral expansion authority one of the few conditions they gave him was no religiously affiliated schools under any circumstances. Even with the relaxed rules (9 out of 12 instead of unanimous) the Cali schools have made clear they will band together to block any religious school. (In fact

            Baylor is a non-starter no matter what.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Baylor is a better school than Boise.

            Money talks. The Pac didn’t want Baylor over Colorado, but IMO they would play if it meant getting UT and OU on acceptable Tier 3 terms.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            bullet:

            Academics & athletics aren’t solely what matter to the Pac. Otherwise, BYU would be a strong candidate. In fact, given that the Pac schools don’t have an academic consortium right now (and WSU is in a different universe from Stanford in academics), academics may be less important that sectarian concerns.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Glad to see someone is paying attention, not simply creating a personal wish list.
          As to OU/OkSU to the PAC, I’m not convinced they were blanket refused. Had Boren moved immediately toward the PAC, rather than try to use that possibility in negotiations with UT and the Longhorn conference, I think the new schedualing agreement would involve a pac14. Perhaps providing a format for OU/UNL to be yearly?

          Like

          • frug says:

            I don’t know. OU/OSU required 9 votes for admission and I just can’t see anyway they could have got them. Colorado made clear from the beginning they didn’t want to add them (or Texas and TTU for that matter) since a pods system or East/West alignment since it would reduce the number of games they have on the West Coast and make it harder to compete by forcing them to compete with schools they have already acknowledge they are incapable of keeping up with. Plus, Utah and the Arizona schools wanted to maintain annual games in LA and the NW schools were unwilling to make any more scheduling concessions after agreeing last year to let the Cali four continue to play each other every year. Add in that Stanford and Cal were hesitant to make anymore academic compromises unless they got the conference Texas, and it was unlikely that OU and OSU were going to be admitted by themselves.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:
            I understand all those reasonings. They address the why not to, but ignore the why to do it. How did things get so far along only to get quelched in the middle of the night (following the revelation that OU was secretly returning to negotiations with UT) if there wasn’t some fire behind the smoke.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I don’t really think we know what happened, but my guess is that for the next 5-10 years, TPTB in the Pac-12 are pretty much only going to consider Texas + 3 as the sole expansion scenario.

            Plus, with this Big Ten-Pac-12 scheduling alliance, it’s hard to see why they’d even bother to expand outside of Texas + 3.

            Texas + 3 is the lottery for the Pac-12 Networks. Anything less than that doesn’t really do that much given that they’ll be generating a lot of Eastern exposure with the Big Ten if this scheduling alliance works out…

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            A catch 22. Only probable way to move UT is to admit OU (and therefore OkSU). But only way to admit is with UT, which as long as they are together then UT sees no reason to move.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The reason it got so far in the first place is because Larry Scott believed it was in the best interest of the conference, but when the it came to time to actually make things happen he couldn’t whip the votes. (For the record this made it the second time in as many years that Scott over estimated his own leverage in expansion; the first being getting played so badly by Texas he was forced to try and save face by making up an excuse about Baylor that he admitted last week wasn’t the reason the deal fell through).

            As for OU’s last minuted negotiations with UT and the Big XII, I think you have it backwards. David Boren had taken Scott’s word that the votes were there, but when he realized the deal might collapse he tried to get some concessions from Texas while he had leverage.

            Like

  40. Playoffs Now says:

    Interesting stuff in this article:

    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=An24LJj6E7VzJMq1iKXkwe4cvrYF?slug=pf-forde_notre_dame_rivalries_big_ten_pac_12_122811

    Note how another of the BS arguments spammed by the anti-playoff goofballs is shot down, the one where they claim a playoff would make the regular season less meaningful and hurt fan interest:

    Swarbrick predicted a gradual turning away from scheduling cupcakes, at least in leagues that don’t have the guaranteed strength-of-schedule advantage of, say, the SEC.

    The reason? If AQ bids to BCS bowls are eliminated and a playoff of any kind is introduced, look for strength of schedule to play a big part in who gets selected.

    “You may see almost an RPI dynamic come to the forefront,” Swarbrick said, referring to the strength-of-schedule metric that is a tool for the NCAA basketball tournament selection committee.

    More tough games, more top 25 matchups, tougher SOS. That’s an improvement for 95% of college football fans.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Nice to see you lead off with the name calling. That sets the right tone for your post, or anything that quotes Pat Forde, really.

      SOS is already a major factor. Why does the SEC champ get so much love while non-AQ teams get ignored? The problem with RPI type stats for FB is the number of games. One loss is losing over 8% of your games, or about the same as 2.5 losses in hoops. 12-0 will trump 11-1 with a tough OOC schedule for any top tier conference. SOS only helps when teams with equal records get compared, and even then it may not matter depending on the selection process.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      It is not a BS argument. You may not agree with it, but that’s far from making it a BS argument. Maybe for you it would make no difference, but for me, a playoff would take away a ton of interest I have in non-Big Ten play.

      Exhibit A: Iowa State vs. Oklahoma State. This was a Friday night game. In the old bowl system I wouldn’t have payed any attention to this game. In a playoff format, I wouldn’t have payed any attention to this game. In the current format, I paid a lot of attention to it. Oklahoma State was a top undefeated team and therefore every single game involving them mattered a ton to the national title picture. I payed attention to this game because of that. I also payed attention to results of teams with a hope of making the BCS title game throughout the year. If you give us a playoff, then this one result isn’t as important. Either Oklahoma State is going to be as a top team anyway or they are going to fall to the bubble. In neither case are the stakes of this game, and all other games involving top teams nearly as big.

      There is a reason I follow college football at a national level and college basketball only a regional one and it is the system in place. I rarely know or care how any non-Big Ten/Ohio teams do in basketball. I could tell you a lot in football though.

      Like

      • @Eric – I would say that it all depends upon the details. If we’re looking at a plus-one (either seeded or unseeded), then I would say that the Oklahoma State-Iowa State game would have still had a ton of meeting (while also adding value to any game involving a team that is within striking distance of the top 4. It’s still very tough to make it into the top 4 where any slip up during the season could knock you out of the national title race, so I’d feel that the sense of urgency for every game would be preserved in that format. Once you start getting into formats that go beyond a plus-one, then I can see the argument that the regular season starts getting devalued. Personally, I think going up to an 8-team playoff would also be limited enough to maintain week-to-week high stakes regular season games. In that scenario, you need to win your conference and/or can’t really have more than one slip up. It’s when we get to a 16-team playoff that the regular season becomes much more about seeding and multiple slip ups don’t knock you out (and therefore makes the stakes of every game much lower).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Frank the Tank,

          Personally, I think going up to an 8-team playoff would also be limited enough to maintain week-to-week high stakes regular season games. In that scenario, you need to win your conference and/or can’t really have more than one slip up.

          Top 8 teams:
          1. LSU
          2. AL didn’t even win their division
          3. OkSU
          4. Stanford didn’t even win their division
          5. OR lost to LSU and USC
          6. Arkansas got crushed by LSU and AL
          7. Boise didn’t even win their non-AQ conference
          8. KSU has 2 big losses (OU, OkSU)

          Top conference champs:
          1. LSU
          2. OkSU
          3. #5 OR lost twice
          4. #10 WI lost twice
          5. #15 Clemson lost 3 games
          6. #18 TCU lost twice
          7. #21 USM lost twice
          8. #23 WV lost 3 games

          It doesn’t seem like two slip-ups would cost you a chance.

          Like

  41. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    “…anti-playoff goofballs…”

    —Way to stay classy.

    Like

  42. Brian says:

    The MAC goes to 3-1 (plus Marshall won) with the only loss to the B10.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Brian,

      The Purdue game could have easily gone the other way. I may have joked in the past of it being wholly owned B1G subsidiary, but it was being honest. It bears out what I have been saying all along tho that the B1G is better than they have been treated in the polls, and the B12 is not as good as they have been treated in the polls. Sure Missouri won, but they are going to the SEC and not staying in the B12. Texas vs Iowa or Texas vs Auburn would have been a better test than Texas vs Cal. If a 9-3 Baylor knocks off a 7-5 Washington or a 9-3 Oklahoma knocks off a 7-5 Iowa does that mean they are good? or does it mean they just scheduled teams they could beat? The B12 is in 8 bowl games, and maybe 1-2 of them actually test the strength of the B12 against top competition.

      If the B12 goes 6-2 in the bowls with losses to Arkansas and Stanford everybody will say how great the B12 is, while I would say they were not fairly tested. The B1G will face 3 SEC teams, and more balanced matchups in their bowl games. Yet if the B1G goes 5-5 they will say how bad the B1G was this year. Grrrrrrr. I hope the MAC gets more love come next fall – which will help the B1G SoS – but I feel like we will not get the love next season.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Purdue nearly losing to a 7-5 MAC team doesn’t give any credibility to the B1G. The main thing shown so far is that the MWC was overrated. Boise cruised, TCU worked, but won. The other 3 lost to MAC (2) and Sun Belt (1) schools with similar records. The WAC stuck out, finishing 0-3, but they were heavy underdogs in two of those games, playing ranked teams.

        The top 6 conferences are just getting started.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          The only thing it’s proved to me is that MAC offenses are underrated compared to other non-BCS conferences. I think they’ve been underrated for a while.

          The Purdue game didn’t do anything either way.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The MAC has been generating some good QBs. I don’t think quarterbacks are as willing to sit on the bench as they used to be. They are going where they can play. Texas lost its #4 QB (a freshman) to Colorado and #3 (a junior) to SMU this year and is operating with just 2 scholarship QBs. Running backs seem to be transferring pretty quickly as well when they don’t get playing time.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            zeek,

            Western Michigan #5 in MAC was 7-5
            L @ Michigan, L @ Illinois 3pts, L @ N Illinois, L @ Toledo 3pts, L @ E Michigan 4pts
            all losses on road, with 3 by about a FG

            Purdue #7 in B1G was 6-6
            L @ Rice 2pts, L ND, L @ PSU, L @ UM, L @ Wis, L Iowa

            I would say the MAC team was better in the regular season, and barring the 7 turnovers should have won. Purdue was not terrible in the B1G this year, but they were not the top of the conference either. If W Michigan was playing Nebraska in the bowl and beat them then that would not look good for the B1G, and I would agree it would hurt the B1G SoS.

            Like

  43. Eric says:

    I have an idea that might not go with NCAA rules, but if it can, would be interesting. The Big Ten and PAC-12 are clearly trying to make fans in the Midwest take more interest in the PAC-12 and fans in the west to take more interest in the Big Ten (expanding markets without expanding). What about this idea for basketball:

    Combine the Big Ten and PAC-12 basketball tournaments. The regular season winners will still be Big Ten and PAC-12 champs, but the season ending tournament can be called the Rose Tournament and shift from LA to Chicago/Indianapolis. All 24 teams enter and the 5 day tournament has the top 8 getting a buy (or you could do it 6 days with the top 8 getting a buy, and top 4 two buys).

    The champ of the tournament is the only team guaranteed a spot in the NCAA Tournament, but that probably won’t be a huge deal to either conference.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Unless they officially combine for hoops, I think it is against the rules. Besides, why have a 5 day tournament? That just wears out your top teams before the NCAA tournament starts. It would make a lot more sense to limit it to 8 teams (16 at most) so only the top teams can win and nobody gets worn out. You could take the top 8 and play double elimination even.

      Like

  44. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I just hope that the Big Ten doesn’t limit its marquee non-conference games exclusively to the Pac-12 as a result of this agreement. The three traditional series against Notre Dame and other games from over the years like Michigan-Alabama, Ohio State-Miami, Ohio State-Va. Tech, Penn State-Alabama, Ohio State-Texas, and Nebraska-Oklahoma (hopefully) are still important to the Big Ten’s ability to remain a “national” conference. (Granted, there never have been many B1G-SEC games, but the 3-4 bowl games every year make up for that.)

    Gotta admit, though, that this is a great idea for both conferences. The Pac-12 will achiever much more exposure against some marquee programs in the more populated, eastern portion of the country. Meanwhile, the Big Ten is responding in a wise way to what Delany acknowledged as a “population shift” to the South and West by playing games in recruit- and population-rich California. I just wish the ACC had thought of this kind of idea first.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I don’t buy the recruiting angle. The B10 gets many more recruits from FL than it ever will from CA due to distance. One P12 game a year won’t change that.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        Nebraska recruits a number of kids from California and Arizona etc.. Michigan recruits CA on occasion as well. Other than that I think its a stretch to think its going to help recruiting a ton. Maybe they think that given all the National exposure somehow that will lead to increased recruiting.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      I’m pretty certain the ND games will remain in place (though Michigan and MSU may switch to playing ND 4 out of 6 years so they can play outside the B10/P12 footprints every once in a while; unless they hold neutral site games like Michigan-ASU/Arizona in Texas or Michigan-USC in the Meadowlands, though only Michigan can potentially pull that off, not MSU). The other marquee games almost certainly will take a hit. tOSU will play USC/Stanford/Oregon instead of Texas/Miami/VTech.

      However, PSU will almost certainly keep playing at least 1 eastern school, so you’ll have to hope that when the Lions play Rutgers/Pitt/’Cuse/UVa/Maryland, that that other eastern team is going to be good (or ask PSU to play VTech and WVU every once in a while). UNL probably will play OU every once in a while as well (probably when they’re matched up with a middling Pac team or Colorado). I don’t see the Huskers stretching themselves much beyond that.

      Oh, and I’m pretty certain you’ll keep on seeing Northwestern battle ACC stalwarts like BC, Syracuse, Duke, and Wake. 🙂

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Nebraska is scheduled to play at Tennessee in 2017. If the Big Ten rotations don’t change and stay at eight games, Ohio St. or Wisconsin will rotate on in 2017. (crossovers: PSU, UW, OSU in 11/12; IL, PU, PSU in 13/14; PSU, IN, UW/OSU in 15/16; UW/OSU, IL/PU, PSU in 17/18)

        vs TBD
        vs TBD
        vs PAC 12
        at Tennessee
        vs Wisconsin/Ohio State
        vs Illinois/Purdue
        at Penn State
        Northwestern
        at Michigan
        Michigan St.
        at Minnesota
        Iowa

        That is a pretty good schedule.

        Like

    • curious2 says:

      Re: your wish ACC had thought of this (Michael in Raleigh)

      When SU and Pitt join, the ACC at 14 schools will likely go to 9 conference games, leaving only 3 OOC games.

      FSU, GT, Clemson all have annual, long term rivalry games against UF, UGA, USC. Wake now has a 4 year series with Vanderbilt.

      SU has a 20 year arrangement to play a high profile team in the Meadowlands every 2d year. BC and ND have a 4 year series beginning in 2015.

      The Big 10 and PAC 12 have a unique incentive to play each other with their own conference TV networks, the shared tradition of the Rose Bowl, the fact as a far west and mid-west conference they are not competing with each other, and this series will likely expand interest in their respective conferences.

      With ND and UT staying where they are, this arrangement also reflects the fact the Big 10 and PAC 12 can’t find consensus expansion schools. The Big 10 plans to stay at 8 conference games. This is great move by these 2 conferences, but I’m not sure the situations of the SEC, Big 12, ACC lend themselves to a coordinated conference wide competition.

      I’d be very surprised if UT with its own network or OK for example want to share their TV revenue with the other Big 12 schools beyond what they have already agreed to. I would also guess that with 14 teams, the SEC may at some point move to 9 conference games.

      Like

  45. Brian says:

    http://tracking.si.com/2011/12/29/report-penn-state-interested-in-eric-mangini-as-next-head-coach/?sct=cf_t2_a4

    Latest PSU HC rumor – Eric Mangini

    I know Clements expressed interest in the job, so they must not be very excited with him if they are looking at Mangini. It sure feels like they are setting the stage to hire Bradley with a lack of other candidates as an excuse for staying in house.

    Like

  46. metatron5369 says:

    The thing everyone’s missing. We now have a two-round, four-team playoff: four divisions, two conferences, one Rose Bowl.

    They’ve invented a post-season on their own terms.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Well, except for teams trying to get to the NCG instead of the Rose Bowl.

      Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        Well, pissing off ESPN doesn’t seem to be the way to go about it then.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          You lost me. What does ESPN have to do with anything I said?

          ESPN currently has rights deals with the B10 and P12, plus the Rose Bowl and NCG. That may change as deals expire, but for now they would benefit from these games, too. How is that pissing them off?

          Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        The NCG is an invention of the “big” conferences. If two of the three most influential choose to change priorities, or reaffirm historic priorities, they will be where they want to be.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I was just pointing out that it really isn’t a 4 team playoff. The champs would prefer the NCG to the Rose Bowl unless/until the system changes.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            4 divisions, 2 conferences, 1 Rose Bowl. Sounds like half of an 8 team bracket, and a system that leaves the bowls intact. Now the SEC needs to organize the other half…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Except that the CCG winners don’t necessarily go to the Rose Bowl, it sounds just like one. So do a bunch of other things that aren’t a 4 team playoff.

            Like

  47. Brian says:

    Let’s look at some big picture issues with the B10/P12 collaboration from the B10’s POV:

    SOS

    I’ve seen many people touting an increase in SOS because of this. However, the P12 game is replacing a B10 game since Delany has said this will eliminate the ninth B10 game. The net result is no big change in SOS for 9 games. Some teams will gain in SOS and others will lose, but it should roughly balance (it will actually drop if you believe B10 > P12 in FB). If they pair teams by success, it increases SOS for the top teams and drops it for the bottom teams.

    Because the P12 game is replacing a ninth B10 game, there shouldn’t be a change in the other OOC games as planned for each school. However, the scheduling philosophy for these games will have an impact on the other OOC games. If the schools can’t plan way ahead, they will schedule even fewer elite teams and thus may lower their SOS.

    http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2011/12/big_ten_pac-12_ok_nonconferenc.html

    1. Delany said “competitive equity” could play a role in how the football games are scheduled, but Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith said the schools actually asked for what the first 20 years of the matchups will be in order to help schedule their other nonconference games. Why? Because Smith said Ohio State’s plan is not to play two major nonconference games each year. For instance, the Buckeyes have scheduled three major nonconference series, which will not be changing: California in 2012-13, Virginia Tech in 2014-15 and Oklahoma in 2016-17. For instance, Ohio State would not be looking to play a traditional powerhouse like Southern Cal in 2017 with Oklahoma already on the docket. But if one year in the future Ohio State was scheduled with a Pac-12 team with less traditional success, like Washington State, then the Buckeyes would know they could schedule another big-time game like Texas or Oklahoma.

    Regardless of how this works out, the B10 will be trading games against the other AQ leagues for more P12 games. Personally, I prefer more geographic diversity rather than less.

    Recruiting

    I’ve seen many people tout the increased access to SoCal recruits. I don’t understand that theory. If the games are a full rotation, that’s 2 SoCal games every 24 years. Big deal. If they schedule based on success, that means more SoCal access for some B10 schools than others but no net gain overall. The distance to CA means it will never be a prime source of recruits for the B10. FL will always be the out of the footprint hotbed that provides the most B10 recruits. I don’t see getting a few more games on TV in CA making a major impact.

    Major TV

    I see many different theories here. There will only be a few top games each season. To be clear, by that I mean top 10 vs top 10 or king vs king. No other games will draw national attention unless it is a very slow week. Since they intend to spread this out over 3 weeks, they’ll lose any momentum for a B10/P12 conference challenge outside of the two fan bases. On the other hand, it also guarantees at least 4 AQ games for the B10 in each week of the match ups (I’ve heard weeks 1-3 and 2-4 mentioned) and may improve the chances of each week having a game that gets some hype. There could still be 1 bad weekend OOC, either week 1 or 4, so I’d make the deal for weeks 2-4. Fans are more understanding of a weak week 1 schedule than a weak week 4, and having at least one tune up before getting USC would be nice. Plus, you can generally count on at least one school scheduling a good week 1 game anyway.

    Considering this replaces a ninth B10 game and may prevent some schools from scheduling another elite team, I really don’t see much gain. Intersectional games will draw a little more national attention, but usually only the top games get noticed. ESPN won’t be talking about MN/OrSU unless they have to broadcast it. I think many people forget how many of these games will be just as dull as what they replace. I’d guess maybe 1-2 a year on average are really prominent if they fully rotate opponents, and 2-3 if they match up based on success. There will be plenty of solid but unspectacular games, but that’s also the type of game these will replace.

    BTN

    This is where the gain is. Presumably this helps get the BTN available in LA and drives a few more subscriptions nationally. The BTN should get slightly better games those weeks, but not by much since they still get third or fourth choice at best. It is unclear how the deal with the PTN will work and exactly what games each network will have and how much cross-promotion there will be, but any little bit helps. This does add 6 more games to the B10 schedule versus a ninth B10 game, but half of them will be road games so the total inventory stays the same. There may be extra replay rights for these games if the B10 and P12 choose to do so.

    Academics

    This would be the real benefit, if somehow this collaboration extended to the CIC. Getting Cal and Stanford involved, among others, would be huge for everybody. It would certainly dwarf any athletic benefits.

    P12 POV

    Most of the same applies, but I think the P12 benefits greatly from the greater interest in FB in the midwest. The P12 teams already play tougher schedules and travel nationally OOC, but more B10 opponents will get them more coverage. The PTN should get a boost from B10 fans wanting to see games, too.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Academics

      This would be the real benefit, if somehow this collaboration extended to the CIC. Getting Cal and Stanford involved, among others, would be huge for everybody. It would certainly dwarf any athletic benefits.

      If they could get just the Cali 4 and U-Dub (and maybe AZ, OU, CU and Utah) then it would be great… if it is the whole conference it would be likely be a push for the CIC.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        You realize U of O (not OU, or are you fore shadowing a change in conference makeup?) has by far the smallest research $$’s in the PAC?

        Like

        • frug says:

          Yeah, typo on my part, but Oregon does AAU membership which means a lot for reputation purposes. (Though if the AAU is going to continue to trim their numbers Oregon could be on the chopping block)

          Like

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        I don’t see it as a push. That’s six more states representing CIC interests in congress, and some of the greatest universities in the world to join in. The other schools will benefit from access, but all of them have some areas of expertise where they can contribute.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          True. OregonSt. can contribute in research. WSU (and maybe UO, surprisingly) would a charity case.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            WSU does good work in forestry, biomass fuels, plant science and similar fields. They probably have a few other strong points, too. They would get more than they add, but they could still contribute.

            Like

      • Richard says:

        Yeah, that should read “the Cali-4 + UDub + CU (and maybe UA, ASU, and Utah)”.

        Like

        • frug says:

          ASU is an interesting case. It really has made progress in research, but its 90% undergrad admission rate will always hurt it’s academic reputation.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      Brian:

      I mostly agree. I would say, however, that this likely improves the TV deal. For one, while the Pac game will likely replace another home-and-home, the HaH of some of our conference members have been somewhat less than courageous (for instance, some certain consecutive Rose Bowl attendee that has a HaH with WSU scheduled and in recent years had their top HaHs being against UNLV, Fresno St., and Oregon St., ahem). This deal would force the top tier teams to play other top tier teams (at least some of the time). Plus, with 2 home and 2 away Pac matchups scheduled for weeks 2-4 (most likely), MACrifice weeks should be in the rearview mirror.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It may improve the TV deal some, but not by much I wouldn’t think. Wouldn’t B10 games draw better regional rankings than B10/P12 games? I don’t see this having any positive SOS impact at all. Take WI, for example. The 9th game would have forced them to play NE, MI, MSU, IA and NW more often (twice more per decade each). Instead, they’ll rotate through the P12. Until we hear scheduling details, I can’t assume their average P12 opponent will be better than that or that the games would be more attractive (except in the west, obviously). If they solely base the P12 scheduling on recent success, WI might gain a little in SOS but those 5 B10 teams are pretty good. Besides, will the lesser P12 programs agree to rarely, if ever, get OSU/MI/NE/PSU/WI while USC and OR and company get them all the time? Will the lesser B10 programs agree to that? Or will they end up playing all 12 teams equally? Regardless, I don’t foresee much change to WI’s other 3 OOC games.

        If the games are weeks 2-4, which I agree are the best choices if you insist on 3 weeks, then why wouldn’t week 1 become MACrifice weekend? That would give everyone a cupcake to work out the kinks before playing an AQ team. I think part of this depends on how far in advance the conference can tell the teams which week they will play and who they will play. Until they explain that in detail, it’s hard to discuss it.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Forgot to mention:
      If you include the non-revenue sports (not including hockey, which actually is a revenue sport for most B10 hockey schools), this will improve the competition a lot and probably up viewership on the BTN. Getting baseball & soccer to a level where it’s watched as much as volleyball on the BTN is probably a goal, and this would do nothing but help. This partnership would definitely mark the B10 and P12 as the premier volleyball conferences in the country, and volleyball draws not insubstantial ratings on the BTN. It should also make the bball slate on the BTN slightly more appealing.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        How much impact will 1 game per year have on that, though? The revenue sports really drive the BTN in terms of subscriptions and viewers. Every little bit helps, certainly, but how much will it help?

        Also, there is no hope of salvaging B10 baseball until they change the recruiting rules to match everyone else. The P12 teams could probably win most games with a split squad, they are so much better.

        Is this limited to FB, MBB, WBB, baseball, softball, WVB, men’s soccer, women’s soccer and women’s gymnastics? Does it include sports with not enough teams to have a conference title like golf and wrestling? What about schools affiliated in just one sport (the P12 has 5 for wrestling, 1 for men’s soccer)? What about sports the B10 offers but the P12 competes in the MPSF (Mountain Pacific Sports Federation) instead?

        Until there is a lot more detail available, I think it’s hard to evaluate what this deal means.

        Like

  48. Brian says:

    Wow, what a dominant defensive performance by Baylor. They only gave up 56 points and 620 yards (438 passing). Clearly this shows the power of the B12, right Duffman? A 9-3 team eeks out a late win against a 7-5 team but needs almost 800 yards of offense to do it.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Very bad defensive performance, but the Big 12 is 2-0 and played at/up in competition against their PAC-12 opposition (particularly when you consider the Big 12 has only 10 teams and the PAC-12 12; boy that feels weird to type). The Big 12 might be overrated, but I don’t think the results so far prove it and am still inclined to call it the best conference top to bottom this year.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I don’t think you can call Baylor versus UW playing up. Baylor was ranked and UW wasn’t. Sure, the Alamo is B12 #3 versus P12 #2 on paper, but the BCS took 2 P12 teams and USC was ineligible while the BCS only took 1 B12 team. That makes this B12 #3 versus P12 #4, and the P12 was down while the B12 was up.

        The Independence Bowl was B12 #8 versus ACC #7 on paper, but again the BCS took 2 ACC teams. That made it B12 #8 versus ACC #8, and MO was probably better than #8 but got the shaft for moving to the SEC. MO was #5 in the conference and won 2 more games than an ISU team that was picked before them. MO was in others receiving votes while UNC wasn’t close. UNC also had an interim coach that just got hired for another job. That’s not playing up.

        The Holiday Bowl is B12 #5 versus P12 #3. Again, the P12 sent 2 to the BCS rather than 1 like the B12 and USC was ineligible. That made it B12 #5 versus P12 #5, and the P12 was down this year. UT was clearly #5 but Cal was at best in a three way tie for #5 with ASU and Utah. UT was receiving votes while even the team above Cal in the P12 wasn’t getting any votes. That wasn’t playing up.

        I agree that the B12 was very good this year, probably the top league. But I enjoy Duffman’s apoplexy when the B12 gets praise.

        Like

    • Mack says:

      If the offense can score almost everytime it gets the ball, a team does not need much of a defense. Just needs to make a couple of stops to get a lead. A win is a win be it 9-6 in overtime or 67-56 in regulation. As far as entertainment value, Baylor beats Alabama hands down with their games against TCU, Oklahoma, and Washington.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It’s a poor team that relies that heavily on one side of the ball, especially on offense. Having just an average defense would make them much more formidable. That’s what cost them in their losses, and they barely won 4 of their games.

        Like

        • Mack says:

          A poor team is one that loses. If you score more points you win, even if you give up 40-50 points. That realization worked well for Baylor which is a traditional bottom feeder like Indiana and Minnesota. Baylor went 10-3 by concentrating on offense and winning. It may not be possible to win a NC with no defense, but Baylor proved that you can win a lot of games with a high powered offense and a poor defense. Few casual fans will stay tuned to a 35-0 blowout. With Baylor the opposition usually had a chance late in the game so its games had lots of entertainment value. If you are at the bottom you need to work with what you can get, and offense is likely to put more fans in the seats at Indiana type schools than defense.

          Like

  49. bullet says:

    How many times would Alabama/LSU have to play to match the points in Baylor/Washington? You were afraid to get up. You might miss 2 or 3 TDs. For those not watching it blew away the bowl record for total yards with over 1300, beat the TD record with 17 and fell two points short of the point record which was set in a multi-OT game. And they probably only fell short because UW fumbled the final kickoff with 2 1/2 minutes left, missing their chance to score and Baylor took a knee after a 1st down skipping another likely score. Wild, wild very entertaining game (unless you only like games where defense is played well).

    Like

  50. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7402664/penn-state-nittany-lions-add-first-recruit-jerry-sandusky-scandal

    Finally some good news for PSU. They got a new recruit, their first since August. Granted, he committed to them in April before they pulled his offer due to academics, but now his grades are apparently back up so they re-offered and he recommitted. Still, any positive news is an improvement for them.

    Other PSU news – the AD says they are still interviewing people and the search is down to a handful of people. He’d like to hire him in time for the coach to get acquainted with the new recruits before signing day (2/1).

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    We are 14 games into bowl season. Here’s the stats as we start heading into the bigger games and busiest days:

    My predictions 12-2

    B12 3-0 (3-0 vs AQ)
    B10 1-0
    ACC 2-1 (2-1 vs AQ)
    SEC 0-0
    BE 0-1 (0-1 vs AQ)
    P12 0-3 (0-2 vs AQ)
    ND 0-1 (0-1 vs AQ)

    CUSA 2-0
    MAC 3-1 (0-1 vs AQ)
    MWC 2-3 (1-0 vs AQ)
    WAC 0-3
    SB 1-1

    Next up are 15 games in the next three days of games (Sunday 1/1 is a day off) before the last 6 games in 6 days.

    Like

  52. […] The Halfway There Compromise: A BCS Plus-One Proposal That the Big Ten and Rose Bowl Could Live&nbsp… […]

    Like

  53. […] The Halfway There Compromise: A BCS Plus-One Proposal That the Big Ten and Rose Bowl Could Live&nbsp… […]

    Like

  54. […] Posts of the Day Crazy Like a Fox: Can Anyone Compete with ESPN?The Halfway There Compromise: A BCS Plus-One Proposal That the Big Ten and Rose Bowl Could Live WithSports Data From Nielsen: TV Viewership for College Conferences and Pro Sports Social Media BuzzYou […]

    Like

  55. […] that ignores the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions for the semifinals only, considered by Frank the Tank here). Under this model, even if the Pac-10 or Big 10 champion is in the top four, and even if the other […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s