As we adjust to a world where Eli Manning has twice as many Super Bowl rings and MVP trophies as his brother Peyton, conference expansion and realignment talk has picked up again along with a major update from the Big Ten on the college football playoff front. (Note: I love that Peyton Manning is taking a public stance that he supposedly would be open to an incentive-based contract. You know that his agent is just baiting Daniel Snyder to offer up a $35 million guaranteed signing bonus behind the scenes. I have a hunch that the NFL’s 2012 season opener is going to be a Manning Bowl between the Giants and Redskins.) Let’s take a look at these developments in order:
1. Big 12 Expansion Rumors I: The Unrealistic ACC Raid Scenario – The hot rumor going around conference realignment circles right now is that the Big 12 is supposedly targeting Florida State and Clemson from the ACC, with the source being “The Dude” from West Virginia blog Eerinsider*. Is this really possible? I guess there’s a smidgen of a chance of this occurring when taking into account the possible TV rights at stake in a new Big 12 deal. The fact that Clemson has just formed an Athletic Advisory Committee that is going to review a whole range of issues has added some fuel to the fire. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me at all that the Big 12 has attempted to lure FSU and Clemson over the past few months.
[* If your life depended upon it, which of the following cartoonish caricatures would you trust the most with expansion news?
(a) The Dude
(b) Frank the Tank
(c) The Wolf
(d) Teen Wolf
(e) Craig James
For me, it’s The Wolf all the way.]
However, I’ll repeat what I’ve stated many times before on this blog: the ACC is much much much stronger than football-focused fans give them credit for. Believe me – it pains me to say that as someone that would love nothing more than to see Duke get sent to the Southern Conference. The problem with all of the rumors that we’ve seen over the years about the ACC being vulnerable is that they fall into the trap of thinking like a fan or even an athletic director or coach (who might actually care about losing BCS bowls all of the time) instead of a university president (where the ACC slaps the SEC and Big 12 around in terms of academic prestige even worse than how the SEC and Big 12 beat up on the ACC on the football field). As much as people are obsessed with football TV dollars, the difference between what the ACC receives compared to the average Big Ten or SEC school really isn’t that massive of a gap, especially in relation to the overall institutional revenue that schools like North Carolina, Duke and Virginia bring in. The ACC schools are firmly in the “haves” category. If you don’t believe me, take from Oklahoma and Big 12 partisan Barry Tramel from The Oklahoman, who had the following response to a question about the rumor at the 11:00 mark in this online chat:
No. I haven’t heard it. And I’m sure the Big 12 has talked to a lot of people. I’m sure the Big 12 called Clemson and said, “Hey, we’ve got a great idea. How about you, Florida State and” “No thanks.” “But wait,” the Big 12 responded, “you didn’t let us finish. We’re talking about you, and” “Not interested.” The ACC is solid. Academically and financially and athletically. Let me promise you, while fans get all worked about how Orange Bowls in a row the ACC has lost, the presidents do not.
Let’s put it another way: once you get past Texas and Oklahoma, is there any other current Big 12 school that is more valuable than Virginia Tech,Virginia, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Maryland, Georgia Tech or N.C. State? Heck, is there any other non-UT/OU Big 12 school that would be picked by the Big Ten or SEC (who have more poaching power than anyone) over any ACC school besides maybe Wake Forest? Kansas is probably the only other Big 12 school in that discussion as a marquee basketball program with solid academics, but even the Jayhawks are one-upped in hoops TV value and ivory tower appeal by UNC and those rat bastards at Duke. The ACC is significantly deeper than the Big 12 when it comes to the academic, name brand and market values of the institutions from top-to-bottom. Football fans are focused on the lack of BCS bowl wins by the ACC, while university presidents are focused on the great markets and high academic standards of the conference. It’s the latter group that makes conference realignment decisions. So, while the ACC continues to receive potshots from the fan-based blog and message board crowd, I’ll bet heavily that they’re coming out of this unscathed on the heels of their newly renegotiated ESPN deal.
2. Big 12 Expansion Rumors II: The More Realistic Louisville/BYU (or TBD) Scenario – I don’t claim Dude-like sources, but for what it’s worth, I’ve heard from two separate places that validate what The Chronicle of Higher Education reported a couple of weeks ago: the Big 12 wants Louisville as school number 11 with BYU as the preferred choice for school number 12. Louisville is the easy part of the equation – both parties want each other and if the addition of the Cardinals alone wouldn’t result in an odd number of schools, they would have been in the Big 12 a long time ago. The issue, of course, is that BYU has been far from easy to work with for any conference. We actually have to twist the mantra here of “Think like a university president and not like fan” and apply the standard of “Think like a church leader and not like a university president” for the purposes of BYU. From standpoint of the vast majority of universities, it would have made perfect sense for BYU to have joined either the Big 12 or Big East months ago. However, the decisions at BYU are being ultimately driven by LDS leadership and it appears that they are enamored of their independent ESPN exposure along with the opportunity to build up a greater audience for BYUtv. Essentially, they’ve caught Notre Dame-itis.
The problem for the Big 12 is that there isn’t any realistic alternative for school number 12 besides BYU (assuming that, like me, you don’t buy the rumor that the Big 12 will raid the ACC). Floaters about the Big 12 adding other Big East schools, such as Rutgers or Cincinnati, appear to be red herrings and not serious. (Note that I personally thought that the Big 12 could try a Northeastern expansion with Rutgers and UConn to integrate West Virginia further. This should be used as a “The More You Know” public service announcement warning of the evils of drinking while blogging.) So, the Big 12 seems like they would be willing to pull the trigger on adding Louisville at any moment, but the open question is whether that the league would be fine with adding them as #11 without knowing that there’s a satisfactory #12. That’s where the two people that I’ve talked to diverge: one says yes while the other says no. My inclination is that the answer is “no”. The Big Ten was willing to live with 11 schools for almost two decades, but that’s because (1) school #11 was Penn State that was a clear national football power with a huge market (arguably the entire East Coast) and massive fan base and (2) the league legitimately believed that it would add Notre Dame as school #12 in relatively short order. As a result, the Big Ten was willing to wait for another football power to shake loose from the realignment tree (which ended up being Nebraska) instead of going immediately up to 12.
In contrast, there’s little reason for the Big 12 to go up to 11 without going all the way to 12. Louisville is a fairly strong revenue generator (especially on the basketball side), but not at a Penn State/Notre Dame-level where it’s enough to justify passing up on conference championship game revenue with a 12th school. Now, I could see Louisville being added alone as school #11 if the Big 12 gets to a point where it reasonably believes that BYU (or some other school deemed revenue accretive enough) will join as school #12 within a short period of time (no more than one season). As I noted in my last post, the opening of the negotiations between ABC/ESPN and the Big 12 regarding an extension of their current contract will be a key date. Once that starts, the chances of the Big 12 expanding in the near-term drop precipitously since the league needs to have (if it knows what it’s doing) a 12-team setup for a conference championship game to offer by that time if that’s truly their end goal. That means that further Big 12 expansion, if it’s going to occur, will need to happen fairly quickly (e.g. prior to this summer).
3. Big East Walking in Memphis: More Than a Rumor – In more concrete news, Brett McMurphy of CBSSports.com has reported that the Big East is in the late stages of negotiations with Memphis to add the school for the 2013 season, with other reports noting that an announcement will be made tomorrow (Wednesday). This follows up an initial Kevin McNamara Tweet from last week stating the same. The irony is that the probable elimination of the concept of automatic-qualifier status from the BCS system was the best thing that could have happened to Memphis even though attaining such AQ status was such an important goal for the school for a long time. Memphis, on paper, is an excellent fit for the Big East as an institution: large urban school with a good-sized market and a great basketball program. The problem was that adding Memphis, which has been football-inept for several years now, would have destroyed the Big East’s AQ criteria figures. Without those figures to worry about anymore, the Big East could add Memphis in good conscience, which it otherwise liked overall.
Now, this brings up the question as to whether the Big East believes that it will have to backfill for a potential departure of Louisville to the Big 12 (as described above), so it moved on Memphis before that occurred. I’m a little surprised that the Big East hasn’t ended up adding another western football-only school to fill out that far flung division (while keeping the all-sports membership at 16), although that could very well be the next move on the table, especially if there are further defections. For now, though, it looks like Memphis is finally going to get its long-time wish of a Big East invite.
4. B1G Playoff Plan – Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune had a story that was extremely significant on the ongoing discussion of changes to the postseason: several Big Ten athletic directors have proactively and openly set forth a plan for a seeded 4-team playoff on campus sites with the higher seeds as hosts. The national championship game would then be bid out separately to neutral sites, similar to the Super Bowl. Just as Jim Delany stating that he was open to at least a discussion about a plus-one system last month was a large indicator of a future paradigm shift, the fact that a number of Big Ten ADs are willing to go on-record with supporting a seeded playoff is pretty massive. Not so long ago (AKA December 2011), a Big Ten AD caught supporting any type of playoff would have been immediately summoned to the Big Ten headquarters in Park Ridge and then his lifeless body would be found floating down the Des Plaines River the next day.
To be sure, the caveat to all of this is that, as with conference realignment, any decision regarding the college football postseason will be made by the university presidents as opposed to the commissioners and athletic directors. However, when the Big Ten as an entity has, for as long as anyone can remember, been so staunchly and uniformly against any hint of a playoff and placed a muzzle on any dissenters, there’s more than just idle chatter here when you see the commissioner and ADs suddenly start openly talk about it.
As Greenstein noted in a discussion on WSCR-AM today, the Big Ten is now effectively saying, “We have now presented a plan for a 4-team playoff. It’s not our fault if one isn’t passed.” Thus, it appears that a large impetus for the Big Ten setting forth this proposal is to put some of the onus on the other conferences. For quite awhile, whether rightly or wrongly, the other conferences could largely deflect criticism over the BCS system onto Jim Delany and the Big Ten (and to a lesser extent, the Pac-12 and Rose Bowl) even if their own university presidents weren’t necessarily on board. Indeed, the Big 12 and Big East were the ones that ultimately killed a 4-team plus-one proposal from the SEC and ACC in 2008.
One tweak that I’d like to see to this plan (and previously suggested by Andy Staples and Slant commenter Eric, among others) is to have the losers of the semifinal games be placed back into the BCS bowl selection pool. So, if the Big Ten champ or Pac-12 champ loses in a semifinal game, they would still end up going to the Rose Bowl. Even though there’s a real concern that the fan base of a semifinal game loser might not be as willing to travel, I don’t see it as being much different than conference championship game losers being selected for top bowls (which happens quite frequently). Plus, the bowls themselves would still ultimately rather have access to more higher-ranked teams instead of diluting the BCS pool even further. This seems like a reasonable compromise to preserve the value of the top bowls such as the Rose Bowl while still providing for a seeded 4-team playoff.
To be honest, I never thought that the Big Ten would get behind a seeded plus-one/4-team playoff scenario, much less lead a proposal to do just that. It’s good to be surprised every once in awhile.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Food Network)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go U NU!!!
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
United Nations University?
Are they joining the Big East too?
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
PSU
LikeLike
Hawkeyes.
LikeLike
I am fully in favor of a four-team semi-final occurring the week after the CCGs; however, I would like to see the champions of the best conferences have automatic entry to the semi-finals. This would make the CCGs for those conferences into quarter-finals for the national championship. It would also increase the importance of conference games, reduce the importance of the BCS beauty contest, and enable potential champions to schedule tough OOC games early in the season without jeopardizing their eventual participation in the NCG.
The big question is: how do you decide which conference champions get automatic entry to the semi-finals? The fairest way to decide this is on the field early in the season. I suggest that each of the six BCS conferences should play a full-slate of games against one of the others to determine which conference gets the auto-entry to the semi-finals. The B1G and the Pac12 are already moving in this direction. Imagine how exciting the WSU-Indiana and Arizona-Minnesota games would be if the outcomes determined which conference would get automatic entry to the semi-finals. Every game would be crucial and would garner huge TV ratings.
The SEC and ACC both have 14 teams, so perhaps they would like to have a full slate of matches against each other early in the season? If so, the winning conference should be rewarded with automatic entry to the semi-finals. The same should apply to the Big10 and the BigEast . If all six conferences participated, it would lock up three of the four semi-final positions, leaving the last position to be determined by BCS ranking. However, if two (or four) conferences decided not to participate in these inter-conference matches, then one (or two) more semi-final places would be determined by BCS rankings.
This combination of inter-conference challenges early in the season and automatic entry to the semi-finals for conference champions at the conclusion of the season will significantly enhance the entire football season. It will put the focus squarely on the conferences, not the BCS, and create a path to NCG determined by conference success, not by arbitrary rankings.
LikeLike
I can relate to this as I feel that winning a conf is a pre-req for a post season appearance. But, I suspect we may be in the minority.
Problem is you have 5 conferences of “top tier” teams that would demand an auto bid, plus the Beast, ND and the scraps (and I mean that in an endearing way) to worry about.
If this comes to pass, we’ll end up with a poll or committee or something.
LikeLike
Pretty much all conferences would want to lock up a semifinal berth for their champ by playing the BE (likewise, all other conferences would want to avoid playing the SEC with a berth for the conference champ on the line).
Pretty cool idea. Don’t see it happening.
LikeLike
Yeah, the BigEast is too easy. So let’s leave them out and let the Big10 and the SEC play for the second semi-final slot. That way two of the slots go to the highest BCS teams and two of them go automatically to conference champions (B1G or Pac12 and Big10 or SEC).
LikeLike
B12, you mean? I mean, I’d love for the B10 to get a shot at 2 automatic semifinal berths, but I don’t think the other conferences will allow that.
LikeLike
Damn, this 10-team Big12 and 12-team Big10 is twisting my brain. Yes, I meant Big12. The B1G already has partnered with the Pac12, so that leaves the Big12 to partner with the SEC. Imagine how interesting the early season games would be with both the Pac12-B1G and Big12-SEC (or ACC-SEC) playing a full slate of matches.
LikeLike
Problem is that every wants to get rid of the concept of AQ and non-AQ. The big dogs are tired of giving up bowl access (and deal with anti-trust complaints) while the mid-majors believe it is worth sacrificing access to eliminate what they consider a caste system.
LikeLike
The big question is: how do you decide which conference champions get automatic entry to the semi-finals? The fairest way to decide this is on the field early in the season. I suggest that each of the six BCS conferences should play a full-slate of games against one of the others to determine which conference gets the auto-entry to the semi-finals. The B1G and the Pac12 are already moving in this direction. Imagine how exciting the WSU-Indiana and Arizona-Minnesota games would be if the outcomes determined which conference would get automatic entry to the semi-finals. Every game would be crucial and would garner huge TV ratings.
The SEC and ACC both have 14 teams, so perhaps they would like to have a full slate of matches against each other early in the season? If so, the winning conference should be rewarded with automatic entry to the semi-finals.
I’m sorry, but this reeks too much of the “this time it counts” perversion of the MLB All-Star Game. Suppose the Pac-12 and SEC won their respective conference matches, but both Wisconsin and Virginia Tech went unbeaten in the regular season. If only the fourth playoff slot is an at-large, one of those two will be left out.
LikeLike
Good point. Two semi-final places must be available to the top two BCS teams. That leaves two semi-final places to be determined by conference challenge matches.
The Pac12 and B1G have already decided to have challenge matches, so the winning conference should get one semi-final place. The remaining semi-final place would then be available to the SEC/ACC/Big12 (whichever two arranged a full set of challenge matches).
LikeLike
Again, a neat idea, but there would be an uproar the first time a 9-4 or 10-3 team in Conference A wins Conference A’s title game and gets in while the 12-1 or 13-0 winner of Conference B gets left out because the dregs of Conference A beat the dregs of Conference B (assume the other 2 spots are taken by undefeated teams).
LikeLike
Dregs? What about a conference that has no dregs?
If we are going to play “what if”, what if a conference is very strong from top to bottom and the teams beat up on each other every week, leaving the conference champion with three losses. Doesn’t that team deserve to be in the semi-final?
By giving two semi-final places to the two strongest conferences (determined by early-season challenge matches), you insure that top teams in tough conferences have the same opportunity as undefeated teams in weak conferences.
LikeLike
Uh, Steve, what conference “has no dregs”?
OK, scenario with details:
In 2017, the B10-Pac challenge goes like this (winners in front):
tOSU-USC
Michigan-Oregon
Nebraska-UCLA
Washington-PSU
Stanford-Wisconsin
Iowa-ASU
Arizona-MSU (MSU loses in the desert where they have trouble dealing with the heat)
Northwestern-Utah
Cal-Illinois
Colorado-Minny
OregonSt.-PU
WSU-IU
Pac wins challenge 7-5.
In the B10, tOSU rolls through their schedule, but gets upset by Michigan on a bad weather day in Ann Arbor where Meyer’s spread & speed advantage isn’t so effective & UM’s seniors play out of their minds on Senior Day. tOSU beats UM on a neutral field in the title game to finish the season 12-1.
In the Pac North, Oregon & Stanford win all games except Stanford’s loss at Oregon & Oregon’s loss to Michigan.
In the Pac South, USC drops 4 games (Stanford, tOSU, Texas, and ND). In the Pac championship game, Oregon meets a dominating D-line for only the second time in the season and lose for the second time in a season to USC.
Texas is undefeated and gets a berth. ND is undefeated and gets a berth. SEC champ gets a berth (heck, say it’s ‘Bama, and they’re also undefeated). USC finished 9-4 & lost to 2 of the 3 other playoff teams already. However, because their league won the challenge, they get an automatic berth.
tOSU stays home despite being the strongest one-loss team and gets to watch a 4-loss USC team that they beat play in the playoff instead of them because of your system.
LikeLike
Oh wait; Stanford would have to lose to ND as well. Eh, it doesn’t change anything.
LikeLike
All conferences have dregs. The mighty SEC has Handy Kentucky and Old Miss, and others who take turns at being lousy. The Big Ten has had Indiana and Minnesota recently. The Big 12 has Kansas and (most years, anyway) Iowa State and Baylor. And so on.
LikeLike
Nice piece. I’d been out of the loop for awhile so I appreciate the summary.
Also, totally agree on all points made on ACC. Adding Pitt and Cuse only makes them stronger. If, and it’s a big if, anyone left it would be for the B10 or SEC only.
LikeLike
I still believe that the matchups for the bowls (other than maybe the semifinal losers) will be announced after Championship week rather than later. Even if the B10 would like to see their champ in the Rose if they lose in a semifinal (and the Rose certainly would want that), no other conference besides maybe the Pac would get behind the idea of delaying bowl selection (thus making travel plans more expensive) on the off-chance that a B10 or Pac champion loses in a semifinal.
Semifinal losers may still go to a bowl (if semifinals are played Army-Navy week), but it would be to a bowl with strong local attendance & not dependent on traveling fans (like the Sun Bowl or bowl in Houston; Fiesta Bowl gets strong local attendance as well, but they may pass on hosting the semifinal losers).
The schedule would set up pretty nicely, actually:
NYE: Semifinal losers face off
NYD: Rose + Sugar
1/2: Orange
1/3: Fiesta
1/4: Championship.
LikeLike
Frank,
I am surprised you didn’t mention Tulane (and its under-construction on-campus football stadium) as a possibility for the Big XII if BYU passes. Thoughts?
LikeLike
@Wes – Doubtful that Tulane would be seriously considered for the Big 12. There’s a good chance that if BYU passes, the Big 12 will just sit at 10 – getting to 12 in and of itself isn’t really the goal. However, I definitely believe that Tulane would be high on the list for any further Big East expansion (or as a replacement for any defection). Tulane fits the Big East profile well – urban school in a solid market, with great academics to boot.
LikeLike
Your buddy Greg Swaim, at Big Time Sports Media, says BYU has worked out their major issues with the Big-12 and ESPN. Just a few minor details left to iron out. Louisville and BYU will be announced as new members separately in June. ESPN is demanding 12 schools and a CCG to reopen the contract early and they badly want BYU for their national following,
LikeLike
I’m sure Louisville would love to ditch the Big East (and remember, OT, it’s not all caps) now that Memphis is going to join.
As for divisions in a 12-team Big 12 that adds UL and Brigham Young, it’s a quandary. You could put the Texas and Oklahoma members in a South division, but your North division would stretch across three time zones — rather unwieldy. There’s talk Texas would like to break up the four state schools, and you could split them into two in each division and have them play each other annually (a la the Pac-12’s four California members). But there’s no truly perfect divisional setup, given geography.
LikeLike
@Frank- Thanks for responding. Regarding Tulane in the Big East, I just don’t see it. Tulane styles it as a national academic institution that happens to play sports. I think the school is a better academic and cultural fit in the ACC (should it ever need to replace any teams lost to either the BIG or the SEC) than I do the Big East (although, where I am in NYC, there are a surprising amount of Tulane alumni around, so maybe a Tulane – St. Johns tilt at the Garden would draw them out–who knows).
Now, if the Big East had an academic consortium ala the BIG, then maybe Tulane would be more eager to associate with G’Town, Villanova, and Rutgers.
As an aside, does the ACC have a CIC component like the BIG does?
LikeLike
Tulane is in the WRONG time zone for the ACC, which wants to remain exclusively in the Eastern Time Zone.
Furthermore, Tulane is in a shrinking TV market. New Orleans is no longer in the Top 50.
Tulane is stuck in the no-man’s land that is MWCUSA. Not even the BIG EAST wants anything to do with Tulane.
The XII has much bigger fish available for its #12 (assuming that Louisville is #11.) Rutgers and Maryland, for example.
LikeLike
No one else has a CIC component. (Though some conferences are in the rudimentary stages of trying to set one up)
LikeLike
The ACC set up something like that a few years back (due to Shalala at Miami, who’s from Wisconsin), though it’s not as extensive as the CIC. The SEC might have started something as well, but it’s also at the level of the ACC’s (or lower).
LikeLike
That’s what I was referring to when I noted that some had them in rudimentary stages). The SEC and the ACC have systems but they are not integrated to the degree that the CIC is so they are not providing the sort of tangible benefits the CIC offers.
LikeLike
Wes – Tulane’s state-of-the-art 30,000 seat on-campus stadium isn’t under construction yet, but most of the money has been raised. Tulane would be a great addition to the Big XII. This week, Tulane signed its first 4 star recruit in the history go the program, who was previously an Aggie commitment.
LikeLike
GEAUX 2012 Pre-Season #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
College Baseball is just around the corner.
LikeLike
Just want to point out that last year it was thought ridiculous to consider that A&M would join the SEC. I for one will not be surprised if Clemson and FSU end up in the B12. When the B12 negotiates it’s next tier 1 contract the ACC’s contract, which is supposed to last through 2026 I believe, will probably leave them 5 – 7 million dollars a year behind the B12. That is A LOT of money over the course of the contract. Plus, that doesn’t include whatever income the B12 schools can negotiate for themselves from tier 3 rights. The ACC has given their 3rd tier rights to *SPN if I’m not mistaken.
I have seen no proof that joining the B12 would hurt any school academically or cause them financial damage. It is a bad argument. It is just like the argument that many people make about PSU being dependent on the B1G for their growth in research dollars. In fact, if you look at PSU’s growth in research dollars since joining the B1G it is in line with overall growth in research dollars at all institutions. Our growth has been average. I’m basing this on figures from the National Science Foundation:
NSF R&D $ – http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/rdexpenditures/
2009 figures:
Click to access tab27.pdf
2008 figures:
Click to access tab27.pdf
LikeLike
Whatever monetary advantages there are to the Big 12 are quickly undone by the complete mess that that conference is.
Texas having a sweat deal for themselves may keep the conference together, but it makes it terribly unattractive to schools that have multiple (better) options to chose from.
If FSU even returns a call from the Big 12, I will personally fire bomb the president’s office.
LikeLike
Texas has no “sweet deal” that everybody else in the conference doesn’t share. Texas gets to keep its Tier 3 rights, just like everybody else in the Big XII. Kansas sells its Tier 3 rights for somewhere around $8M/year. Oklahoma is about to sell its Tier 3 rights to Fox for around $6M. For all its bitching about Texas, Nebraska got $3M for its Tier 3 rights in 2010.
Right now, the ACC has control of Florida State’s Tier 3 rights. After it negotiates its new contract for Tier 1 rights, it is expected that the ACC media rights package will only earn its member schools $14-15M/year. That’s for its Tier 1, 2, and 3 rights.
Are you telling me that Florida State couldn’t do a lot better if it kept control of its own Tier 3 rights like every Big XII member (and every SEC member) does now? Are you telling me that Florida State isn’t such a marketable brand that it could sell its Tier 3 rights for at least as much as Kansas or Oklahoma?
Because I just don’t think that’s true. I think rather more highly of your athletics department than that.
Of course, that’s on top of the Tier 1 and 2 deal that the Big XII gets. Before last year, the Big XII completed a deal to sell its Tier 2 rights to Fox and ESPN that totaled $90M/year. The current deal with ESPN for Tier 1 is only for $60M/year, which is obviously undervalued. ESPN is eager to renegotiate before the deal expires in two years so as to finish a deal before NBC gets its sports house in order. If that’s true, and given the Tier 2 contract, the idea of a $190M/year deal is not out of the question.
But being conservative, let’s estimate a $150M/year deal for Tier 1. Together with the Tier 2 rights, that $210M/year, or $21M/year for each member school in the ten-team league. That’s 50% higher than what the ACC media package is getting. And that still allows each member school to market and sell its own Tier 3 rights.
In other words, Florida State could conceivably make twice as much in the Big XII as it is going to make in the ACC. Would you firebomb the president’s office for doubling the school’s media revenue?
And by the way, Frank–this math is exactly why I don’t think a Big XII raid of the ACC is terribly far-fetched.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
I have seen no proof that joining the B12 would hurt any school academically or cause them financial damage. It is a bad argument.
What proof would you accept?
I posit that Princeton would be hurt academically by leaving the Ivy League and joining the B12 because it matters who you associate with. They wouldn’t become a second rate school, but they would lose status. I also posit that PSU would be hurt financially by leaving the B10 for the B12, based on TV deal values. I’ll even posit the NW would be hurt both academically and financially by joining the B12. Do you disagree about any of those?
It is just like the argument that many people make about PSU being dependent on the B1G for their growth in research dollars.
The academics at PSU have been quoted many times saying how beneficial joining the B10 was for them, just as NE’s people have said similar things. Are we not supposed to believe them?
I haven’t seen many people making any argument about PSU’s research money, so I’ll just take your word for it.
LikeLike
@Brian,
I should have said any school in the current conversation.
I’m sure B1G membership has made a difference but remember PSU was an independent before joining. Would being a member of the ACC instead of the B1G hurt PSU when they would be associated with schools like Duke, UNC, UVA and UMD? I doubt it. The mission of ACC schools is geared more to undergraduate studies rather than research but these schools are not slouches in research.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
I should have said any school in the current conversation.
Yeah, that’s a very different argument. I wasn’t sure if you meant it that way or in general. I still think being in the ACC is better than the B12 for academics, especially for a school like GT that is AAU, but very few B12 candidates would suffer much if at all from joining. Of those I’ve seen mentioned in comments here, I’d say GT, MD, Pitt and RU would all face a loss academically.
I’m sure B1G membership has made a difference but remember PSU was an independent before joining.
True, but NE wasn’t and they have said similar things.
Would being a member of the ACC instead of the B1G hurt PSU when they would be associated with schools like Duke, UNC, UVA and UMD? I doubt it. The mission of ACC schools is geared more to undergraduate studies rather than research but these schools are not slouches in research.
Being in the ACC wouldn’t hurt much, but I think PSU might miss the CIC a little. The B12 isn’t the ACC, though. I think PSU would get hurt academically there.
LikeLike
Does anyone know for sure what the ACC Tier III deal is? I’ve heard them say they share everything, but I’ve also seen figures showing UNC leading the nation with $11 million in Tier III revenue. I suspect they simply share all of Tier I and Tier II and so don’t look much different than the SEC and Big 12.
While I agree with you Frank that ACC schools to the Big 12 is remote, especially if its only 2, you overstate your case a little. While Maryland may be attractive to the B1G, the SEC would have no interest. They’re a school that has had a lot of athletic department financial difficulties. Their fb attendance would rank them just ahead of Baylor and TCU in the Big 12-and behind everyone else. NCSU is 3rd in their own metro area. Georgia Tech is a very distant 2nd fiddle even in Atlanta. Houston, the ultimate commuter school, has a lot more general support (casual fans who will watch on TV, not necessarily fans in the stands) in Houston than GT, an AQ school, has in Atlanta. FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, VT and UVA are a nice core for the ACC, but Texas Tech, Ok. St., Kansas, KSU and WVU are certainly a solid group backing up the UT/OU core of the Big 12. The average fb attendance of the future B12 schools over the last 4 years is 57,000, nearly 7,000 higher than the future ACC schools. The median is 50,264 vs. 48,785 in the ACC.
And Brian does make the point that money talks. If you think like a university president (especially a state university), you are trying to scrounge up every $ you can right now. If some of these Dude figures are true, FSU and Clemson would listen very closely. I just think the figures thrown out are not at all realistic. If its $15 million in the ACC vs. $20 million in the Big 12 that’s probably not enough. But if its $15 million vs. $25 or $30 million we’re talking $140-$210 million over the life of the ACC contract. But again, if the Pac just signed a deal for $21 million, I don’t see how the Big 12 +FSU/Clemson is worth that much more.
LikeLike
bullet,
Does anyone know for sure what the ACC Tier III deal is? I’ve heard them say they share everything, but I’ve also seen figures showing UNC leading the nation with $11 million in Tier III revenue. I suspect they simply share all of Tier I and Tier II and so don’t look much different than the SEC and Big 12.
“Meanwhile, the ACC’s new deal that begins this fall covers football, men’s and women’s basketball, Olympic sports and all conference championship games. Basically, it’s an all-inclusive package with a sublicensing arrangement in place with Raycom for games not broadcast by ESPN.”
I think where UNC makes the extra money is radio rights, advertising, etc. OSU has a deal for $10 or $11M for that, so UNC hoops could carry similar value.
LikeLike
It isn’t clear from her article if the $12.9 million per school from the ACC includes the sublicensing money from Raycom or is just the 1st & 2nd tier. If it does include that, the ACC is further behind the other 4.
LikeLike
Raycom sublicenses from ESPN, now, so it’s included in there.
LikeLike
Texas A&M to the SEC was never ridiculous to conclude. Frank just got it wrong because his assessment came almost exclusively from the Texas viewpoint. A&M insiders never waivered that their was legitimate interest from both sides and the political pressue was almost nonexistent.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but less than a year ago TCU was committed to joining the Big East and there was an awful lot of noise about Kansas moving there if the Big XII fell apart. While we know that Oklahoma is apparently committed to protecting Oklahoma State, it’s pretty clear that Iowa State, Baylor and Kansas State were staring down the barrel of irrelevance. Enough so that Ken Starr was comically pleading to anybody who would listen about the plight that might befall Baylor (and makes it beyond hypocritical to see him condone raiding other conferences). Which makes it really hard to imagine FSU or Clemson walking away from a stable situation to willingly step into that fiasco.
If/when superconferences come along, it is far more likely that it will be the cream of the Big XII that will be poached, not the ACC.
LikeLike
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Thanks to timing and strength at the top the Big XII is likely to make more money than the ACC, but the fact that the Big XII is carrying around so much dead weight makes it more likely to fall apart. Like Frank said, outside of Wake every ACC school is probably more appealing than any remaining Big XII except for OU and Texas (though I think that the Big 10 might prefer Kansas to Pitt since Pitt doesn’t give them anything they don’t already have, while KU adds the KC media market and an elite BB program).
(Geography also plays a big role since the Big XII has to worry about the Big 10, SEC and PAC, while the ACC only has to deal with the SEC and Big 10)
LikeLike
Hook em
LikeLike
Just realized that I never made good on my promise to admit I was wrong when I said aTm would never be admitted to the SEC without a national brand like OU or FSU if the Aggies were in fact invited.
Anyways, consider this me eating my crow…
LikeLike
Frank,
I think every NFL contract should be mostly performance incentives. Have base pay that varies by position and increases with years in the league, but base most of the pay on performance. One contract could cover all players, essentially. But that’s beside the point.
1. B12 expansion rumor I
I agree with everything except when you trivialize the monetary gap. The ACC at $13M is way behind the P12 and B10 ($21M seems to be the current number) and even the SEC ($17M), especially since the other leagues seem to also make more from third tier rights. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the total university budget, but a significant factor in the athletic budget.
2. B12 expansion rumor II
I fully agree UL seems likely and BYU is a no go.
I don’t know that the B12 has no good options, though. The question is who wants to join the B12? Drop all B10, P12 and SEC schools, as well as ND. Who would the B12 accept? Drop all WAC, Sun Belt and MAC schools. That leaves ACC, BE, CUSA and MWC teams as the first rough cut of options.
The new BE schools aren’t candidates, except maybe Boise. The ACC core is not available. The only ACC school I could possibly see is Pitt, but they have a big raise coming from joining the ACC. I just don’t buy that Clemson, GT or FSU are all that interested. The MWC has no good teams left, and neither does CUSA really.
Assuming AF goes to the BE and BYU stays independent, the B12’s best bets for #12 are Boise (less travel, a lot more money, strong FB) and Pitt (regional partner for WV, solid FB history, good MBB, decent market). I think Pitt would prefer the ACC for academic reasons, but they don’t have a lot of deep ties there yet (there are some former BE rivals). Boise would love a chance.
I think one big issue with this whole scenario is that the B12 teams really don’t seem to want the CCG to return. Is the strength of numbers sufficient to justify expanding to 12 teams, even if they lose money by adding teams and not playing the CCG?
3. Memphis to the BE
I think this was the right move since the AQ status seem to be off the table. Memphis is a decent fit for the BE regardless of what else happens. I’m curious to see what happens next. The BE is at 11 FB and 17 BB schools once all the moves happen IIRC. So was Memphis a preemptive replacement for UL, or the penultimate step to get to a 12/18 conference? If UL goes, does the BE still aim for 12/18? Sooner or later they’ll have to look at Temple and UMass if they keep wanting to grow.
4. B10 playoff plan
Part of me still thinks this is being oversold. It’s not like Delany laid out a full plan and said the B10 is behind it 100%. There was no talk of dates for the games. Delany explicitly said he has to talk to the COP/C and ADs about any proposal. The B10 also mentioned some other priorities that are hard to reconcile with this plan, like preserving the Rose Bowl. On top of that, declaring the use of home games is bound to get a rise from some southern and western teams that don’t want to risk playing a semi in a snowstorm.
Is this plan an opening position, or a line in the sand? Will the B10 use this as a way to reject any plan that doesn’t meet every part of this proposal? Will they use dates or other details as a reason to reject a plan? The B10 will have to do a lot more to convince me they are really advocating for a playoff. A big step would be getting a president or two to say they are behind this.
One tweak that I’d like to see to this plan (and previously suggested by Andy Staples and Slant commenter Eric, among others) is to have the losers of the semifinal games be placed back into the BCS bowl selection pool. So, if the Big Ten champ or Pac-12 champ loses in a semifinal game, they would still end up going to the Rose Bowl. Even though there’s a real concern that the fan base of a semifinal game loser might not be as willing to travel, I don’t see it as being much different than conference championship game losers being selected for top bowls (which happens quite frequently). Plus, the bowls themselves would still ultimately rather have access to more higher-ranked teams instead of diluting the BCS pool even further. This seems like a reasonable compromise to preserve the value of the top bowls such as the Rose Bowl while still providing for a seeded 4-team playoff.
I’d hate that tweak and think it is misguided. CCG losers rarely make a BCS bowl (only if they were a top 5 team, essentially). In fact, they usually drop several spots in the bowl order and then often perform poorly while the fans don’t travel well. Since the bowls are designed to bring in money from tourists, why would a BCS bowl want to take that on unless it was a home team?
CCG losers and their BCS bowl slot (4)
2009 #1 UF – Sugar
2008 #1 AL – Sugar
2003 #1 OU – Sugar
2011 #3 VT – Sugar
No BCS bowl (32, 8 in the top 5)
2011 GA
2010 SC
2007 TN
2006 AR
2005 #3 LSU
2004 TN
2003 #5 GA
2002 AR
2001 #2 TN
2000 AU
1999 #5 UF
1998 MSU
2010 NE
2009 NE
2008 MO
2007 #1 MO
2006 NE
2005 CO
2004 CO
2002 CO
2001 #3 TX
2000 KSU
1999 TX
1998 #2 KSU
2010 FSU
2009 Clemson
2008 BC
2007 BC
2006 GT
2005 #5 VT
2011 UCLA
2011 MSU
That’s 4 of 36 CCG losers that made a BCS bowl. That’s 4 of 12 top 5 teams that lost a CCG that made a BCS bowl (4 of 9 top 4 teams), and only the Sugar Bowl has ever taken one. This is the frequent result you are referencing?
I think the BCS bowls would much rather have a conference runner up or at large choice instead of a semifinal loser. I also think the NCAA will not allow a team to do both, nor should they. That’s the price you pay for participating in the playoff.
LikeLike
RE: Big 12 + UL
11 is a bad number. Only 13 is worse. For the Big 12 11 forces them back to an 8 game schedule meaning 44 conference games vs. 45 now. That is probably a problem for Fox.
Plus, they would basically pay for the 12th member with a ccg. I’m not sure UL pays for itself without being part of getting to a ccg.
I suspect its more likely they stay at 10. BYU has been problematic and I’ve read lots that they have gotten frustrated with negotiating with them. So UL + Cincinnati? In addition to the perception, Cincinnati has one of the lowest budgets of any AQ school (I think they are dead last). UL + Rutgers? I think the Big 12 is serious about making some sort of geographic sense and having something other than a TV contract to tie itself together (unless the numbers were really big). UL + Tulane? Think SWC II. The Big 12 would then have 3 small privates that draw less than 40k/game. So I think its UL + BYU or stay at 10. UL + Cincinnati is a possibiity if they really feel the need to go to 12. But what I’ve read is that OU and OSU like 12, UT likes 10 and the other 5 seem to have mixed feelings. WVU likes 12, but they don’t have a vote yet.
LikeLike
“For the Big 12 11 forces them back to an 8 game schedule . .”
I don’t see why. You could still play a 9-game conference slate with 2 protected games & rotating the other 7 amongst the other 8 teams.
That said, I agree that adding Louisville as 11 doesn’t make enough sense financially for the B12 to rationally want to do it.
LikeLike
Richard, for 11 teams to play 9 conference games, they’d have to play a total of 44 and a half games. Unpossible.
LikeLike
Oh right, got it. 10 home games for everyone, then.
LikeLike
Er, 10 league games.
LikeLike
49.5 games isn’t it?
LikeLike
bullet,
RE: Big 12 + UL
11 is a bad number. Only 13 is worse. For the Big 12 11 forces them back to an 8 game schedule meaning 44 conference games vs. 45 now. That is probably a problem for Fox.
Plus, they would basically pay for the 12th member with a ccg. I’m not sure UL pays for itself without being part of getting to a ccg.
I agree 11 is a bad choice. The B10 got away with it for a while but it is almost always a bad decision. I think they have a couple of decent options for #12, though.
I suspect its more likely they stay at 10. BYU has been problematic and I’ve read lots that they have gotten frustrated with negotiating with them. So UL + Cincinnati? In addition to the perception, Cincinnati has one of the lowest budgets of any AQ school (I think they are dead last). UL + Rutgers? I think the Big 12 is serious about making some sort of geographic sense and having something other than a TV contract to tie itself together (unless the numbers were really big). UL + Tulane? Think SWC II. The Big 12 would then have 3 small privates that draw less than 40k/game. So I think its UL + BYU or stay at 10. UL + Cincinnati is a possibiity if they really feel the need to go to 12. But what I’ve read is that OU and OSU like 12, UT likes 10 and the other 5 seem to have mixed feelings. WVU likes 12, but they don’t have a vote yet.
I agree that none of those choices is ideal. I think Boise or Pitt would be a better choice. Pitt probably would say no, but Boise wouldn’t. After that maybe you talk to BYU again. If none of those 3 say yes, I don’t see another good choice. There are several OK choices they could live with but I think they would lose money.
LikeLike
I think Pitt already made their choice. The Big 12 was feeling them out and they wrangled an invite from the ACC. So while they would be a good alternative to BYU or UL, I don’t consider them a possibility.
I don’t think Boise is a good choice. Too far away, too small a market, too bad in everything but football and one bad coach away from becoming Idaho in football. Yes, they’ve done well with several coaches, but there’s no guarantee Peterson stays or the next one is any good.
LikeLike
4 of 36 isn’t very reflective since a good portion of them either aren’t eligible or barely eligible. Four of top 9 is more reflective. I think that understates thing too though, because the team they would have lost to in the semi-finals would have been a top 4 team while normally a CCG loser is losing to a team further down the pecking order.
Let’s remember this doesn’t mean the BCS has to take a losing team, only that they we wait to see if they want to. Let’s think about the losers and who would be more likely to be taken:
Big Ten/PAC-12 champs: Rose Bowl would almost certainly take these teams over runner-ups if it has the opportunity.
Big 12 Champ: If you have a top 4 Texas/Oklahoma lose, my guess is the the Fiesta would still want them. The same might be true of others if they were 1/2 before the game.
SEC Champ: The Sugar will take no questions asked.
Big East/ACC Champ: The Orange might well prefer a different team and a losing Big East team probably be avoided.
Non-AQ: Out of it, but probably out of regardless under format changes.
Non-champs: More likely to be left.
So that leaves us with the Rose and Sugar definitely wanting the option in my opinion, the Fiesta own to it, and only the Orange probably opposed. I think that is enough to warrant delaying a decision a week.
LikeLike
Other than maybe the B10 (and possibly the Pac, though I have my doubts about those 2 conferences as well), I seriously doubt any other conference cares enough about putting a semifinal loser in their tie-in to seriously dilute the number of fans who will travel to bowl games by pushing back the pairings another week. I mean, pushing back the pairings another week is what you’d do if you really wanted to kill off the bowls. Very few people can travel for up to a week on short notice.
LikeLike
My initial response was to say it’s still around a minimum of 2 and half weeks, which while not ideal hopefully wouldn’t be killer either. Then it occurred to me the lower tier bowls would have to be accepting team the higher ones passed on and are earlier.
I think there are ways around this though (note: I’m assuming for this BCS bowls go to being contracts directly with conferences). One bowl (we’ll say the Cotton Bowl for discussion sake, but it would probably be bid out) could always be reserved for teams from that conferences that lost the semi-finals. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be the semi-final losers though. Example: Say Wisconsin is in the semi-finals. If they win they go to the national championship. If they lose, they go to the Rose Bowl. Michigan State is the back-up. If Wisconsin goes to the national championship, Michigan State goes to the Rose Bowl. If Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl, Michigan State goes to the Cotton Bowl. Every other Big Ten match-up could still be paired after championship week (or earlier).
LikeLike
How happy would MSU’s fans be about waiting a week and then not going to the Rose if Wiscy loses? Boy, tons of momentum & excitement for that other bowl! Look, I know that many B10 fans are obsessed with sending their champion to the Rose, but I really don’t think the other conferences & bowls (or even B10 teams who don’t make the playoff) will be willing to put life on hold while the Rose and B10 champ discover if they play in the national title game or not.
BTW, I had the idea of pairing up semifinal losers, and it wouldn’t be one that’s anywhere as high-profile as the Cotton. Again, it would have to be a bowl that gets strong local ticket sales and thus isn’t dependent on traveling fans. Ergo, the Sun Bowl or bowl in Houston.
LikeLike
Eric,
4 of 36 isn’t very reflective since a good portion of them either aren’t eligible or barely eligible.
I included that stat because Frank said, “conference championship game losers being selected for top bowls (which happens quite frequently).” I don’t think 4 of 36 is particularly frequent.
Four of top 9 is more reflective.
That is why I included the number. I think the 4 of 12 number is the best because a committee might well choose what was BCS #5 over BCS#4. I still don’t think 4 times in 14 seasons is frequent, though, regardless of the number of chances.
I think that [4 of 9] understates thing too though, because the team they would have lost to in the semi-finals would have been a top 4 team while normally a CCG loser is losing to a team further down the pecking order.
That’s not as true as you think.
Of the 4 who made a BCS bowl, the CCG winners were:
2009 #2 AL
2008 #2 UF
2003 #15 KSU
2011 #21 Clemson
No BCS bowl:
2005 #13 GA
2001 #21 LSU
2007 #9 OU
2001 #9 CO
1998 #10 TAMU
2 lost to top 4 teams (both got BCS bowls), 3 lost to top 10 teams (none got a BCS bowl), 2 lost to top 15 teams (1 got a BCS bowl) and 2 lost to top 25 teams (1 got a BCS bowl).
Who you lost to didn’t have a major impact. It came down to when the Sugar had an opening.
I don’t think the difference between losing to a top 5 team or a top 10 team a week earlier is very big in the eyes of the bowl committees, but only 2 of those 5 teams made a BCS game.
There are factors that make the stat less reliable, though:
1. The BCS added a game during this period, which changes things.
2. The B10 and P12 just added a CCG, and the Rose is the most committed to its anchors.
3. The SEC has had multiple top 5 teams lately, skewing the outcome.
Like all stats, don’t give it too much weight. The whole point was that 4 instances in 14 years doesn’t equal “frequent” in my mind.
Let’s remember this doesn’t mean the BCS has to take a losing team, only that they we wait to see if they want to.
It means more than that. It means every bowl has to wait longer, every school and fan has less time to plan, and that 2 teams get two postseasons to participate in. I don’t see the presidents supporting that, but they could surprise me.
Let’s think about the losers and who would be more likely to be taken:
Big Ten/PAC-12 champs: Rose Bowl would almost certainly take these teams over runner-ups if it has the opportunity.
Says who? Do you have something to back up “almost certainly” beyond your opinion?
I think they are more likely to take a B10 division runner up than a semi loser or CCG loser. If WI had played in a semi and lost this year, for example, I expect the Rose would have taken MI over MSU and WI. Some years a semi loser may be more attractive, but I doubt they expect a team that just blew a chance at a NC to travel well for a meaningless game 3000 miles away.
They might be more inclined to take a P12 CCG loser since the travel is less and they have fewer top programs, but they would have taken Stanford if OR lost (or vice versa) this year or last year.
Big 12 Champ: If you have a top 4 Texas/Oklahoma lose, my guess is the the Fiesta would still want them. The same might be true of others if they were 1/2 before the game.
History says no, unless nobody else is highly ranked. They would take an also highly ranked OU/TX over a TX/OU that lost a semi. They’d also consider any other highly ranked team in my opinion. I think you underrate the impact losing a playoff game will have on fans and the team. Ask someone whose team lost the NCG recently how excited they would be to go to their team’s usual BCS bowl after that. Most OSU fans were devastated after the losses and wouldn’t dream of spending thousands to go to the Rose.
SEC Champ: The Sugar will take no questions asked.
The Sugar has lots of options lately. They might take them or they might take then next team in line. If LSU lost to GA this year, would the Sugar have taken LSU over AL (ignore the NCG for now)? Over AR? It’s not a given.
Big East/ACC Champ: The Orange might well prefer a different team and a losing Big East team probably be avoided.
I think they’d hope to not have to accept an ACC team in that case. They could choose another one, but they might prefer to look elsewhere, too, until more ACC teams compete at the highest level.
Non-AQ: Out of it, but probably out of regardless under format changes.
Non-champs: More likely to be left.
So that leaves us with the Rose and Sugar definitely wanting the option in my opinion, the Fiesta own to it, and only the Orange probably opposed. I think that is enough to warrant delaying a decision a week.
I think the Rose and Sugar would be happy either way. More importantly, I don’t think the presidents are inclined to reward losing in the playoffs with a bowl spot. Otherwise, people are going to start wanting double elimination playoffs outside of baseball to reduce upsets.
LikeLike
If the BE doesn’t lose Louisville, Memphis would make 12 football schools for the BE (RU + UConn + USF + Cincy + Louisville & Boise + SDSU + Navy + Houston + SMU + UCF + Memphis). 17 bball schools.
LikeLike
Pretty sure Big XII is the next conference that implodes as that is the conference TCU is in.
LikeLike
Ha! I hadn’t thought about that, but you’re right. TCU is conference poison!
From the conference’s founding until the end of the 1995-96 season, TCU was in the SWC. Then the SWC dissolved.
TCU was in the WAC from 1996-2001. Since then, the WAC has lost 100% of the membership it had at the time, and has lost even more since then.
TCU was in C-USA, which has lost 9 teams to the Big East, 1 to the A-10, and one to the MWC.
TCU was in the MWC, which has lost 5 members (and a possible 6 with Air Force to the Big East).
TCU semi-joined the Big East, which, including TCU, has since lost 4 members (and a possible 5-6 if Louisville and another team goes to the Big 12).
5 conferences all with either devastating losses or a loss of existence. Common thread: TCU. Wow.
LikeLike
Just make the Rose Bowl the NCG.
LikeLike
The Big East makes me sad.
Finally, they have 12 teams so that they can have a championship game. This league is in such a state of flux that they may only have 12 teams on their potential roster for a week or two.
I still think that the BE will be flushed into the MWCUSA cluster. Then, when some team is needed for a bigger conference (Rutgers/UConn/etc.) they can easily be plucked from this cluster.
LikeLike
GBR!
LikeLike
If the proposed BIG playoff proposal became reality, would that change ND’s attitude toward conference affiliation?
LikeLike
@Todd – I don’t think it really changes anything for Notre Dame. As long as there is no structural barrier to getting to the playoff as an independent, then it’s no different for ND compared to the 2-team championship game system that we have now.
LikeLike
The question is if they will institute a rule stating that only conference champs can participate in the playoff. That would force the Irish’s hand.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is a chance ND isn’t invited into any playoff type system, none. The issue isn’t ND’s invitation but the monetary payout to ND when they don’t earn a spot or their payout when they do earn one; which will be a negotiation process.
LikeLike
frug,
A conference champion rule most likely wouldn’t exclude independents, just those that failed to win their conference. Big difference.
LikeLike
1. I just read the ESPN article on Memphis joining the Big East for all sports and noted the Louisville head basketball coach Rick Pitino had been lobbying for the move because the two school were natural basketball rivals. It’ll be ironic if UL leaves for the Big XII as part of a two-team conference expansion before Memphis and Louisville play one another on the hardwood as members of the Big East.
2. Back in October 2011, the Mountain West and Conference USA were talking about a football alliance between the two conferences. The discussion was about how the 22 members of those conferences would play one another in a championship game with the idea that the winner would be eligibile for a BCS bowl.
Times have certainly chaged in the last five months or so. The two conferences are now down to sixteen members for foootball (Hawaii is a football-only member) and the concept of BCS bowls and AQ/non-AQ conferences is essentially out the window. Here’s the membership of those two conferences:
Mountain West (8)
Air Force
Colorado State
Fresno State
Hawaii (Football Only)
Nevada-Las Vegas
Nevada-Reno
New Mexico
Wyoming
Conference USA (8)
Alabama-Birmingham
East Carolina
Marshall
Southern Mississippi
Rice
Texas-El Paso
Tulane
Tulsa
I can’t imagine what the futures will be like for these two confernces. Will they merge and form a 16-team entitly like the WAC did in the 1990s? It seems to me like a combined MWC/C-USA Conference would have the same sorts of problems the WAC did a couple of decades ago.
3. The addition of Memphis means the Big East will have the twelve teams necessary to split into two divisions and to stage a conference championship game. Assuming an east-west division, this might be how the “new” Big East will look in due course, i.e., minus TCU, WVU, Pitt and Syracuse, for football:
West: Boise State, Louisville, San Diego State, Memphis, Houston, SMU
East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Rutgers, South Florida
On face value, that doesn’t look like a very compelling line up of football teams. It’l be interesting to see what sort of network deals they get (NBC Sports Network cross-promoting with Notre Dame, perhaps?) and bowl relationships they’ll have. ND has had bowl tie-ins thru the Big East in the past–is that a relationship that will continue going forward?
4. Prior to 1978, the Big Ten and (then) Pac 8 conferences had 18 teams in them. That number has since grown to 24 with the additions of Penn State and Nebraska to the Big Ten and Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado to the Pac 8/Pac 10 to make the Pac 12.
I’m sure the Big Ten and the Pac 12 will work to protect the Rose Bowl when the four-team playoff (I refuse to call it a Plus One) is finally adopted, but what exactly is the conference protecting the RB from? In this past season, the Rose Bowl had Wisconsin (11-2) playing Oregon (11-2) as the two conference champions. If those two teams were to go to a four-team hypothetical playoff, then the Rose Bowl could have had a matchup between Michigan (10-2) or Michigan State (10-3) and Stanford (11-1) or USC (10-2, but not bowl eligibile in 2011).
Since both conferences now have 12 members, the Rose Bowl can still have a very compelling matchup that will appeal to the three T’s (tickets, tourism, television) even if one or both of the conference champions go into a four-team playoff. If Larry Scott is able to get the Pac 12 up to 16 members and the Big Ten were to bring Notre Dame into the fold as part of a larger expansion, it’ll be even more of a moot point.
5. I’m hard pressed to imagine that conference championships won’t be an integral part of a four-team playoff. If we had used the BCS rankings from last year, two teams that didn’t even win their divisions (Alabama and Stanford), let alone their conferences, would be playing in it. OTOH, if you remove Alabama from the mix, then you exclude the team that became the BCS national champion.
I read that there are some sixty different proposals out there for a four-team playoff. If Delany is signalling that the Big Ten would support a playoff with the caveat that the first round games be at the home stadiums of the higher rated teams, then I’m hard pressed to imagine he won’t work to have conference champsions being the prime beneficiaries of this arrangement. I sincerely doubt he’d like to see two SEC teams in such a playoff who would both be hosting games in their home stadiums in the semi-final round–something that would have happened just last season.
i have a feeling that the four top-rated conference champions are the ones going to such a playoff and that teams like Alabama and Stanford from last year will be on the outside looking in with their destinations being the major bowl games.
6. By 2014, the five major conferences will have at least 64 members (14 + 14 + 12 + 12 +10), although that number could easily become 66 if the Big XII does expand with the additions of Lousville, Brigham Young or Cincinnati. I think it’s fair to say that we’re on the cusp of seeing the emergence of super conferences in due course, although the final format of the conferences (16 or 20 teams) and their number (at least four or maybe five) is still to be developed.
I think we’re seeing a convergence in the the college football post-season is lining up along with conference realignment. The conference championship games will become de facto playoff games that will seed a four-team playoff played at the home sites of the higher rated teams and with the championship game at a neutral site. The remaining programs will populate the bowl games–both major and minor–and we’ll have an arrangement that all the stakeholders (television, bowl organizes, university presidents, athletic directors, NCAA) will recognize as optimal.
What will be the major controversy? If there are five super-conferences in place, one of them won’t be going into the four-team playoff. I’m sure that’d generate some controversy along with the post-season fate of teams outside the super conferences–especially in a setup where there may be fewer bowls. Stay tuned.
7. Former Notre AD Kevin White coined the phrase “monitoring the landscape” when it came to to the question of joining a conference or not. Along with BYU, ND is going to have some interesting decisions to make going forward. Both schools have to set up their bowl deals outside a conference setting. ND used to do it thru the Big East, but as I mmentioned above, what sort of bowls will the new Big East have to offer Notre Dame?
Late season scheduling is going to be a continuing question. Brigham Young has a pool of WAC teams it can put on the schedule, but is a lineup that includes Utah State, New Mexico State and San Jose State going to be very compelling on a national basis (or to ESPN)? Notre Dame is losing a little more flexibility now that the ACC has opted to go to a nine-game confernce schedule when Pitt and Syracuse join the conference and the Pac 12 has effectively shutdown the idea of playing neutral site games by demanding media rights to those games. Then, of course, there’s the Big Ten/Pac 12 scheduling arrangement (and the Pac 12 opting to play nine conference games as well) which removes some more pieces from the chess board.
Then, of course, there’s the quest for a national championship for these two schools. With a four-team playoff on the horizon, under what conditions do they get into it? Would a 12-0 or 11-1 Notre Dame team displace a conference champion that had to win a conference championship game, but may have ended up the season 12-1 or 11-2? It’d be interesting to see what sort of setup would be put together for a four-team playoff that gives Notre Dame and Brigham Young an opportunity to participate and would get a buy in from the ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and SEC.
LikeLike
Winning a ccg will simply not be an issue. They’ve had the opportunity to do that before after major controversies and never did (Nebraska over CU in 2000 and OU over Auburn in 2003).
Will they limit the number of non-champs? Maybe. Will they limit home games to conference champs? Maybe. I would like to see that, but they don’t worry about that in determining who gets to stay near home in the NCAA bb tourney.
This year it may have been we had the two best teams from the same conference (not that ESPN gave us a chance to test that). In 2008 the best team may have been left out of the 2 team BCS when Texas lost the media campaign to OU for the tiebreak (based on the BCS) for their division title. Had LSU lost by a FG to UGA in the SEC ccg it would have been ridiculous, with their schedule, to leave them out. I think limiting it to conference champs is a bad idea. Now limiting the number of teams from a conference is a different matter and something I would support since it tests the theories of who is best instead of it being a popularity contest.
LikeLike
I ultimately think that college football will get to an eight-team playoff, but it’ll come thru one of two ways:
(1) If the major conferences expand their membership to 16 or more teams, then the conference championship games become the de facto first round of the championship. Those CCGs would be followed by a semi-final and then a final game for the national championship.
(2) If some of the conferences expand to less than 16 or even stand pat with their current membership, then the conference championship games help decide who is in the playoff and how they’re seeded. The five major conferences provide an autobid and three at large teams are selected to round out the field. I’ve stated this before, but I would put some requirement on the confernce champion, such as being in the top 14 of the rating system used, to qualify for an autobid.
I suspect one of the reasons why there’s so many different Plus One scenarios is because people have different criteria for figuring out the top four teams to qualify. You can draw together all sorts of critiera that not only pick which four teams go to the playoffs, but also how they’re ranked 1 thru 4 in terms of which top two teams will host a championship game.
In the end, I suspect the system that will emerge will be (1). Two of the conferences are just two teams away from getting to 16 teams (ACC, SEC) while Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott has made two attepts already to get Oklahoma, Texas, et. al. to join the Pac 12 to make the Pac 16. When he has another opportunity to do it, he’ll try again. That leaves the Big Ten and the Big XII who perhaps have to make up the most ground to get there. Someone will make the first step and we could then see four or five super conferences with anywhere from 64 to 80 teams operating within them.
Outside of the appeal towards the post-season, I know that people who follow the sport can appreciate other reasons why the conferences could get bigger. It’s obvious there’s a friction between the larger and smaller schools within the NCAA over various rules–most recently, the ones governing giving additional stipends as part of the scholarship. I suspect there are other issues as well that could see Division 1-A split into two different organizations. On a different scale, you could also see programs breaking away from the NCAA and setting up their own umbrella organization to set up rules, tournaments, etc., because the NCAA is incapable of keeping up with their interests.
LikeLike
I think the MWC and C-USA thing still marches forward, each side has 8 teams, so they can play round robin in each division making up 7 games. Maybe a game or two against the other side, maybe none. I think the idea was to take two conferences that basically function independently of one another like they do today and then just bring each sides champions together for a championship game in the hopes that game could catapult then in the BCS.
I would not be surprised to see both of those conferences each grab another team or two, and expand to 18 or 20 and continue with a round robin in their divisions, only meeting the other side in the championship game. For C-USA I think both Troy and Arkansas State have some appeal. Utah State was invited to the MWC a couple years ago and passed (they were standing by the WAC), and there is still Louisiana Tech, Idaho and San Jose State all with some attractive and not so attractive attributes sitting in a vulnerable position in the WAC.
Mountain West Division C-USA Division
Hawaii East Carolina
Wyoming UAB
New Mexico Marshall
UNLV Southern Miss
Colorado State Rice
Nevada Tulsa
Air Force UTEP
Fresno State Tulane
San Jose State Troy
Utah State Arkansas St
LikeLike
I’ll think they’ll do something similar to what you say. But I think its a bad idea. They should really get regional, maybe splitting up Texas, and then doing a joint TV contract between two separate conferences.
If they do a full merge they might stop at 16 in order to allow room for Boise and SDSU to come back. The Semi-Big Country Conference simply can’t last very long.
LikeLike
They might lose members, but as the CUSA-MWC is pretty much the Big Country (except with even less prestige & TV drawing power), I don’t see why any school would willingly leave to take a step down. I also don’t see why/how the Big Country will implode. Now they’re composed of schools that are roughly on the same level of attendance/brand/revenues (unlike the SWC or even the 16-school WAC).
LikeLike
@Richard
I’m referring to the Big East as the semi-Big Country conference. It may just take one more set of expansions from the Big 12 to cause Boise and SDSU to decide it makes more sense to be in a western conference, especially since their basketball will suffer in the WAC and Big West.
I could see a new western conference with Hawaii, Fresno, UNLV, UNM, UTEP, Colorado St., Air Force, BYU, SDSU, Boise and possibly others and generating TV revenue sufficient to offset most of the bb TV revenue advantage of what would remain of the Big East (if the bb schools haven’t abandoned it by that time).
LikeLike
0. I know. I was referring to the BE when i said “Big Country”.
1. If BYU isn’t giving up independence to join the B12, they’re not giving up independence to join that motley collection.
2. Boise doesn’t care about bball. SDSU could just do what Long Beach State did (look at their bball schedule this year).
3. Without BYU, I don’t see the rest (without Boise & SDSU) being able to garner enough TV revenue to get Boise & SDSU. Put another way, the rest of the BE without Boise & SDSU is a fair bit more valuable than your motley collection of western teams without BYU, Boise, and SDSU (in football).
LikeLike
North Texas, Florida International, Florida Atlantic, Texas-San Antonio and Georgia State all make more sense for CUSA than Arkansas State, Troy, or Appalachian State.
LikeLike
Hawaii’s contract with the MWC ends in 2013.
I continue to maintain that Hawaii will not be in the MWC in 2014 because Oceanic Time Warner Cable will force the issue by NOT carrying the mtn.
Oceanic Time Warner Cable wants to control the rights to Hawaii football. That cannot happen as long as Hawaii is in the MWC.
LikeLike
cutter,
1. I just read the ESPN article on Memphis joining the Big East for all sports and noted the Louisville head basketball coach Rick Pitino had been lobbying for the move because the two school were natural basketball rivals. It’ll be ironic if UL leaves for the Big XII as part of a two-team conference expansion before Memphis and Louisville play one another on the hardwood as members of the Big East.
Pitino was right to lobby for them. If the higher ups decide to move to the B12 so be it, but he’s looking out for the best for UL in the BE. Memphis benefits either way.
2. Back in October 2011, the Mountain West and Conference USA were talking about a football alliance between the two conferences. The discussion was about how the 22 members of those conferences would play one another in a championship game with the idea that the winner would be eligibile for a BCS bowl.
Times have certainly chaged in the last five months or so. The two conferences are now down to sixteen members for foootball (Hawaii is a football-only member) and the concept of BCS bowls and AQ/non-AQ conferences is essentially out the window. Here’s the membership of those two conferences:
…
I can’t imagine what the futures will be like for these two confernces. Will they merge and form a 16-team entitly like the WAC did in the 1990s? It seems to me like a combined MWC/C-USA Conference would have the same sorts of problems the WAC did a couple of decades ago.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7554045/conference-usa-board-discuss-possibility-merging-mountain-west-source-says
The CUSA board will discuss the merger this week. I think it has a good chance of passing.
An important quote from the article:
“Based upon my conversations with commissioner (John) Marinatto, the Big East has now completed its future membership plan. If this is true, it is very helpful as we can now move forward with our plans in a more stable national environment,” he said. “We hope that the other conferences appreciate the value of stability in intercollegiate athletics and higher education.”
I think this merger could be much better than the SuperWAC. The SuperWAC suffered because they used pods and there were split rivalries all over the place. The MWC teams and CUSA teams have essentially no overlap, so the crossover games in FB present no issues with preserving rivalries. I’d say the ideal would be for both sides to grow to 9 teams so they can play 8 division games and no crossovers, but 8 works fine.
6. By 2014, the five major conferences will have at least 64 members (14 + 14 + 12 + 12 +10), although that number could easily become 66 if the Big XII does expand with the additions of Lousville, Brigham Young or Cincinnati. I think it’s fair to say that we’re on the cusp of seeing the emergence of super conferences in due course, although the final format of the conferences (16 or 20 teams) and their number (at least four or maybe five) is still to be developed.
I don’t think that’s fair to say at all, unless you mean on the cusp like people saying we’re on the cusp of having flying cars in every garage.
LikeLike
Check your math.It’s 62 not 64.
LikeLike
That’s not my math, it’s cutter’s. I quoted him.
LikeLike
One subtle point I like about the proposal is that it is a means to overcome a competitive disadvantage the B1G faces – the advent of always playing on the road.
Arguments against playing in cold weather sites need to be balanced against the reality that Michigan, PSU, tOSU and even Wisky constantly fill among the largest stadiums in the country. It stands to reason that those home semifinal games will be very well attended simply because of the size of our stadiums compared to the alternatives.
Now consider the generally accepted speed advantage of the SEC. That’s perpetually enhanced by playing in warm weather, and enhanced even more by always playing close to home, if not actually at home (e.g. LSU) in BCS games, including championships. What better way to neutralize those advantages than forcing them to play elsewhere, particularly in the North?
With respect to whether people want to go to a northern championship game, The NFL has led the way in showing that if it’s a championship that’s offered to the highest bidder, people will travel to it, just to say they were there.
Delany et al, in taking the initiative may have done a bit to better balance the playing field.
LikeLike
I went to a fantasy football event at the University of Michigan six years ago and then UM head coach Lloyd Carr talked about having a 16-team playoff with the initial rounds being played at the home stadiums of the higher rated teams during a Q&A session.
Carr certainly looked forward to the idea of playing a home playoff game at Michigan Stadium in December. He talked about the possibility of playing Alabama (Michigan’s oppononent in the 2000 Orange Bowl) in Ann Arbor versus Miami as an example of what would be different.
But you’re right about the stadiums. They’re all very large, have luxury boxes, and in the case of two of them, have hosted outdoor hockey games in December. Putting a college football playoff game at those sites wouldn’t be a logistical problem for any of them (although i do wonder about how the field turf would be footing wise in the cold).
The one problem I see for any playoff scenario is the academic schedule. Michigan, for example, had its last day of class in 2011 on 13 December and had exam/study days extend to 22 December. I could see a lot of blowback to hosting a college football playoff game in Ann Arbor during tha time frame, both from the perspective of student attendance in the midst of a major testing period to having the football team practicing and playing during that time frame.
If a four-team playoff does come to fruition, I could see it being played in late December–perhaps the third or even fourth Saturday of the year–in order to clear the scheduled exam dates.
LikeLike
I would have (almost) given a limb to have had NU host a meaningful game during the holidays. It would have added to the college experience (as long as it wasn’t every year and preventing me any family time). Again, I’d welcome the footing issues resulting from frozen or sloppy turf. It would hurt SEC style play more than ours.
LikeLike
Second Saturday in December would be before final exams. Holding a game during winter break when the campus has shut down already and the students are all away seems quite a bit less appealing.
LikeLike
While you’re correct that 10 December would be before exams, I don’t know if that’s entirely practical from the standpoint of visiting fans setting up travel arrangements to get up to Michigan in a week’s time. That’s a pretty quick turnaround time–difficult, but not impossible.
If we were doing it this year, then the first Saturday after exams would have been 24 December. Would students stick around to be in attendance for this game? Probably. Would the university keep the dorms open for a couple of days to accomodate this? I imagine they would given the circumstances surrounding the game.
If the national championship game was held two weeks later, then it’d be on Saturday, 7 January. That’d be two days before the BCS championship game and it would mean sharing the stage with the NFL. I know they’re talking about getting the NC game closer to 1 January, but it’s hard to manipulate the schedule around what everyone wants.
The NHL is going to have their 2013 Winter Classic at Michigan Stadium next year on 1 January with 2 January being the alternate date with the Detroit Red Wings hosting the Toronto Maple Leafs. They’re expecting to have over 100,000 fans there and are looking at breaking the record for the Big Chill game between Michigan and Michigan State (played on 11 December 2011). My take from this is that I could see a college football semi-final game played on Christmas Eve at Michigan Stadium having very little problem attendance wise.
For more on the 2013 NHL Winter Classic, go to: http://www.freep.com/article/20120209/SPORTS05/202090513/Winter-Classic-NHL-gets-Michigan-Stadium-for-cool-3-million?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs
LikeLike
The timing is tough. Ideally, everyone wants the playoff system to avoid (1) final exams, (2) competing with the NFL, (3) being on any low-rated TV days (such as Christmas Eve), (4) having the national championship game stretching far beyond New Year’s Day, (5) having fans travel to neutral sites multiple times and (6) giving too little time for fans to make plans to travel to such neutral sites.
It’s probably going to be impossible to have a system that avoids all of the negatives listed above. In terms of priority, I think avoiding the NFL and low-rated TV dates are absolute requirements for the people that are ultimately paying for the playoff (the TV networks). (Note that what’s best for traveling fans, such as weekend and holiday dates, are often directly opposite to what’s best for the TV networks.) There’s probably going to be some give and take on all of the other issues.
If what Rittenberg is saying is correct, then I think there will be a splitting of the baby with the semifinals being held 2 weeks after the conference championship games are played. It’s a date that works for TV without conflicting with the NFL, leaves at least 2 weeks (and maybe closer to 3) for the winning teams’ fans to make travel plans to the championship game, allows that championship game to be played closer to Nee Year’s Day, and the semifinals essentially kickoff the bowl season. The finals argument is disingenuous to me (even though it *should* be important) since there are already neutral site bowls being played during that timeframe. The powers that be can’t on the one hand say that traveling hundreds or thousands of miles during finals week for bowls is acceptable while campus site semifinals aren’t acceptable on the other hand. That sounds like another post-hoc justification to me.
LikeLike
That’s actually a really good point about Michigan’s exam schedule. I graduated from Michigan, and this is spot on. I would have been hard pressed to go to a football game at that point, and I am sure some other Big Ten schools have similar schedules.
LikeLike
Just have to put it in here. The SEC does not have a speed advantage over the Big 10 it has a size advantage over the Big 10.
LikeLike
I agree, except I think it is a bluff by the Big10. They know full well none of the warm weather conferences would EVER accept the possibility of having to play in Madison, WI or Ann Arbor, MI in December.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll bite, especially when I hear always or never (ever). Why not? And to what end would you see the ‘bluff’ playing out?
LikeLike
One thought is the B10 is using this as a tactic to gain more bargaining power, just like how the B10/Pac 12 use “their” Rose Bowl as a bargaining chip. Both the Pac 12 & B10 won’t accept any playoff system that they don’t get at least their fair share.
LikeLike
The Big10 knows southern schools will never agree to playing December games in the upper Midwest. As Frank said, the Big10 can no longer be called the obstructionist in the matter of a playoff, they’ve put forward a solid proposal that limits travel and maximizes profits by not paying the middle man of a neutral field.
Now, if the southern schools shock everyone and agree to this scenario? I honestly don’t know what the Big10 powers would do. I think they’d be crazy to pass it up. The opportunity to face USC, Texas, Florida State or anyone from the SEC outdoors in sub-freezing temperatures would be the greatest advantage imaginable.
Historically, I can only think of one time when a warm weather school travelled into “cold” weather late in the year with National Championship implications riding on the game. Florida State-Notre Dame 1993. And while it was a classic game, FSU played probably their poorest game of the year and lost the game. Only a Notre Dame letdown the next week allowed them to get back in the title hunt.
Can anyone else think of such a matchup? Maybe a USC travelled to Washington late in the year with the Rose Bowl on the line? Has USC ever had to play Notre Dame in South Bend when the weather was truly bad? Seems to me like the always play in mid- to late-October before it gets too cold.
LikeLike
Why would the southern schools oppose this? I think this is a Big 10 fantasy that somehow the southern schools are afraid of playing in the cold, which is really just an excuse for the lousy showing of the B1G in the Rose Bowl over the years and of Ohio St. vs. SEC schools in recent years.
Now if you have a choice you play in better weather. But southern schools have played in Dallas in the Cotton Bowl in really bad weather. The Big 10 proposal is very reasonable and I don’t think its any kind of bluff.
LikeLike
The Pacific NW just doesn’t get that cold; chilly and rainy, sure, but pretty much never freezing. With Colorado & Utah added, though, those places _do_ get cold in November (now we just need CU and the Utes to be credible threats).
Miami had to travel to VTech (and other places up north) late in the year when they were in the BE.
The B12 did hold their championship game in open-air Arrowhead 5 times (though every time, the South was represented by OU; All 5 times Texas played in the B12 title game, it was indoors or in TX or both; 4 of the 5 times, it was in TX; the only time it was outside TX was the very first B12 title game when they pulled off a shocker against Nebraska in the dome in St. Louis).
The southern powers in the B12 & ACC do have to venture up north late in the year occassionally, though it’s questionable whether they’ll have to play anyone good in the cold.
The SEC powers, however, could get away with being pussies. One small benefit to Mizzou joining the SEC is that some of the southern powers in the SEC East may actually have to play a decent team in cold weather (and they already have to visit Lexington late in the year occassionally, though it’s been a while since UK was good at football). The SEC West, however, can still get away with being pussies & play for a national title despite never playing in under 50 degree weather.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, I just looked at Mizzou’s 2012 schedule & it’s hilarious. They have Mizzou on the road all of November. Alabama visits when it’s still nice outside in October. UGa in September. Looks like TAMU may be the SEC West sacrificial lamb that has to brave the MO cold Thanksgiving week every other year, though (at least until the Aggies complain enough).
LikeLike
The cynic in me says the SEC will never send UF or UGa to play @Mizzou in November. Heck, they may never schedule an SEC East team besides UK or Vandy (or maybe Tennessee) to play @Mizzou in November.
We’ll see over the next decade.
LikeLike
bullet,
Why would the southern schools oppose this?
You know why people are saying they will oppose this. You may disagree, but don’t act like you don’t know what he is talking about.
I think this is a Big 10 fantasy that somehow the southern schools are afraid of playing in the cold, which is really just an excuse for the lousy showing of the B1G in the Rose Bowl over the years and of Ohio St. vs. SEC schools in recent years.
You are conflating two issues. The home field advantage enjoyed by USC in the Rose Bowl due to physical proximity is real. For all your bad mouthing of the B10, these are the Rose Bowl stats:
B10 – 30-37, 0.448
B10 not against USC – 24-21, 0.533
P12 – 47-42-3, 0.527
USC – 24-8, 0.750 (16-6 vs B10, 8-2 vs others)
Rest of P12 – 23-34-3, 0.408
The B10 has a USC problem in the Rose Bowl, and so does everyone else. It’s not a weather thing, especially now that teams have indoor practice facilities. It’s a familiarity and fan advantage, like LSU in the Sugar or Miami in the Orange.
OSU had a string of bad luck, close games and bad losses against the SEC in bowls (years are the season, not the bowl day):
1977 AL in Sugar by 29
19889 AU in HoF by 17
1992 GA in Citrus by 7
1994 AL in Citrus by 7
1995 TN in Citrus by 6 – the illegal cleats game
2000 SC in Outback by 17 – got Cooper fired
2001 SC in Outback by 3
2006 FL in AZ by 27
2007 LSU in NO by 14
2010 beat AR by 5 – vacated
2011 FL in Gator by 7
Note there was 1 whole game outside of SEC territory. You have 1 game for Woody, 5 for Cooper who never met a big game he couldn’t lose, and 1 for an interim coach. You also have Tressel going 1-3 including losing two NCGs, with LSU playing at home, but the win got vacated.
Some of those losses were unlucky and some were beatdowns. The rest of the B10 does fine against the SEC in bowls, though. OSU had a bad bowl coach plus some tough competition.
The issue with weather is that northern teams have to be built to accommodate it while southern teams don’t. If you then play all the bowls in warm weather sites you put the northern teams at a disadvantage. Look at what happened to Miami when it was 50 degrees and they played WI in a bowl a couple of years ago. While the Canes huddled around heaters every chance they got, the Badgers ground them into paste. IA versus GT had some of that too, IIRC. Even the NFL has shown it with southern teams really struggling to win in the north in winter. It is a real factor.
LikeLike
@Brian
Big 10 schools didn’t even play on Thanksgiving until recently. And they don’t play any ooc games after September (unless someone schedules a vacation in Hawaii), so obviously southern schools don’t play in Big 10 territory in cold weather.
To say they are afraid is totally without any basis in fact. And again, Big 10 fans have been complaining about playing in SEC territory and blaming that on their losses. I said Ohio St., because, as you pointed out, its only Ohio St. who’s had problems. And they’ve been the flagship the last 10 years and so the whole Big 10 has taken a hit.
As for the Rose, you know full well the Big 10 had a long difficult stretch in the Rose against anyone the Pac sent up following Ohio St.’s ’68 MNC up until the 90s. There were lots of upsets. And all the Big 10 fans were complaining about having to play in California and that’s why they lost. In that stretch USC was 8-3, Stanford was 2-0, UCLA was 4-0, Arizona St. was 1-0 and Washington was 4-1. That was 4-19 and USC had more trouble against the Big 10 than anyone else.
LikeLike
Well, now some B10 teams play OOC games late in the season, and in 2011, a southern team (Rice) even had the gumption to play us in cold weather.
LikeLike
BTW, the last time UF played in Lexington in November was 1990. The last time they visited Knoxville in November was 1954. I don’t expect UF to ever visit Mizzou in November in my lifetime. I suppose if Vandy ever became a challenge, they’d have to ask the SEC to move that game up before the first week of November as well. Can’t expect the Gators to play against a team that could beat them when the temperature is under 50 degrees, after all. Too much to ask.
LikeLike
Oh man, more SEC scheduling hilarity:
Over the past 10 years, when UK visited UGa, they played in late November; when UGa visited Lexington, they played in either the first week of November or October.
I suppose that shows a bit more courage than the Bulldogs did previously; before 2004, UGa _never_ played a game @UK in November.
Mind you, KY isn’t even in the Midwest (but it could get below 50 in late November!)
LikeLike
bullet,
Big 10 schools didn’t even play on Thanksgiving until recently. And they don’t play any ooc games after September (unless someone schedules a vacation in Hawaii), so obviously southern schools don’t play in Big 10 territory in cold weather.
To say they are afraid is totally without any basis in fact. And again, Big 10 fans have been complaining about playing in SEC territory and blaming that on their losses. I said Ohio St., because, as you pointed out, its only Ohio St. who’s had problems. And they’ve been the flagship the last 10 years and so the whole Big 10 has taken a hit.
I didn’t bring up the regular season weather. I fully understand why that happens. I mentioned bowl game weather, and winter NFL weather. If it’s a factor for NFL teams and players, I think it’s fair to consider it a factor for CFB.
I also didn’t say the SEC was scared. I don’t think they are thrilled at the prospect of playing in Madison in December, but I don’t think they are that worried about it either. They are more likely too arrogant to think the B10 would ever have home field advantage over the SEC. Perhaps you are blurring Richard’s comments with mine.
As for the home field argument, you’ll never convince me it isn’t valid. It doesn’t cause every loss, obviously, but it makes the difference in some close games. OSU and the B10 would have better bowl records if they played half their bowls in the midwest.
As for the Rose, you know full well the Big 10 had a long difficult stretch in the Rose against anyone the Pac sent up following Ohio St.’s ’68 MNC up until the 90s. There were lots of upsets.
Like most things, success has gone in cycles in the Rose Bowl.
B10 vs P10 in the Rose Bowl:
1946-1968: B10 17-6
1969-1986: B10 2-16
1987-2000: B10 9-5
2001-2011: B10 1-5
1969-1986 in detail:
Closely matched teams
1969 #5 USC > #7 MI
1972 #1 USC > #3 OSU
1973 #4 OSU > #7 USC
1974 #5 USC > #3 OSU
1976 #3 USC > #2 MI
1978 #3 USC > #5 MI
1979 #3 USC > #1 OSU
1981 #12 UW > #13 IA
1986 #7 ASU > #4 MI
B10 a major favorite
1970 #12 Stanford > #2 OSU
1971 #16 Stanford > #4 MI
1975 #11 UCLA > #1 OSU
1977 #13 UW > #4 MI
1980 #5 MI > #16 UW
1983 NR UCLA > #4 IL
1984 #18 USC > #6 OSU
1985 #13 UCLA > #4 IA
B10 a major underdog
1982 #5 UCLA > #19 MI
Those were 18 bad years, including 7 upsets by the P10 (1 by the B10). 6 of those upsets were by CA schools, 4 by LA schools playing at home. Half of the time it was a fairly equal matchup, and the P10 went 8-1 in large part because USC went 6-1 playing at home.
In summary, USC and UCLA went 11-1, Stanford was 2-0, UW was 2-1 and ASU was 1-0. I’d say home field advantage is a consideration in that streak.
Still, that was 25 season ago. No current players were alive when that stretch ended. The conferences are even since the 1987 season. You can’t just cherry pick a stretch of years ending 25 years ago.
And all the Big 10 fans were complaining about having to play in California and that’s why they lost. In that stretch USC was 8-3, Stanford was 2-0, UCLA was 4-0, Arizona St. was 1-0 and Washington was 4-1. That was 4-19 and USC had more trouble against the Big 10 than anyone else.
You added 5 more years that really belong to the next era (USC went 1-2 and UW 2-0). See my numbers above.
LikeLike
@Brian. You’re cherry picking too. The period I stopped at was when Big 10 fans quit complaining about being on the road-because they won 7 of 9 and then the Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl got changed.
It struck me how the Rose has become as much a Big 12 bowl as Big 10/Pac 10 with the current BCS rules. There was a 5 year period with 4 Big 12 schools. If you count dual hosting after 2009, there have been 8 Big 10, 8 Pac 10, 6 Big 12 (counting UNL and then MWC member TCU), 1 SEC and 1 BE now ACC school over the last 12 years. It has shifted back a little in recent years as Ohio St. and USC haven’t been in as many BCS title games as they were for a while. But you can see why the B1G is concerned about the impact of the status quo on their Rose Bowl position.
LikeLike
And I don’t think the Rose is a significant disadvantage for the Big 10, if any. The stadium is usually half and half. Even USC and UCLA are usually staying in hotels instead of at home so that’s not an advantage. I know when Texas played USC the stadium was half and half (if not slightly more burnt orange). The Sugar might be a little different with the large local contingent.
LikeLike
bullet,
You’re cherry picking too.
I used the entire history of the Rose Bowl since the B10/P10 agreement started. That’s the definition of not cherry picking. You used 1969~1990. That’s cherry picking.
The period I stopped at was when Big 10 fans quit complaining about being on the road-because they won 7 of 9 and then the Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl got changed.
I am not aware that B10 fans have ever stopped complaining. I’ve seen several people complain about it here in the past few months. I changed the end date of that period by 5 years because I think my definition better fits the period of P10 dominance and then the B10’s resurrection before the BCS messed up the game.
It struck me how the Rose has become as much a Big 12 bowl as Big 10/Pac 10 with the current BCS rules. There was a 5 year period with 4 Big 12 schools.
I don’t think it’s really fair to count both NE and TCU as B12, not that your point changes much. I would say that 4 in 5 years without a B10/P10 game (as it happens, there was always a B12 team instead plus Miami) explains exactly why the Rose and the conferences complained.
If you count dual hosting after 2009, there have been 8 Big 10, 8 Pac 10, 6 Big 12 (counting UNL and then MWC member TCU), 1 SEC and 1 BE now ACC school over the last 12 years.
I don’t count the double hosting because that isn’t the Rose Bowl and nobody cares about the conference match up for that.
It has shifted back a little in recent years as Ohio St. and USC haven’t been in as many BCS title games as they were for a while. But you can see why the B1G is concerned about the impact of the status quo on their Rose Bowl position.
Exactly. Except for having to throw a bone to TCU, the Rose has returned to normal.
___
And I don’t think the Rose is a significant disadvantage for the Big 10, if any. The stadium is usually half and half. Even USC and UCLA are usually staying in hotels instead of at home so that’s not an advantage. I know when Texas played USC the stadium was half and half (if not slightly more burnt orange). The Sugar might be a little different with the large local contingent.
History says you are wrong. It’s a major disadvantage when USC is in it. It is a lesser issue with anyone else. The stadium split isn’t the major problem, although the B10 fans can call it unfair for having to spend so much more than the USC fans (airfare, hotel and food).
As for staying in a hotel, USC following their standard game day routine but in a different hotel is a little different than traveling 3000 miles to stay in a hotel in a strange city. The B10 has to adjust to the time difference, the food, the bacteria, the air, the weather, etc. They are not comparable situations.
LikeLike
I think the losses to USC are because USC has had some really good teams during the last 40 years.
LikeLike
bullet,
Of course that explains some of the losses. But USC wins way too frequently, including upsets, for that to be the whole explanation. Playing the B10 runner up a couple of times recently helped, too, but that isn’t the root of the problem.
At this point I just agree to disagree with you.
LikeLike
B1G Jeff,
With respect to whether people want to go to a northern championship game, The NFL has led the way in showing that if it’s a championship that’s offered to the highest bidder, people will travel to it, just to say they were there.
Let’s not go overboard here. The northern sites:
1982 Silverdome (Detroit)
1992 Metrodome (Minneapolis)
2006 Ford Field (Detroit)
2012 Lucas Oil (Indy)
2014 MetLife (NYC)
That’s 5 of 48. The coldest site to get 2 is Atlanta, and it has yet to be held outdoors in the north (2014 is the first). Ignored sites:
St. Louis – new indoor stadium in 1995
Charlotte – new stadium in 1996
Washington, DC – new stadium in 1997
Baltimore – new stadium in 1998
Cleveland – new stadium in 1999
Nashville – new stadium in 1999
Cincinnati – new stadium in 2000
Pittsburgh – new stadium in 2001
Denver – new stadium in 2001
Boston – new stadium in 2002
Seattle – new stadium in 2002
Philadelphia – new stadium in 2003
Also, KC and Chicago renovated somewhat recently. Do you see a trend? Outside of the south and NYC, only new domes get the Super Bowl and only some of those. Outdoor stadiums have no shot. The NFL is hardly blazing a trail of northern championship games.
LikeLike
Brian, that’s really not the point. Forget ’82 and ’92, that’s ancient history (i.e. when it was a novelty). Let’s look at ’06, ’12 and ’14. That’s thrice in 9 years. That’s about once every four years in recent history, evenly predicted with a north, southeast, southwest, west rotation.
The NFL likes domes. Perhaps the NCAA likes 100,000 seat stadiums. It’s to be determined. Hopefully, we’ll see how much sway the B1G (or B1G/PAC coalition) actually has.
My predominant point is let’s not be dismissive here. There are real disadvantages that we are trying and should be trying to overcome, and negotiating from a position of strength seems like an effective means to counter other built in advantages warmer climate conferences have enjoyed for decades. Who knows how it will work out? I’m just glad our side appears to be rectifying the inherent disadvantages in play.
LikeLike
B1G Jeff,
Brian, that’s really not the point.
Really? What is the point, then? You said:
“With respect to whether people want to go to a northern championship game, The NFL has led the way in showing that if it’s a championship that’s offered to the highest bidder, people will travel to it, just to say they were there.”
I think the NFL’s scant history of northern super bowls is very much relevant to the NFL “leading the way” in terms of northern games. They’ve avoided outdoor northern games for almost 50 years, and they’re only playing that one because NYC built a new stadium for 2 teams, the NFL HQ is there and it’s the biggest city in the US. Brand new outdoor stadiums in every other non-southern location have been skipped. Even northern domes only get 1 game and then never return to the rotation. Atlanta barely makes the rotation (2 games – the last in 2000) despite a dome. The precedent the NFL is setting is to never play in the north if you can avoid it.
Forget ’82 and ’92, that’s ancient history (i.e. when it was a novelty). Let’s look at ’06, ’12 and ’14. That’s thrice in 9 years. That’s about once every four years in recent history, evenly predicted with a north, southeast, southwest, west rotation.
Yes, that’s very convenient to ignore all the years that don’t favor your argument. History didn’t start in 2006. Your 3 in 9 years is also 3 in 23 years and 4 in 33 years and 5 in 49 years. That’s 1 outdoor northern game in 49 chances.
The NFL likes domes.
No, the NFL likes warm weather sites.
Super Bowl cities:
10 – New Orleans, Miami
7 – LA
4 – Tampa
3 – San Diego, Phoenix
2 – Atlanta, Houston
1 – Dallas, SF, Jax
Northern domes only got 4 games ever (1 each for 4 sites) and 1 dome never even got 1.
LikeLike
Even if your logic is correct, your reasoning isn’t applicable to the challenge in front of us. History didn’t start in 2006, but a modern era may have. Extrapolating your argument to other considerations, throughout American history, women couldn’t vote and Blacks didn’t have rights. Times change.
I look forward to revisiting this once it flushes out. I’ll remain optimistic. To answer your question, the real bottom line is the B1G needs a competitive disadvantage corrected, and if we don’t negotiate toward that end, we’ll have a higher probability of repeating the same results. I’m just glad our University Presidents are seemingly sharp enough to recognize this (or in FTT-speak, ‘negotiate like a University President’).
Also, football is uniquely an all-environment sport and should be played in all conditions, it’s not a warm weather beauty content. Americans worship at the football shrine and will do so whether in an Ice Bowl or Fog Bowl.
LikeLike
B1G Jeff,
Even if your logic is correct, your reasoning isn’t applicable to the challenge in front of us. History didn’t start in 2006, but a modern era may have. Extrapolating your argument to other considerations, throughout American history, women couldn’t vote and Blacks didn’t have rights. Times change.
Really? You’re comparing Super Bowl sites to suffrage and slavery? I guess I missed the constitutional amendment and/or major legislation in 2005 that changed the NFL forever. You can’t begin to argue for a modern era that is inclusive of northern sites until a northern site gets a second Super Bowl, preferably not NYC as the city is a bit of a special case. Any other outdoor game in the north would also be a potential signal. All I see is the NFL paying off teams for extorting hundreds of millions from local taxpayers for new stadiums.
Also, football is uniquely an all-environment sport and should be played in all conditions, it’s not a warm weather beauty content. Americans worship at the football shrine and will do so whether in an Ice Bowl or Fog Bowl.
I think some other sports would argue about football being unique in that respect. As for whether it should be played in bad conditions, I think that’s a bad choice for a championship. Ideally the weather is not a factor. It shouldn’t be 100 degrees and it shouldn’t be 10 degrees. The field shouldn’t be rock hard or a swamp. The fog bowl was an embarrassment, and so was the ice bowl. If you want to determine the best team, you should have limits for the weather. Reschedule the game rather than play a pseudo-football game completely determined by weather.
LikeLike
Both teams have to play in the same weather, so I don’t get how weather can determine a game. There’s more to football than being able to throw a spiral or catch a ball under perfect conditions. The best team should be able to win under many weather conditions, not just your aesthetic ideal.
LikeLike
BTW, speaking of sites, I’m partial to letting the top 5 conferences vote. In that case, you may very well see sites that get support from at least 2 conferences. For instance,
STL (B10 & SEC)
FedEx (B10 & ACC)
Atlanta (ACC & SEC)
JerryWorld (SEC & B12)
Phoenix (Pac & maybe B12)
LikeLike
I think a lot of these comments are overly cryptic. It’s a negotiation. I thought the B1G and the PAC12 had so much clout. Given the removal of home field advantage inherent in the proposal, why not take this at face value and believe this is our negotiating position. It would seem to me nothing is to be gained by public posturing. We could have just said no, taken our ball and kept on. A college playoff without the B1G and Pac12 isn’t happening.
I like the positioning. Negotiate hard to your strength and bring light to the fact that we’ve been disadvantaged all along without whining about it.
LikeLike
Anyone wonder whether or not the southern schools will give in on this issue? If the Big Ten is actually interested in making a playoff happen in that format, would they try to get say the Big East/ACC on their side?
LikeLike
Frankly, I don’t think the southern teams would object that much. I mean, if they do, they come out looking like pussies.
LikeLike
Don’t sleep on Delaware potentially joining the Big East /ACC. Tons of alumni in NYC/NJ/PA/MD, close to Phila TV market. A dominant FCS football program. Consistently sell out home games against no name opponents. Good academic reputation (#75 in the US News Rankings).
Oh, and they are expanding their football stadium to 34,000: http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/20564678/Delaware-Blue-Hens-to-the-Big-East.aspx
LikeLike
Very happy for Memphis. They have a great fanbase and this should be a nice boon for the city. Potential home basketball games against the likes of UConn, Louisville, Georgetown, Villanova, etc should provide a nice boost in revenue and exposure. Memphis football is rebuilding but will always have considerable upside given their proximity in the South.
LikeLike
Good stuff, Frank. I think we’ve all seen that despite the grandiose conjecture, realignment moves pretty slowly, making the talk of Clemson-FSU to the Big 12 seem pretty unrealistic.
At the end of the day, the whole discussion really comes down to the viability of independence as a business model. That possibility continues to hang out there with Texas, which fuels the perception of Big 12 instability. Plus, you have the Big 12, ACC and B1G (maybe) still wanting to leave their options open in hopes of landing ND.
Ultimately, the payoff for schools like Pitt, FSU and Clemson in moving to the Big 12 now could be huge down the line. If ND eventually has to join a conference (and I think they will), the ability to keep their third-tier rights would probably make the Big 12 a logical landing spot if the conference had already added some of the ACC schools. But that would take a huge leap of faith the by the ACC schools, obviously.
LikeLike
Interesting article on how college football has gotten into politics instead of the other way around.
Goes back to when WVU’s entry into the Big 12 got delayed and WV Senators acted like idiots holding press conferences accusing KY’s Senator of improper conduct for doing exactly what they had been doing.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72591.html
LikeLike
Pingback: Wednesday HotLinks: Conference Expansion | Louisville Sports Live - Your source for all University of Louisville sports talk all the time!
C-USA contacts Temple; MWC merger changes weekly – Brett McMurphy, CBSSports.com
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/34753656
LikeLike
Don’t know why Temple wouldn’t join CUSA. BBall? Travel?
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank The Tank: Big 12 expansion rumors - CycloneFanatic
Jim Delany you where my last hope. Its now only a matter of time before a team with 4 losses is “champion”. I no longer care about the NFL because huge chunks of the season just don’t matter.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, but is there any sport where that isn’t the case? It’s not like college basketball teams are running the table. The greatest NBA team of all time (96 Bulls) lost 10 games. College football is the only sport where champions routinely run the table. And while there’s something kinda cool about that, I think it also has its drawbacks. If a team loses a game on opening weekend in September with a young QB, does that automatically mean they shouldn’t have any chance of playing for the title in January?
LikeLike
There’s a difference between 0/1 loss or 2/3/4 losses for a champ in CFB. Other champs lose more games, but they also play a lot more games.
The past 2 super bowl winners were 10-6 and 9-7 in the regular season. Real CFB fans don’t want that sort of crap to happen in CFB. Winning a lot in the regular season should be important.
LikeLike
Frank, let me assure you that if Cal were to make it to a semifinal in Tuscaloosa as a #4 seed, get thumped 59-0, and sent packing to the Rose Bowl, Cal fans would snap up those tickets in half an hour.
LikeLike
No way. Texas would get the #4 seed ahead of you.
LikeLike
You know it’s good humor when something really funny can be said with only words on a computer screen and without the aid of a visual or voice tone.
Man does that sentence sound boring! Anyway, slick joke Hopkins!
LikeLike
well played, sir. well played.
LikeLike
Since Cal hasn’t been to the Rose in forever, they might do it the first time. What about after Cal has been to a couple of recent Rose Bowls so the novelty has worn off?
LikeLike
It all boils down to Football and Money. The Big-12 offers better football and more money for Clemson, Fsu, and whoever else in the ACC that might be looking at jumping ship. The ACC’s main priority is Basketball and I think that rubs Clemson and Fsu the wrong way. They realize the remain relevant in the football world and be able to recruit against the “almighty” SEC, then they need a better brand of football to offer the recuits. If you were being recruited by FSU and Clemson which would you be more excited about games against OU, Texas, WVU, OKST, and TCU…..or games against Vtech, G-tech, NC, Maryland, and BC. I would pick option 1. If the Big-12 were to reel in Fsu, clemson and 2 others then I believe the “instability” of the conference will go away. How many people actually thought Mizzou would go to the SEC? Just goes to show you anything can happen.
LikeLike
Florida State recruiting does just fine. They simply cannot win any more. Either they are selecting the wrong players or not coaching them up sufficiently.
LikeLike
@acaffrey: you’re only partially right: it’s not just FSU, it’s the entire ACC. ACC schools consistently pull in some of the best recruiting classes, there’s always tons of ACC kids at the combine, and loads of former ACC players are in the NFL. clearly, the ACC’s lack of success isn’t due to a lack of talent. this year alone, according to espn.com, FSU had the #2 recruiting class, Miami was at #8, and Clemson was at #9. plus, VPI was at #25. if ACC schools are already getting this kind of talent and failing miserably with it, what incentive (from a purely athletic standpoint) would they have to join a tougher conference? it’s not like they’re suddenly going to start to recruit better (FSU ranked ABOVE Texas this year). from an academic point of view, why leave the prestige of the ACC to go to the BIG XII which is losing AAU schools left and right?
LikeLike
The only reason FSU or Clemson would leave the ACC for the Big XII would be if the Big XII’s next tv deal far exceeds that of the ACC’s recent media deal. We’ll have to wait and see how that plays out when the Big XII signs its next deal which likely won’t be for at least a couple more years.
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson’s supposed gripes with the ACC revolve around the league’s decision making, not revenue. They’re fed up with how basketball drove the bus on expansion and how football is becoming a 2nd class citizen in the ACC. The SEC has out-maneuvered the ACC in football for years now and FSU & Clemson are fed up.
LikeLike
Rumors of FSU’s issues with the ACC are wildly exaggerated. Certainly not nearly enough to leave it.
LikeLike
PSU
LikeLike
As I wrote in my Big Ten playoff analysis http://www.nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/february/the-empire-strikes-first-delanys-playoff-proposal.html …
I think giving the Semifinal game two weeks to breathe after the CCG would be best for CFB. However, there is no way you can throw the losers back in the pool. No chance. You simply can’t keep all the bowl games in flux until Christmas time.
The only scenario would be–and this is super weird and foreign to American sports fans–is to have a consolation game between teams 3 and 4. Where to play such a game? Play it four days before the championship game maybe? The media is already there for the NC game. The city gets twice the tourism, as a decent-sized crowd from teams 3 and 4 shows up, even while a huge crowd for teams 1 and 2 is descending. Somebody suggested New Year’s Eve for the 3rd place game…and Jan 4 for the championship game.
LikeLike
Nobody wants a consolation game. Fans won’t travel or watch on TV.
LikeLike
A game of the semifinal losers wouldn’t pull in ratings as much as what the Sun Bowl or bowl in Houston usually get? I highly doubt that’s true.
As a comparable, the MSU-Georgia Outback Bowl, matching 2 teams who lost their conference championship game (and going against 3 other bowl games, 2 others also B10-SEC, at the same time) pulled a 5.14 rating. The Sun Bowl pulled in a 2.71. The bowl in Houston pulled in a 2.69.
LikeLike
Thanks for those stats, Richard. I see Brian’s sentiment though…
When UGA/MSU is scheduled, it’s using the old paradigm of “it doesn’t matter how you got there, you’re there now!” That rules the bowl mentality. (See UCLA/Illinois last year, for more on this.)
But if the game is literally advertised as the consolation bowl, fans will mock it. But, can bowl execs/NCAA creatively market the game…give it a new title that reframes it as something other than the LOSER BOWL. Maybe the Championship Cup (rather than the Championship Bowl or Championship Game). Sure, everybody will know what it is…but it’s still worth playing for. In reality, winning the third place game means a heck of a lot more than EVERY OTHER bowl out there. No reason it can’t work.
LikeLike
How about just calling it the Sun Bowl (or Whatever-Sponsor Bowl if it’s in Houston)?
LikeLike
That makes sense. If this goes forward, the old “alliance” system will return. Bowls will be able to lock in conference matchups (the way the non-BCS bowls do today). I’m sure one of the bowls would take a “consolation” game every year. It’d be a great matchup…and OBVIOUSLY no one would advertise it as a consolation bowl.
You wouldn’t want an enormous stadium to fill just because of the “letdown” of losing the playoff. The Cotton Bowl would be too big but the Orange and Fiesta (both seat about 75,000) would be nice candidates to “lock down” the 3rd place game.
Or perhaps these “major” bowls would be too concerned about losing prestige. Maybe a lesser bowl (like the Gator or Alamo or Holiday) would take the bowl and hope it would rise even more in prestige.
Either way, I like the idea!
LikeLike
Just throwing a name out there for the hell of it since I rarely see them mentioned in this context. If the Big 12 has a serious financial incentive to get to 12, and BYU won’t play ball, why not consider USF?
LikeLike
Their budget is right around Cincinnati’s near the bottom of the AQs. And they haven’t been FCS for very long, so there’s a perception problem, in addition to geography. And while they have been competitive, they’re one of the few BE teams not to at least share the title in recent years. They haven’t been really good in anything. Personally, they would be #5 of the 5 remaining BE schools.
LikeLike
I never understand “budget” as a consideration. If a school doesn’t have a lot of revenue, how can it have a significant budget?
LikeLike
It can’t, that’s the entire point. Look at Louisville with their gangbusters basketball revenue and pretty strong overall revenue.
That’s especially true for the Big East values right now given that they barely receive any TV money, so their revenue is a pretty good gauge for overall strength.
Louisville pulls in around 50% more revenue than USF or Cincinnati.
LikeLike
On that note, UConn would be a decent addition to the Big 12 alongside Louisville if it wasn’t so far away…
LikeLike
It’s not a bad idea, but how much does the Big 12 get out of them other than long distance travel?
I mean you’ve already made the important point with respect to the financial incentive. If that incentive is there, then it’s just a matter of going to 12 rather than a question of composition (as much), although you would like to maximize value and find another team like WVU (i.e. BYU) in your move to 12.
If you’re going to 12 with Louisville + 1, then what really is the difference between Cincinnati and USF at this point? Might as well wait and see what becomes of the Big East and how those teams do over the coming years.
I think the real decision time will be the next contract. That’s when the Big 12 really has to decide whether to forgo the CCG and extra 2 teams inventory…
LikeLike
Well I think that time is now. ESPN is wanted to re-negotiate early, so they’ll be talking over the next 6-9 months instead of starting 18 months from now.
LikeLike
Actually, the name I’m surprised no one has mentioned is Miami. People have talked about FSU, Clemson, Maryland, Pitt, Rutgers, and even UNC & Duke joining the B12–pretty much every team in the ACC except Wake and . . . Miami(!)
Yet if you look at the list of attractive teams who may have an interest in joining, how is, say, Maryland higher on the list (in either category) than Miami? Note that the ‘Canes are scared stiff about FSU ever leaving the ACC, and FSU is the only school that is (barely, but not really) within driving distance of Miami anyway. For whatever conference they’re in, they’d have to fly pretty much everywhere anyway.
LikeLike
Until everything is cleared up with the latest Miami scandal, I don’t see any conference looking at them.
LikeLike
Not exactly a smart way to make a “one hundred year decision”, so, unless some conferene think’s the U is getting the death penalty, I don’t think it will be an issue.
LikeLike
Frank, I think you underestimate the value of Cinci to the BigXII. No doubt BYU has a large national fan base, but Cinci: (1) would be a natural rival for WVU, (2) has a decent football team, (3) is in a large(ish) market and could build a larger one across Ohio, and (4) is a whole lot closer than Provo. Cinci is a project, but not a bad one.
LikeLike
@RoDi: as someone who’s lived all over the state of Ohio (Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Columbus, and Cincinnati), I can tell you that you are overestimating the value of Cinci to the BigXII
1) whether WVU’s “rival” in the BigXII is Cinci or Louisville, it won’t matter: WVU’s main rival is and always will be Pitt
2) Cinci’s football team was only decent when Brian Kelly was there. now that he’s gone, the football team will decend back to mediocrity. if Cinci joined the BigXII, they don’t have the brand name to compete for recruits with Kansas State, let alone Texas. where are they going to pull big time players from? the state of Ohio? that brings me to my next point
3) this is the big one for me – for starters: Cinci is smaller than Columbus and Cleveland. second, Cinci is a college basketball town, and we all know that football is driving the expansion bus. the Cinci – Xavier basketball crosstown showdown is the biggest college sporting event in the city. in fact, I would say that in terms of interest of non-professional sports in the city of Cinci, the order goes: 1) college bball 2) high school football (Moeller vs St. Xavier HS) 3) Ohio State football 4) Cinci football. now, to extrapolate that, you cannot claim that Cinci fb can build an interest across the entire state of Ohio when it’s not even the third most popular non-pro venue in its own city. the college sports attention of the state of Ohio is and always will be dominated by Ohio State. even in the couple of years that Cinci was doing well, no one in Ohio really paid attention outside of Cinci. where are you going to generate interest for Cinci fb in the state of Ohio? Columbus is dominated by Ohio State, as is Cleveland. plus, Cleveland and Cinci don’t exactly get along, and, even if they did, there’s so much MAC football in northern Ohio (Toledo, Bowling Green, Akron, Kent) that you’d be hard pressed to make inroads there
4) yes, Cinci is closer than Provo to WVU, but both schools are pretty much equidistant to Texas (the epicenter for the BigXII). plus, if I were the BigXII, I’d rather go after the Mormon community which is spread nationwide and very numerous
basically, what I’m saying is that Cinci is a MAC team that got played a favorable hand, but people tend to try to get them to overplay that hand
LikeLike
2) Cinci was pretty good with Dantonio, too.
3) Although the city of Cinci is smaller than Columbus or Cleveland, it’s actually the largest metro area (Columbus is the largest city, but the smallest metro area).
4) The thing is that the Big 12 now has WVU; expansion into the mountain west would make it a three time zone league. And I don’t think women’s field hockey wants to travel from Provo to Morgantown every other year.
LikeLike
Don’t think UC will “descend back to mediocrity”. They just won their 3rd BE title in 4 yrs & had school’s best recruiting class ever. So, although they aren’t OSU, they are a solid BCS school.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that WV won the big east (though UC got a share). And didn’t Cincy get waxed by one of the SEC’s worst teams (Vols)? That’s kind of mediocre IMO. Maybe a step above that, but not by all that much.
LikeLike
Does anyone know if the Fed-Ex guy’s offer to give $15 million (or whatever amount it was) to any AQ conference that added Memphis is still valid?
LikeLike
Here’s an article about it from a while back
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/FedEx-chief-offers-millions-to-buy-Memphis-a-bet?urn=ncaaf-247948
LikeLike
Why not Rice to the Big 12 as a companion to ULor even as a stopgap if WVa isn’t allowed out of their Big East contract? Private school in Houston with a huge stadium, great baseball program, will raise the academic profile of the conference as a whole. Apparently the PAC was considering Rice as a travel companion for UT in the latest superconference bonanza.
LikeLike
The Big-12 already has enough texas schools as it is. thanks but no thanks on the Rice to the Big-12 idea.
LikeLike
FtT linked an article about the ACC negotiating a new TV rights deal. I am going to link it again. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/02/06/Colleges/ACC-TV.aspx
Very important point that I have not seen raised — or sufficiently emphasized — here or anywhere else: both ACC and SEC expanded in order to open up their TV deals for renegotiation. Further, both needed two teams to open up their TV deals. (Add to that: BXII is being strong-armed into adding two more teams by ESpin.)
This suggests several things to me. ESpin and the other networks are the ones really running this conference realignment show. ACC and SEC are not going to expand again anytime soon unless they have to open up their TV deals again. ACC and SEC would not have expanded but for the need to renegotiate their TV deals (or, at minimum, SEC would have stopped at A&M). The B1G will not expand again anytime soon (other than for ND) since, with the BTN, it has no need to renegotiate its TV deals. Thank God for the BTN and for Delany.
As for the B1G playoff plan, I am with Brian above. I think this is a line in the sand and the B1G is not serious about agreeing to a playoff. This is PR posturing since I think playing semi-final games up North in December is a non-starter for southern and southwestern schools. This is good and my hope, since I oppose a playoff of any sort.
LikeLike
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/34757696?ttag=gen10_on_all_fb_na_txt_0001
West Virginia and the Big East Conference are nearing agreement on a settlement worth at least $20 million that would resolve all issues between both parties, college football industry sources told CBSSports.com.
The Mountaineers will join the Big 12 for the 2012-13 school year. However, in a bizarre twist, sources told CBSSports.com that West Virginia officials have contacted future Big East members to see if one could join in 2012 instead of 2013.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see what the number is. I just don’t see anywhere near $20 million in damages. Their fb TV contract is undervalued at around $16 million a year and they have their replacements in 2013. Losing WVU doesn’t really hurt them in basketball. The only real issue is replacing 7 games for teams that average only 40k a game and only 3 or 4 of those are losing home games.
One interesting note is that Marinatto says the championship game won’t start until 2015 when Navy joins. So that means PItt and SU will be leaving after 2012.
LikeLike
You don’t need to have $20M in damages if WV really wants to break the contract. The BE can set any price they want for letting WV out when no clause allows it. Otherwise WV can get stuck in the courts for a long time and pay lawyers most of that same $20M.
LikeLike
$1-$2 million. I don’t think fees would get that high. WVU gets certainty. But how much is that worth? And the Big East has risk that they spend millions for attorneys themselves and don’t recover any more than now.
I’ve seen other things saying $11 million but it could all be in the definition. If $11 million is cash out and other things they would have gotten this year make it $20 million then it really is $20 million. And whether the $5 million exit fee is in there impacts how much they are really paying (they’ve paid half). But if the $20 million includes Orange Bowl revenues and NCAA tourney revenues they would get in 2012-13 if they were still a member, that number is overstated for what they are really paying in damages. I imagine it will take an FOI request to eventually get that information.
LikeLike
I’ve heard $20M but the B12 pays about $9M of it so WV is out $11M. But that’s a rumor and not solid at this point.
LikeLike
Interesting in that some Big Ten AD’s now want a playoff, but I think 4 is not enough to satisfy everyone, you need 8 teams. You can bet that if Boise State or Houston are ranked #4 and someone like USC or Texas is ranked #5, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that Boise or Houston is going to the playoffs. Any potential playoff will probably be rigged just like the BCS is.
LikeLike
you’re assuming that they’re simply going to put the top 4 teams in the playoff. there’s also the possibility that there’ll be a selection committee like in college bb
LikeLike
They don’t need a selection committee to rig it. Voters do it with the polls too. “Boise State ranked 5th before the final week…whoops, we’ll slip Oregon in there ahead of them. There we go. You should play in a tougher conference than the Big East, Broncs. Sorry.”
LikeLike
I don’t know the how or why, but my guess is that Delany wants a 4-team playoff with auto bids to SEC, B10, P12, and whatever ACC/B12 configuration survives. Home field semis, title game in the Rose Bowl.
This guarantees B10, P12, SEC one quarter of the bids and the revenues. Squeezes out the little guys in bids and revenue. Notre Dame is theoretically forced into the B10 (or some other conference). SEC may some day have to play a semi road game at B10.
LikeLike
http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_c7f11fa0-4eeb-11e1-9dcf-0019bb2963f4.html
the important part about conference realignment:
Dodds, who has been the UT athletic director since 1981, answered questions from the audience and gave some insight into the future of the Big 12 conference.
“These last two years have been hard,” Dodds said. “I love the Big 12. I helped build it. We want to keep it together, we have worked hard to do that, and I think that we have been successful.”
After losing Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M over the past two years, the Big 12 has added TCU and West Virginia. There was talk of Oklahoma and Texas going to the PAC-12 last year, but Dodds said that if UT ever had to change conferences, the school would look east, not west, for its new home.
Dodds also mentioned that future Big 12 expansion could target Louisville and Brigham Young University. Dodds said that his personal choice would be Notre Dame, and that he is working hard to garner that addition.
After fielding questions about college basketball players leaving early for the NBA, whether or not college football players should be paid, and what the next step is in finding a Big 12 commissioner, Dodds flashed the Hook ’em, Horns sign and thanked the crowd.
LikeLike
Oif. Deloss shutting the door on the Pac, it seems like. East as in ACC or B10? Some sort of merger of Texas and OU with the powers of the ACC & ND would be his wet dream, but I doubt it’s realistic.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting thing for him to say. It pretty much proves that after their initial look into things over the past 2-3 years, they’ve realized that their future is east.
That makes sense though given that the media markets will always be more dominant in the East, even as the country’s population center moves to the southwest.
LikeLike
In Atlanta, the paper never even showed the score of the TX/CA Holiday bowl. Even a lot of the central time zone gets ignored in the east.
But I think there are two things with regard to the Pac:
1) Their Tier III network philosophy which is diametrically opposed to Texas’ philosophy;
2) Utah. With CU and 5 Big 12 South schools it made some sense geographically, but the extra school moves the center a lot further west. And I believe every BIG school other than Penn St. is closer than any Pac 10 school to Austin. Its just a long way across west Texas. Its not much different driving to Atlanta than it is to Tuscon.
LikeLike
The thing is every AQ conference except for the Big East (never gonna happen) and SEC (who UT has made clear for 20+ years they have no interest in joining) have policies regarding Tier III that are at odds with the LHN.
LikeLike
Also, only Lincoln and Champaign are closer than Boulder, Flagstaff or Tucson (Madison and Chicago are both about equal).
Only the SEC has teams that are closer than the PAC in general (the PAC and Big 10 are about equal overall though since the distant PAC teams are further than the most distant Big 10 teams)
LikeLike
The Eastern media bias is definately a factor. Back when the NFL was doing their was recent realignment the Cowboys were originally going to be in the Western division, but Jerry threw a fit and got the team placed in the Eastern. They said it was for rivalry preservation, but the real factor was Jerry wanting to get as many games as possible against teams in the Northeast.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was getting at…
Texas sees themselves as the Dallas Cowboys of NCAAB in a way; it just makes sense that they’d be looking for a way to get more relevant on the East Coast if they change leagues than if they went to the west.
There’s a reason the NFL gets an extra $100M for the NFC, and it’s not the NFC West or the NFC South that’s causing that…
LikeLike
NCAAF I meant…
LikeLike
Actually, I’m guessing that UT’s MBB program would benefit even more from exposure on the East Coast and Midwest than the football team would.
LikeLike
The XII can establish a presence in the Northeast by taking Rutgers as the #12 school, but Boss DeLoss doesn’t want Rutgers.
Boss DeLoss wants Notre Dame instead, but Notre Dame doesn’t want to bite because Notre Dame doesn’t need to.
Notre Dame is about to become the most powerful brand in college ice hockey (every home game will air live on NBC Sports Network starting with the 2013-2014 season) in addition to being one of the top 5 brands in college football.
LikeLike
As much as I like hockey, and the Red Wings in particular, it’s not doing very well on television. An article in SBJ today says reruns of the 3 Stooges is outdrawing the NHL on NBC Sports. I knew the NHL ratings were low, but that’s downright shocking!
LikeLike
@Pat – I wonder if we are seeing the effects of the NHL not having a contract with ESPN. Deadspin has been tracking the amount of time spent on each sport on SportsCenter. Last I checked, MLB has been getting more coverage than the NHL with the NHL getting about 10 minutes of airtime a week. Without ESPN hyping up the games it seems that the casual fan just isn’t as aware of the NHL.
LikeLike
@ pat and mike
It’s a regional game. They need to just get over that and quit trying to appeal to people whose only experience with ice involves snowcones. I died a little when they did glowing pucks. That said, kids these days do not play pond hockey. I fear a bit for our future. Then again, it seems kids can’t play anything unless it’s organized by adults, is hyper competitive, and taken way way too seriously.
LikeLike
The problem is that if it isn’t hyper-organized for them, they stay inside and watch TV or play video games or whatever. When we were kids, we didn’t used to have as many quality distractions and our parents were more likely to make us go outside and play. Now they worry so much about their precious getting a boo boo or being kidnapped or falling through the ice and such that they let them stay inside instead.
Hockey will become a rich man’s sport in the US.
LikeLike
It isn’t already? OK, maybe not in Minnesota or the Dakotas, but it definitely is in the Northeast (CT, anyway).
LikeLike
TV contract will have contingency for future expansion and ccg, so XII may take years to get to 12 since it is hard to see who will join that has value except Louisville. That may change in a few years if the XII stays stable.
LikeLike
I’d like to propose a future blog post. I would like to know what the top 15-25 or so FCS schools to get an invite to move up to FBS are. What rumors or scenarios are floating around and what conferences would like to grab which schools. I figure that eventually all these mid-major conferences that are getting poached will want to replenish their ranks and the only schools they will get are FCS.
LikeLike
Montana – WAC or Mountain West
Montana State – WAC or Mountain West (as package deal with Montana)
Cal Poly SLO – WAC
UC Davis – WAC
Sacramento State – WAC
Portland State – WAC
Grand Canyon (Division II) – WAC
Sam Houston State – WAC or Sun Belt
Lamar – WAC or Sun Belt
(Sam Houston State, Lamar, and Texas State are all part of the Texas State University system. Texas State has already made its move up to the WAC.)
Stephen F. Austin State – WAC or Sun Belt
Northwestern State – WAC or Sun Belt
(Stephen F. Austin State and Northwestern State are only 10 miles apart, on opposite sides of the Texas-Louisiana state line. They either will move up together or not move at all. The WAC contacted both schools in 2010)
Appalachian State – Conference USA (no interest in joining Sun Belt, MAC, or WAC; TV market not big enough for the BIG EAST)
Georgia State – Sun Belt, WAC, MAC, Conference USA, BIG EAST
Delaware – BIG EAST, MAC, Conference USA (no interest in joining WAC or Sun Belt)
Villanova – BIG EAST
Stony Brook – MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, Conference USA
(SUNY Stony Brook, despite its physical location on the Eastern part of Long Island in New York State, currently plays its FCS football in the Big South Conference. )
(Believe it or not, the WAC actually contacted UMASS in 2010, but UMASS chose the MAC instead. Geography is NOT an issue for the WAC, which would seriously consider a school such as Stony Brook if and when Stony Brook were ready to make the jump. Being in the #1 TV market is a plus for Stony Brook.)
LikeLike
Charlotte is planning on starting a program and their goal was to get back into CUSA. Georgia State has no interest in moving up. Illinois State has frequently expressed interest in moving up when they are ready (and they aren’t). Georgia Southern has talked about it but not seriously. Some of the HBCUs have talked about it.
I think there are only a handful of schools who could seriously become even as good a program as Wyoming. Pro sports, school size, being in an isolated area and competition from existing programs limit most of these schools. On your list, IMO, only Delaware, UC Davis, Cal Poly and Montana would have a chance of even limited long term success moving up. And the Cal schools couldn’t do it right now. I think Illinois State and Missouri State (who hasn’t had much fb success in FCS) are a couple of schools that are big enough, in populated enough areas, far enough from pro competition, and not in states already filled with FBS programs that they could succeed. Charlotte and Georgia Southern might be able to do it.
LikeLike
The likes of Grambling State, Southern, and Jackson State (the 3 best-supported programs in the SWAC) might be better off moving up so that they can become eligible for bowl games.
Being in the SWAC is suicidal for these programs, as the SWAC does NOT send its champion to the FCS playoffs.
LikeLike
OT – the SWAC doesn’t send its champion to the FCS playoffs because it doesn’t make financial sense to do so. Grambling and Southern play in the Bayou Classic in the Superdome and televised by NBC, during a time that conflicts with the FCS playoffs. Other SWAC schools also schedule “classics” during that Thanksgiving weekend for travel purposes. While the Bayou Classic ain’t what it used to be when the greatest college football coach of all time was roaming the Grambling sidelines, its still a much bigger deal than an opening round playoff game.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to why no mention of James Madison, Old Dominion, Liberty, and as bullet mentioned Charlotte and Georgia Southern just to name a few. I think each of those has potential to at least be strong mid-majors, if not more.
LikeLike
Geography is a major problem for those CAA schools, as the Sun Belt, MAC, and Conference USA currently have no room to expand.
None of those programs are interested in the WAC, which still has 3 openings to fill (just to get back to 10 football members.)
As we have seen with UMASS, just because the WAC no longer cares about geography (for its football members), the school themselves (perhaps with the probable exception of Stony Brook) still do.
LikeLike
I think Old Dominion would also have a chance to do well. Liberty is small and James Madison is awfully close to UVA and DC. I think there has been some discussion or study of the issue at those schools.
LikeLike
I would guess that a substantial number of current 1-A’s get dumped back into the muck of AA, either directly or b/c there’s another 1-A split, in the reasonably near future (within 15 years, maybe 10). In other words, long before another 15-25 AA’s can jump up to 1-A.
LikeLike
On the contrary, the Big Sky has just signed a TV deal with DIRECTV (ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain, Utah, and Northwest.)
The Big Sky wants all its schools to move up to FBS en masse in the near future (and push the WAC out of the west.)
The WAC has no choice but to move east if the Big Sky were to succeed.
I would not be surprised if the WAC were to take Grambling State, Southern, and Jackson State. Those 3 programs, with their traveling support, are better off in FBS than in the SWAC (which is FCS in name only, as the SWAC does NOT participate in the FCS playoffs.)
LikeLike
The Big Sky commissioner has suggested that the WAC will get out of the football business and they might pick up a few of its schools. I don’t think the Big Sky wants FBS as it currently exists.
LikeLike
The point isn’t that the small schools want to be in AA, but that the big schools will eventually force the issue. As time goes on, the big schools will less and less want to be associated with the current crap end of 1-A, and honestly I think they’d like to be rid of the coming CUSA/MWC mess and maybe even the “new Big East.” Change is coming, sooner or later. I think it’s close to inevitable (more on this below in a separate post).
LikeLike
Excellent proposal from Delany. If we are going to start at just 4 playoff teams, this is the way to do it. So what if playing the first round on campus might benefit the B1G, the main point is that it is the right thing to do and the fairest way to do it. The highest ranked teams get home field advantage in the playoffs of pretty much every other sport. Should be a no-brainer.
What I’m still curious about, is this also Larry Scott’s plan, or will the P12 present one? A P12 AD (AZ’s?) a few weeks ago said they were working on one.
For everyone moaning about the incongruity of Boise St. and SDSU being in a conference named the Big East, are you ok with the FedEx Conference?
Nice to finally get confirmation that we indeed will get a college football playoff with at least 4 teams to start. Our long national nightmare is almost over.
LikeLike
I think Slive below is right. Nothing’s done yet. We’re moving the right direction, but lots can happen between now and the time everyone has to agree on a proposal.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now,
Excellent proposal from Delany.
It isn’t a proposal from Delany.
If we are going to start at just 4 playoff teams, this is the way to do it.
That kind of talk is exactly what causes the presidents to vote against playoffs. You are assuming bracket creep, and TPTB see that, too. Here’s hoping it comes back to bite you.
Nice to finally get confirmation that we indeed will get a college football playoff with at least 4 teams to start.
There is no such confirmation. Delany has openly said he hasn’t talked to the Cop/C. The presidents can easily shut down any playoff plan.
Our long national nightmare is almost over.
No, but it might start soon.
LikeLike
I hope you are right Brian, but I’m (while not quite there) almost to the point I was with Big Ten expansion a month or so before Nebraska joined. I don’t want it, hope it never comes, but think it’s almost inevitable at this point and trying to figure out how it can be least distributive.
(Actually come to think of it, that’s the other reason I originally wanted teams losing semi-finals a week after championship week to be eligible for bowls, it makes increasing the playoff more difficult).
LikeLike
@Eric
Just curious whether you oppose any playoff or only because you expect bracket creep to eventually make it 16 or so teams.
LikeLike
I oppose a playoff, but can live with a 4-team playoff if that is what it comes to.
I don’t want March Madness coming to football. I like that football is September to December Madness. I love March Madness, but it it its own animal. You cannot duplicate that in football by trying to include every team that could go on a 3-4 game winning streak and win at all.
If things shift to 7-wins for bowl games and a 4-team playoff, college football will IMO be closer to the happy medium on all fronts. Nobody will be completely happy, but nobody will be completely unhappy either. Except for the Birmingham Bowl committee or whatever.
LikeLike
With the field as it is, a sixteen-team playoff is the best choice. Especially with the media-driven nonsense that are “rankings”, this ensures that the major conferences receive their token bids but not at the expense of the more deserving teams, like Boise State (or Oklahoma State…).
Consider that the NFL has a 12-team playoff for 32 clubs, whereas the NCAA Division 1 FBS has 2 teams for 120 schools.
16-8-4-NCG – That’s one month (December) of games and leads up perfectly to what I believe should be the national championship: The Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
You’re making the assumption that there *has* to be a 120 or so team base. One way to solve the problem is to make the base more like 60 teams, or maybe even fewer. That’s one of the reasons people keep talking about a 1-A split in the near future (the other being the drastic differences in resources, quality and fanbases between the current top and bottom of 1-A, which means that in many ways everyone really isn’t playing the same game).
LikeLike
Baseball used to have 2 for 20 teams. Then they figured out that more was more profitable and went for 4 for 24 for a while. 12 for 120 would be plenty to include any deserving teams. But its not going to be more than 8 in this go-round and probably just 4. As Matthew points out, there are probably only 60-80 that warrant consideration. In the last 20 years, none of the future WAC or Sun Belt schools deserved a shot. And only Miami and Toledo of the current MAC had teams worth any consideration. So 8 of 80 is the same % as baseball had in the 60s.
LikeLike
Bullet, good question that I’m not completely sure I have an answer to.
I’d actually argue that what we have now is a 2 team playoff and I like it. I don’t really want anything bigger, but I’ll accept a 4 team playoff without complaint if it doesn’t mess with the bowl structure. I still want bowl games being the goal, meaning the national championship should be thought of a bowl and playoff losers should be going to bowls. It’s especially important to me that the Big Ten winner go to the Rose Bowl unless they are in the national championship game.
I do worry a lot about bracket creep too though. I think 4 teams won’t diminish the regular season too much (a little less importance on many games, but overall probably a little more others makes up for it), but I think even 8 would seriously lesson national interest in the sport during the regular season. People would still watch, but there would be a lot less interest in the bubble teams than there currently is for any game involving a potential national title team throughout the season. It wouldn’t be as bad as basketball, but still not what we’ve had either.
LikeLike
Slive talks about the possibility of a plus one/playoff. Also says that the SEC will not be expanding further any time soon. They have to adjust to the current changes.
Slive: Changes to BCS at least couple years away – Teresa M. Walker, AP
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-sec-slive
LikeLike
Pingback: Big 12 Expansion Rumors: Florida State And Clemson To Big 12? » College Football Daily News - Get all your football news on one site
Dang. Done in again by Nova…
Memphis joins Big East Conference – Lenn Robbins, NYPOST.com
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/basketball/big_east_adds_memphis_1Ueo52g3iVHrshlZkvLrWJ
…Temple, which has a rich basketball tradition and has built a respectable football program, seemed a much better choice to the league, but sources said Villanova was adamant about not letting another Philadelphia-based school into the Big East.
In case this wasn’t posted already:
WVU close to settling suit and joining Big 12 this year – Jenn Menendez, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12039/1208979-100.stm
West Virginia University is close to settling a lawsuit with the Big East by paying the conference $11 million, clearing the way for the school to join the Big 12 starting with the 2012 football season, a source with knowledge of the situation told the Post-Gazette.
The two sides are scheduled for an 8:30 a.m. status hearing Thursday on a conference call with Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein.
LikeLike
@ Frank
On your original post :
1. Big 12 Expansion Rumors I: The Unrealistic ACC Raid Scenario
I think odds are pretty much zero, but not for the reason you suggest. I do not think it is the tightness of the ACC schools as much as the control ESPN can exert over the ACC and SEC as a collective body. I said it before, and will say it again. The day the SEC added Missouri may very well be the watershed moment for proof that the networks are the realignment drivers, and not guys like Delany and Slive. ESPN has a real incentive to keep the ACC intact less any ACC defect to the B1G and FOX.
.
2. Big 12 Expansion Rumors II: The More Realistic Louisville/BYU (or TBD) Scenario
I think the odds of Louisville in the B12 are good, but BYU joining the B12 seems about equal to Notre Dame joining the B1G. I think the B12 want BYU, but I can see far to many issues that will keep them out of the B12. If nobody on this blog can see Notre Dame in the B12, how can you defend BYU in their stead? I am not saying BYU = Notre Dame, but I do think they may be Notre Dame like in a lesser form. With Texas and Oklahoma having inordinate pull I can see BYU saying no. Not only is it the smart short term move, but if they joined the B12, and then UT and OU went to the PAC, BYU would be on the short end of the stick, and probably mired in the remnants for a long future of meh!
.
3. Big East Walking in Memphis: More Than a Rumor
I think this will happen as you imply to backfill a UofL move to the B12. Once the B12 gets to 11 they can wait and see who plays out over the next 5-10 years between Memphis / Cincinnati / Rutgers / ???? for that 12th spot. If the lack of a CCG drives UT and OU out of the spotlight in the next few years, then the B12 will be forced to add a 12 th team with greater urgency. This season proved that oSu did not have the cache of OU for a MNC shot, and KSU did not have the pull of UT as the second best team in the conference. I think Baylor was a once in a generation / lifetime team last season and will fall back quickly. If Iowa beats Iowa State early in the season, it could damage the B12 image early in the B12 season. SMU @ Baylor to open the 2012 season will not get the same publicity TCU did this year. In 2012, ISU has to play @ Iowa, and I am already picking Iowa in that game.
Look at what is there to grab early viewer interest in the B12 :
Baylor = SMU, Sam Houston State, and LA – Monroe = no must see TV
Iowa State = Tulsa, Iowa, and Western Illinois = maybe the Iowa game
Kansas = South Dakota St, Rice, and Northern Illinois = who watches Kansas football
Kansas State = Missouri State, Miami FL, and N Texas = maybe the Miami game
Oklahoma = Notre Dame, but too late in the season to attract early interest fro the B12
Oklahoma State = Arizona and LA – Lafayette = Arizona is not Oregon or U$C
TCU = Grambling, UVA, and SMU = not terrible, but not national coverage games either
Texas = Wyoming, New Mexico, and Mississippi = 3-0 UT, but will anybody outside TX watch?
TxTech = Northwestern State, Texas State, and New Mexico = total snoozefest
WVU = Marshall, James Madison, and MD together would not equal the dropped FSU game
If 2 games is all the B12 has to offer in the 1st 3-4 weeks of football, I am guessing that hurts the conference as a whole, and begins to erode goodwill for any team not named Texas or Oklahoma. By the end of the season it could be a hard sell for any B12 team when it comes to BCS recognition. After 3-5 years, it will take a toll on even mighty Texas and Oklahoma, and their only out them may be a jump to the PAC 14 / PAC 16. UT has had 2 bad seasons, and if they get tagged with 2 losses in the next few years, they are toast for the MNC no matter how big the ESPN deal is.
.
4. B1G Playoff Plan
This actually makes sense as a fall back if Penn State and Nebraska falter, and the B1G reverts to the old Big 10 with Michigan and Ohio State being the defacto B1G standard bearer. If you had told me when the first kickoff of fall 2011 would culminate in 2 SEC teams playing each other for the MNC, I would have accused you of smoking the wacky weed, and yet it happened. I think Delany putting this out there means a backup plan if a B1G team is not #1 or #2 for the next 5-10 years. Look for Jim to try and squeeze a B1G school in, and a B12 school out of the MNC discussion. I also look for him to push that no Boise State or Houston will play for a MNC even if they go undefeated. To much gain for a non AQ school and too little gain for a B1G school can not sit well with with Delany in the B1G bunker. I feel sure he was happy to add Nebraska, but his spirits might have been dampened with losing part of TX and all of MO to the SEC. For the B1G to enter Texas now, they have to cross SEC territory first, and even if he gets the longhorn in the fold, he will still lose a part of Texas to the SEC.
I have said it time and again, that when you think your enemy will do what you wish, instead of what he wishes to do, you have probably already lost the battle. Looking back I really think the focus was so much on UT, that any shot at TAMU slipped away between the December 2009 announcement, and the June 2010 Cuban Realignment Missile Crisis. The early chatter on here back then was to keep the SEC out of TX, and yet now they have locked down a big chunk of real estate inside the state to grow their footprint.
LikeLike
Don’t understand how Missouri to SEC shows ESPN as a driver? They helped save the Big 12. Why would they help pull it apart 12 months later? It would seem to me A&M & Missouri helped them in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Fox helped save the XII with the Tier 2 deal. ESPN has a bargain at Tier I, and these $$ were not cut with the loss of teams. If ESPN had cut, that would have allowed the XII to opt out, and even with the present teams the XII will get more $$ on a new TIer I deal. The ESPN LHN deal can be viewed as a poison pill that is keeping TX in the XII and therefore, helps perserve the conference.
LikeLike
Overall pathetic OOC scheduling for the Big 12. Instead of simply suggesting it, @DanBeebe should have required all teams to schedule an OOC game with a team from an AQ conference. According to this list there are 7 total.
WVU’s schedule looks pretty locked in with 9 conference games + Marshall and Maryland. A great reason for WVU to plead for Maryland to join the Big 12.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/42440/ncaa-fb-with-rittenberg
From an ESPN B10 blogger in a chat, answering a Q about the B10 playoff plan:
“Adam Rittenberg (12:21 PM)
David, my understanding is that the semis would be played closer to Christmas, maybe between Christmas and New Year’s. One issue that comes up, and fans don’t like to hear it, is final exams. Schools on the quarter system typically have them between Dec. 5-10. Semester schools usually have them between Dec. 17-23. So that’s something to consider when looking at the schedule.”
It’s details like this that separate the vague idea the B10 ADs talked about from an actual plan, and I think the details will reduce the popularity of the plan.
LikeLike
Another answer from that chat:
Adam Rittenberg (12:59 PM)
Ryan, from talking to some folks around the league, this scenario likely wouldn’t happen. The bowls like to have their teams in place much earlier in order to promote the game, have site visits, etc. It also helps fans planning trips to have more lead time. So while I wouldn’t rule anything out, I don’t see this happening.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s not an ideal time at all and not something I’d thought about.
LikeLike
Details certainly make it more difficult, but I don’t think exams are a signficant problem in a home field playoff. They have exams during the season. Some schools have finals during ccg week.
A bowl during exams is a different issue. It not only pulls players out of school longer, it draws lots of non-athletes out of school.
LikeLike
First off, I’m a CUSA fan so read this knowing that bias first….I know the logistics of having a conference stretching from Honolulu to Greenville, NC is going to be a mess if the merger does happen……I like the Temple invite and hope they accept as i think they actually could be a sizeable replacement for Memphis in this new league….i came across this blog though (http://short-sideoption.blogspot.com/) and he lays out what the merger conference divisions could look like if the do decide to go the division instead of the pod route. It seems feasible, am I being too optimistic?
LikeLike
Not so sure about Hawaii in the East and Temple in the West though. 🙂
LikeLike
LOL, I didn’t even notice that! Very true; that’d make the flights just a little long. Besides that, it looks like it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.
LikeLike
I went back on that site and I guess he’s corrected the Hawaii in the east issue…but he’s created a playoff now….it could be fun to follow: http://short-sideoption.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Wow, this looks interesting, thanks for posting! It’ll be fun to see what happens.
LikeLike
He’s got the first game of the playoffs up, West Virginia at Wisconsin…..this guy is pretty in-depth…looks like Wisc wins a squeaker…
LikeLike
@ blindleadingthe….. and @herbiehusker – Enjoying the conversation with yourself? A tip: if you use two different emails to comment its harder to tell.
LikeLike
Georgia’s President Michael Adams expects a four or EIGHT team playoff in 2014:
http://www.ajc.com//sports/uga/michael-adams-sees-college-1339280.html
LikeLike
Unpossible, the usual suspects here told me that the only place an 8-team playoff would even possibly be discussed was in my ‘fertile little mind.’ Yet now we have two from the SEC and P12 who will actually vote on it saying 8 is being considered.
My guess is the ACC and Big East will end up leaning towards 8 (more likely for them to make it in, and perhaps advocating major conference champs get auto entry or something like the highest-ranked 6 conf champs get it), the B12 and SEC are open to 8, B1G is for 4.
4 is the floor, push for the better 8. Next several months should be interesting as the proposals are leaked, thrashed about, and narrowed down.
LikeLike
I still think 2 is the floor. Eight will be discussed, but I hope the Big Ten would fight that tooth and nail.
LikeLike
Saw another article in the Atlanta paper. Missouri is intending to intimidate their new SEC opponents by copying Texas and Texas Tech. They are haviing a Georgia drum maker build a 9 foot drum. Texas has Big Bertha which it got from U of Chicago after they dropped their football program. Texas Tech, as does Purdue, has an 8 footer, which is the largest currently in the US. New drum is expected to weigh half a ton.
LikeLike
Not true, Mizzou isn’t copying anyone. Mizzou has had “Big Mo”, a 6 foot drum, for many decades. It’s getting old and they needed to replace it. Someone donated $50k so that Mizzou could get a bigger one this time. The new Big Mo will be the biggest drum in the country.
LikeLike
Article says a fraternity is paying for it.
LikeLike
Here’s an article. Big Mo has been around since ’81. Not sure how intimidating a drum can be.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/04/23/replacing-big-mo/
LikeLike
See for yourself:
LikeLike
They honestly call it the big mo?
LikeLike
Instead of one big one, they should have spent the 50k on 70-100k little drums and lent them out to all in attendance for games. That would put vuvuzellas to shame.
LikeLike
Thanks! Now I have buzzing bees in my head again…
LikeLike
The could rip off Mississippi St’s cow bell chours. Man I hate cow bells.
LikeLike
The = They (stupid moblie touchscreen)
LikeLike
Anyone see this? Possible home & home between Rutgers-Syracuse to make up for loss of WVU game on schedule.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/02/rutgers_could_play_football_ho.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
Curious to get the group’s thoughts on something that I’ve been mulling over for a little while now:
Right now, economically speaking, the biggest programs seem to generate more value from bodybags than big OOC games. For example, let’s say Michigan makes, $4M in gate + (nearly worthless) TV money less expenses from a pair of bodybags. That’s probably more than what they can get from one big OOC game (since they’d presumably be doing a home and home) in gate + (worth quite a bit) TV money less expenses including the travel for the road game. However, I suspect the difference isn’t huge, and that even for the biggest programs (like Michigan) we’re not that far away from the point where the inequality swings the other way given the continued growth of TV money and the structural limits to ticket revenue (it’s hard to add capacity, and at some price point fans will revolt, though I don’t know what that point is).
Right now, there’s also the issue of the collectivization of TV rights skewing incentives. MAYBE the logic works today for Michigan to do a big OOC home and home if they get to keep 100% of the TV money from it (I’d guess not, but I’d also guess it’s close). NO WAY does it work if they can only keep 1/12 of it (which is what happens when TV money for all games including OOC gets split evenly). This is probably why the Pac-12/BIG did a league-wide OOC deal instead of individually negotiating; if everyone agrees to do it instead of each team making independent decisions you help minimize the free rider issue. There’s still the issue of Michigan, Ohio St etc. (whose games are worth a lot in TV $$$) subdizing Purdue, Northwestern etc. (whose games aren’t), but at least you’re minimizing the ability of teams to undermine the collective interest with their individual decision-making.
My GUESS is that not long after the TV money for big games becomes enough to make the net revenue (ignoring the 1/12 issue) for big OOC games substantially greater than for 2 bodybag games even for big places like Michigan, you’ll see leagues collectively assign even more of their games, either by further expanding league schedules or by entering into deals like the BIG/PAC agreement.
And here’s (IMO) the key point: if and when that happens, it won’t be long until the power leagues perma-ban the little guys and break off either into a new division or walk from the NCAA entirely. They haven’t done that yet both because it’s somewhat useful to have the bodybags available today and because it’s politically unpleasant. But when there’s no longer any economic incentive to do bodybags, the politics almost certainly won’t be enough to keep the status quo intact.
Right now, the last real holdout on expanding the number of league-assigned games (either league games or PAC/BIG challenge type deals) is the SEC. If and when they change their approach (I don’t know but I’d suspect that when their TV deal is up for renewal that’s when it’d make sense to seriously consider it on their end, since if they change sooner they’re stuck with the same TV deal but with less ticket revenue from home games), IMO that’d be the canary in the coal mine for major structural change in college football. At that point, the last strong holdout of “we get more from bodybag games than good games” would have changed their tune (the BIG is something of a holdout, but given that they had already decided to do 9 league games before switching the 9th game to a BIG/PAC challenge, they’re a weak one IMO, and as the economics continue to evolve, I suspect that they’ll eventually go to 9 league games as well, but probably not for a while).
On a side note: In the context of this argument, the Pac-12’s approach makes perfect sense. Their ratio of gate revenue to TV revenue is almost certainly the lowest of any of the top 5 leagues, probably by a lot. So economically speaking, of course they’d be the first ones to do 9 league games and of course they’d be the first to up it to 10 collectively assigned games (9 league + 1 vs BIG). This is also why the SEC is the last holdout, since they get huge gate revenue and right now their TV revenue is way less than the BIG (the other big gate revenue league).
LikeLike
Yep, I see 3 divisions of Div I, with FCS becoming Div I-AAA & the MAC, WAC, and SunBelt being relegated to Div I-A (with some of the stronger FCS programs being promoted). However, with bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins, I also see 2 wins over Div I-A to count towards bowl eligibility because the guarantee games will still make financial sense for quite a while yet (for pretty much any program that can sell out a 60K stadium regardless of the competition).
LikeLike
I don’t see 7 wins = bowl eligibility as being likely to actually go through. I COULD be wrong, but I’d be very surprised if that passed. I’d expect WAY too much push-back from the mid- and low-tier of most AQ leagues (the teams who get hosed by this), and I doubt the non-AQ’s have enough influence to force it through.
LikeLike
FWIW, the bowls voted to approve that 2 years ago and probably would again. I know they aren’t the final decision makers, obviously, but the bowls would support it. That may help win the argument.
LikeLike
Because it’s all about the football! That darn corrupt, sick, incompetent athletic department letting the football program get away with this!
Nearly 40 Members of Nittany Lion Football Team Earn 3.0 GPA or Higher During Fall Semester
Sixteen Earn Dean’s List Recognition With 3.5 GPA or Better
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020912aab.html
And these are real students, no basket weaving 101 in the bunch.
LikeLike
Joe, please keep your facts about Penn State off this blog. We’d like to remain ignorant in our stereotypes and believe every accusatory story ESPN throws our way. Thank you.
🙂
LikeLike
Did we ever figure out the identity of the SEC school that wanted to jump to the Big Ten? I mean besides Missouri.
As unlikely as it sounds, I would welcome Tennessee and/or Kentucky with open arms.
LikeLike
Actually, now that I think about it, both of those schools should be at the top of the ACC’s wish list.
Far better candidates than Rutgers or UConn.
LikeLike
I advocated considering them as a pair before. I think they have a ton of value, especially together.
LikeLike
I can’t see why any SEC school would want to leave for the ACC. Do they want less money? Less intense rivalries? Less passion for football?
LikeLike
Vandy I’d guess.
LikeLike
Michigan gets $3M for hosting Winter Classic with Toronto on 1/1/13 (per Twitter).
Tom Leyden @TomLeyden Close
Michigan gets $3 million plus $250,000 for scholarship fund. That’s it. NHL gets everything else. Parking, concessions, merchandise, etc
LikeLike
Sounds like a great deal for M, loan your stadium for a day for $3.25mil…
LikeLike
I’m curious to see how they serve beer. Also, not to be crass, but can the restroom facilities handle it? They are pretty bad.
LikeLike
State of Mich approved a special beer license for the Big House. Normally, Big Ten events are alcohol free. They will probably have portable beer taps like they use at Comerica Park.
LikeLike
The restroom facillites at Michigan Stadium used to be bad. But the renovations added a lot more restrooms for men and women (including some freestanding buildings near the stadium), so it’s much, much better now.
LikeLike
I know this is highly unlikely, but how about this for an idea:
Move the season up a week. Start the week before Labor Day and have championship weekend Thanksgiving weekend. The conferences without conference championship games could still play regular season games Thanksgiving weekend (at least letting Texas keep its Thanksgiving Day tradition). I know its not entirely ideal, but that would let you have the semi-finals the first week of December and ease things with the bowls. It would also give college 2 weeks of games without NFL competition instead of just 1.
LikeLike
I think its an excellent idea. But its too much of a change. They won’t do it. Too many parties have to be satisfied with the change, especially the TV partners.
I’d like to see the season end on Thanksgiving and go back to 11 games with an 8-12 team playoff. But they aren’t going to reduce the number of games. 120 teams benefit from that while only 4-8 benefit from an expansion of a playoff beyond 4 teams.
LikeLike
BTW, as much as Texas has a Thanksgiving tradition, its really about exposure and $. Those are the key elements, not the tie to Thanksgiving.
LikeLike
Longhorns will expose themselves for money? So that’s how they have the richest AD in the country. 🙂
LikeLike
Exposure I’m sure is important, but extra money do they get? The conference as a whole might get more in TV negotiations, but that doesn’t help out UT more than anyone else. As for the game itself, how does it bring in more during Thanksgiving then on Saturday. The game is big and likely to sell out either day.
I can lean to it being a tradition the fans care for in being the biggest (although not only reason) they play then.
LikeLike
Rather than say “I can lean” it should say “I kind of lean”
LikeLike
I know this has been talked about before, but since Louisville/BYU to Big 12 rumors are going again, what do you think they’d do with divisions with those two?
I really can’t come up with a good set-up. I put together a few, but I’m going under a couple of assumptions that I can’t make into good alignments.
1. The conference won’t want one geographic division and one non-geographic division (no Big 12 south with a 2nd division across 3 time zones).
2. Texas and Oklahoma will want to be in the same divisions.
3. The conference will want to put all season ending games in same division (no immediate rematches)
4. The conference will probably want to divide up Texas teams more this time around to help with recruiting.
In the end though, I think the conference either has to accept the old south coming back though (with TCU instead of A&M) or accept Texas-Oklahoma being separated. If Texas and Oklahoma are divided, this would be my guess.
Texas———Oklahoma
Texas Tech—Oklahoma State
Baylor———TCU
BYU————West Virginia
Kansas——–Louisville
Kansas State-Iowa State
LikeLike
For Big 12 divisions this is what I have:
Texas—Oklahoma
Texas Tech—Baylor
West Virginia—Oklahoma State
Louisvile—TCU
Kansas— BYU
Kansas State—Iowa State
It would be foolish to put OU and UT in the same division together again, especially now that there’s not a third traditional powerhouse to anchor the other division (Nebraska). I also expect the state of Texas to be split, with UT’s division getting its biggest remaining in-state rival, Tech, thus putting TCU and Baylor in the division with OU and OK. State
Those moves I see as a given. From there, I believe there will be a general sentiment that WVU and L’ville should be in the same division and that BYU should be in the other, so to avoid having a three-time zone division. As for KU and K- State, it only mattters that they play annually, not necessarily that they be in the same division. Iowa State doesn’t have a lot of pull, Soviet theylvjust go where they’re told.
All this is moot, of course, if BYU doesn’t go into the Big 12.
LikeLike
Androids + WordPress = typos galore. They do not work well together at all.
LikeLike
I don’t think they split Texas and OU. But if they did, it would probably be TX schools + UL/WVU in one and BYU + former Big 8 in the other.
LikeLike
How many votes does it take to decide the divisions, 7 (>50%), 8 (2/3), 9 (75%) or 12?
Even if it’s only 7, which 7 schools would support TX + UL/WV vs BYU + Big 8? I’m sure all 6 in the TX division would be thrilled, but would any of the other 6 say yes? It may depend on the details of crossover games. Everyone wants TX access for recruiting.
I think they should learn from the past and try a zipper rather than making it Big 8 versus TX again.
LikeLike
They could learn from the ACC and know not to do a zipper.
The N/S divide in the Big 12 was cyclical. At first the north was stronger. Then the 2 northern powers, UNL and CU went on significant downslides.
But it is much more difficult now w/o Nebraska to anchor the other division and one of the arguments for staying at 10.
LikeLike
bullet,
They could learn from the ACC and know not to do a zipper.
A full zipper looks better on paper than in real life, I agree. I was thinking more a blurring of groupings rather than reinforcing the old divides, though. Split the TX schools, split the B8 schools, split the religious schools, split the MWC schools, split the BE schools, etc.
UT / OU
TT / Baylor
BYU / TCU
WV / UL
KU / ISU
KSU / OkSU
Lock those games, and play 2 or 3 rotating games.
That gives everybody a taste of every group, makes every group travel some and keeps old rivalries for the most part. Teams that have to travel both east and west get the benefit of playing UT and near KC. Those with less travel don’t.
The N/S divide in the Big 12 was cyclical. At first the north was stronger. Then the 2 northern powers, UNL and CU went on significant downslides.
But it is much more difficult now w/o Nebraska to anchor the other division and one of the arguments for staying at 10.
In this case I was less concerned about the imbalance, although that is a huge issue, and more with the problems that really destroyed the B12 in my mind. It was always the SWC vs the B8, with OU and OkSU happy to side with the TX schools. The conference never really integrated itself.
Unless another power joins, I think UT and OU need to be split. They play early enough in the year that a rematch wouldn’t be too bad, although I understand not wanting to have to beat the other team twice. The problem is the TT has to be with UT and OkSU has to be with OU. There is just no way to balance that with the other division. WV and BYU can’t maintain the level of UT and OU.
LikeLike
The biggest downside of splitting UT and OU is that those are the two schools most likely to challenge for a national championship. If they have to beat each other twice in one of those years where they have a shot, its very difficult. So splitting them up could cost the league a shot at a national championship.
Also, if they both regularly won their divisions (by no means guaranteed-ask FSU and Miami), it could diminish the earlier meeting.
LikeLike
bullet,
The biggest downside of splitting UT and OU is that those are the two schools most likely to challenge for a national championship. If they have to beat each other twice in one of those years where they have a shot, its very difficult. So splitting them up could cost the league a shot at a national championship.
Also, if they both regularly won their divisions (by no means guaranteed-ask FSU and Miami), it could diminish the earlier meeting.
Those are clearly the downsides, yes, and I don’t mean to diminish them. I just think the other scenarios are worse.
There are some silver linings to the downsides, though. In many years, one of UT and OU is clearly better than the other, so winning twice isn’t that big of a deal. However, beating UT or OU twice would normally bolster a resume, helping a borderline team make the playoffs. It also gives them better chances of having an elite team win the CCG than if both kings are in the same division. They could potentially both make the playoff and get to play 3 times with the winner getting a NC.
Every alignment has potential CCG rematch issues. UT and OU play so early in the year that there is plenty of time to overcome the loss and try to get revenge in the CCG. If you put the TX and OK school together I guess you could keep all the rivalries in division, but you’ll still have rematches in the CCG. Is that better somehow than rematching a rivalry? I don’t think so, because the rivalry adds some spice to both games.
LikeLike
Boise State may be heading to the Big East this Fall.
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/34773204
LikeLike
Meeting Sunday between CUSA and MWC. Rumored to finalize the merger. Looks like it’s only a matter of time now. With eight teams each now no one will have to move and no need to raid the WAC or Sun Belt.
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/mountain-west-conference-usa-to-discuss-merger-139035019.html
LikeLike
Yeah, it only makes sense for the two of them to rescue one another in such a manner. There’s no reason to just get into a poaching war right now when they’re still vulnerable.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7560237/ncaa-proposes-moving-kickoffs-30-35
Some interesting rule change proposals:
1. Move kickoffs to the 35 and limit the running start to 5 yards
2. If you lose your helmet, you must stop participating in the play and sit out the next play
3. Some blocking below the waist changes
4. Some blocking on punt returns changes
All are safety based, and that’s a good thing. I like the idea of punishing people for having their helmet too loose. Way too many helmets have been flying off lately.
LikeLike
Personally, I’d prefer no running start for anyone but the kicker. I mean, players can’t reach top speed after running 40 yards?
LikeLike
If kickoffs really do produce significantly more and serious injuries, I wouldn’t have any problem with eliminating them. We still would have punt returns. And if teams start getting more like Alabama and LSU, there will hardly be any kickoffs.
LikeLike
If they eliminate them entirely, then the onside kick goes away, too and they don’t want to lose that.
They also suggest making a touchback put the ball at the 25 to further discourage returns.
LikeLike
Replace kickoffs with a 4th and 25 from the 50 yard line. Teams that are far behind still have a chance to come back, but during normal circumstances, most teams would opt to punt. It makes it more exciting when the team receiving is trailing as well, as they might opt to rush the punter.
LikeLike
True they lose the onside kick.
As for 4th & 25 at the 50, at one time the SWC had 3 kickers who could connect from about that distance. One great kicker and a team might never give up the ball!
LikeLike
Heh, the chances of a kicker making one 67 yard FG after another is a bit slight. Plus, if he misses, the other team starts with great field position.
LikeLike
A lot of people don’t remember, but at one time pros and college both kicked off from the 40. They moved it back to increase kickoff returns. Better kickers were knocking it into the end zone almost all the time.
They could move it back to the 40 and significantly reduce returns while keeping alive the onside kick. They’ve made the on-side kick much riskier than it used to be.
The NFL got more touchbacks than they expected because kickers weren’t certain of making the end zone so they were kicking it higher and shorter to reduce returns. When they got that extra 5 yards they started going for the end zone more.
LikeLike
I’d like to see them move the spot at the beginning of OT back to the 40. They start too close now.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7559536/jordan-jefferson-says-play-calls-hurt-lsu-tigers-bcs-title-game
Talk about balls. Jordan Jefferson blames losing the NCG on the coaches.
Yeah, it certainly couldn’t be the fault of having a bad QB that handcuffed the coaches.
LikeLike
It was both. ‘Bama definitely gameplanned better on both sides of the ball. You said you didn’t watch the game, but I did, and it looked to me like an NFL coaching staff going up against a high school coaching staff.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, LSU repeatedly did the same things that didn’t work. It was like they were trying to follow Georgia Southern’s game plan (an option team) vs. Alabama, but did it less successfully. There was a lot of criticism of their gameplan at the time.
LikeLike
It felt like watching the first half of their game against Georgia… but for two full halves this time.
LikeLike
But they didn’t get ANY first downs vs. Georgia.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline)
MWC is going to have to act fairly soon, whether it’s the CUSA merger or addition of Utah State and San Jose State
Source who told me last wk that Boise under pressure to join BE in ’12 said Air Force will folo Navy (to BE) but move could be 2-3 yrs away
Have not heard anything more about BYU (or Louisville) to B12. DeLoss and Co must decide if they want to be 10, 11 or 12.
I keep hearing there is resistance to 12 because of double-jeopardy aspect of league title game. But BCS changes could affect thinking
Problem for MWC and CUSA is networks have little interest in alliance/merger
Realignment moves won’t matter when revised BCS access allows for 5 SEC and 5 B1G schools, and no spots for anyone else. (I joke!) (Sort of)
LikeLike
Clemson AD on realignment
CLEMSON – The rumors of conference realignment and expansion and actual realignment have been swirling over the collegiate landscape, and Clemson University hasn’t been immune to those rumors.
Last year, it was a potential move to the SEC that was blocked by in-state rival South Carolina, and the most recent rumors have the Big 12 reaching out to schools like Clemson and Florida St. in an effort to bolster its numbers after losing Colorado, Texas A&M, Nebraska and Missouri over the past few seasons.
In part two of TigerNet’s conversation with Clemson Athletic Director Terry Don Phillips, we addressed those rumors as well as other issues concerning the Atlantic Coast Conference and the recent announcement of the ACC moving to a nine-game conference football schedule.
TigerNet: There are a lot of rumors concerning a Clemson move to the Big 12…
TDP: There is no substance to that. None. The Big 12 has a committee formed – I guess you would call it an expansion committee – to look at the future of the Big 12 Conference. I would suspect without knowing that part of the charge of that particular committee would be to look at continual expansion because they are no longer the Big 12. They have lost their championship game and so I would suspect they are looking at it. But in regard to Clemson or Florida St. – of course I can’t speak for Florida St. but I do have a pretty good feel for that part of the country – but I don’t feel like they have talked with anyone or visited with anyone and I can say for sure with Clemson there is no substance to that.
TigerNet: So no one from the Big 12 has contacted Clemson?
TDP: No.
LikeLike
Source: http://www.tigernet.com/view/story.do?id=10366
I hate to pee on the Dude’s rug and all…
LikeLike
I’ve brought up something similar in the past, at least regarding the SEC, but if the Big 12 wanted to pry an ACC member in order to partner with Louisville and wouldn’t mind taking a gamble, how about Wake Forest, currently perhaps the least valuable member of the ACC?
Wake might like the idea of setting itself apart from its three brethren in the Research Triangle, especially since it now looks to be well behind all three in basketball (even UNC isn’t selling out its visits to Winston-Salem). Rebranding by emphasizing the football brand might work, especially if you can put yourself in a stronger conference, enabling North Carolina recruits to play in a better league than the ACC without having to leave the state.
Another advantage for Wake — the presence of Baylor, a fellow institution with Baptist roots, along with Texas Christian.
For football, you can have East and West divisions with relatively little difficulty, playing a nine-game schedule (as the Big 12 does now) with two permanent crossovers and two rotating interdivisional games:
East: Baylor, Texas Christian, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Wake Forest
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State
LikeLike
I don’t see why the B12 would want Wake more than, say, Tulane (or Memphis, Rutgers, USF, UCF or any number of BE schools). It’s only an accident of history that Wake is in a major conference and Tulane is not. There’s nothing inherent to Wake that makes it more valuable. Also, the smallest FBS school in a conference far away drawing NC recruits away from marquee names in the heart of ACC country? Color me skeptical.
LikeLike
Also, if the B12 was hellbent on getting in to NC (which I’m pretty certain they’re not; NJ has about the same population and doesn’t have a bunch of ACC schools dominating the state already, for instance), why wouldn’t they take ECU over Wake? if ECU was in the ACC and Wake was in CUSA, would you still advocate that the B12 take Wake? If not, why would the B12 take Wake, considering that it won’t have it’s “ACC-ness” (arguably the only advantage it currently has over ECU) once it’s not in the ACC?
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/big-east-west-virginia-reach-agreement-on-exit-021012
Official announcement expected today according to WVU source. Agreement looks like this:
15 million damages
5 million exit fee
Big 12 is contributing 9 million cash (from other sources it looks like a loan to WVU) and WVU is contributing 11 million from a combination of cash, previous payments ($2.5 million on exit fee) and withholdings from conference distributions due WVU.
LikeLike
The current ACC schools are not going to kick in $1M each to get Pittsburg and/or Syracuse in 2012 and I doubt either school will pay $20M. Therefore, the BE is now clear to negotiate a much lower fee ($2M-$5M above the standard $5M exit fee) for the 2013 exit of these shcools to the ACC.
LikeLike
Apparently the key was getting enough to pay for Boise the leave the MWC early ($7-9M I’ve heard) and also punish WV for breaking the contract, while keeping it affordable.
LikeLike
Another key was making it high enough to keep Pittsburg and Syracuse from following WVU. The BE did not want to just depend on the ACC not wanting these schools until 2013.
LikeLike
I think they delayed it to the point SU, Pitt and the ACC all preferred to wait until 2013. Money has nothing to do with it. I don’t think any of them wanted the scheduling hassles.
LikeLike
I think they also delayed it to the point that it hurt the BE schools in finding replacement games.
LikeLike
True, but they may have been having good talks with Boise behind the scenes so they could afford the delay to replace WV with BSU. The BE knew if it lasted long enough, the ACC would rather wait until next year to add Pitt and SU anyway, so no replacements were needed there.
LikeLike
ASU president throws out an 8 team proposal he will present to other Pac 12 presidents and says Pac 12 does NOT support the current system as it is causing long term harm to the sport. Personally, I think their hypocrisy on the issues (claiming the extra playoff games would be bad for student-athlete’s health while approving a 12th regular season game for one example) hurts the colleges, not just athletics. The presidents of institutions of higher education are lacking intellectual integrity.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/10/sun-devils-prez-pushing-for-an-eight-team-playoff/
LikeLike
bullet,
ASU president throws out an 8 team proposal he will present to other Pac 12 presidents and says Pac 12 does NOT support the current system as it is causing long term harm to the sport. Personally, I think their hypocrisy on the issues (claiming the extra playoff games would be bad for student-athlete’s health while approving a 12th regular season game for one example) hurts the colleges, not just athletics. The presidents of institutions of higher education are lacking intellectual integrity.
I don’t think that example is the best choice. Yes, they recently added the permanent 12th game, but they also eliminated the pre-season kickoff games. Before the 12th game was locked, it was allowed when the season had an extra weekend. People act like this is all recent, but teams were playing up to 12 games in the 50s (first 12-0 team after WWII was 1952). By the 70s at the latest some teams were playing 13 games (1971 – first 13-0 post WWII). OSU was the first to 14-0 in 2002, and that was because they had a pre-season game and the calendar allowed for 12 games. OSU’s first year with 13 games was 1986, and they only had 14 that one time so far.
Playoff games are different from regular season games. The intensity is higher and the athletes are better, so the collisions are worse in playoff games. Plus, all schools can benefit financially from the extra game while fewer benefit as much from the playoffs, especially when considering the local economy. On the bright side, only a few teams play in the playoff games versus everyone in the regular season so fewer players are risking injury.
I personally think the bigger issue is playing playoff games in back to back weeks versus having a week off in between to heal (and study depending on timing). I think at least a week off after the CCG weekend is needed for player health and academic concerns. Save back to back weeks for pros.
LikeLike
I don’t believe there were ever more than 2 pre-season kickoff games and so they went from 4 teams with 12 to 120. The kickoff games were new in the 80s or 90s. They didn’t exist in the 70s.
In the 50s almost all the schools played only 10 games. And there were only the Big 4 bowls + a handful of others. It was around 1968 they went to 11 games. The 1st championship game was when the SEC expanded. So maybe some teams played 13 or 14 games in the 20s, but 10 games were typical for almost everyone except for the 10-20 playing bowls until 1968. And it was 11 except the 20 or so in bowls for many years. Because one team played 13 doesn’t mean it was at all typical.
LikeLike
bullet,
I don’t believe there were ever more than 2 pre-season kickoff games and so they went from 4 teams with 12 to 120. The kickoff games were new in the 80s or 90s. They didn’t exist in the 70s.
There were at least 3, the Kickoff Classic (1983-2002), Pigskin Classic (1990-2002) and Eddie Robinson Classic (1997-2002). Side note – the only winners of all 3 were OSU, NE and FSU.
They did go from 6 to 120ish, but those games are the exact mirror of the extra game of a playoff now. A select few teams playing an extra game. That was my point. They got rid of the classics when they went to 12 games full time because they didn’t want to start the season in August.
In the 50s almost all the schools played only 10 games. And there were only the Big 4 bowls + a handful of others. It was around 1968 they went to 11 games. The 1st championship game was when the SEC expanded. So maybe some teams played 13 or 14 games in the 20s, but 10 games were typical for almost everyone except for the 10-20 playing bowls until 1968. And it was 11 except the 20 or so in bowls for many years. Because one team played 13 doesn’t mean it was at all typical.
I didn’t say it was typical, but some teams were doing it. That would be true for a playoff, too.
From 1946-1970 (25 years), 58 teams played 250 or more games (10 per year). The max was 273 (almost 11 per year), which included 15 bowls and probably 8 years of 11 games.
From 1971-1990 (30 years), 96 teams played 330 or more games (11 per year). The max was 372 (12.4 per year) thanks to 22 bowls and maybe because of a lot of games against HI (not sure when the extra game rule started).
From 2001-2011 (11 years), 96 teams played 132 or more games (12 per year). The max was 148 (almost 13.5 per year, thanks to a lot of CCGs and bowls). 11 teams averaged at least 13 games per year.
Your complaint is that it’s hypocritical for the season to have grown by 2 games (and about 20 bowls) in 60+ years? I think that’s a reasonable rate of growth to pull out some of the financial value available without going overboard. The NFL season has grown by 4 games in that time span and was looking at adding 2 more games. The NFL playoff has also grown from 2 teams to 12.
LikeLike
There was also the BCA Classic. Nebraska & tOSU won all 4.
LikeLike
It is hypocritical. They grow the season (when they went to 12 and started adding mass numbers of bowl games) at the same time they make the argument they can’t have a playoff because of the wear and tear on the players. Adding a limited playoff would have had an impact on fewer players. Their decisions regarding schedules have almost nothing to do with the welfare of the players. When they couch their decisions in those terms it discredits them. In reality its been about power, boosters and most of all, their share of the money.
There are other examples. They talk about the value of the regular season, but more and more teams schedule like Alabama, who had Georgia Southern this year and Georgia State, in their 1st year of competition, last year. They schedule games against outmanned teams that noone really wants to see. Georgia scheduled Idaho St. (1-10) last year and Coastal Carolina this year. They talk about how great the bowl experience is and that there should be more winners as the bowls do, but expand the championship field in every other sport and talk about how valuable the championship level competition is.
What’s different is that TPTB are actually finally talking about the real issues this year. There are legitimate reasons to oppose a playoff. Its just that the presidents either 1) haven’t been talking about them or; 2) acted like they believed the opposite.
LikeLike
bullet,
It is hypocritical. They grow the season (when they went to 12 and started adding mass numbers of bowl games) at the same time they make the argument they can’t have a playoff because of the wear and tear on the players. Adding a limited playoff would have had an impact on fewer players.
Back when people first started bringing up a playoff, nobody was talking about a limited one. The most common plans were 16 teams or more to match the lower divisions, with games every week like the NFL. That’s 3 more games than the bowl system for some teams, with little rest in between the games. I think it’s legitimate to worry about the abuse of the players in such a system. Their staunch resistance to such a plan is part of why more recent plans have been scaled down.
As for the extra bowls, that did add a 12th (now 13th) game for a lot of teams. Of course, that extra game came after weeks to heal up from the regular season and was intended as a reward.
Their decisions regarding schedules have almost nothing to do with the welfare of the players. When they couch their decisions in those terms it discredits them. In reality its been about power, boosters and most of all, their share of the money.
Says who? Do you have any actual evidence that the presidents don’t care about the players? A quote from one of them or something? It is possible to have multiple reasons for doing something.
There are other examples.
There are. That’s why I said I thought you picked a poor example.
They talk about the value of the regular season, but more and more teams schedule like Alabama, who had Georgia Southern this year and Georgia State, in their 1st year of competition, last year. They schedule games against outmanned teams that noone really wants to see. Georgia scheduled Idaho St. (1-10) last year and Coastal Carolina this year.
The value of the regular season is not predicated on the OOC schedule. It’s about winning in the regular season being really important, unlike in hoops or pro sports, and you know that. As for scheduling, there are several points to keep in mind:
1. You say noone wants to see these games, but attendance numbers say otherwise. Fans in the south and midwest bring these games on themselves by attending them. The P12 plays a tougher schedule because they have to in order to draw fans.
2. The presidents don’t make schedules, the ADs do. They are making the financial decision to buy home wins versus playing more home and homes because Title IX has forced them to support so many worthless sports. The revenue from a home game is too valuable to sacrifice for teams with large stadiums. If the seats didn’t fill, or ticket prices were forced down, then a home game would be less valuable than a good home and home.
3. Part of the recent trend was caused by the move to 12 games. The major schools schedule home and homes way in advance. I think you’ll find most AQs are actually starting to schedule stronger again, with much of the SEC as a clear exception. I saw an AD notice that trend recently. Many conferences have moved or are moving to 9 conference games (ACC, B12, P12), and the B10 has 8 plus the P12 game. If these schools add another home and home, they are playing 10 AQs (11 for P12). That’s not a weak schedule.
4. The real problem with scheduling is that they allowed 1 I-AA win to count towards bowl eligibility. Drop that rule and see what happens to schedules. They won’t transform, but I’d rather see IN play another MAC school than a I-AA. The big boys may still play a I-AA since they aren’t worried about bowl eligibility, but that would change for some of them too if the NCAA moved to 7 wins as the threshold. Probably nothing will stop the AL’s of the world from playing a I-AA. The one possibility is if SOS becomes a major explicit factor in playoff eligibility, but as long as the n umber of wins trumps the quality of wins it won’t change.
They talk about how great the bowl experience is and that there should be more winners as the bowls do, but expand the championship field in every other sport and talk about how valuable the championship level competition is.
They expanded MBB all the way to 68 from 65. That was based on the number of conferences and the negative implications put on the two teams that played in the opening game. I haven’t tracked tournament size in other sports. My guess is they’ve grown as the number of truly competitive teams and the number of fans has grown over time.
It’s isn’t hypocritical to defend different systems for different sports. Both systems have value, no other college sport can pull 100,000 fans like major CFB, and other sports can play more games more quickly than CFB. As for I-A vs I-AA, D-II and D-III, the differences are the size and speed of the players and the tradition of the bowl games. The other levels can’t support a bowl system, so a playoff was their only choice. The physical wear on the players is less because they just don’t hit as hard.
LikeLike
“4. The real problem with scheduling is that they allowed 1 I-AA win to count towards bowl eligibility”
That’s also because of finances/economics. You can blame Title IX if you want, but my suspicion is that without Title IX, most of the money that now goes to women’s sports would have simply been funneled in to the coaches’ salary, facilities, and recruiting arms races. Anyway, any school for whom a guarantee game is profitable would want to allow more FCS games to count towards bowl eligibility, as that would decrease the price of guarantee games.
LikeLike
@Brian
The attendance numbers say people don’t want to see these games. That Idaho St. game was the first non-sellout at UGA in ages. We saw people giving away tickets. Coastal Carolina was worse. Tennessee had lots of empty seats at one of their body-bag games recently. And that’s the SEC!
Texas never played FCS schools (with 1 or 2 last minute schedule change exceptions), but their weak FBS opponents were always easy tickets.
The crowds just aren’t into those games. They are so non-competitive it undermines the entertainment value. In the long run it damages the “brand.”
LikeLike
bullet,
The attendance numbers say people don’t want to see these games.
Actual attendance, maybe, but not paid attendance and that is all that matters. When people stop buying season tickets because of bad games, then it will change.
That Idaho St. game was the first non-sellout at UGA in ages. We saw people giving away tickets. Coastal Carolina was worse. Tennessee had lots of empty seats at one of their body-bag games recently. And that’s the SEC!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/gameflash/2010/11/06/42266_recap.html
UGA/ISU was a sellout, officially. And why should attendance be good when UGA was 4-5 going into the game? It wasn’t all ISU’s fault that there were empty seats. UGA got paid full price for every seat and only paid ISU $525,000. They’ll take that deal forever, especially since the new AD believes in weak schedules.
Texas never played FCS schools (with 1 or 2 last minute schedule change exceptions), but their weak FBS opponents were always easy tickets.
The crowds just aren’t into those games. They are so non-competitive it undermines the entertainment value. In the long run it damages the “brand.”
Until they stop buying the tickets, what fans say they want is irrelevant. They are buying tickets to these games, even if they don’t attend. Stop paying for it, even if it means no season tickets, and then the schools will listen.
LikeLike
If his system had been in place, then the top 8 conference winners in 2011 would have been (in order per the BCS rankings) LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Wisconsin, Clemson, TCU, So. Miss and W. Virginia. The first round of games would have gone something like this:
#8 West Virginia (9-3) at #1 LSU (13-0)
#5 Clemson (10-3) at #4 Wisconsin (11-2)
#7 So. Mississippi (11-2) at #2 Oklahoma State (11-1)
#6 TCU (10-2) at #3 Oregon (11-2)
LikeLike
(And now for something completely different)
http://www.avclub.com/articles/george-lucas-says-han-never-shot-first-you-were-ju,69159/
George Lucas says that Han never shot first, the audience was just confused.
LikeLike
@frug – As a huge Star Wars fan, I could go on for an hour about this.
First, George Lucas is straight-up lying. There’s no confusion. Han shot first in the original. Lucas is trying to retroactively create confusion.
Second, no one would be bothered by his tinkering of the films if he would just freaking acknowledge the existence of the original versions of the trilogy that, you know, made him a billionaire. All he has to do is simply provide the original cuts cleaned up for Blu-Ray as an *option* and everyone will be happy. He can then make as many other special editions to suit his “vision” to his heart’s content.
Third, if Lucas really wants to change his movies, he ought to completely remove Jar Jar Binks from the Phantom Menace. That’s a special edition I’ll gladly pay extra for.
LikeLike
Most of his changes didn’t really bother me. They were unnecessary, but didn’t change anything important. Having Greedo shoot first is ridiculous (really, he misses from 4 feet away?) and completely changes the tone of the film.
It would be even better if he could remove the kid, too. And Hayden Christiansen from the later ones. And rewrite all the dialogue, especially the “romantic” scenes.
The real problem is the Lucas became more and more kid focused with the story, and that’s why he retconned the shooting scene, made teddy bear ewoks and then added JJB.
LikeLike
I think Lucas has been captured by political correctness. Good guys can’t shoot first. 1st of all it was self defense even if he shot 1st so what’s the big deal? 2nd, it IS part of his evolution as the romantics pull him from straddling the middle over away from the dark side. What’s acceptable for kids has changed a lot since Lucas was a kid and Star Wars was an homage to the stuff he watched as a kid, not to Disney Pictures.
LikeLike
I agree that most of Lucas’ changes are more silly than anything (i.e. making the Ewoks blink and adding a “NOOOOOOOO!” when Vader throws the Emperor down the shaft at the end of RotJ) but the one that really does get my blood boiling was putting Hayden Christiansen into the last shot of Return of the Jedi. Never mind that I hated Christiansen anyways, but it made no freaking sense at all. After all, he kept Alec Guiness.
LikeLike
I feel that Lucas relationship with Star Wars is a classic case of the art becoming bigger than the artist. The difference here is, the artist is a billionaire who has access to the technology necessary to bring his art back in check. I think that is real reason he won’t release the unedited versions. He doesn’t want people to watch Star Wars. He wants them to watch George Lucas’ Star Wars.
Contrast that with James Cameron’s thoughts on the rerelease of Titanic:
When asked about making changes in the movie, Cameron joked that he’ll let George Lucas be the filmmaker who goes back to his earlier work and changes things. “That’s an example of what I don’t want to do,” he quipped, then added. “That’s not a slam. I think he considers his movies a perpetual work in progress. For me, the problem is when you pull that thread, it all unravels because where do you stop? For example, I’ve done three expeditions to the Titanic, I’ve done literally hundreds of hours of exploration of the interior of the wreck, always photographing all the stairwells, so I know the places where the film is wrong.”
This is particularly interesting given that Cameron has always regretted including a scene where the captain shoots passengers in the lower decks, which did not happen in real life.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=83123
LikeLike
Now that I think about it, an even better comparison is Steven Spielberg, who chose to only release the unedited version ET on Blu Ray, and admitted that he regrets having ever changed it for the DVD release (even though he also including the unedited version as well)
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/09/spielberg-repents/
LikeLike
The way I see it, there are basically three options for the way the Big East can approach expansion (although several variations on those).
1. National Divisions
The Big East can divide things so that all rivals play each other, but so that the divisions are spread out and non-geographic (ideally promoting interest in the whole conference over a wider area). Here is how I’d picture this looking, but you could switch things around a little.
American———-National
Houston———–SMU
Central Florida—–South Florida
Boise State——–San Diego St.
Rutgers————Louisville
UConn————-Cincinnati
Navy————–Memphis
This approach gives both divisions a team in recruiting rich Florida and Texas and a western team. It preserves the rivalries I think most would say are most important. It’s pretty random though and most people wouldn’t be able to figure it out. Also forget about the idea of a neutral site CCG.
2. Geography Divisions
The Big East is historically an eastern league which has slowly become more national, which is a reason that it might make sense to have an eastern and national division. There would be no crossovers with this set-up.
Eastern National (no locked crossovers)
UConn Boise State
Rutgers San Diego State
Navy SMU
Cincinnati Houston
Louisville UCF
Memphis USF
This set-up has the advantage of no locked crossover games (meaning teams play the rest of the other division more) and in putting all rivals in same divisions (rivalries are bigger when division online). It does create one division with a lot better recruiting grounds though.
3. Old vs. New
There are 5 existing members of the Big East whom you can keep in a division together with one new member. You can put Navy in as it is the furthest east or Central Florida or Memphis. I guess I’d lean toward Central Florida as I don’t think Navy would mind the west as much and since Memphis is the furthest west of the three.
East—————–West
Rutgers————-Boise State
UConn————-SMU
Cincinnati———-Houston
Louisville————Memphis
Central Florida——San Diego St.
South Florida——-Navy
I’ve got crossovers here for the sake of giving Memphis at least one thing it wants, but you could do away with them and everything else would be better. I think this set-up divides the recruiting grounds well and works well for the current schools, but I don’t think the conference will go this way for some reason.
LikeLike
The brand is BIG EAST.
The division names should reflect the brand: BIG Division, and EAST Division.
BIG Division
Boise State
San Diego State
SMU
Houston
Central Florida
South Florida
EAST Division
UCONN
Rutgers
Navy
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
==
The schools in the Big East fit in tidy geographic clusters:
UCONN, Rutgers, and Navy are in the Northeast Corridor, all within driving distance of each other
Cincinnati, Louisville, and Memphis are in the Upper South, all within driving distance of each other.
Central Florida and South Florida are 90 minutes from each other along I-4.
SMU and Houston are in Texas, about 4 hours from each other along I-35.
Boise State and San Diego State are west of the Rocky Mountains.
LikeLike
The chances of the Northeast and Ohio Valley schools agreeing to never playing in either FL or TX permanently is about zero.
LikeLike
With 9 conference games, each BIG EAST team will have 4 crossover opponents.
There are ways to rotate the cross-over games so that each EAST division team will play on the road in two out of the following 3 states every year: Texas, Florida, and California.
LikeLike
That should be “annually”, not “permanently”. In any case, there’s no way the NE & Ohio Valley teams would accept visiting TX, FL, and CA 2 out of 3 years when their opponents can do so 2-3 times a year (and when they can do so 1-2 times a year if FL is in the East and TX is in the West).
The FL and TX schools will be in separate divisions. I’m not sure why you have a problem with that.
LikeLike
@Richard:
Cincinnati and Louisville both want to be in the “East Division” along with UCONN, Rutgers, and Navy.
Furthermore, Louisville wants Memphis in its division.
The only way to keep Louisville happy is to put the Florida schools in the BIG Division with the Texas schools and the western schools.
==
If Louisville were to jump to the XII before 2015, then all bets are off.
However, I don’t see “Boss DeLoss” signing off on XII expansion until Notre Dame comes off the table (by joining the ACC, for example.)
LikeLike
OT:
Do you have any proof of this? Rutgers and UConn want to play in FL. Why would Louisville’s desires outweigh their desires?
LikeLike
not important, but i-45 goes to houston from dallas, not i-35.
now, name the interstate that connects the capital city of austin to the state’s largest city, houston.
is that weird?
LikeLike
sorry. meant that for ot.
LikeLike
“I’ve got crossovers here for the sake of giving Memphis at least one thing it wants, but you could do away with them and everything else would be better. I think this set-up divides the recruiting grounds well and works well for the current schools, but I don’t think the conference will go this way for some reason.”
Why not? Also, Navy would want a close school for a crossover, as it’s flying halfway across the country for it’s other permanent games (and it’s not as if it keys in on FL recruiting), so, match up the FL-TX schools for a crossover, Memphis-Louisville, Navy-RU, and them Cincy & UConn can divide Boise and SDSU between them some how.
LikeLike
Urban Meyer better be prepared to make a run in the next few years. OSU just locked down the schedules for 2012-2014.
2012
Sept. 1 –- Miami (Ohio)
Sept. 8 –- Central Florida
Sept. 15 -– California
Sept. 22 -– Alabama-Birmingham
Sept. 29 -– at Michigan State
Oct. 6 –- Nebraska
Oct. 13 -– at Indiana
Oct. 20 -– Purdue
Oct. 27 –- at Penn State
Nov. 3 –- Illinois
Nov. 10 –- Open
Nov. 17 –- at Wisconsin
Nov. 24 –- Michigan
The OOC slate is winnable, and then how the team has learned the new systems will be tested in the first 2 B10 games. The finishing games are tough, too, but the team should continue to improve during the season. OSU needs to win at least 8 and 9 would be a little disappointing. I’m guessing most fans will expect 10 wins. 11 or 12 would be a great sign for 2013.
2013
Aug. 31 –- Vanderbilt
Sept. 7 –- Florida A&M
Sept. 14 -– at California
Sept. 21 -– Buffalo
Sept. 28 –- Wisconsin
Oct. 5 –- at Northwestern
Oct. 12 -– Open
Oct. 19 –- Iowa
Oct. 26 –- Penn State
Nov. 2 –- at Purdue
Nov. 9 –- Open
Nov. 16 –- at Illinois
Nov. 23 –- Indiana
Nov. 30 –- at Michigan
Two AQs OOC, but both are winnable. Yet another tough B10 opener (that’s 3 in a row), but then the schedule is pretty open until The Game at MI. There will be high hopes for that year, with 10 wins a disappointment and 11 wins still below the expectations of many.
2014
Aug. 30 –- at Navy
Sept. 6 –- Open
Sept. 13 –- Kent State
Sept. 20 -– Virginia Tech
Sept. 27 -– Cincinnati
Oct. 4 –- Purdue
Oct. 11 –- Open
Oct. 18 –- at Iowa
Oct. 25 –- Northwestern
Nov. 1 -– at Wisconsin
Nov. 8 –- Illinois
Nov. 15 –- at Penn State
Nov. 22 –- at Indiana
Nov. 29 –- Michigan
Back to back AQs OOC, but both are at home. Finally a midrange B10 opener reappears. The bye week is really early, meaning 7 straight games to finish. November will be especially tough.
This should be Braxton miller’s senior year, so fans will expect a lot (again). With the tougher schedule, I’d say most fans will expect 10 or 11 wins.
LikeLike
I think if there is a season in there to most hope/expect a great season it’s 2013. Non-conference isn’t a cake walk, but manageable. In conference we get both Wisconsin and Penn State at home and play Illinois after a bye week. All of those should help us in divisional play and hopefully get us to the Big Ten championship game. Michigan in Ann Arbor jumps out as the toughest part for right now.
LikeLike
Interesting article discussing some of the other issues regarding a playoff beyond the number of teams, including its impact on schedules.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stuart_mandel/2012/02/10/bcs-playoff-strength-of-schedule/
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/10/bcs-playoff-strength-of-schedule/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
Your link failed for me, so maybe mine will work for others.
I fully agree with Swarbrick about SOS.
“I hope that with whatever future model emerges, strength of schedule is an important factor,” said Swarbrick. “Putting greater emphasis on that is good for the strength of the game.”
I liked the old days when it was a part of the BCS formula. I think they should shift to using the computer models to evaluate how much each team has accomplished in the season (rather than trying to rank how good they are) since that is where the human bias really kicks in. Then let a committee consider all the relevant factors in picking and seeding teams.
LikeLike
I’m not on Twitter (and don’t ever plan to be), so will reply here:
JLin would be like Tebow if Tebow was an undrafted rookie from Harvard who came out of nowhere to lead his team to victory by throwing pinpoint 30-yard strikes down the field.
What Lin has (vision, great change-of-pace, handles, balance, coolness under pressure, and bball IQ) tells me he’ll be a good point guard for a long time. I’m not convinced that a QB can pass the ball as inaccurately as Tebow and win long-term in the NFL.
LikeLike
@Richard – I agree. The main comparison between Jeremy Lin and Tim Tebow is the extent of the media coverage and how they’re really perfect topics for this age of blogs/Twitter.
Otherwise, as I discussed with some people yesterday, the best on-the-field comparison (assuming Lin can keep this up) is Kurt Warner. He was undrafted, kicked around the Arena Football League and NFL Europe for a few years, and then came out of completely nowhere to lead the Rams to the Super Bowl.
I’m half-Chinese, so I’ve been following Lin for awhile. I actually saw him play with Harvard in college versus Penn (my sister and a couple of my cousins went to Penn, so I wanted to see a game at the Palestra during a visit) and we were excited to see a Chinese-American (as opposed to a Chinese national such as Yao Ming) actually being a go-to guy on a Division I team.
Regardless, this is a story that Hollywood couldn’t make up: undrafted Asian kid from Harvard that’s sleeping on his brother’s couch right now, was in the D-league about month ago, probably was going to be cut if there weren’t some injuries, grabbing the starting job with some 20-point games, Kobe Bryant dismisses him in the media, and and then he drops 38 on Kobe and the Lakers at Madison Square Garden. Right place at the right time in the right system (D’antoni’s pick and roll heavy system) on a marquee franchise in the biggest media market. Truly unbelievable.
LikeLike
Hi Frank,
Yep, I agree that Kurt Warner is an apt comparison. Both went to small schools (where they lit up the league). Yet both were undrafted & overlooked. Both were cut several times and bounced around in the “minors” (where they both did well).
I’m Chinese-American & from Taiwan as well, so I knew of Jeremy Lin; I never saw him play in person but from highlights, felt he could contribute in the NBA as a high-energy guy (on the offensive end) coming off the bench by getting in to position for good looks, utilizing mismatches, & finding open teammates. I knew he didn’t have the Kobe-like ability to make any shot from any place on the floor against any defender one-on-one. I wasn’t expecting the highest scoring total over the first 3 starts of a career for any player since the NBA-ABA merger.
You can really see Lin’s value when he has good complimentary parts to play off of (a big man adept at the pick-and-roll, a couple of spot-up shooters who can hit open jumpers, and some guys who can defend). I think Amare Stoudemire would fit just fine (so long as he’s psychologically recovered) as he did well in D’Antoni’s system with the Suns & Steve Nash running the point, and he adds another shot-blocker in the lane to Tyson Chandler. ‘Melo is another question; if he looks, passes, & cuts quickly, he’d be an improvement, but if he disrupts the offense with his isolation game, the Knicks may be better off without Carmelo Anthony.
LikeLike
BTW, he’s pretty funny too (or at least his friends who directed this are): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yVnKQNj58
LikeLike
Jeremy Lin might be better off playing in the CBA instead of the NBA next season.
Don’t think the Knicks can afford to keep him, and don’t believe anyone else in the NBA can either.
The likes of Shanghai Sharks (Yao Ming’s old team) or GuangDong Tigers might be a better fit for him.
(One CBA team that will never touch Lin is the BaYi Rockets. BaYi is the Chinese equivalent of CSKA Moscow, as BaYi is owned by the People’s Liberation Army.)
LikeLike
Huh? How much do you think the CBA can afford to pay him? Are the riches there why Yao Ming decided to play in the NBA?
LikeLike
@OT – There are plenty of teams that can afford Lin next year, including the crosstown soon-to-be Brooklyn Nets and the Dallas Mavericks (who have a ton of cap room opening up after this season). It’s not as if though he’s going to get a max contract like Dwight Howard.
LikeLike
The Mavs actually had him in camp as a rookie and reluctantly released him. There was some talk at the time about how impressive he was. I’m sure the Mavs would love to have him back.
LikeLike
Jeremy can’t Lin them all. The Knicks fall to my New Orleans Hornets in their Mardi Gras gear. The Hornets are currently riding their longest winning streak of the season – 3 games.
Break up the Hornets!
Oh yeah, that already happened in December.
LikeLike
Since the ACC announced it will go to a 9 game schedule (apparently in 2013), one thing I’ve seen and heard discussed is the impact that will have on OOC rivalries (in part because it’s assumed the SEC will also go to 9 games in the future). There is some talk that UGA/GT, SC/Clemson and UF/FSU could move earlier in the year rather than being season ending games. The thought is that you really don’t want such an emotionally charged game the week before the CCG that doesn’t factor into the race.
The only impact of adding a ninth game on this is that these teams are now guaranteed 10 AQ opponents each year instead of 9 (Clemson and FSU already play 10 regularly, and UGA used to but is getting away from it). I’m not sure how much it really helps to play your OOC rival early since you’ll be playing a division opponent the week before the CCG with the division race on the line. At least in years when you can’t win the division you can have a game left that can salvage the season.
I just don’t see any significant benefit to moving the games.
LikeLike
One reason Miami/FSU play early is so that the loser can recover in the polls.
But from a fan and player standpoint it makes sense to have the rival at the end. Fans care even if both teams aren’t very good. For the players, its a game to build up to.
LikeLike
That’s also a conference game, and the ACC keeps hoping one or both of them will win their division.
LikeLike
Frank,
How can you leave out the huge difference in revenue the ACC will see compared to the Pac12, Big 10, Big 12, and the SEC?
You are right, UVA, UNC, Duke, don’t care because they have many alumni that can drop $50 when they feel like it and they have athletic endowments that only trail Stanford (the first school to start an athletic endowment), but FSU does NOT have that.
So how do FSU and Clemson who are supposedly trying the carry the water for ACC football (ie trying to win national titles) do this when ever football school out there has $5-$20 more each per school than FSU/Clemson?
The answer is they don’t are can’t. This is a sure fire strategy to turn these schools into has beens. Maybe they don’t care and will just settle, but future TV contracts will hog tie these schools into oblivion. Why do they care UVA and UNC are financially set…..Clemson/FSU aren’t.
Reality says they are either accepting they will be like current Big East teams (ie COMPLETELY irrelevant) in football or they are too stupid to see they have to move on to find the funds to compete in football.
LikeLike
I wonder the same. Why would Clemson and FSU think they could compete for national titles with such a severe financial disparity with literally every non ACC BCS school?
LikeLike
Florida State is getting the recruits. They are just not maximizing it.
If you are those two schools, why not wait for the SEC? All the $$$ of the Big XII… better geography… more stability.
LikeLike
Yes, FSU is getting recruits now.
When these TV contracts kick in and the financial disparity starts to add year after year and facilities start to seperate greatly and coaches from ACC football schools get poached. How will the recruiting be in 5 or 10 years?
SEC schools, and others simply have to go to Clemson and FSU and double the salaries of the best recruiters EVERY year. It will have a SEVERE impact.
Really respect Frank and this site, but he is missing a HUGE issue here and I am not sure why.
LikeLike
While I agree that the lure of the Big 12 is largely being downplayed a little and the conference is in a lot better shape than it’s often credited, I also don’t think the disadvantages for Florida State and Clemson are that severe.
TV money will be lacking compared to others, but that’s only one issue. Direct donations to the athletic department still are a part and even if FSU and Clemson aren’t as effective as others, they are more effective when winning which is easier in the ACC. Florida State is the 2nd biggest school in Florida and will always attract talent in the state. It’s bound to rebound even if it doesn’t return to dominance and better seasons in the ACC will help with donations more than worse seasons in the Big 12.
Again I think the Big 12 is a lot more stable now than credited and think it’s possible Florida State and Clemson go (even if odds definitely against). I think the TV contract isn’t a quite make or break though too (but is an influence).
LikeLike
But I do agree, Clemson and FSU are idiotic to ignore the Big 12.
What they can’t do is sit back and take 50% of the revenue of their competitors and deal the all the HORRIBLE moves of the basketball only ACC conference.
Frank says this conference is stable. I promise you…..5 years into this HORRIBLE contract situation and the continuation of the officiating/scheduling issues. It will NOT be.
LikeLike
You seem not to know this, but FSU already operates at a considerable financial disparity to UF, and it doesn’t seem to affect their recruiting any. Currently, FSU pulls in 19M in football revenues; UF pulls in 69M:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/
Also, 50% of which competitors? FSU pretty much never competes with B12 or Pac12 teams for recruits, and the SEC is locked in to their TV contract for many years as well. Yes, they’ll get a bump from adding TAMU & Mizzou, but I doubt it’s going to bump up their annual per school TV payout to $28M or more.
LikeLike
Horrible moves? The ACC’s only big mistake was the way it did its divisions, which is extremely confusing for anyone who lives outside of my part of the country (and for many who do live around here). Otherwise, what was the ACC supposed to do? It’s not John Swofford’s or the the institutions themselves’ fault that the football teams underperformed and got a weaker contract in 2010 than it would have; they were fortunate to get the contract they did get, considering the football teams’ performances over the past several years, although it’s now under market.
The additions of Virginia Tech and Miami were the best moves imaginable (outside of impossible additions like Penn State or Florida) at the time; it’s just that no one could have foreseen Miami’s dive into mediocrity.
West Virginia was never truly on the table, regardless of what “The Dude” says. The ACC has strong schools from top to bottom, and WVU would have been an extreme outlier. The best schools to add were Syracuse and Pitt because Big Ten and SEC schools were not options, at least within the realm of reality.
I say the ACC has done the best it can with the cards it has had.
LikeLike
One problem with that scenario is that the SEC is most likely never going to want them. They overlap with UF and USCe. The geography issue is not as big a deal if the B12 expands further and adds other schools from the south and east. That may never happen, expanding beyond 12, but it would help with the geography. And as for stability, the schools in the B12 have begun signing over their tv rights to the conference. None of them are going anywhere anytime soon and with the addition of schools like FSU and Clemson the conference becomes that much more stable.
A&M’s reason for leaving had more to do with doing what was best for them than it did with the stability of the B12. The same could be said of Mizzou as well. They joined the SEC more than they left the B12. The only other schools in the B12 with that option are UT and OU but neither seem interested in the SEC at all. Thus all the canoodling with the Pac the last couple of years.
It seems like the biggest question for FSU and Clemson is whether they believe that the ACC is committed to being a profitable fball and bball conference rather than a profitable bball conference that plays fball. The ACC has become more like the BE with their latest moves, what does that tell you?
LikeLike
If Clemson and Florida State would just WIN like they are capable of, then the ACC football brand will return.
Money didn’t make Clemson collapse down the stretch and embarrass itself in the Orange Bowl. What has Clemson done in the past few decades anyway? Money didn’t make Florida State go all these years without a 10-win season. Miami hasn’t done squat since leaving the Big East.
While Syracuse and Pitt have underperformed in the past 10 years (Syracuse) and relative to talent (Pitt), it’s not like the kings of the ACC have room to complain. Syracuse and Pitt are trying to do it on $10M less per year between them and EVERY AQ school. Right now, the $$$ gap between those schools and the ACC is far greater than the gap between Clemson and FSU & the SEC/Big XII.
Besides, what else can the ACC do? West Virginia was the best target–but it’s not like West Virginia is a football king. The SEC took Missouri and Texas A&M for markets. West Virginia’s market is dwarfed by those markets. The ACC’s markets brought by Syracuse and Pitt have far more potential to be lucrative financially.
I will always say that the perfect expansion for the ACC to 16 teams is Notre Dame and West Virginia. WVU’s academics would be offset by Notre Dame’s. And that would juice up football. But that ship has sailed and/or not ready to sail.
If the ACC kings can get their performances up to par, then the ACC will make $$$. In the meantime, $$$ is just a lame excuse for underperforming.
LikeLike
In other words, you cannot have it both ways, re: money.
If a narrow monetary gap justifies poor performance by FSU, Miami, and Clemson, imagine what Syracuse and Pitt have faced trying to do it on a few million dollars. Why not wait to see if Syracuse and Pitt can get back to what they have proven that they can be. Neither are kings, but both are capable of providing viewership due to long history and general brand.
I don’t see it as a basketball move anyway. I see it as a toss-up as to which academically qualified schools to take for football purposes & then allowing tradition/markets/basketball to break the tie.
LikeLike
The Arizona’s president’s plan would have been great if it were instituted 5 or 10 years ago.
If the 8 highest conference champs were granted entry to the playoffs, realignment would have happened differently. The BE teams wouldn’t have to act like rats leaving a sinking ship. CUSA and MWC could have established themselves as true mid-majors.
I still basically like the plan. Have the quarter finals on campus. Have the semis at the Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl. Have the Rose be the highest remaining teams of the BIG and Pac 12. Have the Sugar have the highest remaining SEC team vs. whomever gives the best matchup.
It puts a true emphasis on the regular season and the first Alabama vs LSU game as “all important” as it should have been.
As it is, this plan won’t fly because of all of the recent movement. All the teams that moved from Nebraska to Pitt to TCU to Memphis moved for what they perceived to be a long lasting benefit. Moving to this system now may cause more chaos not more stability.
Again, if this plan were in place before all of the recent realignment, I think it would be virtually perfect.
LikeLike
I don’t think this system would have had any real impact on what happened with the Big 5 conferences. Utah and Colorado would still have wanted to go to the Pac. Nebraska would have still gone to the B1G. The SEC would still have supersized with Missouri and A&M. And Pitt and SU would almost certainly still have gone to the ACC. The Big 12 would have re-loaded. CU moved to get closer to their alumni. Pretty much everyone else moved for better TV money coupled with stability.
There would have been an impact on the non-AQs. And the Big East might not have been able to poach as easily. But it would have made no difference at the top.
LikeLike
Plus, a lot of these conferences were going to want to go to 12 for the CCG money/setup (since the setup itself helps the lesser teams that only need to beat out 5 other teams in a 12 team conference to get to the CCG). The Pac-12 needed exposure to move East, etc.
The addition of the CCG is a big part of why everything changed. That and exploding TV contracts made more inventory all the more important (as well as the conference/school networks).
I definitely agree that the stuff affecting the Big 5 likely wouldn’t have changed. Big East versus MWC/C-USA etc. is more interesting.
LikeLike
Conference networks, yes. School channel? How is UT, OU, or whoever keeping and profiting from those rights an attraction, except to the desperate?
LikeLike
Notre Dame is using the threat of starting its own TV network to force Comcast (NBC Sports Group) into buying its rights to men’s ice hockey home games in addition to its home and “neutral site” football games.
(The threat of starting its own TV network is the most powerful bargaining chip for Notre Dame, not actually having its own TV network.)
BYU is making money from selling sponsorships to its football games on BYUtv. Furthermore, BYU is using BYUtv to exert control over the West Coast Conference, which does not have the resources to start a conference TV network.
==
ESPN, Inc. will eventually force Time Warner Cable to carry the Longhorn Network. That could take 3 to 5 years, as Time Warner Cable renewed with Disney/ESPN, Inc. before Longhorn Network was launched.
LikeLike
OT:
ND (assuming your speculation’s accurate) and BYU are examples of school channel discouraging conference affiliation and changes, not inciting it.
LikeLike
ESPN, Inc. will eventually force Time Warner Cable to carry the Longhorn Network.
Given that the NFL still can’t get the NFL Network on Time Warner after 8+ years, I wouldn’t be so sure about that…
LikeLike
@Frank: I am surprised that you mentioned that you are half Chinese.
It is hard to tell that from your picture.
LikeLike
Heh. Frank isn’t a Major Leaguer who played in the ’70’s.
LikeLike
@Penn State Denny – Half-Chinese (grandparents moved from mainland China to Taiwan, where my mom was born) and half-Polish. In other words, I look nothing like Oscar Gamble.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1157705.html
Pete Fiutak makes the argument for only conference champs in a 4 team playoff (independents count since they won a conference of 1).
LikeLike
Well, the SEC would definitely be against Fiutak’s proposal. ND almost certainly would be against enshrining privilege for conference champions (even if it gives them a way in now, they can see which route this will go in the future). ACC may be for it. B12 & Pac desires are unknown.
LikeLike
ND almost certainly would be against enshrining privilege for conference champions (even if it gives them a way in now, they can see which route this will go in the future)
Where do you come up with this? Nobody is ever going to make a rule that locks ND out of the postseason. Why sacrifice value and stir up trouble for a spot ND has shown no ability to fill anyway?
LikeLike
His argument convinces me even more that it shouldn’t be only conference champs. That plan lets some dogs in there.
It does make a reasonable argument that we shouldn’t use the flawed BCS rankings (most recent example-Stanford ahead of Oregon).
LikeLike
His argument helped convince me that it should be only conference champs. In 11 of the 14 seasons, the 4 highest rated conference champs were all ranked in the top 6. The lowest ranked team to get in was Wisconsin this past season and I would have been glued to the tv to see how they matched up with LSU in a playoff. I didn’t care to watch this year’s rematch.
Most of the controversy with the BCS involves teams that didn’t win their conference. A playoff of champions makes the regular season more important and eliminates most of the controversy.
LikeLike
Agree.
But only if a playoff is unavoidable.
LikeLike
Yes please, conference champions only.
The CCGs should be qualifying matches for the semi-finals. If you can’t win your conference, then you don’t deserve to advance.
LikeLike
But what if it is a co-champ decided by a tie-breaker?
LikeLike
Then come up with better tiebreakers or tough crap. I assume you’re thinking about the B12S in 2008 with the three way tie, since nobody seems likely to face the old B10 co-champ problems (and if they do, they should blame their conference). If the B12 had better tiebreakers, maybe UT would have won the division. However, all they had to do was beat TT and then there would be no issue. If you lose a conference game, you deservedly lose control of your fate.
LikeLike
There’s certainly no guarantee we don’t have the Big 10 co-champ issue. Iowa and Ohio State both went unbeaten in conference one year. What if the Big 12 expands to 11, or to 12 w/o a championship game? What if Boise and Houston or Louisville or Rutgers both go unbeaten in the not yet 12 team Big East?
We could have had a 3 way tie in the SEC West this year if one game went differently. Should 2,3 and 4 loss teams be put in ahead of 1 loss teams because they had easier competition (as would happen if we had an 8 game playoff with only conference champs)? You could have an 8 team tourney with possibly the best team left out in 2008 and 2011 (not that Alabama could make that argument legitimately before their 2nd LSU game).
Practically, I don’t see it having any more chance than a 16 team playoff. They’ve refused to do it before with only 2 teams, and the SEC and Big 12 would oppose it, and the Big 10 probably would as well. The Pac would be the biggest beneficiary of that rule in a 4 team playoff, so its not that big a surprise ASU likes that idea.
LikeLike
bullet,
There’s certainly no guarantee we don’t have the Big 10 co-champ issue. Iowa and Ohio State both went unbeaten in conference one year. What if the Big 12 expands to 11, or to 12 w/o a championship game? What if Boise and Houston or Louisville or Rutgers both go unbeaten in the not yet 12 team Big East?
There’s no guarantee, no. Good tiebreakers would still select the correct team. If not, the team can blame their own conference and push for changes.
We could have had a 3 way tie in the SEC West this year if one game went differently. Should 2,3 and 4 loss teams be put in ahead of 1 loss teams because they had easier competition (as would happen if we had an 8 game playoff with only conference champs)?
Yes, especially since we really don’t know if they had easier competition. If you don’t win your conference, tough crap. I have no sympathy for you. And as Fiutak’s column showed, the “worst” team that would have made it over the past 14 years was #10 WI this year. That’s hardly a travesty. Now, realignment has largely taken the MWC and WAC and CUSA out of the mix, so their are fewer champs to pick from so things might change a little. It’s hard to imagine not having 4 good champs or independents, though. I suppose you could put in a cutoff rule, so the champs have to be in the top X teams or the highest ranked non-champ gets in instead. The difference is that you want X to be 4 and I’d say it should be more like 10.
You could have an 8 team tourney with possibly the best team left out in 2008 and 2011 (not that Alabama could make that argument legitimately before their 2nd LSU game).
Too bad. If they are really the best team in the country, they should win their conference.
Practically, I don’t see it having any more chance than a 16 team playoff. They’ve refused to do it before with only 2 teams, and the SEC and Big 12 would oppose it, and the Big 10 probably would as well. The Pac would be the biggest beneficiary of that rule in a 4 team playoff, so its not that big a surprise ASU likes that idea.
Yes, the practical side is a different story. I think the ACC, BE, B10, P12, MWCUSA, MAC, WAC, Sun Belt and independents might support it. The SEC definitely wouldn’t, and the B12 might not. Everyone else sees how much the rankings overrate the SEC and B12, though, and don’t want to have their playoff chances tainted by that. They’ll have to split the money anyway, so they might as well split the bids.
LikeLike
Remember how not all that long ago, many people questioned whether the Big East football schools should have split off from the Big East basketball schools? Frank even wrote a whole post about it in the fall: “No Split For You! Netflix, Qwikster, and… .”
Now I can’t help but wonder whether the Big East non-football scholar have much incentive to remain with the football members. UCF, Houston, and SMU are lousy basketball replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU. Memphis is a solid program to help mitigate those losses, but Memphis may in effect only serve as a replacement for Louisville. If that hapens to become the case, Memphis, Cincinnati, and UConn, would be the only football schools who aren’t dead weight in basketball.
Is it worth it for the Catholic schools to stick with the football members in a massive conference from which they DO NOT receive football revenue? It so, what are their motives for staying with them? Does affiliation with UConn, Memphis, and Cincinnati outweigh the drawbacks of of USF, UCF, Rutgers, Houston, and SMU? Does Villanova desire affiliation because of a hope to upgrade directly to the Big East football league?
LikeLike
Apologies for the typos such as “scholar” instead of “schools.” Again, Droids plus WordPress equals problems.
Anyway, what are the prosand cons of the Catholic basketball staying with the hodge-podge of football schools, of which only Rutgers (a non-factor in basketball) and UConn remain as members from just 8 years ago? Do the seven Catholic scoops not named Notre Dame fear losing affiliation with the Irish if they split off, leaving the Irish to stick with the football members or to join elsewhere? Is there some TV value in basketball that I’m failing to see for them to be in a leaguevwiyh schools in Texas and Florida, evben if said schools are terrible at basketball and don’t garner much local attention?
LikeLike
If the Catholic schools were to split off, the spin-off conference becomes the equivalent of the Atlantic 10: a mid-major conference with not much brand power and tiny TV revenue.
(Remember the fly-by-night basketball-centric league that was the Great Midwest Conference? That lasted only 5 years before it was re-absorbed by the Metro Conference to create Conference USA 1.0.)
The prestige of being in a “Power” conference still has cachet value to recruits.
The BIG EAST will land a fat TV contract from either ESPN, Inc. or Comcast/NBC Sports Group.
The Catholic schools screwed up once when they refused to admit Penn State. They aren’t about to screw up a 2nd time.
LikeLike
What OT said. Plus, what advantages would the BE bball schools gain from separating from the football schools? I can’t really see any. UConn, Memphis, (and currently, Louisville) would indeed be the only football schools in the BE that are bball brand names; but amongst the bball-only schools, only Georgetown & Villanova are brand-names as well. With their current setup, purely on the bball, they can sell TV execs on a decent number of brands names + a presence in a ton of media markets east of the Rockies (currently, 5-6 brand names, depending on whether you count ND, and 7 of the top 10 markets, respectively). Split from the football schools, and that drops down to 2-3 brand names and 4 of the top 10 markets). I don’t see how a school like Providence would think that’s more advantageous.
LikeLike
They would get more home games against big draws if they split (assuming UL leaves). The other issue is whether or not the media markets the other schools bring outweighs the watering down of the conference.
LikeLike
Huh? With 17 teams, the BE teams will play everyone once a year (& 2 opponents twice). If the bball schools split, they’ll play everyone twice. However, the number of big draws will go down from 5-6 to 2-3, so there’s no gain, unless you’re counting St. John’s, DePaul, and Providence as big draws.
Also, I don’t know why you’re assuming Louisville’s leaving yet.
LikeLike
I think it’s kind of an insult to Marquette to put Providence ahead of them as a “big draw.” They’ve had some pretty strong teams over the past several years, whereas I don’t remember the last time Providence was any good.
LikeLike
I put the statement about Louisville in because you had listed them parenthetically with the phrase “and currently”, which I interpreted as meaning you were expecting them to leave.
As for the other point, you are right. Though it is worth noting that UCONN has said they will accept an invite to any other AQ conference so basing decisions on their continued presence is a risky proposition.
LikeLike
Mike, that’s my point. Outside of Gtown and ‘Nova, none of the bball-only schools in the BE are big draws. Maybe Marquette, though, even though they get high attendance and are one of the highest-revenue bball programs, I don’t see them as a national brand in bball. I grew up in southern Illinois and then moved to Chicagoland, but even though Milwaukee is almost close enough to be considered a suburb of Chicago, I almost never saw them on TV (while Gtown, Syracuse, ND, and Louisville were on all the time).
LikeLike
Frug:
Well, the bball-only schools can always split if UConn leaves. What do they gain from splitting preemptively?
LikeLike
I don’t actually think splitting (at this time) would be a good idea and I don’t think they will. I’m just saying that it is at least plausible, and something to think about for the future if things keep changing.
LikeLike
@Michael – Notre Dame alone is absolutely enough of a draw to keep the Catholic schools in a hybrid Big East. The only way that the Catholic schools would split off is if ND comes with them, which likely wouldn’t happen. The Irish are that important – I was at DePaul Law right before they joined the Big East and it was a long-time institutional priority to get into that league specifically and solidify their relationship with South Bend. I’ll reiterate the thoughts from others that a Catholic-only league would end up being Atlantic 10-esque, which they don’t want to happen. The Big East Catholic schools are essentially getting BCS-level status for basketball without having any football programs, which is a massive benefit.
LikeLike
It also bears noting that all of this was talked about between the football and non-football schools before invitations went out. If the non-football members wanted to split, the easiest way would have probably been to reject any all sports members and make the football schools go their own way if they wanted new all sports member. That didn’t happen at all, which suggest the Catholic schools believe being attached to a strong football league is important and were willing to make concessions to keep it even if their ties to most the remaining football members are greatly diminished.
LikeLike
I asked about this in another thread and you gave a similar answer about ND, but I’m still not sure how much being linked to ND was worth. I mean Depaul didn’t accept the Big East invite because the Irish were in it, they accept the invite because the Big East was better than C-USA. Sure it was nice that ND was there, but that was maybe the fourth biggest (at beast) reason that they switched behind money, prestige, exposure and probably a bunch of others.
As much as the Catholic schools love being in a conference with Notre Dame, I don’t think keeping the Irish around is going to be enough to dissuade them from bolting if they think the pastures are greener without UCF and SMU.
LikeLike
As I asked before, though, how are games against Providence and DePaul more attractive than games against UCF & SMU? OK, excluding ND, here’s the new BE lineup of football and non-football schools in order of bball brands:
UConn — Gtown
Memphis — Villanova
Louisville — Marquette
Cincy — St. John’s
Houston, RU, USF, UCF, SMU vs. DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence
Are you telling me that the bball of the bball-only schools, overall, is better than that of the football-schools? At most, they’re equal, and by sticking to the football schools, the bball schools are seen as being part of a major league (as opposed to a mid-major like the A-10, which they would be with only 2 brands in Gtown and ‘Nova) & can get decent money from TV execs because they can boast 5 major bball brands (or 6, counting ND) & a presence in 7 of the top 10 media markets east of the Rockies (as opposed to 4 of 10 without the football schools).
LikeLike
Lower travel costs and traditional rivalries to begin with. And I would argue that Providence and Seton Hall still have marginally more drawing power than SMU and UCF if no other reason than for their association with the Big East.
All that said, I do feel it is highly unlikely we will see a split in the near future. The Memphis invite was clearly a bone tossed to the BB schools.
LikeLike
What frug said. I’d add that Providence and DePaul have a much richer bball history as well.
When will DePaul ever get their next Ray Meyer? The state of their bball since he retired is mind boggling. A good school from Chicago with that history? How can they continue to screw this up?
LikeLike
Rhetorical question. I’m sure it has been discussed A LOT on this blog.
LikeLike
@joe4PSU
I would never claim that Providence or DePaul have a richer basketball history than Houston.
LikeLike
@loki,
Houston had a nice run during a short period of time, Phi Slamma Jamma, but DePaul was a top 25 level program for years under Ray Meyer. The Providence reference was based on BE membership more than actual accomplishments. Withdrawn. 🙂
LikeLike
Concentrating on just DePaul then, Houston has five FFs to DePaul’s two. Their success began long before phi slamma jamma as far back as the ‘Game of the Century’ when they beat Alcindor and UCLA at the Astrodome. Elvin Hayes led them to two FFS. So their success period was also about 25 years.
LikeLike
I have to admit that I forgot about E. That success was more like 40 years ago though.
LikeLike
I’m sure this will be dismissed but, the PAC is about to get seriously paid. There is an arms race in college sports for TV money. Of course for everyone but the ACC, who’s members are happy to be making far, far less.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pac12confidential/2016090641_pac-12_networks_how_to_get_rich_quick.html
LikeLike
A note: That 40M subscriber base is almost certainly a potential base (including basic & sports tiers availability), akin to the BTN’s 73M potential base (BTN has 40M on basic tier). I seriously doubt most cable companies will put the PTN on basic tier outside the Pac12 footprint. However, the PTN almost certainly will get on DirecTV & Dish at some point too.
LikeLike
I think that is the current subscriber base within the footprint for the four cable companies. That is aprox what I remember them saying last year when the P12N and Media Enterprises was announced. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were 40+ million household subscribers in the six states.
LikeLike
Seems a bit unlikely. BTN has 40M on basic tier. The 9 B10 states have more population than the 6 Pac states. Those 4 cable providers don’t account for all pay TV subscribers in the 6 Pac states (I’m sure DirectTV has a big chunk and Dish has a share as well + there are other cable providers), so a significantly larger percentage of the population in the Pac12 states would have to subscribe to cable than in the B10 states who subscribe to cable & satellite for that to be true.
Or those 4 cable companies are putting the PTN on basic everywhere outside the 6 Pac states as well.
OK, that isn’t the case:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/01/17/pac-12-conference-updates-on-the-leagues-business-affairs-2/
Considering that the Pac12 states have about 62M people and on average, a household has 2.5 people in the US, there can’t be 40M cable households in the 6 Pac states, even if every household in those 6 states had cable.
LikeLike
I wonder how much of the strength of the B10 in basketball this year is due to the BTN as well. With its own cable network, every school in the league can guarantee to all bball recruits in the B10 states (and anywhere people can get DirecTV as well certain metropolitan areas outside the B10 states) that their parents/friends can see them play every league game (virtually all games except the ones against scrub teams in November, in fact). That has to help when recruiting against BE schools, B12 schools, and other top teams.
I’m sure the Pac12 network can’t come soon enough for the Pac12 bball coaches.
LikeLike
I have seen quotes from Pac coaches, especially in nonrevenue sports, state that they had lost recruits to the B1G specifically because of the BTN.
PS: I concede your numbers above are logical. But I doubt the Pac cares too much about a specific number. More are likely to be added, and there is no partner to have to split with. (I wonder if restaurants, bars, hotels, motels etc. make up a significant percentage of subscriber numbers. Are they included in “household” numbers?).
LikeLike
http://atlanta.sbnation.com/georgia-bulldogs/2012/2/13/2793162/auburn-georgia-alabama-tennessee-sec-football schedules
Elimination of rivalries still up in air. Writer hits the nail on what makes SEC football special and how the SEC administration is forgetting this chasing $ in the shorter term.
LikeLike
http://atlanta.sbnation.com/georgia-bulldogs/2012/2/13/2793162/auburn-georgia-alabama-tennessee-sec-football-schedules
Elimination of rivalries still up in air. Writer hits the nail on what makes SEC football special and how the SEC administration is forgetting this chasing $ in the shorter term.
LikeLike
Link in 1st post is missing a dash-use the 2nd.
LikeLike
On another note, what’s the Vegas line on Brice Weber keeping his job after this season? I know you’re an Illni, Frank. Been hearing anything?
LikeLike
bullet,
Writer hits the nail on what makes SEC football special
Cheating?
LikeLike
The SEC wants to drive UGa (and UF) or Tennessee (and UK) to the B10?
OK, pipedream, though if they eliminate the cross-divisional rivalry games, UGa & UF would literally not have any historic annual SEC rivalries left besides with each other. If FSU & GTech join with those 2, they’d still have spots in heir OOC schedule left for neutral site games or UGa-Auburn.
LikeLike
I suppose, but then you run the risk of accomplishing the same here.
As a Michigan fan though, MSU and OSU are the only in-conference musts, though I would miss the rest of the traditional Big Ten (and Nebraska!).
LikeLike
Gophers get no love? You guys at least have a history with Minny (really, the entire B10).
SCarolina & Mizzou are new. UGa only played Tennessee 6 times from 1938-1987 & UK never before 1939. UF only played Tennessee 6 times in the regular season from 1956-1989 & UK 7 times before 1948. SCarolina & Mizzou are new. Neither school has anything approaching a rivalry with Vandy.
LikeLike
Interesting article from Pete Fiutak about what the playoffs would have looked like if the four teams selected would have been conference champions only with Notre Dame getting an autobid if it were ranked in the top 4 of the BCS (the poll he used). Here’s the link to the article:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1157705.html
Here’s the results from the proposal comparing what it would look like if the top four teams were taken versus what would happen if the top four conference winners were selected:
2011
What It Would’ve Been
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
What It Should’ve Been
1. LSU (Ranked 1, SEC)
2. Oklahoma State (3, Big 12)
3. Oregon (5, Pac-12)
4. Wisconsin (10, Big Ten)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Alabama and Stanford didn’t even win their own divisions, much less their respective conferences. Oregon won the Pac-12 title but would’ve have been in.
2010
What It Would’ve Been
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Stanford
What It Should’ve Been
1. Auburn (1, SEC)
2. Oregon (2, Pac-12)
3. TCU (3, Mountain West)
4. Wisconsin (5, Big Ten)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Stanford didn’t win its own division but it would’ve gotten in over a red-hot Wisconsin team that was blowing through everything in its path.
2009
What It Would’ve Been
1. Alabama
2. Texas
3. Cincinnati
4. TCU
What It Should’ve Been
1. Alabama (1, SEC)
2. Texas (2, Big 12)
3. Cincinnati (3, Big East)
4. TCU (4, Mountain West)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: No. 6 Boise State would’ve been angry, but it would’ve been a clean Final Four with four unbeaten teams.
2008
What It Would’ve Been
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Alabama
What It Should’ve Been
1. Oklahoma (1, Big 12)
2. Florida (2, SEC)
3. USC (5, Pac-12)
4. Utah (6, Mountain West)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: An unbeaten Utah would’ve been screaming and yelling that Alabama got in, and USC would’ve been really, really mad after choking away a 13-9 loss to UCLA in the regular season finale. The Big 12 South controversy of 2008 would’ve been solved, but Texas didn’t win the Big 12 title and Texas Tech, who was in the three way tie for the division, would’ve been left out.
2007
What It Would’ve Been
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Virginia Tech
4. Oklahoma
What It Should’ve Been
1. Ohio State (1, Big Ten)
2. LSU (2, SEC)
3. Virginia Tech (3, ACC)
4. Oklahoma (4, Big 12)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Nothing. In fact, this might have been the best year for the Big Ten’s plan. Virginia Tech was No. 1 at the end of the regular season according to several computer formulas, and Oklahoma was peaking late.
2006
What It Would’ve Been
1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU
What It Should’ve Been
1. Ohio State (1, Big Ten)
2. Florida (2, SEC)
3. USC (5, Pac-12)
4. Louisville (6 Big East)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: LSU didn’t even win the SEC West but it would’ve received a new lease on life over more deserving USC and Louisville teams.
2005
What It Would’ve Been
1. USC
2. Texas
3. Penn State
4. Ohio State
What It Should’ve Been
1. USC (1, Pac-10)
2. Texas (2, Big 12)
3. Penn State (3, Big Ten)
4. Notre Dame (6, Ind)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Ohio State lost to Penn State and was second in the Big Ten, but it still would’ve received a second chance.
2004
What It Would’ve Been
1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Auburn
4. Texas
What It Should’ve Been
1. USC (1, Pac-12)
2. Oklahoma (2, Big 12)
3. Auburn (3, SEC)
4. Utah (6, Mountain West)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: The great USC-Oklahoma-Auburn debate of 2004 would’ve been solved, but an unbeaten Utah would’ve been left out for a Texas team that didn’t even win its own division.
2003
What It Would’ve Been
1. Oklahoma
2. LSU
3. USC
4. Michigan
What It Should’ve Been
1. LSU (2, SEC)
2. USC (3, Pac-10)
3. Michigan (4, Big Ten)
4. Florida State (7, ACC)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: The No. 1 team in the country, Oklahoma, didn’t even win its own conference championship, getting blown away by Kansas State.
2002
What It Would’ve Been
1. Miami
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. USC
What It Should’ve Been
1. Miami (1, Big East)
2. Ohio State (2, Big Ten)
3. Georgia (3, SEC)
4. Washington State (6, Pac 10)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Washington State won the Pac-10 title, beating USC head-to-head, but wouldn’t be in the playoff.
2001
What It Would’ve Been
1. Miami
2. Nebraska
3. Colorado
4. Oregon
What It Should’ve Been
1. Miami (1, Big East)
2. Colorado (3, Big 12)
3. Oregon (4, Pac-10)
4. Illinois (8, Big Ten)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Nebraska didn’t win the Big 12 North yet would’ve still been in the playoffs. The SEC would’ve gagged its way out with a heavily-favored Florida losing to Tennessee, and Tennessee losing the SEC title game to LSU.
2000
What It Would’ve Been
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida State
3. Miami
4. Washington
What It Should’ve Been
1. Oklahoma (1, Big 12)
2. Florida State (2, ACC)
3. Miami (3, Big East)
4. Washington (4, Pac-10)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: None. It would’ve been a clean playoff with no controversy whatsoever.
1999
What It Would’ve Been
1. Florida State
2. Virginia Tech
3. Nebraska
4. Alabama
What It Should’ve Been
1. Florida State (1, ACC)
2. Virginia Tech (2, Big East)
3. Nebraska (3, Big 12)
4. Alabama (4, SEC)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: None. No. 7 Wisconsin would’ve been mad, but it wouldn’t have had much of a case.
1998
What It Would’ve Been
1. Tennessee
2. Florida State
3. Kansas State
4. Ohio State
What It Should’ve Been
1. Tennessee (1, SEC)
2. Florida State (2, ACC)
3. Ohio State (4, Big Ten)
4. UCLA (5, Pac-10)
The big problem under the Big Ten’s plan: Wisconsin and Ohio State each finished 11-1, but they didn’t play head-to-head. Kansas State was No. 3, but it choked away the Big 12 title game and would’ve missed out.
LikeLike
Loki finds a home?
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7571596/mountain-west-conference-usa-agree-deal-sources-say
from ESPN
LikeLike
Someday they will all be in the Big East…
LikeLike
The other alternative is that some of the members of the Big East will become part of this new conference–especially the ones that are football only memebers such as Boise State and San Diego State.
If I were a betting man, I’d say that the Big East is going to shed at least one more member in the near future with Louisville going to the Big XII. The twelfth team could well be Cincinnati, although Brigham Young could be a possibility if BYU and the Big XII could work out the television rights and logistics involved in integrating them into the conference.
But what’s the allure for any of these teams to go to the Big East? There may well be no more BCS status for any conference going forward in a few years, so that’s not it. The bowl lineup that the conference has isn’t that great either. There is, of course, the tie-in with the Big East basketball schools, but that’s going to take a hit without Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia and possibly Louisville and Cincinnati in the fold.
This new conference is talking about having sixteen schools with the addition of two to eight more programs. The WAC has (for football) Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State. Texas State-San Marcos and Texas-San Antonio will be joining the WAC in 2012 for all sports, including football (three of the other programs joining the WAC don’t have football). The Sun Belt will have eleven football teams in its league by 2013 when South Alabama officially joins the conference.
I suppose whatever additions that may be made to C-USA/MWC will be ones that make sense in terms of basic geography in order to balance out the two nine-team or even twelve-team divisions–one to the east and another to the west.
LikeLike
Why would Boise and SDSU go back to this conference? They don’t like money? Even with defections, the BE stands to get more TV money per school than this motley crew because they still have better brands and bigger TV markets. I mean, name one BE school that draws as few fans and has as little brandname appeal as Tulsa, Marshall, Rice (sorry, Loki), UAB, Wyoming, Tulane, and Nevada. UAB, New Mexico, UNLV, Tulsa, Wyoming, and Nevada in 2010 had about the same football attendance as some MAC schools.
LikeLike
Let’s take a look at the football teams in the Big East if Louisville were to leave in addition to Syracuse, Pittsburgh and West Virginia–
Boise State
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Memphis
Navy
Rutgers
San Diego State
South Florida
Southern Methodist
That doesn’t strike me as much of a Murder’s Row either. In fact, most of these schools were former C-USA conference members anyway (with some MWC members in the mix). We actually don’t know how much money this conference will be getting since the Big East turned down ESPN’s earlier offer. It might not be any more per school than what they’re getting now. Plus who’s going to replace Louisville if they were to leave? East Carolina? Temple? Maybe Villanova would upgrade their football program? The only headline football program in the entire group is Boise State.
Let’s be frank–we’re rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic here. If Connecticut or Rutgers were to move to the ACC or the Big Ten, then the Big East would be even more rudderless than it is now. But let’s do this–we’ll wait a bit to see how the new C-USA/MWC alliance works out, take a look at its total membership, see what sort of deals it makes with television, bowls, etc., and then make our judgements then. We might be surprised to see what happens when the music stops playing.
LikeLike
Yes, but are they more attractive, have more potential for growth, & pull in more money & viewers than Tulsa, Marshall, Rice, UAB, Wyoming, Tulane, and Nevada?
You seem to lump all non-Big5 schools together, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t tiers in the lower levels as well.
Finally, I’m not sure why you think the BE would be “rudderless” without UConn or Rutgers. Even without those 2 schools, the rest of the BE would still have bigger brands, pull in more money & attendance, and have more potential for growth than the bottom half of the MWC-CUSA merger. I’d be absolutely shocked if the new MWC-CUSA merged conference gets even the same level of TV money per school that the BE gets (no chance they get more), and you really can’t come up with a reason for why that conference would be more attractive to TV execs and bowls than the BE.
LikeLike
The Big Country Conference name hasn’t been taken yet! Really Conference USA works pretty well, but that could get sticky since they are dissolving and getting out of existing TV deals. Interestingly, the CUSA deal was just signed last year. Don’t know why the current deal would be much better w/o UH, UCF, Memphis and SMU.
A couple other articles from Orlando and Las Vegas are more definitive (but don’t really add additional info). It has been decided. They’re just finalizing all the legal documents. One makes the comment that most were in the WAC debacle and have learned from it. 10 of the 16 were WAC members when it imploded.
LikeLike
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/34822810
The institutions from Conference USA and the Mountain West are dissolving both leagues to create their own conference, college football industry sources told CBSSports.com.
The new conference will consist of 18 to 24 members and start in the 2013-14 academic year. It would not only have a conference championship football game, but also conference semifinals. Conference USA and the Mountain West would continue as is for the 2012-13 season
The reason that the institutions are dissolving and forming their own league and not just merging is for legal reasons, sources said.
My guess, to ditch the MTN.
LikeLike
I’m curious to see their plans to have semifinals. They have to be the last week of the regular season before the CCG weekend, so I guess they just have a variable schedule for the final week. Current rules don’t allow for semifinals as extra games beyond the 12 and I doubt the other conferences would approve them.
LikeLike
IMHO, to get around the NCAA restrictions if they want semi-finals they could have an East vs West final week of the season. Seed the teams in both division’s 1-X and have #1 in the East play #1 in the West for the title, #2 East vs #2 West, and so on. East teams are home in odd years and West teams are home in even.
LikeLike
That should have been East #1 vs West #2, and East #2 vs West #1. Winners to the title game. #3 East would play #3 West and so on. That is assuming they stay at two divisions.
LikeLike
You can certainly do that, but how is that semifinals? They need to play 1 vs 2 in each division to have a true semifinal.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t think they can do that. That could have #1 E vs #2 E in the CCG and the current rules don’t allow that, either.
LikeLike
Makes pretty decent pods geographically.
Pacific: Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, and New Mexico
Mountain: Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, and Fresno State
Central: Rice, Utep, Tulane, Tulsa
Eastern: Marshall, ECU, UAB, and Southern Mississippi
LikeLike
Rats. You’re right.
LikeLike
They’d probably need a rule change to allow for a championship even if they don’t play everyone in their division. Then they could have pods, where Pods A & B play each other Thanksgiving week based on how they finished (#1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, etc.), with the winners of the #1 going to the championship game to face the winners of Pods C & D.
Everyone in Pods A & B play each other, then Thanksgiving week there is a rematch between the winners of Pods A & B (and Pods C & D).
LikeLike
Offical announcement.
http://www.themwc.com/genrel/021312aab.html
LikeLike
Interesting. Most of what I had read recently said 16-20, not 18-24. I don’t know if you are allowed to do provisional scheduling to have semi-finals. I’m sure they won’t get a by-law change to allow 2 post-season conference championship games. They will be doing this when a lot of high profile games are taking place in the Big 5 conferences. Don’t know if it will sell well for TV.
If they are going to 24, it will be interesting to see if they go for the WAC or the MAC schools. If they stopped at 16, ECU and Marshall are on a bit of an island. I would think they would want to leave room for Boise and SDSU to return.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how they get to 24 unless they start raiding more conferences. Maybe they take Temple, Buffalo, Louisiana Tech, North Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Utah State, San Jose State? Not sure why they would want to do that…
LikeLike
bullet,
Interesting. Most of what I had read recently said 16-20, not 18-24.
I’m a little surprised by their size numbers, too. Who’s going to see this brand new mega-conference as an upgrade? The super sized WAC didn’t last. The BE is hemorrhaging members. Their are rumors about the ACC losing people. The SEC is the only truly stable conference of more than 12, and they haven’t played yet. I think most schools would worry about the new conference imploding and then having to scramble to find another new conference. Will the TV money be big enough to attract anybody?
I don’t know if you are allowed to do provisional scheduling to have semi-finals.
There’s no rule against provisional scheduling as long as it’s part of the 12 game season.
I’m sure they won’t get a by-law change to allow 2 post-season conference championship games.
Agreed.
They will be doing this when a lot of high profile games are taking place in the Big 5 conferences. Don’t know if it will sell well for TV.
That’s always been CUSA’s problem. They just aren’t important enough. They could try being like the P12 and MAC by playing the CCG on an off night rather than on Saturday when bigger games are being played. Last year, the CUSA CCG went against 2 BE games and 1 B12 game the whole time slot, and 2 MWC games for the second half. The MAC and P12 CCG competed on Friday night. Thursday night was just 1 BE game. Maybe they could play their CCG on Thursday night instead of Saturday afternoon.
If they are going to 24, it will be interesting to see if they go for the WAC or the MAC schools. If they stopped at 16, ECU and Marshall are on a bit of an island. I would think they would want to leave room for Boise and SDSU to return.
I’m not sure their TV money will be big enough to pull that many teams into a new mega-conference, especially with the problems the super WAC experienced.
LikeLike
Actually I don’t think the 24 team semi-final would work w/o a change in NCAA rules. To have a ccg you must play everyone in your division. They would probably be considered to have 2 twelve team divisions.
They could do 4 five team divisions and have a semi-final to determine the division winner, but then you are only pulling out of 5 teams and may be knocking out the team with the best record. You are more likely to have a weak division champ than with 6 teams. And you could really be in trouble if someone was on probation.
LikeLike
@Brian
I have doubts about their TV money being enough too. But it seems like their philosophy is to be the best of the rest. There will be the Big 5, the Big weast and then the MWC/CUSA. Whatever is left of the MAC/SB/WAC will be far outstripped in exposure.
LikeLike
A semi-final would require a rule change.
The only way a team can play more than 12 games is games in Hawaii (and technically Alaska and Puerto Rico), bowl games and CCG’s (of which every 12+ team conference is allowed to have one).
(I guess the conference could agree to have its teams only play 11 games each and the division winners could then play a semifinal as a 12th game, but that won’t happen)
LikeLike
Well if they did it that way everyone would get a 12th game on semi-final day. But the only way I see to get around the “play everyone in your division” rule to allow semi-finals would be if somehow, you could determine which divisions get to play. If Division I champ beats Division II and Division III beats Division IV and I and III would play for the championship. They could argue that I and III played everyone in Divisions I and III and the other divisions weren’t eligible. But it would be at odds with the purpose of the rule allowing the ccg.
If that loophole works, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it closed. TPTB have made it clear they don’t think the coast-to-coast conferences make any sense and they don’t want rules that encourage that.
LikeLike
Any Maryland fans/residents care to comment on the program. Edsall has driven a lot of turnover on the roster (24 players have left early IIRC, including losing 48 starts of experience prematurely). Now his driven off the former starting QB. Considering Friedgen won 9 games in his last year and Edsall won 2 in 2011, how are the locals and fans reacting?
LikeLike
The Terps just got a five-star recruit from Good Counsel (Stefon Diggs, who no one expected them to get) and their new head recruiter (Locksley) has excellent metro D.C. ties, so for now it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. Maryland appears to be making inroads with several of the area’s best prep football powers, and if it can get its share of talent from those schools — which didn’t happen under Friedgen — the program is going to improve, slowly but surely.
LikeLike
I live in the DC/Maryland suburbs and the primary reason for much of the turmoil is that Edsall has very strict standards for team behavior, etc. and that the youngsters who were recruited by Friedgien aren’t taking to it–especially with the team losing as badly as it did this past season.
I saw Maryland play in the spring prior to the season and the team looked solid. But they had problems early on (although they had the season opening win against Miami) plus injuries that just sapped the team thru the year. It was a real death spiral.
Can Edsall turn it around? It’s going to take a lot of effort and a string of recruiting classes to get the Terps back to any form of relevance within the ACC. Edsall had success at UConn, but can that past experience translate at UMd? That’s the question.
I don’t know how much time Edsall has to turn things around. Attendance for football has been poor in recent years and the stadium expansion with premium seating and luxury boxes has been a financial bust. I think the athletic department is around $50M in the hole, which is why they’re looking at dropping a half dozen sports. Simply put, it’s not a very good siuation.
LikeLike
Do SMU. Hou. UCF,Mem. & Boise still have to pay exit fees if the conferences dissolve? Does this give Boise opportunity to negotiate smaller exit fee for 2012?
LikeLike
Boise and SDSU have no exit fees with sufficient notice. So its zero if they leave for 2013, but somewhere between $8 and $14 million if they left for 2012. The CUSA schools have exit fees of around $7.5 million and a 1 year requirement. Don’t know what happens if the conference dissolves. That could be a reason to do an affiliation in 2013 and dissolve for 2014.
LikeLike
Have been thinking about possible long term expansion of the Big 12 to twelve. Am wondering if Louisville is in limbo for this, based on the following…
1. An obvious all-sports addition would be Lousville. They obviously would like to join based on the political maneuvering that came out during the West Virginia jump to the Big 12. The University of Kentucky does not seem to have that state sewn up for football or basketball so Louisville would be a solid addition with regional and past conference ties to new member West Virginia.
2. Just about every potential additional all-sports addition for the Big 12 brings obvious risks. Cincinnati is a limited market and their football infrastructure could use some investment (in spite of recent team success). Rutgers has appeal but is remote and may ultimately want to join the Big Ten or ACC. BYU has a no play on Sunday policy that makes it hard to deal with for non-football sports. Air Force basketball tends to suffer since plane cockpits limit the feasible size for prime recruits. Any rumored ACC defections to the Big 12 seem to lack credibility.
3. You really want an even number of conference teams in all sports for scheduling, so adding one all-sports school and one football-only school is not really going to work too well.
4. If you look west, both Air Force and BYU might be appealing to the Big 12 as football-only additions. They both have national followings, are reasonably close to the Big 12 core region and have been fairly strong in football a long time. If they were to join the Big 12 together, they would keep the conference at even numbers for all sports. For immediate expansion, this might make the most sense.
If the Big 12 really wants Louisville, they may bide their time to see if one other attractive all-sports alternative will develop in the near future. It really doesn’t seem like Louisville fits the profile of a school the ACC, Big Ten or SEC would want in the near future, so the Big 12 does not have to act quickly.
Guess this all hinges on a “Noah’s Ark” theory of conference expansion, in this era it generally happens in pairs (or at least even numbers). Unless you’re talking about the Big Ten, of course…
LikeLike
The ACC is apparently going to be smart with their 9 game schedule. One of their 2 main scheduling tenets is to have every team in a division have the same number of conference home games (Atlantic gets 5 home games one year, Coastal the next) according to GT’s AD.
LikeLike
Wow… that is really smart.
LikeLike
Smarter than the B10’s plan, IIRC. The B10 was talking about splitting it so half of each division had 4.
LikeLike
It is interesting that no MAC team other then Temple is mentioned in any of the expansion talk. Of course they are not going to the SEC, ACC, Big 10, or Big 12, but no interest from the Big East, and there isn’t much talk of their teams for C-USA backfilling other then Temple.
In the press release from the MWC – CUSA about their merger, they talk of an 18 to 24 team league. That means they need 2-8 more teams (3-9 depending on Louisville leaving the Big East and the Big East grabbing another C-USA team). Other then getting schools to move up a divison they are left with 29 options from the MAC, Sun Belt and WAC.
WAC
I would have to think San Jose State is first in to give Fresno State an in-state rival, and they are in a large market… even if the market doesn’t give a crap. Utah State was invited last time but declined to support the WAC, I honestly don’t see their appeal, but see them getting invited again. Poor Idaho… at one time they were in the same league as the PAC-8, but never applied to get in, even whne their main rival Washington State applied and got in, I don’t see a home for them outside the dying WAC.
Sun Belt
There are a couple teams with good local support in the league and reasonable financial support. Troy, Arkansas State and Middle Tennesse State could all be potential expansion picks.
MAC
Temple will get asked, they have an improved team and are in a large market. The MAC is interesting, it’s a pretty tight regional conference with a handful of teams that have done well over the years, I think you could grab about any of them and they could make a reasonably good fit.
LikeLike
Louisiana Tech?
LikeLike
The teams they’d ask first would be Appy St., Temple, & UMass, then maybe UTSA, LaTech, and SJSU. There are some FCS schools that draw better in football than the rest that are out there.
LikeLike
I think they would be a good candidate. When your talking potentially 9 teams, I think LTech is very much in the mix. Found an article where a UTEP representitive mentioned Utah State, New Mexico State and Florida Intl (of was it Florida Atlantic?).
LikeLike
Definitely Florida International (in Miami) over Florida Atlantic (in Boca Raton). FIU is the king of the Sun Belt, while the FAU football program has to be completely rebuilt by Carl Pellini after Howard Schellenberger mentally checked out during the last season.
“Mount USA” lacks top TV markets as it stands. Rice is completely irrelevant in the Houston market (#10).
North Texas is probably a better candidate than Louisiana Tech, which lacks TV sets. North Texas will allow “Mount USA” to get back into the DFW market (#5), albeit only at the fringe.
“Mount USA” really needs Temple (#4 TV market, some but not a lot of relevancy.) The question: does Temple jump, or will Temple wait for the BIG EAST?
UMASS is another possible candidate for “Mount USA”, especially if Temple were to jump.
(Remember that the WAC actually talked to UMASS before UMASS did its deal with the MAC.)
LikeLike
Air Force will inevitably join the Big East so MWCUSA is down to 15 schools.
UTSA, North Texas, FIU, Temple and UMass make the most sense to me. New Mexico State makes zero sense.
Also, 20 teams makes the most sense for scheduling. 4 pods. Play your pod and one other for two years, then rotate the pods to create new divisions every 2 years. 9 conference games means you play your division round robin each year and see each school home and home every six years.
LikeLike
“Rice is completely irrelevant in the Houston market (#10).”
Hey now, baseball season starts Friday!
LikeLike
Rice is a clear #4 in Houston. Texas Tech is irrelevant. TCU is irrelevant. Its Texas, Houston, Texas A&M, big gap to Rice, Baylor, LSU. You’ll see more people wearing Aggie gear than Cougar, but the TV ratings advantage has been Houston in recent years.
LikeLike
FIU, USU, Temple, & UMass (maybe Appy St. & UTSA) would be the top candidates, IMHO. Pretty much no candidate draws well in football, so basketball & football recruiting grounds matter a lot.
LikeLike
“basketball brand and football recruiting grounds”
LikeLike
If the MWC – CUSA does go to 24 and the Big 12 expands to 12 without BYU, then I have to think one conference will have to disolve. There are 47 teams outside of the big 6 conferences this coming season (with the 4 new teams moving up). That is reduced to 45 if the Big 12 expands (2 from the Big East, then the Big East grabs 2 more from the pool of 47). If MWC goes to 24 your left with 21 teams between the WAC, Sun Belt and MAC. If the MWC side of the new conference wants more regional teams, their only options are New Mexico State, Idaho, San Jose State, and Utah State that gets the MWC side to 12. That leaves the WAC with Louisina Tech and newbees UT San Antonio and TSU San Marcos, all three of which could easily be picked up by the Sun Belt. I just don’t see any way the WAC lives on as a football conference. As it is, they only have 7 teams for the 2012 season.
LikeLike
Seems WV has just reached a financial accommodation with the Big East to join the Big XII. I don’t know how this affects Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC. Perhaps a negotiation to drop the exit fee?
Link is here
LikeLike
Pitt is as good as gone when Boise State and San Diego State enter the BIG EAST. Probably in time for the 2013-2014 academic year (2012-2013 is unlikely because ACC schedules are already set.)
Pitt wants out ASAP after seeing the West Virginia mess play out.
‘Cuse is quietly working to get out.
I just don’t see Boeheim ever coaching an ACC game against the likes of Williams or K. Would not be surprised to see Boeheim retire after this season.
LikeLike
@OT
I agree with your take on Jim Boeheim. He was good friends with Gary Williams and Gary is now gone–retired from Maryland. Boeheim could hang up his spurs and let someone else tackle what Tobacco Road is going to bring.
LikeLike
Was surprised to see Gary Williams end up on BTN. Not that he doesn’t have the knowledge or the talent… Just strange considering he came from the ACC and now is analyzing B1G teams… Maybe we’ll see Boeheim do the same???
LikeLike
The ACC has the long-term deal with the B1G and he played a lot of their teams. He also beat Indiana in the NCAA Championship game. As the ACC has nothing equivalent to the BTN, I’m not surprised he ended up there. He knows the talent and and the game so like Len Elmore who is ubiquitous, he can analyze games in any conference.
OT: all these little things make me feel this yearning for the Terps to eventually end up in the B1G and help the Conference capture the NoVA/DC/Balt audience. That’s a huge market and the UMD is not a slouch in terms of grant funding.
But, that is just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
He did coach in the B10 for 3 years back in the late 80s.
LikeLike
The Big East will have 13 teams in 2013, so I’m sure they are working to get Pitt and SU out, all the while trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of them. Pitt and SU will make $11 million more in the ACC on TV money, so they obviously won’t leave unless the amount is less than that. It cost WVU $15 million more than their $5 million exit fee to get out early. They will make at least $12 million a year more for those 2 years (they have a reduced payout at first-50% the first year, but leaving early means they reach full payout 2 years earlier, so the value to WVU is still $24 million).
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/14/big-12-releases-2012-football-schedule/
Big XII releases it schedule for next season (including WVU). As expected TCU replaces A&M as UT’s Thanksgiving weekend game (though it is being played on Saturday). The most interesting aspect though is the decision to move Bedlam to Thanksgiving weekend, meaning that the conference will not have a “premier” game on the last week to go head to head against the CCGs.
LikeLike
They could be looking at TCU/OU or Texas/KSU as their “premier” game.
Don’t know that this schedule really says what date. Some of those “24th” games could merely be that weekend and end up on a TH or F.
LikeLike
The TV partners are still to “tweak” the schedule. General expectation is that Texas/TCU will be on TH after that “tweaking.”
LikeLike
Yeah, I wouldn’t be shocked if that game is still held on Thanksgiving since both schools have a bye the week before.
LikeLike
I’d guarantee it. The schedule there doesn’t have anything besides Saturdays listed and at the top it says “week” rather than “day” implying to me they have just announced the week of all the games rather than actual days.
LikeLike
frug,
The most interesting aspect though is the decision to move Bedlam to Thanksgiving weekend, meaning that the conference will not have a “premier” game on the last week to go head to head against the CCGs.
Preparing for when they get back to 12 teams and have a CCG?
LikeLike
On Pitt and Syracuse
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bigeast-pittandsyracuse
Syracuse, Pitt and the ACC have said they would not challenge the Big East’s rules, but would like the transition to happen as soon as possible.
Marinatto had previously said that the Big East intends to hold all three schools in the conference until 2014.
“But given the strength and speed of our expansion efforts, I think our board might be open to a discussion about 2013,” Marinatto said in a telephone interview.
LikeLike
BYU-Utah possibly going to die as a result of the Big Ten-PAC-12 scheduling agreement. That does suck if true and keeps me on the fence about the idea of this agreement being a good one or a bad one.
https://twitter.com/#!/JeremyMauss
LikeLike
I’m not a big fan of the agreement. If it means trading games against lower level Pac-12 schools, we won’t just be playing USC, with OOC games against Alabama and ND then how is that a good thing? Maybe it will force PSU to raise the stakes and play a Pac-12 opponent in addition to schools like Alabama and ND, or even UVA and Pitt, but I won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
I’m with you. Maybe I’ll be swayed to like it once the details are released, but for now I’m against it. I’d rather play a 9th B10 game than a random P12 team.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt a lower level Pac school is replacing Alabama or ND on anyone’s schedule (well, OK, I see Michigan and MSU cutting back to playing ND 4 out of 6 years, but that was going to happen anyway with a 9-game conference slate). As the 9-game B10 schedule is shelved now, the Pac game replaces a B10 game, and I’m all for it.
LikeLike
I’m not for a 9th B1G game either if PSU doesn’t change the way they schedule. They almost never schedule 2 games against what are today considered BCS schools. Tying that one game up with Pac-12 schools or an additional B1G conference game would be a horrible idea.
I guess I should have contacted the AD instead of whining on a message board. 🙂
LikeLike
Then maybe PSU needs to toughen up their schedule. Even if PSU wants 7 home games a year, they can schedule 2 OOC games against BCS programs. Heck, PSU makes so much money that they can pay to bring in teams like Cincy or Colorado to visit like tOSU does (or pay IU to play in DC or NJ again; in fact, I wouldn’t have a problem with NU hosting a home game against PSU in the Meadowlands as her have a ton of alums in greater NYC).
LikeLike
tOSU, BTW, will play 2 BCS schools OOC every year from 2011-2015, so it’s definitely doable.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
I’m not for a 9th B1G game either if PSU doesn’t change the way they schedule. They almost never schedule 2 games against what are today considered BCS schools. Tying that one game up with Pac-12 schools or an additional B1G conference game would be a horrible idea.
PSU does have a history of weak scheduling, but things may change with a new coach hand new AD. I’d like to think the new regime would step it up a little bit. Once 9 AQs are forced on them by 2017, I’d hope they still schedule a 10th one OOC. That still leaves 2 body bag games to get to 7 home games. I expect PSU to keep playing an eastern AQ (with Temple in the mix, too).
LikeLike
Brian,
I guess we’ll see in a couple of years. Either scheduling change does away with our Pitt rivalry for good though. Not sure how to feel about that. It may have to do with them joining the ACC but I’m losing interest in the idea and that wasn’t true just a few months ago. Prior to last season I was still gung ho to play them every year.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
I guess we’ll see in a couple of years. Either scheduling change does away with our Pitt rivalry for good though. Not sure how to feel about that. It may have to do with them joining the ACC but I’m losing interest in the idea and that wasn’t true just a few months ago. Prior to last season I was still gung ho to play them every year.
I’m guessing Pitt becomes just another school in the “eastern team” rotation for PSU, like Temple and Syracuse. I don’t think Pitt could afford to make it annual again, either. Maybe they’ll form an “eastern team” group, too, with PSU and WV and some others.
LikeLike
I do think that PSU should schedule more creatively given where they recruit and the NFL stadiums around them. I don’t know why PSU hasn’t, for instance, scheduled Navy to a home-and-neutral site series (say 2 of FedEx, Baltimore, and Philly) or VTech or WVU to a neutral site game in FedEx.
LikeLike
Ok so I feel the need to come to PSU’s defense somewhat…there are plenty of examples through the past ten years of PSU playing at or above “typical” OoC game schedules. By that I mean 1-2 games against (usually 1) “quality” BCS level opponent and 2-3 (usually 3) MAC level opponents . Hell, Alabama did that this past year and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about their strength of schedule during the championship run.
As for the Pac / B1G playing each other, I have to believe the big time schools will rotate through the lower echelons every once in a while (if even only sporadically), but that will allow the schools to put other big name programs on the schedule to compensate and add variety. Personally though, I think it’d be pretty fun for PSU to start up a rivalry against Stanford.
@joe4psu
I was at a PSU game last year the weekend Pitt played ND. When they announced that Pitt was winning the crowd cheered. That’s how far that rivalry has fallen (since in the old days we would have booed either team winning, instead of cheering one). IMO, Temple is our new Pitt…a team we meet most years and beat more often than not (in living memory anyway).
Pitt is just becoming like Syracuse, Maryland, or Boston College…old eastern independent foes we play on a rotating basis because of our historic recruiting ties and local fan base. Kind of ironic all those schools are in the ACC now isn’t it?
LikeLike
“Hell, Alabama did that this past year and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about their strength of schedule during the championship run.”
You weren’t listening very closely.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
Ok so I feel the need to come to PSU’s defense somewhat…there are plenty of examples through the past ten years of PSU playing at or above “typical” OoC game schedules. By that I mean 1-2 games against (usually 1) “quality” BCS level opponent and 2-3 (usually 3) MAC level opponents.
2015 – Rutgers, 2 MAC + ?
2014 – Rutgers, 2 MAC + ?
2013 – VA, Syracuse, 2 MAC
2012 – VA, Navy, 2 MAC
2011 – AL, 2 MAC, I-AA
2010 – AL, 2 MAC, I-AA
2009 – Syracuse, 2 MAC, I-AA
2008 – Syracuse, OrSU, MAC, I-AA
2007 – ND, 2 MAC, Sun Belt
2006 – ND, 2 MAC, I-AA
This is when 12 games became permanent.
2005 – USF, Cincinnati, MAC
2004 – BC, CUSA, MAC
2003 – NE, BC, 2 MAC
2002 – NE, VA, MAC, WAC
PSU scheduled harder in a few years (2002-3, 2008, 2012-3), but that’s really about 3 out of 10 years. The other 7 is 1 AQ, 2 MACs and a I-AA. Hopefully the recent trend will continue and they’ll drop I-AAs for a low AQ or good non-AQ, but I won’t hold my breath. It’s getting late to fit a good team in for 2014 or 2015, though, so those may well be I-AAs again.
Hell, Alabama did that this past year and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about their strength of schedule during the championship run.
As greg said, you must not have been listening.
As for the Pac / B1G playing each other, I have to believe the big time schools will rotate through the lower echelons every once in a while (if even only sporadically), but that will allow the schools to put other big name programs on the schedule to compensate and add variety. Personally hough, I think it’d be pretty fun for PSU to start up a rivalry against Stanford.
It would be nice if they would release some details about that plan. Will it be home and homes, or rotate every year? Will recent results determine the matchups, or will brands, or does it rotate equally? Matching kings would be great for TV (USC, OR, UW, UCLA vs OSU, MI, PSU, NE), but not all of those teams are good right now. Matching by recent success would get some others into the mix (OR, USC, Stanford, Utah? vs OSU, WI, PSU, MSU). Unfortunately, the B10 has more teams with recent success than the P12. Based on past 5 years winning percentage:
4. OR, 15. OSU*
6. USC, 16. WI
8. Utah**, 17. PSU
29. Stanford, 22. MSU
48. Cal, 27. NE
55. OrSU, 28. IA
65. AZ, 48. NW
67. ASU, 52. MI***
86. UCLA, 68. IL
97. UW, 77. PU
100. CO, 103. IN
119. WSU, 105. MN
* doesn’t include 12-1 season (would move OSU to tied for #8)
** mostly in the MWC
*** on the rise with a new coach
Those 6 bolded match-ups in the middle are the problem.
LikeLike
CFB is becoming a national (not just regional) sport. The B1g and Pac12 see this. Delany is forcing (and I think that’s a good thing) his teams to be national with this agreement. It’s about perception…and rather than leave it to chance (OSU has probably scheduled the most BCS western teams–USC, Washington, Colorado recently–but that was their choice)…Delany is making the B1g go national.
I don’t think PSU is going to be traveling to Washington State or USC traveling to Purdue in this agreement. Neither Davis nor Delany want to waste this opportunity. Purdue will travel to WSU…and PSU to USC before the pairs are swapped.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
CFB is becoming a national (not just regional) sport.
I don’t buy that. The SEC has retreated into the SE in the past decade or two (see UF not leaving the state for an OOC game since 1991 as an example). There used to be a lot more major intersectional OOC games than there are now.
The only national aspect today is the BCS forcing greater emphasis on the NC, and even that has lead to more regionalization (SEC chants, for example). People pay a small amount of attention to other regions, but really only for the elite teams. That isn’t really new. Heisman voting shows that CFB is still very much regional.
The B1g and Pac12 see this.
It’s hard to see that which isn’t there.
Delany is forcing (and I think that’s a good thing) his teams to be national with this agreement.
Playing the P12 OOC for 1 game each year doesn’t make the B10 national. It keeps it regional while adding a region that might care slightly more than the national average. B10 teams have always played the P12 a lot OOC. Now the B10 will trade SEC, B12 and ACC teams for P12 teams. How is that more national?
If Delany wanted things to be more national, he’d pass a rule that eliminates I-AA games (unless someone else broke an OOC deal with little warning) and mandates at least 10 AQ games per season (let’s people buy 2 home games if they want). Instead, he’s mandated 1 P12 OOC game and many will use that as cover for not playing another AQ school OOC.
It’s about perception…and rather than leave it to chance (OSU has probably scheduled the most BCS western teams–USC, Washington, Colorado recently–but that was their choice)…Delany is making the B1g go national.
Playing the P12 isn’t national, it’s bi-regional.
I don’t think PSU is going to be traveling to Washington State or USC traveling to Purdue in this agreement. Neither Davis nor Delany want to waste this opportunity. Purdue will travel to WSU…and PSU to USC before the pairs are swapped.
It’s great that you think that way, but I’ll wait until I see official details or quotes from the non-kings that they’ve agreed to never get to play the top P12 teams like USC and OR. Frankly, that would be worse than a round robin or 9th conference game anyway. Who wants a slot filled by a rotation of only 3-4 teams that are all 3000 miles away?
LikeLike
I guess we disagree. OSU has scheduled “national foes” more than others. My team–PSU–has snagged Nebraska (02-03), ND (06-07), and Alabama (10-11) as national foes. Not horrible…but a yearly agreement with Pac-12 gets PSU FARTHER away from home than they’ve been in a LONG long time. Do the same things with Purdue and NW and Minnesota…and the whole conference stretches its exposure? To me, that makes the Big Ten more national. Maybe not DRASTICALLY more, but slightly.
Now, if the new playoff system awards spots to conference champs and not unblemished 12-0 or 11-1 teams that can win a poll race, then you might see some of those loathsome D-1AA teams disappear off the schedule. I hope the increasing TV dollars also will push major CFB in that direction too. A cupcake game will disappear when the TV dollars equal more than the home revenue dollars.
LikeLike
Eric,
To be fair, you could just as easily blame the P12’s 9 game schedule as the B10/P12 deal. It’s the combination of the two that is causing the problem since Utah will have 10 locked games.
I’m no fan of the agreement, as I’d rather play a 9th B10 game than be locked into a P12 opponent, but I’m reserving my final judgement for when the details are announced. Will it pair top teams with top teams or is it a full round robin, etc?
LikeLike
Top teams with top teams; M, Ohio, PSU will share USC, UCLA & maybe Oregon… Bottom of the B10 (Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana) will likely rotate with the bottom of the Pac 12: Arizona, WSU, Oregon State…
LikeLike
Here are some of the problems with that:
1. What about NE? Do they join that pool? If so, who joins from the P12? UW (based on brand, not recent success) or Standford (based on recent success not brand)?
2. What about WI and MSU? They’ve been better lately than NE and MI and on par with PSU. Why would they agree to be snubbed and only get to play the mid-pack P12 teams?
3. Matching teams by recent success has the problem that the B10 teams #5-6 have no counterpart in the P12 (see my post above). The top 4 match pretty well and so do the bottom 2, but spots 5-10 have a big advantage for the B10 (B10 7-10 = P12 5-8). That is all based on the past 5 seasons of total W%, so the harder P12 scheduling is a factor. Perhaps the teams are much closer than that in actuality.
4. Do the bottom teams (MN, IN, WSU, CO) really want to just play each other over and over, or do they want an equal shot at the kings?
LikeLike
Best way would be to combine both. In an 20 year cycle, match up the top, middle, and bottom quartets by success over the last 12 (or 20) years for 8 years. Then the last 12 years, everyone rotates. Repeat for the next 20 year cycle. So in 40 years, all schools would have played each other at least twice, but 16 of those 40 years, you’re guaranteed juicy matchups.
LikeLike
Nothing is set in stone but generally (not all the time), the top teams in the B10 (you could include Neb in that) will play the top teams in the Pac 12. I’m sure M, Ohio, PSU, Neb will play some games against the Arizona’s, WSU’s, etc.
It sounds like they’ll make it home-and-away too; so OSU would play USC both at home-and-road in back-to-back seasons. Then the next season they’d play someone else like Washington; one year in Washington, next in Columbus…
It will be more than a small nightmare to determine which B10 teams plays in southern california but the plan is to put the strongest B10 programs against the strongest Pac 12 programs.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
Nothing is set in stone but generally (not all the time), the top teams in the B10 (you could include Neb in that) will play the top teams in the Pac 12. I’m sure M, Ohio, PSU, Neb will play some games against the Arizona’s, WSU’s, etc.
It sounds like they’ll make it home-and-away too; so OSU would play USC both at home-and-road in back-to-back seasons. Then the next season they’d play someone else like Washington; one year in Washington, next in Columbus…
It will be more than a small nightmare to determine which B10 teams plays in southern california but the plan is to put the strongest B10 programs against the strongest Pac 12 programs.
You say that like the plan has been finalized, but I’ve heard several conflicting reports. Some said like against like while others said round robin. Do you have some official source you’re basing this on, or just your opinion/preference?
LikeLike
Is this because Utah wants to play USU? Because Utah has always only ever scheduled 6 home games a season every year since 12 games were allowed. From reading up on Utah & BYU blogs earlier, I got that feeling that Utah has been lukewarm about continuing the BYU series ever since they got an invite to the Pac. My personal opinion is that Utah could easily still play BYU annually if they really wanted to, and that this is just a convenient excuse to dump the dowdy fundy HS girlfriend now that they’ve gone off to college and seen the world.
LikeLike
Yeah, I remember somebody in Utah’s AD saying that they might consider rotating between BYU and USU so they could play both on semi-regular basis.
LikeLike
http://www.blocku.com/2012/2/6/2776324/pac-12-prohibits-neutral-site-games
This happened a week ago but I don’t think anyone has posted it.
Today the Pac 12 announced that there will be no more neutral site football games like last years match between Oregon and LSU in Cowboy stadium. There are permissible exceptions that include the Pac 12 gettinging TV rights to the game, or the match-ups being an ‘away’ game like next years contest between USC and Syracuse at Met Life Stadium.
I assume preexisting contracts will be honored, like UCLA-UT and Jerrywold, but this is an interesting development to say the least, since many people that in the age of 9 game schedules one off neutral site games would be the future.
LikeLike
The B10/P12 agreement explicitly included neutral site games as an option since the two conference networks can have rights, so they won’t go away entirely. It sounds like they want truth in advertising (OR vs LSU in Dallas is NOT neutral) and home and homes, or even better they want the game on the PTN.
LikeLike
…they want the game on the PTN
That’s the key. The conference wants control of all TV rights, and one off neutral sites don’t allow that. Home and homes give them exclusive broadcast rights for the home game and the B1G-PAC games will likely be on a home and basis for TV purposes, even if one (or both) of the games is held at a neutral site.
LikeLike
Its all about the P10 network. Those games are allowed if they give TV rights to the P10 network.
LikeLike
I don’t blame them. Why help ESPN make money at your own expense?
LikeLike
I wonder if this is an indication the PAC might crack down on schools like Colorado and WSU selling home games (and the broadcast rights that come with them).
LikeLike
I would presume so, though the publicly posted language isn’t clear on that point. Seems VERY hard for me to imagine it wouldn’t, but I could be wrong…
LikeLike
They may only be allowed to sell neutral site games in the Pac-B10 series from now on (for instance, a WSU “home game” vs. Nebraska in KC, but with the Pac owning the TV rights).
As for picking up a guarantee to play, I don’t think that is outlawed; Pac schools can still go play for a fee or sign 2-for-1 contracts. Heck, Oregon St. probably could sign a 2-game deal with Texas to play at Texas and at “home” in Houston so long as the Pac12 owns the TV rights to the Houston game.
LikeLike
Just throwing an opinion out here…
IF the powers that be decide to keep some kind of “AQ” thing going on, HOW can the Big East remain an “AQ” conference??
Even IF the “AQ” status thing goes away, how can you consider the Big East a “power” conference?
Boise is the only school moving in that really has been a factor, AND with several of their stars graduating and a below-par recruiting class, they likely will not be the same.
With WVU gone, and Pitt and Syracuse leaving, Cinci and Rutgers are “the new Big East top tier” which is saying VERY little, since neither scares anyone outside of the BE. After the dust settles, the new Big East is very mediocre…
Of course, the MWC-CUSA merger gives us the same thing… another conference with a whole lot of mediocre teams. They too, provide the same question… Will they have or be granted “AQ” power?
If the B1G’s plan for a 4-team seeded playoff comes to fruition I don’t see how these weaker players could come into the picture…
The more things change, the more things look like there eventually will be a breaking apart of Div 1 football… Too much of a divergence between the “haves” (i.e. power conferences) and the “have-nots” (i.e. the NOT power conferences). Personally, I cannot blame guys like Delany and Slive for not wanting to pander to the little guys, considering it’s the big guys bringing the food to the table.
The not-so-distant future is going to be very interesting…
LikeLike
FBS will split in to Div I-A and Div I-AA (FCS will become Div I-AAA). Either the BE will be the last conference in Div I-A, or Mount USA. The rest, along with a few of the top of FCS and the Ivies will be in Div I-AA. 7 wins for bowl eligibility, but 2 wins against Div I-AA will count.
LikeLike
Some other signs of conference instability:
Bill Byrne, Texas A&M AD, rumours say will be fired soon. He was conspicuously left out of the A&M to SEC decision.
Craig Thompson, MWC commissioner is applying for Minnesota AD job.
Karl Benson, WAC commissioner, is getting the Sun Belt job according to ESPN. Current commissioner is retiring.
Banowsky, CUSA commissioner, is rumoured to be a major candidate for the Big 12 commissioner job.
Wouldn’t take much for the WAC to cease to be a fb conference. They only have 7 and 2 are new to FBS.
LikeLike
And you know that if the CUSA-MWC thing goes to 20+, they’re going to look heavily at some of their schools like Utah State to fill in the gaps in their profile…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45541/west-virginia-ad-luck-talks-big-12-entrance
Breakdown of TV revenue growth for WV and TCU in the B12:
2012 – 50%
2013 – 67%
2014 – 80%
2015 – 100%
It’s fairly obvious, but the Backyard Brawl may be gone for a while with WV and Pitt both having 9 conference games. They’ll need to be on opposite schedules for having 5 home games to make it work.
LikeLike
While WVU has scheduled 7 home games every year, Pitt has alternated between 6 & 7 games the last 5 years.
LikeLike
The reason for this is obvious, BTW: Pitt drew a smaller attendance than Minny last year and just a little more than Purdue.
LikeLike
You know, to be perfectly honest, I think WVU dodged a bullet.
Even with the Big XII being as stable as a landfill in San Francisco, the ACC is a graveyard. Worse still, they’re being led around the nose by two powers that have utterly dissimilar goals.
Even if Texas does kill off the Big XII in a few years, they’ll be in the same position they are now, but with the added prestige of playing in a real conference.
LikeLike
Heck, is there any other non-UT/OU Big 12 school that would be picked by the Big Ten or SEC (who have more poaching power than anyone) over any ACC school besides maybe Wake Forest?
I know it is kind of late to respond to this part, but I say the answer is unequivocally yes, at least for Kansas.
For the Big 10:
The Big 10 made clear last year that AAU membership was necessary condition for any future member besides Notre Dame, and after the debacle with Nebraska’s membership being revoked the conference is probably even more determined than ever to keep AAU membership a requirement. That means no BC, no V-Tech, no Wake Forrest (though they never would receive an invite anyways for financial reasons), no FSU and no Miami (though they are radioactive anyways). Kansas though is an AAU member with a premier MBB program and a decent media market.
For the SEC:
The SEC is extremely protective of its Southern identity, but if they had to chose they would take Kansas over any school in New England or the Mid-Atlantic, so BC and Maryland are out. Wake Forrest is arguably the least valuable school still in the “Big 5” (though you could make a case for Baylor and ISU) so they’re out too. Next up are Clemson and G-Tech who give the conference nothing they don’t already get from USCe or UGa, so they are gone too. Our Journey south concludes with FSU and Miami who the SEC passed on in favor of Missouri, so I doubt they view them to highly. (Actually, it is possible that the “gentleman’s agreement” agreement is blocking FSU but that doesn’t change the fact they aren’t getting an invite over the Jayhawks. As for Miami, well the SEC is never going to invite a school that plays off campus, especially one who gives them no new media markets and may see sanctions that will permanently damage its drawing power at the national level).
So by my count, that makes 5 schools the Big 10 would take Kansas over and 7 the SEC would.
LikeLike
Frug:
I didn’t see any evidence that it was the SEC passing over FSU rather than FSU not wanting to leave the ACC.
LikeLike
Ok, let’s say it’s plausible that the SEC would take Kansas over FSU.
Also, the more I think about it I really believe that SEC would take Kansas over Duke. While Kansas is no great shakes in football, their football value (which is what is really important to the SEC) is considerably higher than Duke’s, and likely enough to offset Duke’s marginal advantage in BB. Also, since Duke is a northern school that happens to be located in a southern state I don’t think it would be any better cultural fit (especially since as a public flagship KU has more in common with the SEC’s current schools.)
So, by count Kansas beats 6-8 ACC schools when it comes to the SEC.
LikeLike
If it ever comes down to the Big Ten or SEC being in a position to invite the jayhawks, those leagues would choose to not expand at all. Which is where we are today. Kansas simply doesn’t offer enough to warrant expansion. They will need to stay in the Big 12, in whatever form that takes. If for some reason Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12, then kansas and the Big 12 will need to bring in schools like Louisville, Cincinnati, Houston, and Boise State as replacements. Literally nobody in the Big 12 other than Texas and Oklahoma offer enough to get invites into the three major conferences (SEC, B1G, PAC). TT, OSU, and/or KU could get into the PAC as part of a package deal if they are lucky.
LikeLike
I agree, I’m just saying that if they had to expand for some reason, Kansas would be considerably more diserable to the Big 10 and SEC than a fair amount of other teams.
I will say, that if the PAC were to expand and UT is serious about going East, then KU is the PAC’s second best option behind OU and be virtually assured of an invitation if they could ditch KSU.
LikeLike
IF super conferences emerge AND IF Texas goes east. I think that the PAC would swallow their pride and take both Kansas and both Oklahoma schools. However, Larry Scott has proved to be proactive so the PAC may indeed be the one leading the charge to super conferences.
I still don’t see the B1G or the ACC expanding without Notre Dame.
As it is, I think we have reached a stalemate for a decade or two. I think that the Big 5 fight it out. The BE holds on in the short term. In the long term, I am not sure that there is a difference between the new BE and the “merged” MWC/CUSA
LikeLike
I honestly think with the real possibility of the removal of AQ status we’ve seen the end of conference expansion for now and if the bowl elegibility does go to 7 wins those “super conferences” might even make less sense as it just increases the number of “quality” opponents on a team’s schedule in any given year.
What I expect to see more of is alliances similar to what the Pac and B1G have announced. Dedicated scheduling structures that help to create content/buzz for tv marketing purposes. Much like the B1G / ACC challenge in basketball, except in most (or all) sports.
With those kind of competitions institutionalized they can become part of packages that the ESPN’s of the world will have to include in any bids they make.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is in that position now. I still think Kansas is on the shortlist, but many things could change in the future – certain schools may or may not be in play.
But for now, I think the Jayhawks are one of the best free agents available. They are a midwestern school with an outstanding basketball following. Everyone dismisses the idea of college basketball, but when there are no major football schools left, it wouldn’t hurt to bring in a school to raise the profile of an already burgeoning league. This isn’t football – strength of schedule has a lot to do with tournament bids and the conference as a whole makes money when their schools are invited.
LikeLike
I’d say they’re an attractive free agent to the extent that they can separate from KSU. By themselves, a lot of leagues would have at least mild interest. As a pair, not nearly as much.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s loss of membership was partly due to the pettiness of certain schools.
Michigan was almost certainly against Nebraska’s membership, given their statements after the fact and that they voted to kick the University of Nebraska-Lincoln out of the AAU. Michigan was also one of the most vocal opponents of Penn State’s entry.
In other words, the nays couldn’t stop it from happening, so they lashed out and tried to embarrass the conference as a whole.
LikeLike
Whoops, this was supposed to be in reply to someone else.
Frank, I don’t suppose you could delete this?
LikeLike
But I thought Michigan and OSU controlled the conference? How in the world would UNL get admitted if Michigan opposed?
I guess the tin foilers are wrong.
LikeLike
Well, where would they go?
Michigan’s only choice would be independence, and the people of Michigan would sooner dissolve the university than pursue that vanity.
LikeLike
I never said Michigan has to leave. But if they truly controlled the conference, how did UNL get in?
Similarly stupid is the claim that tobacco road controls the ACC, which is why they ruined the basketball ethos to add football teams.
LikeLike
@greg
That’s my point though, Michigan has no alternative – their threats are empty. It’s simply impossible for one or even two schools to dictate the future of the Big Ten conference. With shared media rights and lack of any clear alternative, the conference appears to be very democratic.
LikeLike
My believe is that Michigan’s academic elites and their athletic dept were of 2 different minds when it came to Neb’s admission…………..
LikeLike
It’s hard to compare Michigan’s reaction to Penn State’s admission to the Big Ten with what happened to Nebraska.
When PSU joined the Big Ten, the athletic directors were completely cut out of the decision. It was a fait accompli and one person who was very vocal about it was then UM AD Bo Schembechler. I don’t know what upset him more–Penn State joining the conference or not being consulted about the decision. Presidents and athletic directors have had running turf battles for years all over college sports and this was one of them.
When Nebraska joined the Big Ten, the presidents and the athletic directors were fully consulted about the matter. I’m not privy to what President Mary Sue Coleman and AD David Brandon felt about the matter, but I have to imagine the athletic department side was happy with the addition (especially when it touched on revenue issues). In fact, the bigger issue was which division Ohio State would end up in and when the UM-OSU game would be played during the season. For the record, Coleman did vote for Nebraska to join the Big Ten.
It also appears that Michigan wasn’t the only school that voted against Nebraska’s continued membership in the AAU. Wisconsins also cast a negative vote. See http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/article_19188dda-afe7-57c8-aa2c-c1939ec5acb4.html
They were among the 44 universities that didn’t support Nebraska’s membership.
LikeLike
Yeah, this whole Michigan getting back at Nebraska thing is ridiculous. They may be for their admission to the conference, but that doesn’t mean they won’t vote against Nebraska for AAU membership.
It’s just a sign to me that Michigan tries to keep athletics and academics separate issues, which is a good thing.
LikeLike
The problem Bo and M had issues with PSU’s entrance was the special considerations given to PSU; they wanted bye weeks before playing M and OSU and such.
LikeLike
For wmtiger:
If my memory serves me correctly, Penn State got bye weeks prior to playing Michigan in PSU’s first four seasons playing football in the Big Ten. PSU went 3-1 in those games played from 1993 to 1996.
Since that time, it’s been 9-3 in Michigan’s favor. Those three PSU victories came in the last three years when Rich Rodriguez was UM’s head coach. The two teams didn’t play last year.
LikeLike
Nebraska was voted in as a B10 member unanimously.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s loss of membership was partly due to the pettiness of certain schools.
Michigan was almost certainly against Nebraska’s membership, given their statements after the fact and that they voted to kick the University of Nebraska-Lincoln out of the AAU. Michigan was also one of the most vocal opponents of Penn State’s entry.
In other words, the nays couldn’t stop it from happening, so they lashed out and tried to embarrass the conference as a whole.
LikeLike
Wait, no. I’m just an idiot.
Never mind.
LikeLike
#Linning
LikeLike
B1G-BEast Baseball this weekend
http://www.bigtenbigeastbaseballchallenge.com/
Doesn’t inlcude Nebraska who is playing Gonzaga.
LikeLike
I didn’t even know this was a thing.
Cool!
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Conference-USA-Mountain-West-merger-fueled-by-fear-021512
Writers comment is that the MWC/CUSA merger is fueled by an effort to make sure those schools get included in the event of a split in FBS. They are trying make sure there is separation between them and the WAC/SB/MAC. He is apparently hearing more and more concern about that. NCAA President Emmert has been said to be encouraging discussion about all kinds of changes (not necessarily advocating).
When you look at the other 3 conferences you have:
WAC-2 schools not yet in FBS, 1 moved up mid 90s (ID), 1 moved up late 80s (LT), 3 in FBS since it was formed (SJSU,USU,NMSU).
Sun Belt-1 school not yet in FBS, 7 moved up since mid 90s, 1 moved up late 80s (ASU), 1 in FBS since it was formed (ULL).
MAC-1 school not yet in FBS, 2 moved up in 90s (UB,Akron), 11 in FBS since it was formed (although 5 or 6 were in I-AA for 1 year in 80s)-but of those 11, 4 were in Division II in the 70s (BSU,NIU,EMU,CMU)
By contrast, 12 of the 16 MWC/CUSA members are long time top division programs. NV, UAB and Marshall are 90s move-ups, while ECU was 80s. Of the 5 schools most often mentioned for adding, SJSU, USU and Temple are long time top division programs, La Tech moved up in the late 80s and FIU is the only new program-and is probably only mentioned because of Florida recruiting.
LikeLike
Basketball needs to be divided more than anything other sport. We’re up to nearly 350 schools competing for 1 national championship. Pretty absurd.
LikeLike
Division 1-A Basketball should be:
Conference-#Schools
Big East -16
ACC -12
B1G -12
SEC -12
Big 12 -10
Pac 12 -12
MWC -8
WAC -8
Sun Belt -12
CUSA -12
A10 -14
Colonial -12
Ohio Valley -11
Missouri Valley -10
Horizon -10
Southern -12
West Coast -9
That’s 192 schools. The WAC, if it remains, would add 4 new schools.
Maybe the Big West should be included since San Diego St. and Hawaii are joining. On the other hand if a basketball-only super conference ever comes together you can probably eliminate a couple of those lower conferences.
The 1-AA tournament can replace the NIT and have the finals at Madison Square Garden.
LikeLike
I would consider this fairly obvious. But even with this effort I have a very hard time seeing Mount USA as an inclusion rather than an exclusion. I wouldn’t be totally stunned if one or two snuck in as an independent or part of an expanded Big East, but I can’t see all 16+ of them making the cut. Just doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Yep, I agree with this. As I mentioned before, FBS will divide into Div I-A and Div I-AA (FCS becomes Div I-AAA), with the last group in Div I-A being either the BE only or the BE and Mount USA. Div I-AA can at least console itself with being able to make money from plenty of guarantee games, though, as I see 2 wins against Div I-AA counting towards bowl eligibility along with bowl eligibility moves up to 7 games.
LikeLike
One sign that TCU has “arrived” in the big leagues:
http://espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/story/_/id/7577881/tcu-horned-frogs-football-players-arrested-drug-sweep
17 students arrested in a sting operation, 4 of whom were on the TCU football team. All 17 students have been expelled.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/15/tcu-players-arrested-in-major-drug-sweep/
[LB]Tanner Brock was arrested on three felony charges relating to the drug sting… Brock told an informant that it was likely only about 20 players on TCU’s roster would pass a drug test.
We may just be getting started.
LikeLike
Bet those THCU players are wishing they’d gone to Alabama, where they’d only get suspended a few games (at least in basketball.)
LikeLike
Worth noting: Tanner Brock, one of the football players arrested, is apparently the roommate of starting QB Casey Pachall. This could get ugly(er). But hey, how about that basketball team! Way to take down UNLV.
LikeLike
Jake,
Is this paragraph causing any concern for TCU fans and alums?
According to the warrant, Brock said that he wasn’t worried because there “would be about 60 people being screwed.” Brock is alleged to have said that he and Horn had looked over the TCU roster and concluded that only about 20 players could pass the test.
Those would be some scary numbers if they are true.
LikeLike
Not any more:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/16/3740268/source-5-tcu-players-failed-feb.html
LikeLike
If protecting the Rose Bowl is a high priority:
Let’s just say the MountUSA alliance gets the NCAA laws changed so that conferences of 16 teams or greater can have semifinals. Should the B1G and the PAC create the Rose Alliance (i.e. football only merge) where the semifinal games are between current division winners (Legends vs. Leaders and PAC N vs. PAC S) and then the winners play in the Rose Bowl? Instead of regulating the Rose to second tier of importance to the upcoming playoffs the Rose may just become a play-in game for the four team playoffs. Something may have to be done with the dates depending on the schedule of the playoffs but is an early Rose Bowl with the B1G and PAC champion playing for a playoff spot better than a traditional date Rose Bowl with B1G and PAC also-rans?
I realize that if the MountUSA gets the rules changed that will set off Conference Expansion again (two semifinal games would easily pay for ACC and SEC expansion up to 16). If the B1G went to 16 teams, would it be happy to have semifinals/final on their own instead of always playing the Rose Alliance championship in PAC territory?
LikeLike
The MountUSA getting the semifinals rules changed seems like a flawed premise. Would ACC or SEC vote in favor for possible future reasons? If not, it doesn’t seem like there would be any support from any other conference.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the ACC, SEC, B1G, and PAC support it?
We’re getting to a point where adding teams is no longer revenue positive. Adding semifinals should change that with the two semifinals, plus the increase in inventory. A vote to allow semifinals is a vote to create a financial incentive to expand.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the ACC, SEC, B1G, and PAC support it? Unless they are looking to immediately expand, I don’t think they want to encourage other conferences to expand. The ACC seems like the only one who would be interested in expanding in the near term.
LikeLike
Mike,
Excellent point! This is a great way for conferences to maintain control and make playoff level money.
LikeLike
However, unless the Pac12-B10 winner gets a spot in the title game, why would they support it? If it was only for a spot in the semifinals, it would be the B10-Pac winner & most likely the SEC champ, the B12 champ, and either the ACC champ or a second SEC team. 2 power conferences get one spot while the other power conferences also get a spot each?
LikeLike
Boy, I wasn’t thinking. It only makes sense if the other conferences are made up of 24 schools or more, to match the Pac-12/B1G configuration. With the current conference configurations this would be like the B12 and the SEC playing for a single entry into a playoff.
LikeLike
That’s an inordinate handicap to the b10 and PAC12.
LikeLike
I don’t think using the Rose Bowl as the permanent CCG site would be a good idea for the B1G schools. Too big a geographic advantage for the Pac schools. Also, if they consider playing semis I hope they don’t make it Legends vs Leaders and Pac N vs Pac S every year. I would seed the semis, 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.
LikeLike
Saw on several boards that the exit fees for Missouri and A&M were finally settled. Probably another thing that had to wait for WVU. Source for most of those boards is probably Chip Brown saying amount will be $31-$34 million combined. Since the estimates of the calculated fee was $28-$35 million apiece with the new Fox TV deal, that makes sense-roughly 50% of the calculated value, which is the same deal Nebraska got (roughly $9 million on a calculated value of $18-$19 million).
LikeLike
Chip Brown frequently jumps the gun w/ his leaks and is frequently wrong. I’ll believe it when it’s reported by more than just him.
LikeLike
Saw someone else quoting a Baylor source, but without an estimate of the amount.
LikeLike
Now that was someone on a message board claiming a source, not a news outlet.
LikeLike
Tamuinsider is tweeting that it will be 20 to 22 million combined.
LikeLike
Chip is often wrong. But A&M sites have no credibility. Some of them were saying it was a done deal with $9 million back in September. A lot of Nebraska sites were saying they would pay no exit fee and only missed by $9 million.
I can’t imagine the two sides want it to go to court, so it probably will get settled soon if it hasn’t already. And a 50% discount like Nebraska got seems like the logical deal. Since the Big 12 chipped in $5 million to WVU due to A&M & Missouri leaving on short notice, I can’t imagine A&M and Missouri getting a better deal.
LikeLike
Now I saw one site claiming the calculated amount was $23 million. But everything else I have seen (in a lot of different places) was $28-$35 million as the amount based on 90-100% of 2 years distributions. If that $23 million is accurate, then the lower figure you mention would make sense to me. As Neinas said A&M would get the $20 million they wanted after the Fox deal was signed, that would support the $28-$35 million (2nd year under the Fox deal at $20+ million and 1st year at a lower amount).
LikeLike
I’ve heard various rumors to the end that it won’t be that bad for Missouri. Somewhere in the $10-15M range. We’ll find out soon enough.
LikeLike
Sounds like more and more ‘bracket creep’; more sources (AD’s) are talking about 6 and 8 team playoffs instead of just a plus one/4-team scenario…
LikeLike
I agree. If this passes, we are talking about the potential of four rounds between conference championship and national championship. Don’t like that idea at all.
LikeLike
Good news, 16 is 4 rounds, 8 is only 3.
6 highest ranked conference champs, 2 wildcards, played n campus the 1st Saturday after Christmas to avoid finals, on campus the 1st Sat after New Years (full of bowls), and the title game a week or two after that, perhaps during the off weekend before the Super Bowl. About as perfect as we can get right now, and satisfying enough to 95% of football fans that bracket creep may not take place for years, if ever.
LikeLike
1st Saturday after Christmas is too late for the Presidents. That would push the final game back to mid-January. Its also not a good week to travel except in warm weather climates. If they do 8, the first round needs to be before Christmas.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now:
I’m with you on the 8-team playoff, but with five conference champions (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, PAC 12, SEC) and three at-large. The conference champions have to be top 14 in the ranking system to qualify for the playoff. If a conference champion doesn’t qualify, then it’s replaced by another at large team.
I’m not sold that there should be a sixth conference champion getting an autobid given not only all the recent realignment, but where future realignment is projected. No one would be surprised if Louisville left the Big East for the Big XII or that BYU would also join that conference. If Larry Scott ever does execute his plan successfully, then we’ll see a Pac 16 Conference with national and regional networks and exposure in the Asia-Pacific Region. The CUSA-MWC association and the melding of the Sun Belt and the WAC sure don’t provide a viable sixth conference that could be considered viable enough to merit an autobid.
That said, if a team from one of those conferences were to go undefeated, then they could get an at large bid. Last year’s Houston team would have qualified as an at large team, for example, if it had won the C-USA championship game against Southern Mississippi. If the BCS ratings were used, one-loss Boise State could have been part of an eight-team playoff as well.
Two major questions now arise. The first is seeding the playoff. Would teams like Stanford and Alabama be seeded in the top four of the playoff (and get home field advantage in the first round) even though they didn’t win their divisions or their conferences? Or do you make a rule that states the top four conference champions get seeded 1 thru 4 with the fifth conference champion competing with the three at large teams for the 5 thru 8 seeds? That rule would have made Alabama and Stanford the fifth and sixth seeds in the playoff and they would have played at Wisconsin and at Oregon respectively in the first round.
The second question concerns the timing of the playoff’s first round. Do you do it the second Saturday of December (one week after the conference championships) in order to get it in prior to the end of semester. Or do you wait until the third or fourth week of December (after exams) to give fans from the lower seeded team the opportunity to buy tickets and arrange travel, hotels, etc. in a timely manner?
Regardless of the timing, a decision also has to be made about how much time should elapse between rounds. If the minimum is two weeks, then even if the first round is played the second week of December, the final championship game will probably be the second week of January. Simply put, I don’t think there’s a realistic way to set up an eight-team playoff and have the championship game during the first week of January.
The timing question comes into play with the four-team playoff as well. The first round could be the second week of December with the final game in early January. That might be a burden on fans of the traveling teams in the first round, but it’d certainly give the fan bases of the winning teams time to get their travel arrangements, etc. in place. But if that first round is in the third or fourth week of December, then we have the championship game during the second week of January.
I think one thing we have to keep in mind is that while the timing of these games is important in terms of viewership, the more important thing is the stakes involved. The Alabama-LSU game suffered not only for being played on 9 January, but because it was a rematch that wasn’t really that appealing to a lot of college football fans who would tune in. Change the format, make it a playoff and I suspect the interest level changes markedly.
LikeLike
The BE is conference #6.
LikeLike
For Richard: I don’t think the Big East is a strong enough football confernce to merit an autobid in an eight-team playoff setup given the teams that it will comprise in the next few years. If West Virginia and Texas Christian–two teams that have won BCS bowls in recent years–had opted to stay, then I could see the possibility. But their departures along with the losses of Pittsburgh and Syracuse in 2014 (or earlier) means the BE has moved more towards the smaller conferences in terms of football and away from the five major conferences.
To recap, here’s what the future conference membership will look like provided there are no other changes in the offiing:
Boise State (2013 – Football Only)
Central Florida (2013)
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston (2013)
Louisville
Memphis (2013)
Navy (2015 – Football Only)
Rutgers
San Diego State (2013 – Football Only)
South Florida
Southern Methodist (2013)
The candidates remaining to round out the conference if other programs (Louisville, Cincinnati, Connecticut or Rutgers are possibilities to different degrees) leave are Temple, Army, Massachusetts and East Carolina.
In 2012, the Big East will only have seven members. If the schedule remains in place for the timing of teams to depart, that number could go to 13 in 2013 unless Pittsburgh and Syracuse are allowed go to early–then it’s 11 members. Navy’s addition in 2015 would get the number back to 12 and the conference could conceivably divide into two divisions with a playoff.
If a future Big East team were to run the table and go 13-0, then I suspect there would be room for that program in an eight-team playoff as an autobid. But I don’t think it’d be prudent to set up a playoff system of any sort that would give the conference an autobid given its projected membership.
I also suspect that Louisville will eventually be joining the Big XII–something that Barry Tramel of The Oklahoman also thinks as well: http://newsok.com/tramel-adding-louisville-would-be-big-12s-bridge-to-west-virginia/article/3649618
The Big XII could stick at 11 schools for awhile if they desired to do so, but with its television negotiations upcoming, I could see them going to twelve programs with a conference championship game in due course. And who knows–if you add teams to the conference, the Longhorn Network might actually improve on its current cable network distribution :).
Texas asking fans for patience with network: http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-14/news/31060109_1_longhorn-network-texas-president-bill-powers-time-warner-cable/2
On the timing question, I do agree with you that college football might be able to move up a week to accomodate a playoff, but you’ll be starting playing games before the students are even on campus. It may be doable,but I don’t know if it’s preferable to move the date up to essentially accomodate a naitonal championship game played by two teams. If that game were played on a Saturday evening, students may be heading out to planes late on a Friday to get to the site and be back on campus on Sunday. It may not be as entertaining as spending a week at a bowl site, but we are talking about a national championship game here. The important thing IMHO is that people be given the time and opportunity to buy tickets and arrange travel in a timely manner–that includes students, alums, fans, boosters, athletic departments, etc.
LikeLike
Louisville may be in the XII at some point, but I doubt it happens without a 12th team. The ACC disrupted the XII expansion plans by taking Pittsburg over Rutgers and UConn while the XII was still waiting on BYU. The 4 BE schools the XII was targeting were published as TCU, WVU, Pitt, and Louisville. The XII has no immediate options for a 12th team that is better than Pittsburg. Cincinnati is not getting an invite and Rutgers is seen as too far away (at least for now). That leaves the XII at 10 until there is a 12th team that is both willing to join and that most of the current members want. Teams the XII will accept are ones that will not join at this time (Clemson, FSU, among other rumored candidates).
LikeLike
Considering the much bigger disruption playing a football playoff would cause on campus (vs. playing a bball playoff), I really don’t think a mid-January championship game would fly.
They could move the season up a week (and am perplexed about why they are so stuck about not starting the season before Labor Day).
LikeLike
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/temple/20120215_Temple_still_could_be_an_option_in_Big_East_expansion.html
Temple still thinks they can get into the Big East. I can only see that happening if at least 2 schools are poached from Big East to Big 12. Air Force would be #12 if it’s a Louisville-BYU combo to the Big 12.
LikeLike
My math was wrong. Air Force would currently be #12 in BE so I guess Temple could get in if just Louisville leaves.
LikeLike
I’m personally not even sure then. Villainous strongly opposes them and may well have gotten other schools onto its side. If that is the case, then it’s possible less desirable candidates are taken over Temple.
LikeLike
Nope… I was right the first time… going home.
LikeLike
WVU settlement apparently obtained by FOIA. There is a link on the Louisville scout board (Red Rage Pigkin). Its a long address, so I’m not going to try to re-type it. Its basically as previously described-$20 million with $5 million effectively paid by Big 12.
WVU has already paid $2.5 million.
They will pay an additional $8.5 million. That will be funded by a loan from the Big 12. They will be forgiven $5.0 million of that and repay the rest with interest out of their TV revenues.
They will forfeit current year Big East distributions which are forecasted at $9.0 million. That will include NCAA credits, Orange Bowl revenues and any other distribution, including fees paid to exit the conference by SU, Pitt and TCU. There will be an accounting in June and they will get paid any in excess of $9.0 million or pay any deficit (deficit will apparently be funded by Big 12 loan which has a maximum amount of $10 million, but only $8.5 is utilized now).
To summarize:
WVU pays $5.0 million exit fee.
Big 12 contributes $5.0 million
WVU pays something less than $10 million directly or indirectly for damages. They are paying $10 million, but its doubtful they would have been eligible for any share of the SU, Pitt and TCU exit fees since they are leaving also, so the incremental cost is less than $10 million.
LikeLike
bullet,
WVU settlement apparently obtained by FOIA. There is a link on the Louisville scout board (Red Rage Pigkin). Its a long address, so I’m not going to try to re-type it.
Copy (or “Copy link location”) and paste is your friend. Why retype a URL manually and risk typos?
LikeLike
AOL won’t let me do it.
LikeLike
AOL
Well, there’s your first mistake.
LikeLike
It can be a pain, but I’ve had the address a long time.
LikeLike
@bullet
An AOL subscription isn’t required to use an @aol.com email address.
LikeLike
Do you know why AOL won’t let you do it? Copy/Paste is a function of the operating system, and I don’t know why AOL would stop it.
LikeLike
I’m assuming its AOL and not IE9 as AOL causes lots of glitches with other programs. I can do cut and paste with website addresses on other computers I use that have different e-mail systems.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7582376/steve-spurrier-south-carolina-officials-meet-ncaa
A reminder that there are several violations cases coming before the NCAA soon. SC is happening now. NC should be soon. Miami probably not for several months. GT has to hear back about their latest problems, too, and OR has the Lyles issue outstanding.
South Carolina agreed in its response to the NCAA in December that major rules violations did take place.
Spurrier bluntly summed up how he feels about the hearing when he said earlier this month: “Sometimes crap happens. You just have to deal with it.”
LikeLike
Don’t know if this has been posted yet, but it appears only 5 TCU players failed the drug test:http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/02/five-tcu-football-players-failed-drug-tests-/1
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7582660/incoming-sun-belt-commissioner-karl-benson-talks-expansion
Two things of note:
1. Karl Benson is a conference slut. He’s been in charge of the MAC, WAC and now Sun Belt. Why hire a retread who can never get a better gig?
2. He wants to expand the SB to 12. He’s apparently never met a I-AA he didn’t want to promote to I-A.
LikeLike
While in charge of the WAC, the conference added 17 new schools. Put another way, every single current member next year will have entered the conference while he was commissioner (assuming he’s still there on July 1st) and there are another 6 (7 if you count Boise State who is returning) who are in different conferences now. Only 1 team entered the MAC while he was commissioner though (Akron).
Maybe that’s what the Sunbelt wants though, a commissioner who can make sure most of its members move to greener pastures. 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah, pretty much. He’s probably done the leg work on analyzing every FBS school (non-BCS) in the country in terms of WAC contraction/expansion, and he knows the game as well as anyone.
LikeLike
The commissioners that I tend to fault are more the commissioners that should have been more proactive from the beginning (i.e. Marinatto) rather than the ones that never stood a chance (i.e. Benson).
LikeLike
Should Marinatto have done more or did the presidents hold him back?
LikeLike
While commissioners are fun targets, I’m not really convinced any of them had supper terrible decisions. The WAC the past few years was always going to lose teams to the Mountain West or others if they were invited. The Big East was balancing a difficult football-basketball relationship and waiting for viable candidates to emerge wasn’t a terrible strategy. Expanding to 12 right away, upsetting the basketball schools, dividing the contract, and missing out rising starts (like TCU was) could have just as easily been a mistake. If the 12 team mark wasn’t broken by the ACC and SEC they’d have been fine.
The one big mistake I can think of though was WAC expanding to 16 and Bensen was probably part of that.
LikeLike
I really don’t know Brian, it could be argued both ways I guess as Eric points out.
I was just more or less pointing out that the WAC really was in the worst spot of all those conferences in terms of losing teams, so they never really had a chance.
As for conferences like the Big 12 and Big East, maybe a different strategy would have been better, maybe not.
I think there was a decent chance for the Big 12 to keep Missouri if they had gone back to 12 earlier and not had to deal with the OU -> Pac-12 stuff (which was entirely out of the Big 12’s hands, so that’s not saying much).
I guess in the end this process does end up somewhat rationally like airline mergers, with the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC, and Big 12 resembling airlines in terms of filling out their regional portfolios as it were…
LikeLike
Big East-inviting Villanova. The whole episode demonstrated to WVU, Pitt and SU that the Big East wasn’t serious about football and hastened the demise. It embarrassed the conference and Villanova. Whether the presidents pushed it or not, Marinatto has to be blamed for the public failure. Given Villanova’s unpreparedness to address the issue, clearly the push did not come from Villanova. Next on the list was Navy which also demonstrated a lack of seriousness (now they are a good addition, given what’s left-but at the time they were discussed as #9 or #10, they weren’t).
The Big East also made a mistake staying at 8 and shunning East Carolina. They should have gone to 10 and those two schools-ECU + 1 other (Memphis, Temple or UCF) might have made the competitive strides Cincinnati has made. Instead, they waited until they were in crisis mode to expand.
I also think Marinatto’s public hard nose stand about the 27 months has hurt the conference in relation to other schools in the country. UConn’s public lead in the ACC/BE lawsuit definitely hurt them some in getting into the ACC. While most Presidents will realize its all about the money and will make their own major decisions based on that, not on emotions, there will still be some residual ill will.
LikeLike
I doubt adding ECU would have persuaded Pitt & Syracuse to stay. WVU (or any BE school) was gone once they had a B12 invite anyway. _Maybe_ adding Boise, UCF, Houston, and SMU/SDSU would have kept Pitt & Syracuse, though it’s hard for me to see a scenario where any BE school spurns the ACC to stay in the BE.
LikeLike
BTW, concerning the Illinois basketball job, it should be a top 20 destination.
There are really only 9-11 programs that are clearly better than Illini basketball:
The true kings:
UNC, Duke, UK, KU, & IU
The top (but more recent) brands that bring in more bball revenue than Illinois:
Louisville, Arizona, MSU, & Syracuse
Maybe tOSU & Texas because while they aren’t bball royalty, they have wealthy athletics departments, a big state they can own in recruiting, and bring in more bball revenue than Illinois.
Maybe UCLA, which has the brand and the recruiting grounds, but actually brings in less money that Illinois bball.
That’s it. With it’s recruiting grounds and bball support, Illinois should be a destination job for 2/3rds (or at least half) of the coaches in the 6 power conferences and all of the coaches in the midmajors and below.
LikeLike
9-12 programs.
LikeLike
I would include Uconn with the recent kings. Still, the thesis is correct — Illinois should be a top 20 destination.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t. In bball revenue, UConn is far below non-kings Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, tOSU Arkansas, NCSU, WVU, Tennessee, Texas, Marquette and even Alabama, OK. St., and Northwestern. Before Calhoun, they were nobodies. Let’s see if UConn can still stay in the upper echelon once Calhoun is gone. Cincy once won 2 national titles & Florida won a pair in recent times, but that doesn’t mean they’re kings in bball.
LikeLike
Kings have to include UCLA, which won 10 championships in 12 years and won a title more recently than IU, & UConn who has 3 championships since ’99.
I’d also add Florida as a top job and probably Michigan. Villanova and Georgetown would also be great jobs, especially with the weakening of the Big East, there is even more opportunity to win.
But I agree. Probably a top 20-25 job in the country.
LikeLike
I agree with 20-25. Its a good job, but 9-12 is a little high.
LikeLike
The other day Scott van Pelt argued that IL should be a top 4 B10 job, after IN, MSU and OSU based on history, facilities, enthusiasm, etc.
I think they key is to look at criteria:
1. Status – kings come first, then princes, then everyone else
Top 10ish (not in order) – Duke, UNC, UK, IU, KU, UCLA, UConn, Syracuse, MSU, UL
2. Location – locals care about MBB, top conference, good recruiting grounds
3. Recent success
Conferences mean money and respect, so the ACC, BE, B10 and B12 are tops here. Major cities mean easier recruiting, especially in strong hoops areas like NYC and Chicago, although all good teams recruit nationally.
ACC – MD
BE – ND, Villanova, Pitt
B10 – OSU
Those would be top 15 type of schools.
4. Brand name
AZ, IL, Georgetown, St. John’s, Temple
These might be the rest of the top 20, but it gets fuzzy as you move down the list. A few good or bad years can make a lot of difference.
5. Top conferences and recent success
WI, MI, PU, etc
These schools could easily be swapped with the 5 listed above, and some of the 5 above that. It’s all relative.
LikeLike
I pretty much agree with your analysis. I would put GT and Villanova a little higher and MSU just behind them but basically agree. I wouldn’t include ND. The only real difference is that you either under-rate Syracuse or forgot about them. I would also put Texas and Florida in the list as top jobs. Texas’ historical success doesn’t compare to the others, but the markets and resources would make them a top job. Florida has the markets, resources and a couple of recent national titles.
LikeLike
bullet,
I pretty much agree with your analysis. I would put GT and Villanova a little higher and MSU just behind them but basically agree. I wouldn’t include ND. The only real difference is that you either under-rate Syracuse or forgot about them. I would also put Texas and Florida in the list as top jobs. Texas’ historical success doesn’t compare to the others, but the markets and resources would make them a top job. Florida has the markets, resources and a couple of recent national titles.
1. I have Nova in the 11-15 group. Who in the top 10 do they outrank in your opinion? As for GT, I would have had them higher a few years ago, but the recent lack of success and the dominance of CFB in Atlanta means I would put them in the “etc” group of #21-30ish.
2. ND is in the BE, in the MBB haven of IN, near Chicago and has a huge brand name. They also have a strong history (#9 in all time wins, #10 in NCAA tourney appearances, 0.648 W%) and recent success in the BE (20+ W in 5 of past 6 years including a final AP #5 ranking). Having Digger Phelps on ESPN pimping them all the time gets them even more coverage, too. If you want to argue they should drop to the 16-20 group I wouldn’t fight it much, but I don’t think they belong any lower than that.
3. I put Syracuse in the top 10.
4. UT and UF are good jobs, but the focus is strongly on CFB in both of those areas so I downgraded them for that. The SEC almost totally ignoring MBB is another knock against UF. UT has been good under Barnes, but they don’t have a lot of history before that. The same for UF and Donovan. I need to see more before they can move up much (or have the LHN take off and become a factor). TX and FL don’t provide the huge recruiting advantage for hoops that they do for CFB either, so don’t overrate that aspect.
LikeLike
Forgot you had SU in the top 10. I would knock MSU out of the top 10 in favor of Villanova, but would have them right behind.
Notre Dame is just almost never at the top. They are always good, but not challenging for the championship. Not sure how many final 4s they have, but I can only remember 1 from the 70s with Austin Carr. These other schools have the advantage on them there.
As for Florida and Texas, there are a lot of people and a huge amount of basketball talent. It isn’t comparable to their strength in football, but its still very good. Football is first, but they do get behind their teams when winning.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll bite.
Bullet:
With all due respect, that is absurd.
Villanova has 4 final fours and 1 championship.
GT has never even won the tournament, has 2 final fours.
MSU has 8 final fours, 2 championships and has consistently played extremely difficult schedules – though this year’s is a little light. Then again “little light” includes neutral sites with UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
bullet,
Forgot you had SU in the top 10. I would knock MSU out of the top 10 in favor of Villanova, but would have them right behind.
The main advantage for Nova that I see is being in Philly, but they split that with several teams.
MSU is tied for #8 in NC with 2, VU is tied for #15 with 1.
MSU is tied for #7 in Final 4s with 8, VU is tied for #17 with 4.
MSU is tied for #24 in NCAAs with 25, VU is #9 with 32.
MSU was #13 in attendance last year, VU was #38 with almost 4000 less. That was an increase of over 1000 from the previous year for VU, too.
Considering all games (H, R and N), MSU was #5 in total attendance and VU not in the top 30.
The B10 trumped the BE in average attendance by over 1500 as well, and the BE is losing some of it’s top draws in SU (#2 nationally), WV (#27) and Pitt (#42) while adding some lower schools (Memphis is #8, but UCF is #100 with 5411 and SMU and UH are lower).
Both are in the 1500 win club (#24-41 schools).
Both are in major conferences.
Personally, I give the edge to MSU.
Notre Dame is just almost never at the top. They are always good, but not challenging for the championship. Not sure how many final 4s they have, but I can only remember 1 from the 70s with Austin Carr. These other schools have the advantage on them there.
That’s all true, except for last year when ND finished as AP #5. But this was about what job is best, not what program is best. I think the name ND carries a lot of weight. A top coach would win more with them but Brey is on track for 6 straight 20 win seasons (18 so far this year). Being in IN and near Chicago is a pretty good deal for recruiting, too.
As for Florida and Texas, there are a lot of people and a huge amount of basketball talent. It isn’t comparable to their strength in football, but its still very good. Football is first, but they do get behind their teams when winning.
There are lots of people, but MBB players go more national than CFB players and CFB >>> MBB in TX and FL. NYC and Chicago are better places to recruit than TX or FL for MBB.
LikeLike
@jj
By GT I was referring to Georgetown, not Georgia Tech.
Villanova is just more consistently at the top than Michigan St. Nearly every year you know they will be a contender for the title. That’s not the case for MSU.
LikeLike
MBB recruiting has definitely become more national. Didn’t Michigan’s fab 5 freshmen include 2 Texans?
LikeLike
“Villanova is just more consistently at the top than Michigan St. Nearly every year you know they will be a contender for the title. That’s not the case for MSU.”
Huh?
Izzo has famously had every single recruit who’s been around 4 years make it to at least one Final Four.
Jay Wright can not say that. In fact, since the start of Izzo’s MSU tenure, MSU has always made the tournament, losing in the first round 4 times, losing in the second round 3 times, and making the Final Four 6 times (1 title). In that same time frame, ‘Nova failed to make the tournament 6 times, lost in the first round 3 times, lost in the second round 3 times, and made the Final Four 1 time (no title). Maybe your perception is that ‘Nova contends for the title more often, but in reality, it’s no contest: MSU has actually contended for the title far, far more often.
BTW, ND generally gets absolutely tiny bball support/attendance. This can be seen in their bball revenues, where they are at the bottom of the BE with the no-brand Catholic schools.
LikeLike
bullet,
@jj
By GT I was referring to Georgetown, not Georgia Tech.
Georgetown has 1 title and 5 final 4s, well behind MSU. They haven’t been elite in several years, either.
Villanova is just more consistently at the top than Michigan St. Nearly every year you know they will be a contender for the title. That’s not the case for MSU.
Really? Nova had 3 really good years (05-06, 08-09 and 09-10). They missed the tourney 5 straight years from 99-00 to 03-04. Since 97-98, Nova has 8 tourneys (14 years) and 1 Final 4. MSU has made the tourney every year since 97-98, including 7 final 4s, 2 NCGs and 1 NC. Just because they got overranked due to BE love, don’t buy too much of the Nova hype. They were a 3 or 4 guard team that lost to almost every good team with size they played.
LikeLike
I don’t think UConn has the resources to sustain excellence once Calhoun is gone. Remember that they were nobodies before Calhoun, and they’ll have to prove they’re more than one great coach before I (or most people) think they’re a top 10 brand. I’m partial to including Florida in the same group as Texas & tOSU as a program with a wealthy athletic department and a giant state they can own in recruiting (though they pull in far less bball revenue than either tOSU or Texas), so they could be considered a top 15 job like those 2. Michigan bball is more like a top 20 job right now (unless Izzo leaves or suffers a heart attack or something), as I just don’t see any UM coach displacing Izzo’s MSU as top dog in his region. Villanova & G’town are top 20 jobs as well because, while they have the brandname (due mostly to winning titles in the past), they actually have less revenues than less storied programs like Minnesota, WVU, Pitt, Tennessee, and Marquette.
LikeLike
ESPN has too much invested in Uconn MCBB and WCBB to not make sure they do well after Calhoun.
LikeLike
What people forget is that Calhoun’s success means a top coach will want to come there to replace him. The next guy doesn’t have to build UConn’s reputation, just maintain it.
LikeLike
We’ll see. Jerry Tarkanian made UNLV in to a basketball powerhouse (he led UNLV to as many Final Fours as Calhoun did UConn), but the Runnin’ Rebs didn’t become a king.
Granted, UConn is in a power conference, but they don’t have the financial resources of a king, being below UNLV & slightly below the median of schools in power conferences in basketball revenues.
LikeLike
A better example is probably Georgetown. John Thompson got to 3 Finals Fours and won a national title. Since then, they’ve made 1 Final Four. Because of their (mostly past) success, Georgetown’s still perceived as a brand name by the public at large, but because they don’t generate the revenues of a king, they certainly aren’t a top 10 job, and I would say not top 15.
BTW, Georgetown generates more revenues from bball than UConn does.
LikeLike
Though it’s probably more accurate to say “Patrick Ewing got to 3 Finals Fours and won a national title”.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204883304577223571248360222.html
A reporter looks at the declining regular season MBB attendance in the ACC (down 14% from 2004, including the ACC tournament – the worst of all majors) and possible causes. She brings up some good points:
1. Expansion diluted the rivalries
2. They lost a lot of charismatic coaches
3. The home experience has improved so much (more TV games, HD)
4. Poor play
5. Lack of WiFi access to stay connected via smartphone
Various comments brought up some other issues:
1. The cost of attending (tickets, food, parking, mandatory donations, etc)
2. The hassle factor (traffic, late night starts, no fixed schedule, etc)
3. One and done
4. Fan behavior in the crowd
5. TV timeouts
6. March Madness – why attend a meaningless regular season game?
7. Changing demographics in students as cost of attendance keeps rising
LikeLike
I played basketball in college and love the game, but when I go watch a game now I can’t stand TV timeouts. 4 times a half the game turns into a minor league baseball game with either weird gimmicks or bad dancing.
I contend there are more commercial breaks for NCAA games than NBA games.
Late starts are rough too. If the game starts after 8 I want to leave by halftime because I have to get up and go to work the next day.
LikeLike
Interesting.
The scheduling may be a big factor. When you know the games are on T and SA at 7 pm every week, it can create a routine. College football has its Saturday routine. But now, you have to check the schedule to know what day the teams play. And it might be a 9 or 10 pm game.
With so many teams in the NCAA tourney AND a conference tourney as a chance to redeem a mediocre season, it does devalue regular season games.
It would be interesting to see the changes in cost. I know in football tickets and mandatory donations have gone up dramatically in all the major conferences.
LikeLike
Brian, if it was me I would rank it as follows :
1. The cost of attending (tickets, food, parking, mandatory donations, etc)
2. Changing demographics in students as cost of attendance keeps rising
3. One and done
4. TV timeouts
5. The hassle factor (traffic, late night starts, no fixed schedule, etc)
6. Fan behavior in the crowd
7. They lost a lot of charismatic coaches
8. Poor play
9. Expansion diluted the rivalries
10. March Madness – why attend a meaningless regular season game?
11. The home experience has improved so much (more TV games, HD)
12. Lack of WiFi access to stay connected via smartphone
LikeLike
OK, so the WSJ would have to explain why B10 basketball attendance has actually increased (slightly) from the 2006-2007 season to the 2010-2011 season (leading the country again, for the 35th straight year, in basketball attendance).
Certainly it isn’t because of more TV coverage (you could even argue that more coverage of bball on the BTN has helped attendance by creating more ardent fans). I can’t see why the cost of attending, hassle factor, one-and-done, TV timeouts, or March Madness would affect the ACC but not the B10.
The B10 also has plenty of late-night starts on Tu, W, & Th (though no conference games are scheduled for Sunday nights; no doubt the conference kept in mind out-of-towners who’d only be able to attend weekend games)
That leaves expansion, loss of charismatic coaches, poor play, lack of WiFi (are the ACC schools more in the boonies?!?), fan behavior in the crowd, and changing demographics (ACC does have a lot more private schools).
Doesn’t say much about the ACC, frankly.
LikeLike
As for WiFI, apparently the issue is too many phones in a small area perhaps coupled with the building blocking/dampening the signals. They just need to wire for it and install the necessary electronics indoors.
LikeLike
And UNC’s empty seats in football said what exactly?
Interdum fidelis. It’s been a problem for the ACC for some time now.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577215321106576152.html
Regular season champs outperform tournament champs in March Madness. In the last 10 years, 74 times has a multi-bid conference had 2 champs. The regular season champ won 66% of NCAA games versus 57% for tournament champs. It varied a lot by conference, though:
Conference – NCAA Wins by RS champ, NCAA Wins by tourney champ
ACC – 27, 11
BE – 18, 11
B10 – 11, 5
B12 – 18, 18
P12 – 18, 11
SEC – 15, 15
Other – 36, 16
It doesn’t matter for the B12 or SEC, but the RS champ did much better for everyone else.
LikeLike
Most mid-major conferences should lose their conference tournaments. Most are poorly attended and I can’t see how they make the conference any money. All tournament champs have to do is get hot for 3 games. As this article proves, non-major conference tournament champs dilute the quality of the NCAA tournament.
Two ways to improve/get rid of the conference tournament:
1. Have the two division winners of the conference play a 1 game championship, which can still be aired on TV and make some money.
or if there aren’t enough teams for divisions
2. Play the conference season as rounds. The 1st round winner and the 2nd round winner play at the 2nd round winner’s home court for the championship game.
The smaller conferences can still have their championship game televised and it makes the regular season much more important. Important regular seasons will improve interest and attendance during the regular season.
LikeLike
what happens if same team wins both halves? Take which 2nd place team?
LikeLike
Either the 2nd half 2nd place team, representing the 2nd hottest team in the conference, or the team with the 2nd best overall conference record.
LikeLike
Splitting in to rounds actually makes a lot of sense for a conference that plays a double roundrobin, as people would still have reason to watch even if their team had a bad first half of the season. I’d much prefer the team with the second best overall conference record gets a spot if some team wins both rounds.
Also, home court should go to the team with the better overall record; you want your conference champ to go far in the NCAA tournament, and the team with the best overall record is almost always the best team in the conference. I don’t know why more conferences don’t do that.
Another alternative is to hold tournaments at home sites (the Patriot League does that) and/or give the regular season champ a bye to the championship game.
LikeLike
I’d worry about first half champ placing bottom half in the second half while another team does the inverse, leaving the top overall record (and possibly multiple teams) out of the highlight conference game.
LikeLike
Eh, they should have won a round, then.
LikeLike
@Richard
That’s a good idea to give home court to the team with overall best record. That way the team that wins the 1st round still has something to play for in the 2nd, and makes everyone a reason to remain competitive in the 1st round even if they fall out of contention early.
LikeLike
The Horizon League’s regular season champ hosts the conference tournament every year. I agree that other mid-atlantic and low-major conferences should follow suit.
LikeLike
*mid-major. Freaking autocorrect.
LikeLike
I think the tournaments are generally terrible.
LikeLike
Agree. I don’t hate them in the big conferences as long as they are recognized as just fun little things to end the year and not being used to determine conference champs (that’s what the regular season is for), but I think conferences are putting more weight than ever on them sadly. For the small conferences, they make the regular season half meaningless when every team is still eligible for the one NCAA spot with the tournament.
LikeLike
Right on.
LikeLike
They should be like the national cups in European soccer – an independent prize that exists to provide something extra for teams to aim for each season and doesn’t pretend to be the conference/national championship in any way.
You can give autobids out to the consolation tournament (NIT/Europa League) if you want, but placement in the big one (NCAA/Champions League) should go to the regular season champ.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-state/caa-and-nbc-sports-1348338.html
The CAA signed a 5 year TV deal with NBC Sports. Minimum coverage is 5 FB games and 12 MBB games each year. In addition, Comcast regional networks will show another 39 MBB and WBB games.
This has to impact on the Sun Belt’s expansion plans, although the SB said they would look at current I-A schools first (stealing LA Tech?), since GA State is in the CAA. It may also lead to other I-AA conferences (Southern Conf.) getting better TV deals. Will anyone want to move up to the SB, or will they wait for a better conference like CUSA?
LikeLike
Ga St. keeps getting mentioned, but they have no interest in moving up. They are primarily a commuter school, virtually next door to Georgia Tech (close enough they shared a dorm at one time) and little more than an hour from UGA. They have a niche where they can succeed, but they realize it would be a disaster to move up. Georgia Southern is a possibility.
LikeLike
bullet,
Ga St. keeps getting mentioned, but they have no interest in moving up. They are primarily a commuter school, virtually next door to Georgia Tech (close enough they shared a dorm at one time) and little more than an hour from UGA. They have a niche where they can succeed, but they realize it would be a disaster to move up. Georgia Southern is a possibility.
I mentioned GA State because they are in the CAA and Tony Barnhart and Wes Durham mentioned them in their radio show (best sports talk show ever, BTW) when they interviewed Karl Benson. Those two guys are connected in town, as you well know, so if they think it’s a future option then I’ll take their word over yours or the GSU administration’s. Being in Atlanta could be very valuable to the SB and GA Southern wouldn’t add that.
They don’t want to move up right now, but in 5 or 10 years?
LikeLike
Coach Curry and the GSU AD have both made it pretty clear on numerous occassions they aren’t even thinking about it. Barnhart is well connected, but I think he’s just speculating. I’ll believe the AD over Barnhart. She understands the resources of the school a lot better than Barnhart.
10 years is an eternity in college sports these days. A lot can change. But I can’t imagine Georgia St. being able to compete so much in the shadow of GT and UGA.
LikeLike
Of course Curry isn’t. He’ll be long retired by then. Administrators lie and are also very cautious. Most of them won’t admit when they are looking to move up so they don’t offend anybody.
LikeLike
Radio show already generated a retraction by Benson saying he misspoke.
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-state-sports/2012/02/17/gsu-to-sun-belt-not-yet/
Blog has some numbers on revenue and expenses down at the bottom on Georgia State and FAU (below the mass numbers they throw at you up top)
LikeLike
Without any Sun Belt or MWC/CUSA expansion (both of whom are planning to add at least 2), there are/were:
4 teams moving in 2011
10 teams moving in 2012 (maybe 1 more in ’12 instead of ’13)
25 teams so far likely moving in 2013 (including the 16 MWC/CUSA members—Boise, NV, HI and Fresno will be moving for the 2nd time)
1 team moving in 2015
This includes the 4 FCS members moving up in 2012 and 2013. That’s 36 of the 124 FBS schools (120 now-124 in 2013) moving at least once.
LikeLike
There’s no reason to believe that GSU won’t investigate I-A after having a few years of football to draw some numbers from. I never said they are planning to make the jump, but they’d be foolish not to look at the numbers and see if it fits with GSU’s mission. They haven’t even played a CAA game yet. After a few more years, they’ll have a better grasp of attendance and revenue numbers, and see how the alumni and supporters feel about I-AA versus I-A.
I doubt they’ll move up soon, but they will evaluate it whether they admit it or not. Not having plans to move up isn’t the same as not having plans to evaluate their options. I doubt it makes financial sense for them, especially in the SB, but you never know.
LikeLike
Georgia State would be just another Eastern Michigan, a commuter school in a pro sports market next to a major brand. In FCS they have a niche where they may do ok. I believe them when they say they aren’t looking at it. And while they may investigate at some time in the future, I think it would be a huge mistake to move up. I suspect Texas St. will become an Eastern Michigan as well. The only advantage they have is that they aren’t really a commuter school, but their students go to Austin to party.
LikeLike
Both Texans and Cowboys are televised in these markets, but they are 200+ miles away. U. Texas is local, but it is not like any tickets are available. Moving up allows Texas State to schedule cash games against Texas with no travel costs. It also provides some recruiting advantage, probably up to N.TX levels. The state is crowded with both FBS and FCS schools. UTSA is a real commuter school. Despite being the only FBS team in town it remains to be seen if they can develop a fan base being less than 100 miles from Austin (if you graduate from UTSA do you identify with UTSA or UT?).
LikeLike
Except for a game like A&M, its pretty easy to pickup Texas tickets on the street. And until recently (and I’m not sure if its still the case with the stadium expansion), you didn’t need to contribute to get season tickets.
LikeLike
I doubt any FCS school will be able to beat out all of the MAC, WAC, and SB schools for a CUSA (or Big Country) bid. Besides LaTech the Sun Belt may have interest in Tx State and/or UTSA.
LikeLike
I had the privilege of meeting the Florida International AD, Pete Garcia, last year and he was dead-set against La Tech in the Sun Belt. Said they bring nothing to the table for a conference that already has two schools in the small market of Louisiana.
It will be interesting to see how he and some of the other AD’s feel about Benson’s plans for expansion.
LikeLike
Everybody else wants them. I think they have that spot if they want it. They have a better football program and better attendance than just about anyone in that conference and a history with 4 of the schools in the Southland.
I don’t think they would have hired him without some general discussion of expansion first.
LikeLike
Mack,
I mentioned I-AA because App State has famously said they want to skip the dregs and jump straight to CUSA (or equivalent). ApSU doesn’t believe it is cost effective to move up I-A to only join the SB, if I recall correctly. I’m sure Michael in Raleigh can provide more detail.
ApSU draws better attendance than most MAC, WAC and SB teams right now, and even most of CUSA. Add a better schedule, and it will get even bigger.
2011 ave. attendance:
40. ECU – CUSA
…
67. UCF – CUSA
…
75. Hawaii 31,785 – WAC
76. UH – CUSA
77. Fresno State 29,298 – WAC
78. LA Laf 29,191 – SB
79. WSU – P12
80. So Miss – CUSA
81. Temple 28,060 – MAC
82. UTEP – CUSA
> 83. ApSU 26,211 (#1 I-AA, > #83 I-A, 130% of capacity)
83. Marshall – CUSA
85. Tulsa – CUSA
92. SMU – CUSA
93. Memphis – CUSA
97. Tulane – CUSA
105. Rice – CUSA
106. UAB – CUSA
LikeLike
I think people overrate FCS success when evaluating possible move-ups. UConn, UCF and USF had very little FCS success and Idaho was stronger than Boise. Attendance is a factor, but UConn drew about 7k a game before they moved up. Appalachian St. has a number of strikes against it. Its not in a football talent hotbed, its smaller than the vast majority of FBS schools (meaning fewer alumni), its in a remote area and its in a state that already has 5 FBS schools. As mentioned in your bb piece, ticket prices are going up and FCS prices help attendance. Raising prices upon moving up can severely dampen attendance, particularly for a school with a limited base like Appalachian.
LikeLike
Yep, Appy St. actually draws better attendance than _all_ MAC, WAC, and SunBelt schools (not counting Fresno or Hawaii, who are leaving).
LikeLike
You missed LL and Temple.
LikeLike
Oh, right. Temple had their big jump because they hosted PSU in 2011. LL’s is more legit, though note that both drew worse than Appy St. in 2010 (when Appy St. outdrew all the teams that will be in the MAC, WAC, and SunBelt).
LikeLike
Oh right. Temple hosted PSU in 2011. LL’s is more legit, though note that both drew less than Appy St. in 2010 (in fact, all members going forward in the WAC, MAC, and SunBelt did).
LikeLike
“The NBC Sports Network will nationally televise at least five football games in what Yeager said is a first for an FCS conference”
Quite certain the Ivy League has some games televised nationally.
Yep, Versus (now NBC Sports) broadcasted them.
LikeLike
Ignoring the particularities of whatever system emerges, do you guys think the terms “BCS bowl” (outside of the championship and/or semi finals) and “AQ” will continue?
I think it’s kind of hard to keep the BCS bowl label without also keeping the AQ label, but I also think the powers that be want to eliminate the AQ level while the bowls want to keep the BCS label. I guess you could still call them BCS bowls and let them independently choose teams though (through their own contracts methods rather than centralized rules).
LikeLike
Eric,
The “BCS bowls” have always had a label. They used to be the “New Year’s Day bowls” back when that meant something, or the major bowls. Some term will survive to recognize the top tier bowls.
AQ will die quickly. Half the fans misuse BCS instead of AQ anyway, so once actual AQ status goes so will the term. Some term will remain, though, be it “power conferences” or “BCS conferences” or something else.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/when-15th-is-better-than-8th-the-math-shows-the-bracket-is-backward/
This is a year old, but still relevant. It shows that seeding matters in the tournament. Teams seeded 5-12 aren’t very different in quality, but the structure of the tournament puts 8 and 9 seeds at a disadvantage even if they’re as good as a 5 or 6 seed. They’d be better off being as low as a 15 seed because the #1 seeds are generally that much better than everyone else. The big factor here is when the committee arbitrarily promotes or demotes teams to avoid conference rematches. The math says they should stop that, and I always thought it was a dumb practice anyway. You’ll get better attendance with a local conference rematch than two random teams.
The writer’s suggestion is to seed like a tennis tournament, where only the top 16 or 24 teams get seeded and everyone else gets a random draw. It’ll never happen, but if it did I’d suggest seeding the top 16 and placing the rest by geography.
LikeLike
That could make many top seeds essentially play road games, however.
LikeLike
http://www.cougcenter.com/2011/3/16/2053636/2011-ncaa-tournament-bracket-seeding-analysis
In reply, a blogger came up with a more radical idea. He suggests that there are 2 main goals of the tournament – 1. Win the NC and 2. Make the Sweet 16. Only the top 12 teams or so have a realistic shot at winning the title (NC by seed since the tourney went to 64 – #1 – 17, #2 – 3, #3 – 3, #4 – 1, #6 – 1, #8 – 1), so everyone else is really just aiming for the Sweet 16.
His plan is to use pods within each region, where the top 4 seeds each head a pod:
A – 1, 14, 15, 16
B – 2, 11, 12, 13
C – 3, 8, 9, 10
D – 4, 5, 6, 7
In each pod, the highest and lowest seeds play as do the middle seeds, with the winners meeting to go to the Sweet 16. This system favors the top 4 seeds, and makes 1 > 2 > 3 > 4. The other ranks are largely equal as the power curve in Silver’s piece showed, so the next teams get grouped. The lower seeds have a better chance of winning at least 1 game in this system, and you only need 1 upset to get a lower seed in the Sweet 16.
This will never happen either, but it’s an interesting idea.
LikeLike
The 4,5,6,7 pod would be brutal. It’d be much easier to make the Sweet Sixteen if seeded 8, 9, or 10.
LikeLike
4-7 are all about equal, so each team should have about the same 25% shot. 8 and 9 have a 50% chance of winning the first game, but then are more likely to face #3 than #10. That’s a lower chance of moving on.
Say #3 beats #8-10 75% of the time.
3 – 0.75*0.75 = 0.563
8 – 0.5*(0.75*0.25 + 0.25*0.5) = 0.156
9 – 0.5*(0.75*0.25 + 0.25*0.5) = 0.156
10 – 0.25*(0.50) = 0.125
The lowest ranked team suffers from having to face the top team first, but not too much.
LikeLike
That’s actually pretty cool.
LikeLike
It would make the regular season more meaningful as teams would want to do better than #4.
I also think C and D need to be balanced:
C: 3, 6, 8, 10
D: 4, 5, 7, 9
LikeLike
Alan,
I am picking your Tigers to win it all in 2012
8 Home Games +
@ Auburn
@ Florida
@ TAMU
@ Arkansas
With Auburn, Florida, and TAMU down, Arkansas is the only real road test
LikeLike
ps, and a week off before playing Alabama @ Tiger Stadium
LikeLike
@UF should be tough. All those top 10 recruiting classes should mean something.
LikeLike
Richard – while I don’t want to sell the Gators short, I think they are still a couple of years away from being elite team.
LikeLike
I think I agree with Alan on Florida. I think Tennessee has the schedule in the East. Florida, Alabama, and Missouri all have to play in Neyland and they miss Alan’s Tigers on the schedule. They also miss Arkansas and Auburn in the West.
LikeLike
UGA has Auburn and Ole Miss from the West, and is @ MO, SC and KY in division.
UT has Alabama and MSU from the West, and is @ GA, SC, VU in division.
SC has LSU and AR from the West, and is @ VU, KY and UF in division.
Of the 3, I’d say UGA has it the easiest (no AL or LSU).
LikeLike
Duff – thanks. LSU was a year ahead of schedule this past season. The schedule is certainly easier, as Washington is the only OOC challenge. The SEC schedule is a little more difficult though, as South Carolina replaces Tennessee, and A&M took Kentucky’s spot on the schedule.
Great special teams and defense will continue in 2012. The Tigers should have good QB play next season to go along with the best O-Line since I’ve been alive. For Miles to win 41 games over the last 4 seasons with Jefferson, Lee, and Hatch at QB was really a minor miracle.
Today, Arkansas announced that the LSU/Arkansas game will be played in Fayetteville for the first time since 92. Arkansas’ on-campus stadium seats 20,000 more fans than the dump in Little Rock. I’m looking forward to my first trip to Fayetteville.
This upcoming season, I will have to miss my first LSU game at Auburn since the 90s. TCU parents’ weekend, the TCU/Virginia game, and my daughter take precedent.
LikeLike
The LSU Baseball team defeated the Air Force Academy 10-2 in the Tigers’ season opener. Attendance was 11,376.
LikeLike
duffman,
I am picking your Tigers to win it all in 2012
8 Home Games +
@ Auburn
@ Florida
@ TAMU
@ Arkansas
With Auburn, Florida, and TAMU down, Arkansas is the only real road test
Still riding that bandwagon, huh? LSU is a reasonable choice, but I think the SEC has a little more parity this year and they have some overrated teams again.
Figuring that a top 10 team usually wins, here are three early top 15s for 2012:
CFN – USC, LSU, AL, GA, OU, OR, AR, UT, MI, FSU, SC, WV, UF, TCU, MSU
SI – LSU, USC, OR, AR, AL, MSU, SC, OU, GA, TCU, MI, WI, WV, Clemson, KSU
ESPN – USC, AL, LSU, OU, GA, OR, WV, FSU, MSU, SC, AR, KSU, Stanford, MI, TCU
Consensus:
1. USC 1.3
2. LSU 2
3. AL 3.3
4. OR 5
5. GA 6
6. OU 6.3
7. AR 7.3
8. SC 9.3
9. MSU 10
10. WV 10.7
I drop WV based on the move to the B12. I drop MSU, SC and AR because of the number of top teams in their leagues. I just don’t see them surviving unscathed, and I always assume a team needs to be perfect to win it all. That leaves USC/OR, LSU/AL/GA and OU. Of the top SEC teams, I think GA has the easiest schedule and the CCG is in Atlanta so I’ll give them the slight edge this year. USC hosts OR, and would host the CCG so I give them the edge too. OU hosts OkSU and KSU and is at TCU and WV, so that’s workable.
That gives me USC, GA and OU as choices for the favorite. As of now, I’ll lean towards USC since the P12 seems like an easier path than the SEC or B12.
LikeLike
brian,
not riding the bandwagon, just offering an opinion
2 years ago on here I picked Oregon early on, and even gave Frank grief for not ranking the Ducks higher on his ballot in the beginning. They lost to Auburn in the MNC
last year I picked LSU early on, even tho Oklahoma and Alabama were early favorites by the others. The Tigers lost to Alabama in the MNC
this year I am picking LSU early, even tho the early folks seem to think it will all be Southern Cal for the MNC. If my ability to pick #2 is correct LSU will finish here
As in all 3 years I am just stating my opinion early and have never relied on riding any bandwagon but just try to make an honest assessment free of personal feelings. If I was going with who I would like to see I would have picked Nebraska or Michigan State.
LikeLike
I wasn’t saying it in a negative way, duffman. You got behind LSU early last year and stuck with them and now you’re behind them again. I realize you are predicting, not changing your rooting interests.
Isn’t this IN’s year, in year 2 of the Wilson regime with OSU ineligible, WI having major coaching changes and losing their QB, PSU having the scandal and coaching change, IL having a coaching change and PU having ACL’s? IN for the East champs, and anybody can win a CCG if they get in it.
LikeLike
Will they make it there with a winning record?
LikeLike
They’d almost have to, I think.
Assuming every East team lost all their crossover games, they’d all be 0-3. There are 15 division games in the East, so those 15 wins have to spread out somehow. The worst case is 3, 4 or 5 tie at 3-2 I suppose, so IN would have to win at least 3 B10 games. Their toughest OOC game is @ Navy, and the other 3 are hard to imagine even IN losing (IN State, UMass, Ball State) if they can win 3 B10 games. So “realistic” worst case, IN wins the East at 6-6 (3-5).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7587582/challenge-ncaa-multiyear-scholarship-plan-falls-short
And the multiyear scholarship survives. The challenge came close, but was just short of having enough votes to stop it.
LikeLike
It came very close. Not sure what this means for the $2000 extra though.
That one may face enough opposition to not pass, but we’ll have to see.
Glad the multiyear scholarship survived. Way too many shenanigans with recruiting going on nowadays to not allow schools to offer a guarantee.
LikeLike
Glad to see, but was surprised the vote was that close (with most actually opposed). I understood it on the $2000 (although think that’s good too), but I figured this wouldn’t be as opposed.
LikeLike
The joke is the one-year scholarship has probably helped those smaller schools as much as the 85 scholarship limit has in helping to put a competitive product on the field.
They know that and don’t want to give up the $$$ that has been coming into their athletic budgets because of it. In the end, disappointing, but I guess not totally surprising.
LikeLike
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2012/02/five-games-to-watch-this-season-in-the-big-ten.html
Top 5 B10 games for 2012 (in calendar order):
OSU @ MSU
MSU @ MI
MSU @ WI
OSU @ WI
MI @ OSU
I think these are decent selections for fan interest, but clearly not the 5 most important games. For most important, I’d try:
WI @ NE
MSU @ MI
MI @ NE
MSU @ WI
NE @ MSU
You have to eliminate all OSU games since they only really matter for one team, plus all 3 West contenders play them. Only 2 of them play WI, and WI is the East favorite, so I included their 2 games. Next would probably be WI @ PSU.
LikeLike
I would probably have the same list as you for most important 5 except for actually putting Wisconsin versus Penn State and removing one of the Wisconsin ones (probably Nebraska versus Wisconsin).
Who really knows what to expect out of that division. It could just as easily look like the Pac-12 South did this past year or it could end up looking the same as last year. It’s just too hard to tell how Wisconsin and Penn State will do against their schedules. There was a lot of doubt about that Penn State team last year (although a lot more this year admittedly), yet they were firmly in control of their destiny until sliding away the last 3-4 weeks of the season…
LikeLike
zeek,
I would probably have the same list as you for most important 5 except for actually putting Wisconsin versus Penn State and removing one of the Wisconsin ones (probably Nebraska versus Wisconsin).
I thought about that, but I think the WI/West games will be very important in determining the West winner. Both WI and PSU play NE (PSU @ NE would have been #7 for me), but only WI plays MSU (PSU gets IA and NW, WI also gets MN). The WI/PSU will probably be very important, but there is a new coach and that usually means some growing pains. The OSU games will have a lot to say about who wins the division too. If WI wasn’t a favorite, I’d move the PSU game higher.
Who really knows what to expect out of that division. It could just as easily look like the Pac-12 South did this past year or it could end up looking the same as last year. It’s just too hard to tell how Wisconsin and Penn State will do against their schedules. There was a lot of doubt about that Penn State team last year (although a lot more this year admittedly), yet they were firmly in control of their destiny until sliding away the last 3-4 weeks of the season…
PSU was in control of their destiny because their schedule was backloaded. They only played two division contenders, and both were in the last 3 weeks. In the first 5 games, their best opponents were 4-4 IA and PU.
LikeLike
I don’t like the fact that divisional games are now automatically more important to win, but I think they are. If we are talking importance of winning the conference rather than talking most important to fans or nationally, then I’m with Zeek on replacing Wisconsin @ Nebraska with Wisconsin @ Penn State. I’d also replace Michigan State @ Wisconsin with Nebraska @ Michigan State (I think MSU is home this year). Again this is only is terms of importance in winning the conference. The rest I’d keep.
LikeLike
Eric,
I don’t like the fact that divisional games are now automatically more important to win, but I think they are.
It’s only marginally more important. If it comes down to a tiebreaker for the division, then the divisional game means a touch more. Otherwise, they are all the same. 7-1 beats 6-2 even if the 6-2 team won head to head.
If we are talking importance of winning the conference rather than talking most important to fans or nationally, then I’m with Zeek on replacing Wisconsin @ Nebraska with Wisconsin @ Penn State. I’d also replace Michigan State @ Wisconsin with Nebraska @ Michigan State (I think MSU is home this year). Again this is only is terms of importance in winning the conference. The rest I’d keep.
I already have NE @ MSU on the list. I put the West round robin among the top 3 plus the 2 WI/West favorites games. #6 for me would be WI/PSU because of the first year coach and lack of a QB at PSU, and WI being favored to win the division. #7 for me would be PSU/NE.
LikeLike
WI is due for a fall, there’s no way they make it to the Rose Bowl without the very fortunate “coup” they got when Wilson dropped into their lap. Wilson is now gone, along with some other folks. They may yet win the east (because tOSU is ineligible), doubtful they take the conference.
PSU is anybody’s guess with all the turmoil there…
OSU is ineligible… they’ll be spoilers all year.
Illinois… see PSU (minus high profile turmoil)
Purdue… don’t know much ’bout the boilers
Indiana… is Indiana…
Out west…
Michigan appears to be the team to beat…
MSU… see if Dantonio can pull a rabbitt out of his hat. Lots of big shoes to fill.
Nebr… underachieved in ’11… who’s showing up in ’12??
NW… prolly middle of the road as normal…
Iowa… new coaches here and there… hard to tell…
Minn… the “homer” in me says they’ll make a bowl this year… the “realist” in me says at least one more tough year…
Methinks the B1G is in for one more down year as a whole… 2013 looks to be the year that the conference as a whole brings back some swagger…
Can’t wait for spring ball… Hope that my home team and the conf as a whole prove me wrong and OverAchieve…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
WI is due for a fall, there’s no way they make it to the Rose Bowl without the very fortunate “coup” they got when Wilson dropped into their lap. Wilson is now gone, along with some other folks. They may yet win the east (because tOSU is ineligible), doubtful they take the conference.
I expect WI to be lower ranked this year, but they could get O’Brien from MD to play QB. If they make the CCG, they always have a puncher’s chance of winning.
PSU is anybody’s guess with all the turmoil there…
OSU is ineligible… they’ll be spoilers all year.
Illinois… see PSU (minus high profile turmoil)
Purdue… don’t know much ’bout the boilers
Indiana… is Indiana…
Agreed.
Out west…
Michigan appears to be the team to beat…
MSU… see if Dantonio can pull a rabbitt out of his hat. Lots of big shoes to fill.
Nebr… underachieved in ’11… who’s showing up in ’12??
NW… prolly middle of the road as normal…
Iowa… new coaches here and there… hard to tell…
Minn… the “homer” in me says they’ll make a bowl this year… the “realist” in me says at least one more tough year…
I think NE will improve now that they’ve seen how their opponents will play them. That was a huge disadvantage last year. I’m a little surprised at how confident the MSU fans are about their backup QB. They act like his lack of playing time won’t matter, but that’s now how they view any other team that replaces a good QB.
As for MN, 3-1 OOC is reasonable (@UNLV, NH, WMU, Syracuse). In the B10, IA, NW, PU and IL are all possible wins (I think WI, MSU, MI and NE are too good barring a miracle upset). I won’t say a bowl is probable, but it is doable.
Methinks the B1G is in for one more down year as a whole… 2013 looks to be the year that the conference as a whole brings back some swagger…
I think that’s true for the kings, but the other teams are harder to predict. OSU should be improved this year but great in 2013. MI will probably improve a little from last year, but may need until 2013 for Hoke’s recruiting to make up for the holes RichRod left. PSU will be in year 2 of BOB and have had a scandal free year to recruit. I’m not sure if NE will be better in 2012 or 2013.
WI has been fairly steady lately, but they may have an experienced starter at QB in 2013 which could help. MSU would also have a returning starter and some experience for all the new starters this year, but I don’t know how much they lose before 2013. IA goes against the expectations as often as not, so I have no idea how they’ll be. Will NW find a defense? Will Purdue find some healthy ACLs? Will IL have a real coach?
LikeLike
mn:
You’re right. Just look at how terrible Wisconsin was in 2010 when they didn’t have Russell Wilson.
Wisconsin will still be what they’ve been in recent years; a dominant ground-pounding offense + a mediocre defense. That’s more than enough to beat out the motley crew after OSU that are eligible to play in the postseason.
LikeLike
Former SEC commish and BCS founder Roy Kramer says only conference champions should play for the BCS championship.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/17310262/bcs-founding-father-kramer-in-favor-of-amendment-to-system
Roy, where were you in early December?
LikeLike
Stanford over Oregon was a problem, but that may have been solved if a committee was choosing the teams instead of the BCS formula. Pollsters tend to use very simple means for ranking teams and seem to be not very bright. The computers programs were restricted on what criteria they could use. They were not allowed to use margin of victory, ostensibly to discourage running up scores, but realistically, that was put in when a non-AQ school got to close to making it, so they got rid of margin of victory to make it more difficult for teams in weaker conferences.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not sure where he’s been, especially after we just witnessed yet another non-champion in the title game.
My take on this whole thing is similar to bullet’s. I think there have been enough years where a non-champion has looked like a top 4 team that you really want a committee doing this.
Get rid of all the polls and just leave it to a committee. If people want to follow polls, they can follow the AP poll.
LikeLike
I’ve never seen a non-champ look like a top 4 team, but it’s pretty much definitional for me. I don’t buy the eye test and such, just actual achievement on the field. There aren’t enough games to really know which are the best teams, so only champs have earned a chance.
LikeLike
Here’s what the playoffs would have looked like (per Dennis Dodd) using Kramer’s formula – see http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/34877354
1998 championship: No. 1 Tennessee vs. No. 2 Florida State (same)
1998 Plus One: No. 1 Tennessee vs. No. 5 UCLA; No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 4 Ohio State
Not included: No. 3 Kansas State.
1999 championship: No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 2 Virginia Tech (same)
1999 Plus One: No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 4 Alabama; No. 2 Virginia Tech vs. No. 3 Nebraska
2000 championship: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida State (same)
2000 Plus One: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. Washington; No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 3 Miami
2001 championship: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 3 Colorado
2001 Plus One: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 8 Illinois; No. 3 Colorado vs. No. 4 Oregon
Not included: No. 2 Nebraska, No. 5 Florida, No. 6 Tennessee, No. 7 Texas
2002 championship: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 2 Ohio State (same)
2002 Plus One: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 6 Washington State; No. 2 Ohio State vs. No. 3 Georgia
Not included: No. 4 USC, No. 5 Iowa
2003 championship: No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 USC
2003 Plus One: No. 2 LSU vs. No. 7 Florida State; No. 3 USC vs. No. 4 Michigan
Not included: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 5 Ohio State, No. 6 Texas
2004 championship: No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Oklahoma (same)
2004 Plus One: No. 1 USC vs. No. 6 Utah; No. 2 Oklahoma vs. No. 3 Auburn
Not included: No. 4 Texas, No. 5 California
2005 championship: No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Texas (same)
2005 Plus One: No. 1 USC vs. No. 7 Georgia; No. 2 Texas vs. No. 3 Penn State
Not included: No. 4 Ohio State, No. 5 Oregon, No. 6 Notre Dame
2006 championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 Florida (same)
2006 Plus One: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 6 Louisville; No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC
Not included: No 3. Michigan, No. 4 LSU
2007 championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 LSU (same)
2007 Plus One: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Oklahoma; No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech
2008 championship: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida (same)
2008 Plus One: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 6 Utah; No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC
Not included: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama
2009 championship: No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 2 Texas (same)
2009 Plus One: No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 4 TCU; No. 2 Texas vs. No. 3 Cincinnati
2010 championship: No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 2 Oregon (same)
2010 Plus One: No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 5 Wisconsin; No. 2 Oregon vs. No. 3 TCU
Not included: No. 4 Stanford
2011 championship: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 3 Oklahoma State
2011 Plus One: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 10 Wisconsin; No. 3 Oklahoma State vs. No. 5 Oregon
Not included: No. 2 Alabama, No. 4 Stanford, No. 6 Arkansas, No. 7 Boise State, N. 8 Kansas State, No. 9 South Carolina
******
When you look at teams poentially excluded from a playoff in the list above, it’s pretty clear that any four-team playoff setup has the potential to exclude teams that should probably be included in the post-season Last year is the perfect example of that happening.
That’s why I suspect we’ll see an eight-team playoff in some foreseeable future. It will require some further adjustment from the conference commissioners and the bowl organizers, but it’ll be a case of making the playoff more inclusive and including all the programs that should be included in the running for the national championship.
The other possibility is for the NCAA to change the rules on requiring conferences to have divisions, but still allowing them to have a conference championship game. Last year, for example, instead of having LSU play Georgia in the SEC Conference championship game because they won the west and east divisions respectively, the LSU-Alabama rematch could have taken place then because they were the top two teams in the SEC. The winner of that game would then go on to the playoff against the three other highest ranked conference champions. The same could have taken place in the Pac 12–instead of Oregon playing UCLA, it could have been a Stanford-Oregon rematch for the conference title (because USC wasn’t allowed to play) and a spot in the playoff.
Removing the divisions from the conferences would also help reestablish intra-conference rivalry games that aren’t being played because the two teams are in different divisions. Now that the conference has no divisions, there would be no impedient to having the traditional regular season games being played each year. Imagine, for example, when Nebraska was still in the Big XII, but couldn’t play Oklahoma each year because they were in different division. Remove the Big XII divisions and that game could then be regularly scheduled without interruption every year.
Obviously, there could be problems concerning which teams go to the conference championship game if there are three or more teams that are roughly equal–some sort of tiebreaker would have to be put in place for each of the conferences. The conferences would also have to make individual decisions on how many conference games to play–either 8 or 9 (or perhaps even more) depending on their preferences.
This also doesn’t address what happens for the major independents–BYU and Notre Dame–since they don’t have a conference championship. Some sort of provision may have to be made–perhaps an autobid if they’re in the top 4 of the ranking system used, thus knocking out one of the conference champions.
LikeLike
I think the idea of a ccg without divisions is ridiculous. At least the basketball conference tourneys have some purpose. They give a developiing team or a team with injuries one more chance.
And last year, UGA had the same 7-1 conference record as Alabama in the SEC. Choosing Alabama over UGA for a non-division SEC ccg has the same objections as choosing Alabama over Oklahoma St. except even more so since it is more than a mythical championship and UGA hadn’t played LSU while Alabama had.
LikeLike
Let me offer a few comments in reply.
First off, I believe one conference did explore the possibility of asking the NCAA to waive the requirement for divisions within conferences that had 12 teams or more. I recall reading about it, but haven’t found a link to back me up. I believe it was the Big XII or perhaps even the Pac 12, but the idea was that instead of having the two divisions with the winner playing in the conference playoff game, it’d simply be the top two teams in the conference.
Secondly, I think using this year’s Georgia team as an example of an injustice is a weak reed to base an argument. UGa lost its season opener to Boise State and of course, also lost the SEC Championship game to LSU by a score of 42-10. Alabama had a more impressive resume (which the voters and computers seemed to agree with) and ended up splitting its two matchups with LSU. There was a reason why Alabama was the higher rated team even before the SEC championship game was played. Also keep in mind that this would be a decision made by the conference and its rules–not by the computers or the polls–when it comes to tiebreakers and deciding the top two teams in the conference.
Third, if you want to look at what’s really ridiculous, imagine what a four-team playoff would have looked like last year. If the BCS rankings were used, then two teams that didn’t win their divisions or their conferences would have been participating. If the four teams in the playoffs were only conference champions, then the BCS champion wouldn’t even have participated in it and one of the conference champions would have been crowned without a conference championship game.
With the current structure of the conferences in place anyway, it’ll be impossible to have a four-team playoff with conference champions only. That’s because there will have to be rooom in any system for the independents, particularly Notre Dame and Brigham Young, to get into the playoffs. At least one team has to be an at large program in order to accomodate that.
Now if it were the top three conference champions plus one at large (if the four conference champions weren’t one thru four in the ranking system used), then last’s year’s foursome would have been LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State and Oregon (replacing Stanford). Perhaps this is what the power that be will eventually decide. Or maybe they’ll give autobids to the top two conference champions with up to two at large teams–in which case we have Stanford in and Oregon out. Whatever they decide for a four-team playoff is going to have real difficulties.
So what is college football going to do? I would like to see an eight-team playoff and I’ve written about how I’d do it on more than one occasion–five autobids for the top five conferences in the top 14 of the polls plus three autobids. If there aren’t five conferences in the top 14, then additional autobids are added. That would mean getting conference champions plus non-conference champions and independents with exceptional records into the post-season.
The problem is that the major stakeholders might not sign off on that plan. The presidents could be worried about extending the season into mid-January, the bowl coordinators might balk at the idea because it diminishes the bowls and we all know that the conference commissioners have to deal with the networks on how all this is going to be set up.
So literally the only way to keep a four-team playoff in place, to shorten the post-season schedule, to ensure that the major bowl games get marquee matchups and to ensure that the maximum amount of teams are part of the playoff would be to get rid of the divisions between the conferences and allow them to organize a conference championship game between the two best teams in the conference and not the two division winners. We would have potentially seen conference championship games between Alabama & LSU along with Stanford & Oregon. The Big Ten would have still been Wisconsin-Michigan State and the ACC would have been Clemson-Virginia Tech–the same as they would be with divisions. The ten-team Big XII could have had a playoff game between Oklahoma State and Kansas State, for example. Have those games played out (along with the C-USA, MWC, etc. conference championship games) and pick the top four from that group to go into the playoff.
I think the powers that be in college football are in a box concerning the four-team playoff. It’ll be better than the present system, but it’s not inclusive enough to work to the complete satisfaction of the public and to college football fans. Eight teams would be better, but the stakeholders have clear concern that the number of teams might creep up some more (not to mention the other problems they might have mentioned above). That’s why an out of the box solution involving getting rid of divisions to clear the way to make the conference championship games into de facto playoff games with the best two teams in the conference may be something they’ll explore.
LikeLike
The UGA/LSU game was not during the regular season. And Boise St. turned out to be a lot stronger than Alabama’s only decent opponent, Penn St.
I don’t see why you think eliminating divisions solves problems in a 4 team playoff. The problem with Stanford getting in over Oregon is that pollsters are stupid. You don’t have to use the polls. Having a ccg w/o divisions is meaningless. The purpose of a ccg is so that a larger conference can have a true champion. Without divisions all you are doing is adding a wildcard like in the NFL and MLB. That is not why the ccg was created. Eliminating divisions is irrelevant to a 4 team playoff. There is no need to limit to champions, but there is a need to apply a little common sense. And Stanford had a good team. Its not ridiculous to include them. However, it made more sense to include Oregon.
I agree, there are a lot of difficulties with 8. There are a lot of goals that are incompatible. But a 4 team is very easy. Have a committee. Play at home fields in December. Limit home games to conference champs. Limit it to 2 teams per conference. Play the final just after New Year’s. And if you want to keep the big bowls happy, let them double host the 1st 4 years before bidding it out.
LikeLike
cutter,
With the current structure of the conferences in place anyway, it’ll be impossible to have a four-team playoff with conference champions only. That’s because there will have to be rooom in any system for the independents, particularly Notre Dame and Brigham Young, to get into the playoffs. At least one team has to be an at large program in order to accomodate that.
That’s just not true. Every independent is a conference champ by default because they are in a conference of 1. Only playoff zealots who intentionally want to misunderstand the term think it excludes independents.
LikeLike
Only a crazy person would consider an independent a “conference of one”.
LikeLike
Sorry, meant to include this in my previous response.
cutter,
So literally the only way to keep a four-team playoff in place, to shorten the post-season schedule, to ensure that the major bowl games get marquee matchups and to ensure that the maximum amount of teams are part of the playoff would be to get rid of the divisions between the conferences and allow them to organize a conference championship game between the two best teams in the conference and not the two division winners.
That’s also not true. You just keep making things up to create hurdles for any plan but your beloved 8 team playoff.
I think the powers that be in college football are in a box concerning the four-team playoff. It’ll be better than the present system, but it’s not inclusive enough to work to the complete satisfaction of the public and to college football fans.
There is no such thing as “the complete satisfaction of the public and to college football fans” because many fans want different things. Some want the old system. Some want to stick with a 2 team system. Some want to go to 4 teams, while others want 8, 12, 16 or even more. By definition, you cannot completely satisfy the fans with any system.
Eight teams would be better
Eight teams would be better in your opinion. Don’t state it like it’s fact.
That’s why an out of the box solution involving getting rid of divisions to clear the way to make the conference championship games into de facto playoff games with the best two teams in the conference may be something they’ll explore.
Outside the box doesn’t always mean wise. The current CCG rules are in place for a reason. Your rules would guarantee a rematch in the CCG much more than 50% of the time for every CCG, diminishing their value. The current system is around 50% (ACC, B10 – 50%, P12 – 67%, SEC – 29%, future ACC – 43%). Your system would be 62% (SEC) – 82% (P12). If the NCAA didn’t want the restriction on CCGs, they wouldn’t have created it in the first place.
LikeLike
And yet it is by definition, greg.
Or you can change the language to say conference champs and independents if that makes you feel better. Do you honestly think Kramer was planning to exclude ND and Army and didn’t even explain that? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
To bullet & Brian:
I find the concept that a conference has to have divisions and that the division winners have to meet in the conference championship game in order to have a “true champion” to be entertaining, but faulty. There’s no guarantee of a conference being competitively balanced if it’s broken up in two divisions–in fact, that was one of the problems within the Big XII before the recent conference realignment moves. A conference championship game in that circumstance doesn’t lend much to the higher rated team’s resume in that case–something which the Big XII is claiming now that it’s at ten members.
You could remove the two divisions in the current Big Ten, for example, and have the teams play nine conference games. The two with the best conference record or overall record or highest ratings in the polls could meet in a conference championship game to decide the Big Ten champion. Heck, the conference could have done something like this when it still had eleven teams if the NCAA rules had permitted it. Adding Nebraska and getting to twelve members only became a threshold event towards setting up divisions because the rules spelled it out. If the NCAA had said a conference needed 14 teams in order to set up divisions, would the Big Ten not have a “true champion” with only 12 teams and no conference championship game?
I don’t think I have to add much to the discussion about an independent being a conference of one–others have addressed that very nicely. There’s a Dennis Dodd article talking about the potential four-team playoff that’s linked below. When you open it up, the picture you see if Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick–he’s one of the twelve people putting together the proposals for the post-season and I trust he’s going to work very hard to make sure that a highly ranked Notre Dame (and by extension, Brigham Young) team into a four-team playoff on the basis of some minimimum criteria.
I’m hard pressed to imagine a 12-0 Notre Dame team that is in the top four of the rating systems wouldn’t be in a four-team playoff, but consider the circumstances if that ND team replaced a major conference champion that went 12-1 or a Big XII program that also went 12-0. I don’t think a conference commissioner of one of those teams is going to be too happy with “so sad, too bad” or if a committee made the decision or if a human or coaches’ poll was part of the equation. Going to eight teams in the playoffs would do a lot to lessen the controversy and as I said earlier, it’d include not only conference champions, but also highly rated teams that may not have been conference champions (such as Alabama and Stanford from last season).
As far as the remove the division setup thing, it’s not a major hurdle. The NCAA could make it entirely optional and if conferences want to keep the divisions and base their conference championship games on the division winners, they can do that. Or a conference can pass on having divisions and not have a conference championship game or they can have the game based on the records and resumes of the top two teams. This would allow the individual conferences complete flexbility to set themselves in any way they feel best in order to get their program or programs into the four-team playoff. In fact, we have this sort of thing right now as long as the Big XII has ten teams and no conference championship game, the Big East has only seven teams and no conference championship game and the other conferences have divisions with conference championship games. Heck, in two years time, the whole idea of automatic qualifying and non automatic qualifying conferences are going to go out the window–none of this stuff is written in stone and if you look at the history of college football these past few decades, you’d know it.
I’m reading a lot of criticisms here, but not too many solutions on how to set up a four-team playoff system (“Any fool can criticize. Most fools do.”). I reiterate my point that I’m perfectly happy with the two-division setup for conferences with the two division winners meeting in the conference championship game. I’d love to see how Brian figures the percentages on how ofter there’d be rematches in conference championship games in the different conferences, but the most important question I’d have for him is would a conference championship game rematch diminishing the regular season be a fact or an opinion on his part? When Michigan State and Wisconsin played in the inaugural Big Ten Championship game, was it a fact or an opinion that the game was diminished because it was a rematch from a regular season game? And if it was diminished in some way, what metric did he use to ascertain it? The world wonders.
Just to be clear, I’ll state the following as a fact. The most recent poll among the players from Alabama, LSU, Stanford and Oklahoma State (not the fans) on a playoff has 43% for it, 19% against and 38% undecided. Of all the playoff scenarios presented, the eight-team scenario received the highest endorsement with 33% (and a four-team playoff was approved by 22% of the players). See http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16754181/poll-of-top-four-teams-shows-players-favor-college-football-playoffs
And now for some opinion. t’s not the greatest poll in the world because two of teams are in the national championship game and they represent a conference that has benefitted most from the BCS. Not surprisingly, the players from Stanford and Oklahoma State were more in favor of a playoff. I will concede to you that there are various opinons out there about what a playoff should look like, but the more instructive poll or question to ask is does a four-team or an eight-team playoff make more sense to the fans, the players and all the other stakeholders. My bet is that most people (including President Obama, who is on the record) would vote for an eight-team playoff.
LikeLike
@cutter
You don’t seem to grasp the purpose of a ccg. Its not to have competitive balance. Its to allow a method for a champion in conferences too big for a round robin. Each division has a round robin. What you propose is nothing other than a pro-style wild card. That is contrary to the espoused philosophy of the Presidents by having an extra game solely for the purpose of making more money. The only reason the rule exists is because they wrote it for a large Division II conference and never intended it for Division I.
A ccg has a purpose other than $. A playoff game has a purpose other than $. What you propose does not.
I don’t see any way your wild card ccg proposal gets approved anytime in the near future. It is simply contrary to every argument the presidents have been making for the past 15 years. Even if they didn’t believe them, it would be hard for them to completely change direction.
LikeLike
cutter,
To bullet & Brian:
Really? A super long post addressed to two people when none of it is actually addressing points both of us share. I skipped most of it because it seemed more focused on bullet’s points, but:
I’m hard pressed to imagine a 12-0 Notre Dame team that is in the top four of the rating systems wouldn’t be in a four-team playoff, but consider the circumstances if that ND team replaced a major conference champion that went 12-1 or a Big XII program that also went 12-0. I don’t think a conference commissioner of one of those teams is going to be too happy with “so sad, too bad” or if a committee made the decision or if a human or coaches’ poll was part of the equation.
Under what scenario would the commish for the #5 team ever be happy instead of thinking his team should be #4 (barring when his team is also #4)?
As far as the remove the division setup thing, it’s not a major hurdle. The NCAA could make it entirely optional and if conferences want to keep the divisions and base their conference championship games on the division winners, they can do that. Or a conference can pass on having divisions and not have a conference championship game or they can have the game based on the records and resumes of the top two teams.
The NCAA could do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they’re likely to do them. The conferences already have the choice not to form divisions, but none of them take it.
I’m reading a lot of criticisms here,
Bad ideas have been known to draw a lot of criticism.
but not too many solutions on how to set up a four-team playoff system (“Any fool can criticize. Most fools do.”).
There is the slight problem that most of the critics don’t want a 4 team playoff in any way, shape or form. Why would they offer an alternative version?
I’d love to see how Brian figures the percentages on how ofter there’d be rematches in conference championship games in the different conferences,
It’s called math. There are lots of books available on the subject, and websites if you prefer.
In this case, I did a zero order model and reported the percentage of possible CCG opponents a team plays in the regular season. In a division system, a team has played 3 of 6 (50%), or 4 of 6 (67%), or 2 of 7 (29%) or 3 of 7 (43%). In a no-division system, a team has played 8 of 11 (73%) or 9 of 11 (82%) or 8 of 13 (62%) or 9 of 13 (69%). Yes, a more advanced model would factor the likelihood of losing that game on the chances of making it to the CCG to face the team again, but that factor applies to both systems and has a lot of other variables. The zero order numbers are enough to show that a division system has fewer rematches.
but the most important question I’d have for him is would a conference championship game rematch diminishing the regular season be a fact or an opinion on his part?
Obviously it is an opinion, unless a specific definition of diminishing is available. Making the outcome of a game no longer matter is a specific definition, and that’s why it is a fact that the NCG rematch last year diminished the regular season. It also diminished the NCG, as seen by the TV numbers. Many CCG rematches present the same problem, where the previous outcome no longer matters, and thus they diminish the regular season.
When Michigan State and Wisconsin played in the inaugural Big Ten Championship game, was it a fact or an opinion that the game was diminished because it was a rematch from a regular season game? And if it was diminished in some way, what metric did he use to ascertain it? The world wonders.
The world could look at the lack of ticket interest, but the best metric is that the WI won the conference by making their earlier loss to MSU pointless. The regular season was diminished because one less game carried any meaning. It might as well have never been played.
Just to be clear, I’ll state the following as a fact. The most recent poll among the players from Alabama, LSU, Stanford and Oklahoma State (not the fans) on a playoff has 43% for it, 19% against and 38% undecided. Of all the playoff scenarios presented, the eight-team scenario received the highest endorsement with 33% (and a four-team playoff was approved by 22% of the players). See http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16754181/poll-of-top-four-teams-shows-players-favor-college-football-playoffs
So even with half the players polled on teams that don’t get a chance at the NCG but would in any playoff system, a playoff still didn’t get a majority.
And the format choices are from people who don’t have to take into consideration the fans, travel, weather, academic calendars, TV networks, pesky details like not getting swag or fancy bowl trips or anything else. Pardon me for considering most of these opinions not well thought out.
LikeLike
@cutter
Who says they have to accommodate the Indys? If ND or BYU want to play for a national championship under a conference champs only system I’m sure they could find plenty of conferences who would be more than happy to have them.
LikeLike
frug,
Be realistic. No system is going to exclude ND, BYU and Army or force them into conferences.
LikeLike
What do the other schools have to gain? It doesn’t matter to Army (since they won’t be playing for the title) and Notre Dame and BYU don’t have any leverage whatsoever.
LikeLike
frug,
No leverage? How about the TV networks paying less if they have to skip a 12-0 ND? How about politicians grandstanding about Army being denied a shot even if they’re 12-0, and perhaps they should rethink the tax exempt status of college athletics if an academy is going to be barred from competing? You get a whole lot of bad PR and unnecessary hassles if you go that route. Army, BYU and ND have shown that they’ll rarely (if ever) deserve a spot anyway, so why cause yourself headaches?
It’s different when you talk about revenue sharing. I don’t see any reason to give the independents more than a 1/120 share every year, but maybe you give ND more if the power conference get a bigger share (ND gets the same as 1/14th of a power conference payout for a conference that doesn’t send a team).
LikeLike
Given that Army and Navy weren’t given the same BCS access as ND or the top12 non-AQ conference champs and never once complained (or even asked) I doubt that Army is going to be an issue. Especially, since everyone, including their fans, players and coaching staff knows they will never be good enough to play for a championship (that’s what happens when you combine size and weight restrictions with a service commitment).
As for the TV networks? They work those deals out years in advance. Any extra revenue the TV networks would be pay for the chance to show ND would be offset by reduced access to the NCG.
I’m not saying that the Indy’s will be boxed out, but if they are there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
LikeLike
I fully agree there’s nothing they can do about it, I just don’t see any circumstance in which it would happen. Army has access to the NCG in the BCS in case they have a miracle year, so they (and congress) don’t complain. TV networks would complain if ND was barred from the playoff by offering a lot less money. It’s not worth the hassle for anyone to keep them out, especially since they haven’t earned their way in since 1993.
LikeLike
Except that the TV networks are already know that ND would join a conference if it was required to play for the title (the AD has already admitted that is one of the few things that would force the Irish to abandon their independence).
And even if the Irish did hold out (which they never would) the TV deal will not be substantially different. The people that work these deals out aren’t stupid. They are not going to pay a large premium for the chance to show ND once a decade.
LikeLike
The problem is that the network could get stuck showing a playoff that is outdone by a bowl featuring 12-0 ND. If the same network shows both, no big deal. If it isn’t all on ESPN, then it’s a bigger issue. ND is the one school that would make casual fans wonder why there is a playoff and NCG when an undefeated ND is playing elsewhere. If the networks pay the sort of money that has been rumored for a playoff, there is no way they will accept ND not being allowed in.
Since there is no good reason to exclude ND anyway, it won’t ever happen. The NCAA/BCS/whatever won’t pass rules that keep them out. There is zero upside to excluding them.
LikeLike
That still wouldn’t happen. The BCS CG still gets better ratings than any of the other BCS bowls even when the other games have “better” matchups.
But like I said, it doesn’t matter. Notre Dame will join a conference if they have to play for the title game. (BYU though might hold out anyways)
As for why the other schools should exclude them? Why should they have to beat out 9/11/13 other teams, if the Irish and BYU don’t have to?
LikeLike
I will say that if there is one thing that will work in ND and BYU (and Army) its that the other conferences may not fee like doing the Big XII and Big 10 (or maybe the ACC) any favors by handing the BYU and Notre Dame on a silver platter.
But my overall point is that there is absolutely no reason that the other 117+ schools have to accommodate the Indys.
LikeLike
“I will say that if there is one thing that will work in ND and BYU (and Army) its that the other conferences may not fee like ”
Should read:
“I will say that if there is one thing that will work in ND’s and BYU’s (and Army’s) favor, its that the other conferences may not feel like…”
LikeLike
So tonight was the final nail in Webber’s coffin right?
LikeLike
What, just because they gave up a 45-7 run to cellar dweller NE?
LikeLike
I’d be shocked if he hung on
LikeLike
I just wonder if he will make it through the rest of the season.
LikeLike
It’d be hilarious if the Illini make the tournament and then go on a deep run.
LikeLike
They may need to find their Steve Fisher.
LikeLike
Have I ever mentioned that I pray that Bud Selig should die in a fire? It’s bad enough that he jettisoned ninety years of NL history in Houston so that his family in Milwaukee can benefit, but now he wants to destroy history.
http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=7586668
I look forward to the Milwaukee Teetotalers throwback jerseys.
LikeLike
Even if I tried really hard, I couldn’t make myself care much about anything in MLB. MLB deserves every bad thing that can possibly happen to it, including the unending stream of terrible decisions that Selig makes. The faster MLB loses fans, the better.
As for the uniform, the club should have replaced the gun with “.45s” to at least keep the name.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you said Brian, the problem I see is it has zero competition for a majority of its season and it still very popular in large metropolitan areas. I really thought it would have died off much more over the past decade (especially after the steroids scandal), but sadly it hasn’t.
LikeLike
Why?
I dislike some of the things that have happened like moving any team between leagues and playing World Series games too late for a lot in eastern standard time to see, but why does baseball deserve that?
LikeLike
Because the sport has institutional issues related to competition and it refuses to address them.
The majority of baseball fans have no shot of seeing their team win the World Series, yet they still tune in. My own Pirates, have had losing seasons for decades and they are religiously ranked in Forbes as one of the top sports franchises based on value. Its because MLB basically pays them to be a major league farm system for the larger metropolitan area teams. Its gotten so bad at times we can’t even get relatively fair value in our trades because its so well known we won’t pay a guy, so why offer up prospects to get him when you can just wait a year and outbid the competition?
In the end, MLB likes the way the system is set up because it makes boat-loads of cash for everyone, but as far as the fans are concerned, I’ve never seen a league give so little concern to the state of their “non-marquee” brands. IMO, it speaks volumes to how valued I am, as a consumer, by MLB.
LikeLike
Uh, so how would you feel about college football if your school was Temple?
Should there be a draft instituted for high school students and profit sharing amongst athletic departments so that Temple gets a shot at the national title?
BTW, in the last 10 years, 14 different MLB teams have made it to the World Series (compared to 10 NBA teams to their Finals, 13 NHL teams to their Finals, and 13 NFL teams to the Super Bowl). 19 MLB teams have made the playoffs in the past 5 years (10 NL & 9 AL), including small-market teams _in_the_same_division_as_the_Pirates like the Reds and Brewers. Considering that baseball playoffs are essentially a crapshoot (and that big market clubs like the Yankees have several times more fans than a club like the Pirates), you’re certainly not correct when you say the majority of fans have no shot of seeing their team win the World Series.
It’s not MLB’s fault that the Pirates have been poorly run with ownership that would rather pocket profit-sharing revenue than spend it on improving the team. Small market teams that have ownership that wants to win (like the Brewers and Reds) are competitive.
LikeLike
I get what you are saying, but I’m not sure I entirely agree. Yeah the bigger market teams have advantages, but we’ve seen enough success away from them (and enough big market teams who can’t do anything inspite of big payrolls) that I don’t think the fundamental issue is a system they can’t win in. The Yankees will win more and I don’t think that terrible (completely shared revenue isn’t good either imo), but so do a lot of others.
I guess where I do agree though is that there needs to be a push to force owners to spend money. If they are receiving so much in luxury tax, they can’t just sit on it, they need to try to make a competitive team.
LikeLike
MLB has MUCH more parity than NBA or NFL. Go look at how many teams have participated in the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and World Series over the last 25 years. World Series easily has the most.
LikeLike
I think a better measure would be how often the big market teams made the playoffs vs. the small market teams. Anyone can become a consistent power in fb or basketball. The same is not true in baseball. In baseball, if they succeed, they lose their top players to the Yankees in free agency.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mlb/worldseries/history/winners
Look at the winners…the names are fairly consistent.
Go back and look at “all those teams” payrolls, even the losers. If you don’t outspend your competition…you…do…not…win.
As I said…MLB doesn’t care at all about its non-marquee brands and the fact that the big cities trade off World Series appearances doesn’t make me any less blind to the stunningly obvious institutional issues MLB has.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
Exactly. I mean, the Rays haven’t been able to make the playoffs at all the past few years.
As for payroll, yes, a bigger payroll does get you to the playoffs more often, but there’s really no excuse for a well-run team with a new ballpark to not be near the league median in payroll (unless the ownership are greedy whiners who don’t want to spend their revenue-sharing money to improve the team), no matter the size of your market. Cincy, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh are all small-market clubs who opened new ballparks around the same time (and are in the same division). For that matter, St. Louis is also a small market (being slightly bigger than Pittsburgh’s). Cincy and Milwaukee have increased their payrolls to close to MLB median (the Cardinals have always been in the upper-half in payroll). All 3 are competitive & have made the playoffs recently. What’s Pittsburgh’s excuse?
Finally, same as in MLB, only the richest athletic departments can hope of winning a national title in college football, yet I don’t see you clamoring for PSU to share it’s revenues with Temple and Pitt or for there to be a cap on football expenditures.
LikeLike
Yeah, the lack of parity in MLB is overblown. Even with the differing payrolls the biggest difference is how well run the teams are. The Cubs and Mets are two of the highest payroll teams and neither can get its shit together. The Rays meanwhile are holding their own in a division with the Red Sox and Yankees.
LikeLike
We had this discussion awhile ago and I’ll definitely acknowledge that given the way baseball works (better team winning something like 60% of the time or something like that), there is a lot of luck in the playoffs with as many teams as there are. All the same, I think looking back at the last 10 World Series still gives us a pretty good impression that the leagues aren’t too bad as far as parity and that a lot of teams really do have a chance to win it all.
In the last 10 World Series (going back to 2002), we’ve had 13 of 30 Major League teams make a World Series. That has included Tampa Bay, Florida, and Detroit, relatively small market in baseball terms today and has not included the Cubs or the Mets who are both big market teams with good payrolls. If we expand that back to 2000 (so 12 years total), we have had 16 of the 30 AL and NL teams make the World Series.
I think the set-up is actually pretty ideal right now in terms of good teams are with only a few tweaks needed. The richest most popular teams will often make the playoffs if run right (harder than it sounds, just ask the Cubs). At the same time, a good season will give anyone a chance to win the World Series. I think that combination is exactly what baseball should want. They want some combination of the Yankees, Dodgers, Boston, Cubs, Phillies good every year (need someone to love or hate). At the same time, they want every team with a chance to win it. I think this set-up is good for that other than the fact that a few programs seem content on losing (the Pirates definitely being first to mind).
Now if we want to talk about Inter-league play, switching leagues, time slots for games, etc, I’ll definitely say there are still a lot of issues.
LikeLike
First off, I fully acknowledge Pittsburgh being an outlier, but I think it important to note that Pittsburg’s management isn’t inept. It is doing exactly what it wants, and makes a boat load of money doing so. The problem is MLB lets them do that. Even the Cinci Bengals during their horrible years were pressured by the league to change their ways and attempt to put a competitive product on the field. The Pirates have never had that pressure. I maintain the gains the team has made over the past two years (ROFL…gains, they still ended with losing seasons) were based solely on the stagnant attendance and local tv market revenue. They had finally sheared the sheep too close and it had hurt themselves.
As for lack of balance being over-blown, I actually think you are correct in some small way, but only because I think baseball is in a transition phase as far as personnel is concerned. With small-ball and plenty of offensive minded changes to the game bad teams can put up runs and show better than they really are. Again, look at the Pirates for most of last season. I didn’t watch much of them, but when I did I didn’t see a good team…I saw a team playing above its level…and by the end of the season the rest of the league saw it too.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3816824
Take a look at that…more money = more wins. Those smaller market, smaller budget teams that are more efficient at producing wins were the ones that bought into (or created) small ball in the first place. Once all of the big budget teams finally buy into what has made small market teams successful (and I have to believe that will happen at some point) the competitive advantage the small market teams have with these players is gone.
LikeLike
@Eric
I think you have just made the point that PSUGuy made. Why do the teams to hate need to be the same 4 or 5 teams every year? Sure the Reds won a World Series in 1990 and made the playoffs a couple years back, but how many winning seasons have they had since Rose, Perez, Concepcion retired? The Pirates, Royals, Reds and Athletics were the premier teams of the 70s and early 80s. But then the $ gap got too big for them. Look at the AL small market teams last trip to World Series:
Tampa Bay 2008
Baltimore 1983
Cleveland 1997
Minnesota 1991
Kansas City 1985
Oakland 1990
Seattle never
Look at NL:
Pittsburg 1979
Cincy 1990
Florida 2003 (and they lost everyone to free agency and have been terrible since)
Milwaukee 1982
San Diego 1998
Colorado 2007
Since the 94 strike, the $ gap has increased and the ability of small market teams to even have a winning record has been much more difficult.
LikeLike
The Pirates really don’t have much of an excuse. There are no real “evil empires” in their division, well-run teams with loads of money (the Cardinals come close, and while the Cubs certainly make money, they haven’t been well-run in decades, and I’m skeptical Epstein will be able to change things — it’s a far bigger challenge than the Red Sox, who were already an upper-echelon franchise when he took over). You look at what Tampa Bay has done in a substantially tougher division, and you ask yourself why Pittsburgh can’t do likewise.
My team, the Nationals, had to overcome both years of institutional neglect from MLB ownership and the array of bad moves made by Jim Bowden (though to be fair, those bad moves indirectly led to the arrival of Strasburg and Harper). Mike Rizzo has built the Nats’ farm system to one in at least the top half of the game, bolstered the rotation with a trade (for Gio Gonzalez) and free agent signing (Edwin Jackson), and while I honestly think Washington is a year away from seeing its first contender since 1945, the future legitimately looks bright, and D.C. fans may soon witness postseason play for the first time since FDR’s initial year in office.
LikeLike
bullet & PSUGuy:
If you folks think it’s so important that the “teams to hate” should rotate and small-market teams should have just as good a chance of winning as the big market/support teams in baseball, then why aren’t you advocating for the same thing in college football? Shouldn’t PSU be forced to share revenue with Pitt & Temple so that the Owls have just as much of a chance of winning a national title as the Lions? Shouldn’t Texas be forced to share its ginormous athletic revenue with UTEP and Houston and TAMU so that the Cougars and Aggies also have just as much chance as being “the team to hate” as the Longhorns?
LikeLike
College football is not a pro sport asking cities for subsidies for the privilege of them deigning to play there.
LikeLike
I also remember how it was before free agency coupled with local cable and TV deals distorted the market. And baseball isn’t anywhere near as egalitarian as the NFL. There should be an opportunity for the Packers or Reds or Royals to be the “team to hate.” That simply is not the case in baseball anymore. If you build up a good farm system, you can have 1 or 2 years of success and then the Yankees and Red Sox take your players. Even in the NBA which has been mostly dominated by the Lakers and Celtics since the 60s (with an occassional Michael Jordan, Bill Walton or Hakeem Olajuwon interlude), San Antonio, one of the smallest markets, was able to win 4 titles in 9 years.
LikeLike
bullet:
Yes, I believe public subsidies are deplorable, however, you could argue (and I do) that the reserve clause is what really distorted the market, so what you have now is closer to an unfettered, true free market with honest competition. After all, if you believe in the free market and competition, teams that do a better job of increasing their fanbase & drawing higher cable revenues by putting together a better product and marketing better _deserve_ to win more often. Again, comparing with college football, are you arguing that public subsidies are the only reason you want small-market teams in MLB to have an equal chance of winning? Otherwise, it’s OK for the Yankees/Red Sox to dominate the AL as much as Texas/OU dominated the B12?
Mind you, I’m also against how the LB cartel dictates where teams can be; greater NYC, for instance, could easily support another 2 MLB teams, and if NJ and Westchester each had a baseball team, the Yankees would not have as much of a financial advantage.
LikeLike
BTW, I’m actually a big fan of a small market team who benefited greatly from the reserve-clause-era system (the Cardinals), but I would rather see them try to win in an open competition than in a fake one where they have to break their team up (as my MLS team, the Chicago Fire, had to do) just because they were smart enough to be successful. It’s one major reason why I’m not an NFL fan, in fact. Too many hard rules and massive player movement (due to those hard salary cap rules) as well as unhappy players. I want guys who wear the birds-on-the-bat to want to wear it; not sulky players who are stuck in StL because the system forces them to be.
LikeLike
Eric,
Why?
I dislike some of the things that have happened like moving any team between leagues and playing World Series games too late for a lot in eastern standard time to see, but why does baseball deserve that?
They hired a bad owner to be commissioner and then kept him around long after it was obvious he was bad for the sport. At the same time, the players have done everything in their power to sabotage the game too. A pox on all their houses.
LikeLike
To be fair to Selig (and I can’t believe I just typed that), he has had to oversee* the second (cancellation of the ’94 WS) and third (steroids) most damaging events in the sport’s history (the Black Sox scandal is still number 1), and yet he still made the game more profitable than it has ever been and (twice) headed up negotiations that lead to the longest period of labor peace since the advent of free agency in the 1960’s. He was also instrumental in developing the 2002 luxury tax and revenue sharing agreement’s (both of which had substantial opposition from the players and high payroll teams) that has given the game as much (if not more) parity than it has ever seen.
* Yes Selig deserves some blame for both those, but those were both systemic failures that likely would have occurred even with a different commissioner.
LikeLike
There is no defense of Selig you can raise that will ever change my mind even a little about him. He is bad for MLB, bad for America and bad for humanity.
LikeLike
“There is no defense of Selig you can raise that will ever change my mind even a little about him. He is bad for MLB, bad for America and bad for humanity.”
This brought to mind the follow quote I came across previously:
“As a matter of fact, if you announce that there can exist no possible information that might change your mind about abortion, the death penalty, marijuana, same-sex marriage, and the inheritance tax, then yes you are an unreasonable person—or anyway, an unreasoning one”
LikeLike
@Richard
An infinite amount of information does not necessarily result in a better decision. At some point, you have enough to make a judgement.
There is no amount of information you could give me that would convince me that Pete Rose or Barry Bonds does not belong in the Hall of Fame. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand different opinions. There is no amount of information that could convince me that selecting Jacksonville for an NFL expansion franchise was a good decision. There is no amount of information that could convince me that Legends and Leaders is anything but stupid.
I don’t agree that Selig was a bad owner. However, as a commissioner, I fully agree with Brian. The move of the Astros to the AL simply because it was convenient is the latest stupid move.
LikeLike
OK, fair enough, assuming all the information is already out there (not hidden). Personally, though, while I don’t agree with how the playoffs with the wildcard was set up or support interleague play, financially, MLB has never been better, so it’s hard for me to say Selig is a bad commissioner.
LikeLike
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2012/02/17/a-college-football-playoff-uga-prez-adams-blazed-that-trail/?cxntfid=blogs_mark_bradley_blog
Article discussing UGA president’s support of a playoff. Apparently there was more support for a playoff, even an 8 team playoff 4 years ago that was evident. A lot of private support evaporated after pressure from some of the commissioners. Adams believes that there is “more inclination to a four-team playoff…but exactly how it would work will depend on what kind of deal there is on the Rose Bowl.”
LikeLike
College baseball season has begun. Rice swept FIU over the weekend to move into the top five:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/college/top-25/rankings/2012/2613001.html
LikeLike
Loki – #7 LSU won all three of its games in a weekend round-robin with Air Force and Alcorn St. I attended the Saturday and Sunday games. Saturday was a little wet and Sunday was a little chilly (by Baton Rouge standards), but with Baseball, Spring is here.
LikeLike
B1G-BEast challenge is a draw at 15 games each. Purdue leads B1G with a 3-0 showing there.
Nebraska blows two ninth inning leads to start 0-3 vs Gonzaga.
LikeLike
I assume all the northern and eastern teams suck as usual, but the B10 and BE split their baseball challenge 15-15 FWIW.
LikeLike
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/big-ten-commissioner_n_1231831.html
Jim Delany speaks favorably of the 4 corners. No wonder he rubs me the wrong way almost whenever he speaks.
He also is not quite so positive about a 4 team playoff as he has been before. His comments are more nuanced. His stated factors are: 1) the athlete; 2) the regular season; 3) Rose Bowl and bowl system; and 4) competitive fairness.
Not in this article, but someone elsewhere said that Delany had said in a conversation that with the B1G/Pac 12 agreement, the two conferences would quit playing FCS schools.
LikeLike
bullet,
Jim Delany speaks favorably of the 4 corners. No wonder he rubs me the wrong way almost whenever he speaks.
Is he wrong in saying it was ahead of it’s time? It used the rules to his advantage, which is what a coach is supposed to do. Thankfully the NCAA added a shot clock eventually to kill the stall tactic version of it.
He also is not quite so positive about a 4 team playoff as he has been before.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-idea-a-college-football-playoff-with-home-games-20120206,0,6394971,full.story
I think Delany’s stance was overblown from the start. From Greenstein’s original article on 2/6:
“Delany would not comment on any potential Big Ten playoff proposal, saying he first needs to take the temperature of university presidents, chancellors and athletic directors.”
That somehow morphed into “Delany’s plan” for a playoff, or Delany now supporting a playoff.
His comments are more nuanced. His stated factors are: 1) the athlete; 2) the regular season; 3) Rose Bowl and bowl system; and 4) competitive fairness.
From Greenstein again:
“NU’s Phillips said that in evaluating playoff proposals, Big Ten officials would use four criteria:
(bullet)Is it fair to the student-athletes already suiting up for 12-13 games?
(bullet)Would it undermine college football’s vital regular season?
(bullet)Would the teams be chosen in a way that reflects competitive fairness?
(bullet)Can the Rose Bowl be protected?”
Sound familiar?
Not in this article, but someone elsewhere said that Delany had said in a conversation that with the B1G/Pac 12 agreement, the two conferences would quit playing FCS schools.
I’d love to see a link to that, because I never heard or read any such thing. I did a quick search and didn’t see anything about it.
LikeLike
I would be shocked if that happened. The change would not be big for the very bottom and very top. The very bottom schools would play 1 (or 0) guarantee games anyway, so going from FCS to MAC is not a huge change, and the top programs are rich enough to pay for MAC opponents for all guarantee games. But would a school like Iowa or MSU, who want 7 home games, want to spring for 2 $1M MAC games when an FCS opponent costs maybe $200K-$300K to bring in? Are the extra TV revenues worth that much more?
LikeLike
BYU getting closer to B12? Tweet below from Greg Swaim OSU sports.
BigTime Sports @GSwaim
Majority of #Big12 teams want to add at two more teams for 2013 to get a playoff, but #BYU wants to wait until 2014 to fulfill contracts. Fewer contracts to buy out.
LikeLike
There is only one name in conference realignment that I instantly ignore and that’s Greg Swain. Maybe he’s reported enough now that he actually has some real sources, but based on the past, my personal guess was that he was just straight up making things up and posting anything and everything hoping some of it would stick (and people would keep linking back to him either way). His track record isn’t very good at all.
LikeLike
I agree. Interestingly enough Greg and “The Dude” are on the same page. However, I haven’t seen a lot of credible information from either.
In contrast, Brett McMurphy of CBS Sports has been a great source of information.
LikeLike
Ignore Greg Swaim. He has no more “sources” then any other blogger wanna be sports reporter. I trust “the Dude from WV” over Greg Swaim, who I think has to wear a helmet when he goes outside his house.
LikeLike
Greg Swaim had his media credentials revoked at Oklahoma State. He is not very well respected in the OKC media or by fans in Oklahoma at all.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/59492/loss-of-games-due-to-realignment-costly
Kristi Dosh works for the evil empire now, bu there’s a piece she wrote about the cost of replacement games due to realignment.
Before it left the Big East, West Virginia canceled its game against non-conference opponent Florida State and paid a $500,000 cancellation fee. But Elliott Finebloom, an assistant athletic director at FSU, said the loss of the home game will cost the Seminoles far more than the program received in the cancellation fee.
“We’ll probably lose $2.5 million in ticket sales,” he said, and that’s not including a drop in season ticket sales resulting from the cancellation. It could cost FSU another $1 million to bring an opponent into town. Filling the WVU slot with an away game is not going to happen, said Finebloom.
These numbers don’t make a ton of sense to me. Assuming FSU replaces the WV game with someone, it’s hard to believe they’ll lose $2.5M in sales net. That’s about $30 per seat, or a whole bunch of empty seats. I’m not sure how many season ticket sales they’ll lose since they still host Clemson and UF, but they’ll probably lose some.
If those losses are all accurate, FSU looks a little silly for signing a deal with only a $500k buyout.
LikeLike
Generally agree with you Brian here. This isn’t like with the Big East where West Virginia had a 27 month rule they were supposed to follow after ending a long term contract. This was a single game with a buyout fee in the contract. If $500,000 wasn’t going to make up for the game at this point, a higher number should have been put into contract. Cancelling games happens sometimes for various reasons and the contracts should reflect that.
LikeLike
I suspect its all just public posturing. There are 7 Big East schools that need games. I get tired of the nonsensical legal posturing in public from the colleges. If I wanted nonsense, I would listen to the Democratic and Republican party spokesmen on TV. Colleges are supposed to be about intellectual integrity.
The only way it costs $2.5 million is if they don’t have a game. There is no way it changes the number of season tickets sold.
LikeLike
It really does feel like politics a lot. It was clear West Virginia would be in the Big 12 in 2012, but we kept getting iron clad statements about the 27 month rule. It was obvious Ohio State and Michigan fans were not happy about the divisions, but we get half the divisional announcement show talking about how great this is for the rivalry. Everyone hated Legends and Leaders (barely an overstatement), but we don’t get negative reactions at all on BTN either.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd had a long discussion of playoff issues:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/17355599/more-money-bowls-waning-popularity-driving-push-for-a-plusone
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/17355599/more-money-bowls-waning-popularity-driving-push-for-a-plusone
You missed “/story” in your link.
“What changed? The money for one thing. CBSSports.com talked to several industry sources about pricing a plus-one. Depending on how it is administrated, a four-team playoff could be worth $250 million to $500 million per season. On the high end, that would almost triple the $180 million distributed by the BCS in 2011.”
A factor of 2 range is huge. Only going up to $250M over the $180M of the BCS isn’t a huge jump, considering how great playoff money was touted to be. The BCS number will grow to at least $190M by the end of the contract (3% annual growth), and probably much more.
“That same industry analyst put the value on three plus-one games (two semifinals and a title game) at $100 million each.”
That’s a vote for $300M from TV. But didn’t the playoff proponents promise hundreds of millions of extra dollars from TV?
“In terms of gross ticket revenue, CBSSports.com was led to believe there would be a $350 average ticket price for plus-one games. Multiply that by, say, 75,000 seats. Now multiply that by three plus-one games. That’s an additional $78 million.”
It’s great to know they’re planning to screw people over for all 3 games. He neglected to subtract the value of the current NCG, though, so that’s an additional $52M assuming NCG tickets cost the same as a plus one tickets.
“If there is indeed momentum moving toward a plus-one, these models are emerging:
• The so-called Delany Model: Semifinals would be played on campus sites of higher-seeded teams. That’s probably the least lucrative for college football and, at this point, perhaps the least likely.
• A plus-one that would be played in existing bowls. If that occurs, assume the inclusion of the Cotton Bowl, making it five major (what used to be BCS) bowls. In any given year, three of those five bowls be involved in deciding the national championship. The Rose Bowl would not want to be a national semifinal but would be in the national championship rotation.
• A neutral site bid process. This is probably the most intriguing and most profitable. Imagine cities bidding on the three plus-one playoff games, the same way cities bid on the Super Bowl. Dallas/Fort Worth would probably be interested with the backing of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and his state-of-the-art Cowboys Stadium. Also, figure Atlanta with the Georgia Dome. Perhaps Indianapolis with Lucas Oil Stadium. As Kramer mentioned, a plus-one would relieve a bit of the pressure on the current system, accounting for more deserving teams, although certainly not all. In 2010 and 2011 a plus-one would have included all the undefeated Football Bowl Subdivision teams in the regular season. In 2008 (Utah) and 2009 (Boise State), undefeated teams would have been left out.”
I’d like some more detail explaining why playing semifinals on campus, especially in larger stadiums than the BCS bowls, would be the least lucrative. I’m not convinced neutral sites for all 3 games would make more money without seeing details. Can ticket prices be as high in a model requiring more travel, or are there really three cities that will sellout locally regardless of the teams at the same price as a home game would be or else pay a high enough fee to cover any difference? I’d also like to know who said the Delany plan was the least likely, since I didn’t think it had really been discussed by TPTB yet.
The article proceeds to consider moving the NCG to the week before the Super Bowl. The presidents have already said they want to move the NCG closer to 1/1, so that tells me how valid many of the opinions in the article are. They are ignoring practical issues and the actual decision makers and mostly just saying what TV wants.
LikeLike
Good points all around.
I think moving the national title game to before the Super Bowl would monumentally stupid even if we ignored the presidents wishes. That late, you then pushed it so far past the regular season that a lot of people will have forgotten a lot about it. Beyond that, you turn it into just one more lead up to the Super Bowl rather than an event all to its own. Yeah that will get it some extra attention, but it will also distract from it.
LikeLike
Yes, I think Dodd’s reasoning is suspect as well (when it comes to which playoff setup is preferable). The only way I can see a neutral site being more profitable than on-site semifinals is if they turn it in to a true Final Four with all 3 games hosted at the same site. Say the semifinals held on the Th-F between Christmas & New Year’s (or some consecutive weekdays the last week of the year) and the title game held the first Thursday of the year. Many fans go and stay the week before a bowl game anyway, so you could sell a big package to the fans of the 4 teams (I’d expect many sales on the open market by the fans of the semifinal losers). That way, fans only have to travel to one locale (which, to me, is a big consideration if you plan to charge $350 per game ticket). Yes, this would necessitate a stadium with artificial turf (or a metropolitan area with 2 acceptable stadiums (besides LA, the Bay Area, and maybe DC/Baltimore, I can’t really think of areas like that, though).
LikeLike
Matt Hayes at the Sporting News also has an article about the playoff with an emphasis on playofff “creep”. See http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-20/as-officials-discuss-college-football-postseason-further-expansion-lurks#ixzz1n2ma5ebw
Excerpted from the article:
“There is a thought at the table,” said a high-ranking BCS source, “that this could be just the beginning.”
Translation: if university presidents approve a college football postseason model that includes the hyped Plus One four-team playoff—or even an eight-team playoff that has been promoted by some presidents—the next logical step is expanding the field down the road to the current 16-team model used in the Football Championship Subdivision.
“At that point,” the BCS source says, “it’s only a matter of time.”
While some might think it’s ridiculous to think ahead that far, the lack of proactive thinking in the late 1990s likely doomed the current BCS Series. The annual tweaks and changes did little to instill confidence in the system—and those same nagging issues with whatever comes from this offseason of change could do the same.
*******
Hayes also mentions that BCS officials believe that a new model could “more than double the current package deal of $125 million a year. Opening the bidding for the new model would bring CBS, Fox and NBC to the bargaining table.” That would put the post-season revenue from a playoff in the $300M range.
In his article, Dodd says that CBSSports.com talked to several industry sources about pricing a plus-one. Depending on how it is administrated, a four-team playoff could be worth $250 million to $500 million per season. On the high end, that would almost triple the $180 million distributed by the BCS in 2011.
Consider that $550 million is the total paid by ABC for the first eight years of the BCS (1998-2005). At $500 million per season, the next lucky winning rights-holder on the BCS wheel of fortune could be paying $2 billion over four years.
Later in his article, Dodd writes that an industry analyst says the value of each of the playoff games would be around $100M apiece. With a four-team playoff, that puts the total at $300M. Go to an eight-team playoff with seven total games and if you do the math (which I’m sure the conference commissioners and the university presidents with athletic department budget deficits are doing), they’re talking upwards of $700M for the broadcast rights of the playoff games alone (not including what the bowl games would contribute to the post season revenue stream).
If the $100M per college playoff game is a realistic number, then you have these decision makers looking at:
1. A four-team playoff making $300M in revenue, or;
2. An eight-team playoff making upwards of $700M in revenue or
3. Some other playoff/revenue option
There are going to be some interesting decisions being made between now and the summer. I have a feelling that option (2) is going to be very tempting–add four more teams to the playoff and make an additional $400M for college football’s coffers.
LikeLike
I can see how #2 would be attractive. I think in the end it will bite the regular season big time, but given most conferences are in the middle of long term contracts, I bet many would be willing to ignore the risks.
LikeLike
Eric-
I don’t necessarily think an eight-team playoff is going to have a major impact on the college football regular season. While the overall stakes are going to change, most opinions I’ve read has the top five or six conferences getting autobids with three or two at large teams making up the difference.
Getting a higher seed with the possibility of home field advantage is going to be a goal regarding the playoff and that means every game during the regular season plus the conference championship games are very important. A team would be in much better shape if it was undefeated and the #1 seed over having two losses and being the #8 seed.
If the top five conference champions and three at large teams were in a playoff last year and we used the BCS standings, then the eight programs in the playoff would have been Alabama, Boise State, Clemson, LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Stanford and Wisconsin. If a conference champion had to be in the top 12 or top 14 of the rating system (same requirement for a BCS bowl), then Clemson would have been out and Arkansas would have taken their place as a fourth at large team.
The major bowls could have picked a number of teams for their games–Michgian and Michigan State from the Big Ten, West Virginia from the Big East, South Carolina and Georgia from the SEC, Clemson and Virginia Tech from the ACC and Baylor and Kansas State from the Big XII. If USC was available for the post-season and had lost the Pac 12 championship game to Oregon, the Trojans would have also been in that mix of teams. That’s ten teams right there for the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Cotton Bowls.
IMHO, an eight-team playoff is inclusive enough to include the all the better teams in college football while still providing a pretty strong inventory of teams for the major bowls. In terms of a compromise between all the major stakeholders (bowls, networks, conferences) that best serves the progams themselves and the fans, I think this is the best route to go. You’d get a series of great games at campus sites in a playoff setting coupled with name teams competing at the traditional bowl sites in and around New Year’s Day. It would probably mean some of the minor bowls closing up shop, but that may also happen if the seven-win minimum rule for bowl participation is put into place anyway.
LikeLike
My basic thought is that there are three ways to see a season (with a lot of middle ground, but these are the general ways).
1. I care a ton about every game my team is in and care about a lot of other games that don’t directly effect my team.
2. I care a ton about every game my team plays, but not a lot about games not directly effecting my team.
3. I somewhat care about every game my team plays and don’t care that much about games by others unless it directly effects my team.
I think college basketball is actually pretty close to #3 in the regular season. People will watch big games if they are home, but outside of maybe Duke-North Carolina generally won’t go out of their way to see them. A lot don’t even care that much about their team till conference play starts.
I think an 8 team playoff, threatens to move college football fans in general from closer to #1 to closer to #2. I think home field advantage will be enough for the top teams fans to feel like they are playing for almost as much/more. I think where an 8 team playoff hurts though is interest in the top teams across the country. If the Big Ten champ is going to be an 8 team playoff regardless, does it really matter if #2 Oklahoma State loses to Iowa State on a Friday night with weeks left in the season? Does it matter that much if Oregon loses to LSU in the season opener? To the fans of those teams, it absolutely does and maybe to those conferences, but to the rest of the nation, the stakes just aren’t the same. Those games are no longer make or break and by the time they become make or break you are talking about for the 8th seed in a playoff instead of a trip to the national championship and that’s worth a lot less.
LikeLike
I think the vast majority of fans will want to see a good game and the playoff has little impact. There aren’t many teams that won’t be impacted by other schools around the country. Eight teams doesn’t give you much margin for error. I don’t think an 8 team playoff has any negative impact on the regular season. Now, unless you use President Adams plan and have the Big 4 bowls be the quarterfinals (which extends the season to mid-January which presidents have voted against), an 8 team playoff will have some impact on the bowls.
Using the Big 4 bowls as quarterfinals solves all but two problems (other than the standard issues of those disliking playoffs), 1) where to put the semi-finals-home sites are not a good solution in mid-January; and 2) extending the season to mid-January. I don’t see why #2 is a problem, but the presidents do. This system would keep the Rose Bowl traditions and strengthen all 4 of the big bowls.
LikeLike
bullet:
I disagree. Because of the way the bball regular season is deemphasized, I don’t even bother to watch UNC-Duke. If there was an 8-team playoff (with guaranteed spots for 6 league champs) in place, I wouldn’t have bothered to watch LSU-‘Bama (the first time), and I wouldn’t even have cared about the OKSt.-ISU result. I’d care solely about B10 games. cutter has to realize that there are plenty of people like me out there.
LikeLike
Richard, that’s pretty much my position too. I have watched exactly one basketball game this year not involving the a Big Ten team and that’s was Cincinnati-Xavier. Even with Ohio State I didn’t really care that much before conference play started because the games were little more than a seeding exercise. If football goes to 8 games, I’ll still watch all the Ohio State I can, but I will care a lot less about watching the top 5-10 teams in the country. Right now I pay close attention even in the beginning of the year because of just how big a single loss is.
LikeLike
Ironically, an 8-team playoff with 6 guaranteed spots for conference champs would, on a relatively basis, be more beneficial to a conference with a huge following but isn’t often in the top 5 (at least recently) while being relatively detrimental to a conference that constantly has it’s teams in the top 5.
Yeah, you might be able to guess who I’m thinking of.
LikeLike
Who says there will be guaranteed spots? I suspect that is one of the surest things to go.
And bb is different since there are 68 teams AND conference tourneys.
And why would you care last year since the Big 10 schools were pretty much out of any chance early? Alabama/LSU didn’t really impact the B1G schools’ chances.
I think since you two are very knowledgable fans, you are unusual, not typical.
LikeLike
bullet:
I think you’ll see, politically, that it will be very hard (I’d say impossible) to get the non-SEC (and maybe B12) schools to agree to an 8-team playoff without guaranteed spots for conference champs of all power conferences. Nobody wants to see 4 SEC teams in an 8-team playoff. Plus, this way, all conferences are guaranteed some playoff revenue each year. The B10, ACC, and BE would definitely be opposed to not having one guaranteed playoff spot for their league.
LikeLike
Stop comparing what will happen to college football to what has happened to college basketball. In basketball you have multiple games per week, a longer calendar season, and a conference tournament that rewards everyone with extra games and a chance to make the NCAA tournament. No wonder the regular season has lost meaning. When football starts talking about adding a conference tournament after the season to determine who gets into the playoff I will get worried. The conference tournaments are bs.
The regular season for the NFL continues to dwarf every other sport in popularity, including college football. And there is a much higher percentage of teams making the playoffs in the NFL than is being considered in cfb. You have not convinced me that having 8 (or even 16) college teams in a playoff will hurt the regular season in any meaningful way. I’m one of those people that believe that the regular season is more important to more schools when you are fighting for a chance at a playoff and seeding rather than knowing you’re school is SOL after two losses, if not one.
LikeLike
bullet,
Who says there will be guaranteed spots? I suspect that is one of the surest things to go.
Think of them not as AQ spots, but as spots saved for the 6 highest ranked conference champs. No conference is promised a spot, but it makes sure there is diversity in the system rather than relying on flawed polls that would claim half of a conference belongs in the top 10.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
Stop comparing what will happen to college football to what has happened to college basketball.
No. As an NCAA sport, there are some meaningful parallels. They aren’t the exact same by any means, but neither are professional sports the same as college sports.
When football starts talking about adding a conference tournament after the season to determine who gets into the playoff I will get worried.
They already exist. They’re called conference championship games – a two team tournament to decide the conference champion. With the current AQ bids, the CCGs explicitly determine who makes the BCS.
The regular season for the NFL continues to dwarf every other sport in popularity, including college football.
Perhaps the NCAA should work to build the importance of gambling to match the NFL, then. I’m sure that will be good for the sport.
And there is a much higher percentage of teams making the playoffs in the NFL than is being considered in cfb.
So if the NFL only had the Super Bowl, the NCAA would suddenly equal them in ratings? Unless you can honestly answer that in the affirmative, then your argument makes no sense. It isn’t the playoffs that made the NFL bigger than the NCAA.
You have not convinced me that having 8 (or even 16) college teams in a playoff will hurt the regular season in any meaningful way.
If you don’t consider the outcome of many regular season games no longer mattering to be a meaningful impact, then you just see the world differently.
I’m one of those people that believe that the regular season is more important to more schools when you are fighting for a chance at a playoff and seeding rather than knowing you’re school is SOL after two losses, if not one.
I believe the regular season is more important when teams and fans actually care about the regular season instead of seeing it solely as a means to make the postseason. It’s more important when winning your conference is the end goal in and of itself, not a side note to your postseason accomplishments. The BCS changed that and playoffs make it worse.
Perhaps as a fan of a team that was an independent for a long time you never had a strong affinity for the regular season, making it harder to see any meaningful harm to it.
LikeLike
“1. A four-team playoff making $300M in revenue, or;
2. An eight-team playoff making upwards of $700M in revenue or”
Just because the title game and semifinals are projected to be worth $100M each on average does not mean the quarterfinal games would also be worth $100M each. Consider that NFL semifinals (the league championship games) draw better ratings (by a fair bit) than the quarterfinals (the divisional round games). Also consider that the SEC championship game gets nowhere near that amount of money despite being a defacto semifinal game in recent years. If the championship and semifinals are worth $100M on average, I’d wager that the quarterfinals are worth $25M-$50M each ($100M-$200M total). Depending on how they set up an 8 team playoff, they could have some 8-4 unranked league champ playing, and nobody’s going to pay big money to watch UConn get blown out.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/45865/illinois-lowers-some-football-ticket-prices
IL is lowering FB ticket prices (as well as replacing Zook) in response to reduced attendance.
“Illinois’ average football attendance has slipped from 59,545 in 2009 to 54,188 in 2010 to 49,548 in 2011. Although other Big Ten programs have seen reductions, Illinois’ drop off is the most dramatic.”
That’s 10,000 fewer fans per game in just 2 seasons. Yikes, they really got Zooked.
LikeLike
Eric-
When I look at the evolution of a playoff in college football, I look at the dynamics behind major league baseball as a guide. When I was a youngster in the 1960s, there were two leagues with the winner of the AL and the NL going to play one another in the World Series. As the season went on, the focus of teams in the pennant race got fairly narrow as the season progressed. That might have been great if you were a baseball fan in general, but if your team was out of it by August, the lost months of the season didn’t matter much.
In that time, baseball has expanded its teams and it’s been reorganized around divisions with the leagues. This has accomodated not only playoffs within the leagues themselves, but it also allows wildcard teams to participate in the playoffs. What that’s done is expand the number of teams with a stake in the post season and pushed it back into September. It also means that fans are not only monitoring if their team is the division champion, but also where it stands in the wild card race. By extension, it also means fans are looking at the scoreboards to see how the other guys are doing in the race.
I see the same thing with college football. The BCS system essentially knocks out teams once they get to their second loss. While there’s still a shot at a conference championship (unless you’re an independent), the number of teams that are legitimately in the national championship race dwindles pretty quickly.
But if you expand the opportunities to conference champions and to highly ranked at large teams, you open up the pool of teams that have a shot at the national championship througout the season. Fans will also be looking at what the other guys are doing–who is the likely opponent in the conference championship game, where my team is ranked against the other teams with potential in the playoffs, etc. It’s the same dynamic.
What makes college football so different from baseball is the shorter season and because there are fewer games. Does it matter if Oregon loses the season opener against LSU? Yes, if you’re a Ducks fans and your shot at a top seed in the playoff is in immediate jeopardy. If you’re a LSU fan, then it means a major hurdle has been passed and if you don’t win the SEC, you might still look good enough by season’s end for an at large bid. For Oklahoma State, the loss to Iowa State now means the bedlam game against Oklahoma has even bigger stakes–a victory would mean a berth in the playoff as the Big XII champion, but a second loss means my program may be out of the playoff completely and a trip to Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl.
If conference champions get into the playoffs, then winning your divison and getting into the conference champion game matters–and that means all the game matter as well. This system also raises the stakes for the conference championship games. Win and go to the playoff. Lose and there’s a possibility of an at large bid (but that depends on the outcome of the other games that day), but it might also mean going to a bowl instead.
FWIW, there’s an article in the Chicago Tribune linked below that indicates an eight-team playoff is off the table. It cites two reasons–number of games for the student athletes and how it would harm the value of the regular season. The article does state there are parties in favor of the eight-team playoff, but it doesn’t sound like something Delany will support. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-source-big-ten-playoff-idea-might-not-fly-20120221,0,6004843.story
LikeLike
I think that asking fans to travel to 2 distant sites (the second on short notice) for the semifinals and title game is just an awful idea (and I’m not sure why the TV networks would pay more for semifinals at traditional bowl sites; do they want to show empty seats?) and would help to kill the golden goose.
Either host the semifinals on campus or hold all 3 games in one city as a true Final Four.
LikeLike
I think there are two ways around that issue.
1st is to have quarters and semis at home sites in December with championship in January at a neutral site.
2nd is to have quarters in December, semis at netral sites around January 1 (can be done either with or without the bowls), and then a final at a netrual site 10-14 days later. They would all sell out. Fans would go to the semi-final and the final would be an easy sell-out. There will be a number of neutral fans in the final, but it would be sold. If you do 3 weeks in a row, that would probably make the semis a tough sell.
The issue with December quarterfinals is what to do with the 1st round losers. Do you hold bowl slots for them? Or are they done which diminishes the pool for the bowl games?
LikeLike
Many fans (and you have to remember that most only have enough money in their budget to travel one distant place a year) wouldn’t attend the semifinals as they’d want to attend the finals if their team makes it and certainly don’t care to see the semifinals if their teams lose.
LikeLike
I think more would bet on the semi-finals since that is immediate and certain. People don’t abandon the basketball tourney until the final 4.
LikeLike
Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would still preserve the importance of the regular season, but that’s the upper limit. The NFL (at least in my view) provides the feeling that every regular season game matters even though it obviously has a more expansive playoff than college football. Now, the NFL regular season results don’t necessarily translate into indicating who will win the Super Bowl (as shown by the 9-7 Giants this year), but I’m just talking about how there’s still a sense of urgency in every NFL game starting in week one. IMHO, an 8-team college football playoff would retain that same sense of urgency from the get-go. I’d sign up for an 8-team system that took the 5 power conference champs and the 3 best at-larges in a heartbeat. In fact, just taking the 4 BCS bowls with traditional matchups to create an 8-team playoff was my first college football postseason proposal:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2006/07/28/the-best-of-both-worlds-a-modest-proposal-for-a-college-football-playoff-that-keeps-the-bowls/
Of course, I don’t think there’s much chance of this happening at all. I’d be shocked if there’s any serious talk beyond a 4-team playoff. That being said, I never thought in a million years that a critical mass of people from the Big Ten would support an on-campus 4-team playoff model, so who knows what’s possible when you have cash-starved universities getting offered massive amounts of TV money.
LikeLike
Bullet-
Depends on big a following the team has. I remember hearing complaining about the basketball Buckeyes not being followed all that well in the earlier rounds a year or two ago.
LikeLike
To clarify (on re-reading I wasn’t very clear before)-I am saying people attend the basketball tourney prior to the final 4. Of course they also will attend the final 4. But they don’t hold out waiting on the final 4. I believe it would be the same with football.
LikeLike
@Eric
It also depends on the seed. If you are a #1 seed playing at #16 and a #8, you may not get great following. The #1 always beats #16 and doesn’t lose to #8 very often. But that is the case of the basketball tourney being bloated. Few people skip the regionals hoping for the final 4.
LikeLike
Bullet:
The bball tourney has 4-8 different fanbases at each site filling arenas that are generally a quarter (or less) the size of a football stadium. Plus, you’ll notice that plenty of those seats are not filled. Except for a handful of schools, the traveling support for bball is tiny compared to football. Trying to offload a few thousand tickets to neutrals at a host city would not be a problem; trying to offload several tens of thousands of tickets to neutrals at a host city would be.
LikeLike
Also, the NCAA bball tourney tries to put high seeds close to home. That’s not possible if bowls host semifinals.
LikeLike
bullet,
I think more would bet on the semi-finals since that is immediate and certain.
I suspect the complete opposite. Locals would attend the semis, but the vast majority would save their money in case the team wins. Football teams brag about NC’s, not final 4s.
LikeLike
Frank,
Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would still preserve the importance of the regular season, but that’s the upper limit.
I think you’re wrong. Just the BCS has already eroded the value of the regular season in some ways. Winning your conference used to be a major goal, but now it isn’t even necessary to win the NC. Every extra round hurts the regular season more.
The NFL (at least in my view) provides the feeling that every regular season game matters even though it obviously has a more expansive playoff than college football. Now, the NFL regular season results don’t necessarily translate into indicating who will win the Super Bowl (as shown by the 9-7 Giants this year), but I’m just talking about how there’s still a sense of urgency in every NFL game starting in week one.
I don’t see that at all. How do you see a sense of urgency in a league where it is commonplace to rest your starters in the last week of the season if you’re a top team? When the past 2 champs were 19-13 in the regular season, why would any fan believe that any given week matters? When the 10-6 NYG can win a rematch over the 18-0 Pats to win the Super Bowl, why would any fan believe the regular season really matters? The passion behind the NFL regular season is driven almost entirely by gambling and fantasy football anymore.
IMHO, an 8-team college football playoff would retain that same sense of urgency from the get-go. I’d sign up for an 8-team system that took the 5 power conference champs and the 3 best at-larges in a heartbeat.
8 teams will ruin CFB and corrupt it into becoming entirely the NFL lite.
LikeLike
bullet,
To clarify (on re-reading I wasn’t very clear before)-I am saying people attend the basketball tourney prior to the final 4.
The early rounds depend on local fans buying tickets, and there are terrible attendance problems even with the geographical pod system. That’s with BB venues 1/4 the size of a FB stadium.
Of course they also will attend the final 4. But they don’t hold out waiting on the final 4. I believe it would be the same with football.
Many/most fans at the final 4 are there for the event, not because their team made it. That’s why the crowds are so quiet.
LikeLike
@Frank
Something similar to your proposal was presented by President Adams of UGA in 2008 and he actually thought he had 30-40% support.
I don’t think 8 is the upper limit to have an impact on the regular season. I think its somewhere in the 12-16 range. It partly depends on how many conference champs you include. If you include the MAC champ the number is higher than if that last team is the 5th place team in the SEC. But it would be unlike the conservative presidents to risk that by going all the way to 16 without seeing the impact 8 would have. There’s been enough talk that I think 8 still has a remote chance.
The value of college football to the schools is the connection with the alumni and bringing them back to campus. So its regular season attendance (which is more $ than TV) which is the critical factor. If you know you’ll make the playoffs almost every year (see basketball) it impacts regular season attendance. With 8, clearly you don’t know you will make it until the last game.
LikeLike
For Frank:
I agree with you that an eight-team playoff would be the upper limit to keep the regular season vital, but also to maintain the bowl system and to make the actual playoff inclusive enough so that all the teams that should be given consideration are included.
For Brian:
We’re obviously on two sides of the fence in terms of our opinions on an eight-team playoff. As these conferences grow and realign, the value of a conference championship vis-a-vis a bowl game has changed dramatically. Michigan, for example, didn’t even win its division or participate in the B1G CCG, but ended up playing in the Sugar Bowl while the Legends Division champion Michigan State lost the CCG and ended up playing in Florida. Besides that, the reason why UM and Virginia Tech were picked wasn’t solely on merit reflected by the rankings, but because they were perceived as top drawers in terms of fans and television. You seem to be seeking something that doesn’t exist and wouldn’t be effected by an eight-team playoff anyway.
I also can’t see college football becoming NFL lite with an eight-team playoff. The NFL has more games and a lot fewer team that CFB, so they dynamic right there is completly different from the get go. Secondly, if the system is capped so that the eight teams in the college football playoff are in the top 12 or top 14 of the rankings, then there’s no way that a CFB equivalent of a 9-7 or a 10-6 New York Giants team would ever get into the playoff, let alone into the national championship game. You’re erecting a strawman here in your argument.
Now if college football were to go to a 16-team playoff or if it were to adopt the ASU president’s scheme of having the top eight conference champions go to a playoff, then I would fully support your assertions. But any comparison of an NFL playoff that gives all the division champions a shot at the championship and not just the very top ones (which is what we’d see in a CFB playoff) is off the mark.
One final note–twenty years is a long time to lock in a playoff system. While you seem to be applauding the move, it might well be a phyrric victory. We don’t know how college football is going to look five years down the line, let alone twenty. If the events of the past few years have shown us, conference realignment is an ongoing process and as long as the sport retains its current popularity, there will be large sums of money dumped into it.
If (or perhaps the question is when given Larry Scott’s recent quest to make a Pac 16 Conference and seeing that the ACC and SEC have 14 members) college footbal organizes itself into super conferences of 16 or 20 members, then the conference championship games are essentially going to be the equivalent of the first round of an eight-team playoff. We’ll have had something akin to what we could have had now, except it’ll be wrapped up in a different package.
LikeLike
20 years is kind of ridiculous to lock yourself into something totally new. Now you can tweak, but such a contract limits your flexibility if it isn’t working right. You give over control to the TV partner (which is part of the reason ESPN wants that in addition to competitive reasons). More than around 8 years would be a mistake. Avoiding criticism and debate don’t seem like good reasons to lock yourself in for so long.
LikeLike
cutter,
For Brian:
We’re obviously on two sides of the fence in terms of our opinions on an eight-team playoff.
We are, and that’s OK. This is a matter of opinion in most ways, and reasonable people can disagree about it. I don’t understand your POV, but I know it is a common and reasonable one.
As these conferences grow and realign, the value of a conference championship vis-a-vis a bowl game has changed dramatically.
That’s not really true in my opinion. For most conferences, you never had to win the conference to go to a bowl, you just needed a bowl to invite you. By the 70s, even the B10 let teams besides the champ go to bowls. OSU went to several BCS bowls after not winning the B10 under Woody Hayes, for example.
Certainly the proliferation of bowls in the last decade or two has lowered the bar to get to a bowl a lot, but AQ teams don’t go into the season hoping for the likes of the BBVA Compass Bowl.
Besides that, the reason why UM and Virginia Tech were picked wasn’t solely on merit reflected by the rankings, but because they were perceived as top drawers in terms of fans and television.
Except for the automatic tie-ins, that has long been the case for the major bowls. Why else would weak ND teams get picked so often? The bowls are looking to maximize their profits, not reward teams based solely on merit.
You seem to be seeking something that doesn’t exist and wouldn’t be effected by an eight-team playoff anyway.
I’m reminding people that CFB used to be about the regular season and trying to win your conference. The bowl was a reward for a good season, but it was largely an exhibition game. The BCS shifted that to put the priority on the postseason with the regular season becoming just a means to an end. Every time you make the playoff bigger, you shift the focus more and more to the postseason and make the regular season worth less.
I also can’t see college football becoming NFL lite with an eight-team playoff.
Of course you cant, because you like an 8 team playoff. That always makes it harder to see flaws.
The NFL has more games and a lot fewer team that CFB, so they dynamic right there is completly different from the get go.
Yes and no. The two sports will never be the exact same, but that doesn’t mean the mentatlities won’t become convergent.
Secondly, if the system is capped so that the eight teams in the college football playoff are in the top 12 or top 14 of the rankings, then there’s no way that a CFB equivalent of a 9-7 or a 10-6 New York Giants team would ever get into the playoff, let alone into the national championship game. You’re erecting a strawman here in your argument.
That’s a huge if you’re using, and there’s no evidence to support it at this point. And while the records won’t be as bad (the levels of parity in the two sports assures that), a non-champ from a conference playing in the NCG is just as bad to me. And as you say that, remember lots of people are still proposing plans with 5 or 6 locked spots for conference champs so an 8-4 could make it.
Now if college football were to go to a 16-team playoff or if it were to adopt the ASU president’s scheme of having the top eight conference champions go to a playoff, then I would fully support your assertions. But any comparison of an NFL playoff that gives all the division champions a shot at the championship and not just the very top ones (which is what we’d see in a CFB playoff) is off the mark.
So 16 is bad, but magically 8 has no negative effects? How do you come to that cutoff? 8 champs is too many, but what about 6? 5? 4? Where do you draw the line and why? And while you dismiss these other plans out of hand, they are all as viable as your plan until proven otherwise. The ASU president has an actual say in the matter, even if his plan is silly and horribly flawed.
One final note–twenty years is a long time to lock in a playoff system.
It all depends on your POV, I suppose. If they acquiesce to 4 teams, I’d rather they lock that in for 1000 years than let it degenerate to 8.
While you seem to be applauding the move, it might well be a phyrric victory. We don’t know how college football is going to look five years down the line, let alone twenty.
That’s just a function of how much detail you’re considering. We know generally what it will look like.
If the events of the past few years have shown us, conference realignment is an ongoing process and as long as the sport retains its current popularity, there will be large sums of money dumped into it.
Yes. And?
If (or perhaps the question is when given Larry Scott’s recent quest to make a Pac 16 Conference and seeing that the ACC and SEC have 14 members) college footbal organizes itself into super conferences of 16 or 20 members, then the conference championship games are essentially going to be the equivalent of the first round of an eight-team playoff. We’ll have had something akin to what we could have had now, except it’ll be wrapped up in a different package.
So what? Is that somehow supposed to be an argument for ruining CFB now? Even if these superconferences exist, winning your conference should still be the goal. After that is the silly 4 team playoff because some people get their panties in a twist about determining a NC and mistakenly believe that a playoff is an accurate way of determining the best team.
LikeLike
bullet,
20 years is kind of ridiculous to lock yourself into something totally new. Now you can tweak, but such a contract limits your flexibility if it isn’t working right. You give over control to the TV partner (which is part of the reason ESPN wants that in addition to competitive reasons). More than around 8 years would be a mistake. Avoiding criticism and debate don’t seem like good reasons to lock yourself in for so long.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe they are talking about making it one long TV contract. I think they are saying they will lock the format at 4 teams for X years. How you pick the teams, where you play the games, when you play the games and everything else may change, but not the number of participants. TV networks would prefer a longer deal than the 4 years they’ve gotten with the BCS because CFB is growing in value faster than the deals escalate, so they can profit more and not keep fighting with their rivals. I’d expect several shorter TV deals during the longer period.
LikeLike
That sounds like the B1G position. There are many around the country who support 8. I don’t expect 8 to be the result, but I would be surprised if it was “off the table” in this meeting. 16 will probably be the extreme that will be eliminated.
LikeLike
cutter,
FWIW, there’s an article in the Chicago Tribune linked below that indicates an eight-team playoff is off the table. It cites two reasons–number of games for the student athletes and how it would harm the value of the regular season. The article does state there are parties in favor of the eight-team playoff, but it doesn’t sound like something Delany will support. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-source-big-ten-playoff-idea-might-not-fly-20120221,0,6004843.story
Good. And since Delany and others are looking for a long deal, maybe 20 years, that means that bracket creep is a long ways away.
Other nuggets from the article:
“But sources are skeptical that leagues such as the Southeastern Conference would OK the potential for prime-time December games in places such as Columbus, Ann Arbor or Madison, Wis.”
I wonder if these sources are just northerners or have connections down south.
“College football’s TV partners also appear to favor having bowls host the semifinal games. If the top four teams are removed from the bowl pool, it would break with tradition and devalue the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange.”
Is this true even if the bowls would have to move a week earlier? What if the bowl sites hosted the games, but not the bowls? Why would TV partners care how the games are hosted as long as they know before they bid on any of them. It’s not like the bowls have TV deals that last past the end of the BCS.
“So here’s a key question: If the other commissioners reject the Big Ten’s “home game” model, would commissioner Jim Delany and Big Ten presidents still greenlight a playoff?
Some believe the answer is yes – as long as the Rose Bowl gets a “preferred position” in the new format.”
I’m not so sure. The B10 presidents might use that as an excuse to say no. It depends how preferential the Rose Bowl deal is, I suppose.
“Delany, who could not be reached for comment, likely would insist on a deal of 10-20 years to insure that college football won’t try to implement an 8-team playoff after fans of the fifth- and sixth-rated teams invariably complain about how the top 4 get selected. That contract length is not expected to be an impediment.”
If they insist on imposing this travesty, I hope they get the longest deal possible to prevent bracket creep.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC has any fear of the Big 10. I doubt those sources are southerners.
I also don’t see why the TV partners would care about the bowls hosting unless it was one they owned (which it wouldn’t be).
Dodd made a lot more sense to me than this article.
I also think the concern is so big that no one single conference would have a veto. I did see an article where a president from a non-AQ basically said 4 years ago they didn’t really have a vote. That is probably still true. They can talk but are irrelevant. But I think all of them prefer some form of playoff. It would come down to 5 of the Big 6 preferring a format. I just don’t see them allowing a veto by 1 if it meant the status quo.
LikeLike
Well, Dodd also stated that the Delany Plan wasn’t the most favored and that the bowls hosting or neutral site bidders hosting were more favored. Maybe the SEC doesn’t fear the cold, but something is making the bowls more favored as semifinal sites.
LikeLike
My semi-educated guess as to why having bowls/neutral sites for the semifinals is favored: they are much more desirable for corporate sponsors. It’s much easier to get a company to shell out large sponsorship dollars when you get guaranteed corporate suites and signage along with week-long hospitality and golf events that can be planned out months in advance. That’s virtually impossible to do for on-campus games with notice of only a week or two. Those sponsorships also come with locked-in TV ad buys during the bowl game itself and even throughout the entire college football season, so that’s likely why the TV partners prefer going the bowl route. It’s not an accident that Allstate sponsors the Sugar Bowl and happens to have its logo on the nets behind the goal posts during ESPN games. The extra sponsorship dollars that come from a bowl/neutral site might override the possibility of lower ticket sales in the overall scheme of things.
LikeLike
Bowls for some reason have significant influence. Of course the Fiesta and Orange have been spending lavishly to maintain good relations. I’m sure the Sugar and Rose do some also.
The bowls are fun, but I’ve come to the conclusion the bowls are a plague on college football. Its about filling hotels.
LikeLike
good points Frank.
LikeLike
Good point, Frank.
In that case, I’m much rather have 1 metropolitan area host the whole Final Four. Make it an Experience (and easier on the wallet for the non-rich fans), I say.
LikeLike
bullet,
I don’t think the SEC has any fear of the Big 10. I doubt those sources are southerners.
I don’t either, but I’ve seen lots of people think they are. That’s why I wondered whether his sources actual have some insight into the SEC not liking the plan (for whatever reason) or if it was just projecting opinions onto the SEC.
I also think the concern is so big that no one single conference would have a veto. I did see an article where a president from a non-AQ basically said 4 years ago they didn’t really have a vote. That is probably still true. They can talk but are irrelevant. But I think all of them prefer some form of playoff. It would come down to 5 of the Big 6 preferring a format. I just don’t see them allowing a veto by 1 if it meant the status quo.
It’s hard to say. I’ve seen it written that it had to be unanimous every time for the BCS or it would revert to the old bowl system. I think they would really work hard to get everybody to agree rather than ignore a conference’s opinion. Especially as a playoff grows in size, it loses validity if everyone isn’t involved. Are you really crowning a true champ if a top 4 USC or ND or OSU or AL or FSU or UT isn’t in the playoff? The little guys will just fight to get a bigger share of the revenue since they know they’ll almost never get in the playoff.
LikeLike
I think your last sentence has been the biggest obstacle to a playoff. But this time, I think almost everyone wants change so they will work out the revenue distribution in a win-win.
The only reason I have to doubt that most really want a limited playoff is that they keep putting up obstacles that they don’t put on any other sport. i.e. The presidents vote to move the ending date forward so that football is a one semester sport (unlike basketball) and the no games during finals issue (ccgs are during finals, Division III, II and FCS play during finals). Now the latter is a real issue if you are going to a neutral site where the players and student-fans would be gone from school for several days. But with a Delany type plan at home sites, its not a big deal.
LikeLike
bullet,
The only reason I have to doubt that most really want a limited playoff is that they keep putting up obstacles that they don’t put on any other sport. i.e. The presidents vote to move the ending date forward so that football is a one semester sport (unlike basketball) and the no games during finals issue (ccgs are during finals, Division III, II and FCS play during finals). Now the latter is a real issue if you are going to a neutral site where the players and student-fans would be gone from school for several days. But with a Delany type plan at home sites, its not a big deal.
This is one reason why it’s important to note that the Delany plan seems not to be popular.
LikeLike
Cutter-
I do agree those games would matter just as much Oklahoma State, LSU, and Oregon fans. Where I disagree is that I think they’d matter a lot less to the rest of the country. Literally almost every week of the season, fans across the country know that any top team can probably be eliminated from national title consideration. That’s what makes losses like Oklahoma State to Iowa State so interesting even when otherwise I’d have no interest what-so-ever in the game.
You would create additional games people would care about too with a playoff I’ll concede, but generally speaking these games only really start to matter toward the end of the season. Early on there’s just too many variables to even guess at how Team A losing will effect your team in the playoffs. Later on, again the stakes just aren’t as high when we start talking about bubble teams and seeding rather than a much more limited field (I think 4 could work with minimal damage, but I don’t think 8 can).
I love baseball, but I really think it’s a horse of a different color in these discussions. Baseball and college football are in a lot of ways the complete opposites. Baseball is a long season with few really marquee games. It relies on a huge inventory to make it what it is. College football has a short season and is a sport that lives off the huge games.
LikeLike
The idea of a 20-year contract got me thinking:
You could actually set up a 4-team playoff to run all 3 different ways. 18-year contract:
The first 6 years, the bowls host semifinals and finals (Cotton is elevated; Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton each host 3 semifinals and one title game; the Rose hosts 2 title games).
I’d expect plenty of empty seats at the semifinals, so it’d further kill the bowls.
The next 6 years, semifinals are held on campus sites (title game site is bid out).
The last 6 years, the whole Final Four is hosted by one city/metro region bidder.
LikeLike
Taking in to consideration Frank’s point that corporate sponsors would want to know where the semifinals are held far beforehand, I’ll amend my plan a bit:
21-year contract:
The first 6 years, the bowls host semifinals and finals (Cotton is elevated; Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton each host 3 semifinals and one title game; the Rose hosts 2 title games).
The last 15 years, the whole Final Four is hosted by one city/metro region bidder.
In return for the title game being at a warm-weather site (far from B10 territory) for 6 years (and all the years before it), the B10 and NCAA wrangle an agreement to hold the football Final Four in Indianapolis every 5 years (3 of the 15 years), just like the basketball Final Four.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-21/plus-one-model-becoming-preferred-route-to-determine-national-champion
Story claiming “sources” on direction meetings are heading. Has one quote that a seeded +1 has “insurmountable” problems, but most of his sources say things are leaning that way.
LikeLike
@bullet – That article spells out what I’ve noted previously, which is that there are things that the university presidents say that they want that directly contradict each other. If you want to avoid final exams, then the semifinals need to be pushed later into December or even into January, yet that also likely means pushing the national championship game to a date later than what it is now (which is something that they’ve said that they want to avoid). The presidents can’t really have both.
When Jim Delany said that they were open to a 4-team seeded playoff proposal, that really changed the tenor of everything. As we know well here, nothing is final until the university presidents weigh in, but the fact that Delany brought up what the proposal that the Big Ten ADs have discussed shows that they believe *some* type of seeded 4-team playoff is in the pipeline, so the conference is better off proposing something on its own.
LikeLike
Yep. If hosting semifinals at home sites is dead (and I can see that corporate sponsors would not like that plan), then holding a football Final Four over a week at one site is really the only viable plan. As I mentioned before, semifinals Thursday & Friday the week after Christmas & the championship game the Thursday (or Friday) after.
So long as Indianapolis gets 4 out of 20 football Finals Fours, I’d be OK with it.
LikeLike
Frank,
That article spells out what I’ve noted previously, which is that there are things that the university presidents say that they want that directly contradict each other.
Isn’t that true for everyone in this discussion, though?
If you want to avoid final exams, then the semifinals need to be pushed later into December or even into January, yet that also likely means pushing the national championship game to a date later than what it is now (which is something that they’ve said that they want to avoid). The presidents can’t really have both.
Yes they can have both.
On calendar issues:
“The obstacles: the academic calendar runs through Dec. 21, and any model would have to account for university presidents’ desire to steer clear of playing BCS games during final exams (first week of December through Dec. 21). Playing on Christmas weekend also isn’t an alternative, nor is playing against the NFL playoffs.
…
That leaves the challenge of when to play the extra three games in a Plus One model, and where to play them. Going by the parameters laid out Tuesday, semifinal games would be played the Friday after Christmas to avoid conflict with the NFL and academic calendar, and the championship game played a week later.”
LikeLike
If this system were implemented in 2012, then the semi-final games would be on Friday, 28 December with the final games on 4 January. Since it appears college venues aren’t being considered, we’re talking about having two sets of teams playing at two of the major bowl sites (assumedly in southern California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana or southern Florida) and then having the two winning teams meeting a week later at a neutral site (Dallas, Indianapolis, etc.).
That’s going to take a lot of logistical planning by the respective athletic departments, but I have to wonder what the impact will be on the fans. One of the problems identified with the bowls has been attendance, but when you look at what they’re contemplating, it’s not very fan friendly. How do they think the alumni and followers of these teams are going to react with these back-to-back games at two different sites? I like the idea of playing them at one site that was mentioned below, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the way the powers-that-be are going at this point. It seems dismaying to me that because the corporate sponsors/bigwigs can’t play golf in Ann Arbor in late December that they’re going to have this crazy run around.
I wonder how future conference alignment is working into these conversations. In a perfect world, the conference championship games would become incorporated into a four-team playoff, but as last season illustrates, that might mean one or more of the better teams in the country would be on the outside looking in. I suppose that’d be a case of “so sad, too bad”, but I can see where there’s going to be a lot of hearburn over how the four teams in the playoff are going to be picked and seeded.
What happens to the Rose Bowl if the Big Ten and/or the Pac 12 champion goes to the playoffs? Jim “Rose Bowl uber alles” Delany wants to maintain a special status for the bowl game, do does that mean the Big Ten and Pac 12 runners up automatically go in the place of the champion? Of course, if a Pac 12 or Big Ten non-conference champion team does get into the playoff (like what happened to Stanford his past year), I suppose the Rose Bowl gets the conference champion anyway. Can you imagine what Oregon would have felt about playing in Pasadena on New Year’s Day while Stanford is in a college football playoff game?
We’ll see how this shakes out by the time summer’s over, but I have this feeling that whatever happens is going to be a real head scratcher.
LikeLike
bullet,
Well, “almost insurmountable.”
I do like how for all the scoffing, the academic calendar is proving to be a major impediment.
As for home semifinals:
On Tuesday, one BCS administrator scoffed at the idea, saying, “The NCAA (men’s basketball) tournament doesn’t have campus games, do they?”
No, but they use geographic pods to play as close to home as possible for the top teams. They also have terrible attendance problems. As for the Final Four, the play 3 games in 2 days and draw about as many fans as 1-1.5 CFB games. Not exactly apples and apples.
LikeLike
As I noted above, the academic calendar is an impediment now, but it has never been for ccgs or Division III or II or FCS. Frank notes the contradictions. There’s a question of what they “want” and what they will “insist” on.
If they end up doing semi-finals between Christmas and New Year’s, that may push the date back enough, that weather makes home sites a problem. But that also solves the problem of what to do with the semi-final losers. That becomes their bowl.
LikeLike
Despite the OT blowout loss to MI, Joe Lunardi still has NW on the right side of the bubble (in the last 4 in). Is this finally the year the streak ends?
Remaining schedule:
Sat. @ PSU (#12 in B10)
Wed. vs OSU (#2 in B10)
Sat. @ IA (#7 in B10)
Th. B10 tourney (vs #9 MN right now)
I think NW is in if:
1. It wins the B10 tournament. (Obviously)
2. It makes the B10 finals.
3. It beats PSU and wins 2 tournament games.
4. It beats OSU and wins a tournament game.
5. It beats PSU and IA and wins a tournament game.
6. It beats PSU and OSU.
I don’t think finishing 1-3 with a win over OSU would be enough, and I don’t think a loss to PSU is survivable without beating OSU or another top team in the tournament.
This looks doable for NW. OSU is probably a loss and at IA will be tough, but NW comfortably beat both PSU and IA at home. The first tournament game should be a toss up. I’d say NW’s best shot is #5 and hope there aren’t too many bubble spots lost to tournament upsets.
LikeLike
Sounds about right. The formula for NU hasn’t changed. 9 B10 wins (regular season + conference tourney) unless we knock off tOSU. Then a win over PSU is enough. Essentially no margin for error now.
LikeLike
Florida writer’s analysis of what was said. He thinks it is an elaborate dance to lead to no other conclusion than a 4 team playoff. There’s some things that weren’t mentioned in the SI and CBS writeups. They don’t want home sites when school is not in session.
http://www.bradenton.com/2012/02/22/3892730/bcs-chiefs-try-to-keep-revenue.html
One thing the Christmas to New Year’s schedule does is kill off 4 or 5 minor bowls as it will take up prime time slots.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the premise of not having a playoff game at a college site when school is out of session. Why is this important?
The University of Michigan is sponsoring the NHL Winter Classic next year on 1 January between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs. There’s every expectation that this game will be sold out and the NHL wants to see a new attendance record–not only do they want to beat the Big Chill game number, but also the Michigan-Notre Dame night game.
Do they have concerns about attendance when school is out for these games? I’m hard pressed to imagine that any major football program would have problems selling out a semi-final playoff game at their own stadium in late December. Are they worried that a large portion of the student body will remain on campus instead of going home for the holidays? Do they think that universities would have problems supporting such a game when the school term is over and staff may be on vacation?
LikeLike
I think your last sentence about staff vacations is an issue. Students not being there is clearly also a concern, for students, attendance and the football players who would probably be in hotels with the dorms closed.
I think part is that home sites are of value to the school when school is in session. There’s less value when the campus is empty and shut down.
LikeLike
Attendance drops for college basketball games when school is out. They’re probably assuming it would be a problem for football as well.
I would also think alcohol sales would be an issue. You can’t sell alcohol at most college stadiums, so I would think corporate sponsorship and all the perks that come with it would be a little tougher to recruit to college campuses.
LikeLike
I suspect there’s a big difference between a regular season college basketball game where there’s very likely a contest between mismatched teams and a college football playoff. Your point might be valid in such a case, but I can’t imagine any of the college football hotbeds, particularly in SEC country, having a problem selling out a national championship semi-final game.
The football team would probably be in a hotel for some period prior to a game like this, so it’s kind of a moot point. And while out of state students might not be able to attend or have to make other arrangements to stay in town, I have to imagine students in say a four hour or less driving radius from campus would likely make the game (along with their parents, if the tickets were available).
Michigan is getting a one time liquor license for the NHL Winter Classic. If having booze handy is a prerequisite for corporate sponsorship, I imagine it’s a doable do. Golf might be a bit of a problem, but you can always heat that corporate tent if you have to do it. There’ll also be sponsorship signage at the Winter Classic (it also happened at the Big Chill), so if it’s necessary, they can do it at Michigan Stadium as well (for the record, Michigan has no commercial signage or sponsorships at Michigan Stadium–one of the nice things about attending a game there).
I think this comes down to long-standing relationships between the conference commissioners and the bowls. You can chalk it up to tradition or regionalism or a bunch of other reasons, but the relationships have been in place for a long time and it’s going to take a lot for Division 1-A to shake free of them with the Big Ten and the Pac 12 and the Rose Bowl being a prime example.
LikeLike
Are u sure? I could swear I’ve seen swooshes and addidas symbols in there. It is certainly minimal though. All the ads are kinda obnoxious.
LikeLike
Read the D,
Schools on the quarter system play most of their OOC games before the students are in town, and that hasn’t caused attendance problems for OSU. That’s when the alumni can get game tickets before they become students seats for the rest of the season. I’m pretty sure almost every school could find enough locals and alums to sell out.
LikeLike
bullet,
Some nuggets:
“All 11 conference commissioners made a proposal during the meetings, and nothing has been eliminated. But there is no consensus.”
So does this mean they are down to 12 plans (11 conferences plus ND) from 50-60? That’s progress, as 12 is a decent number to take to your presidents and get feedback.
“According to BCS executive Bill Hancock the group focused on:
– Protecting the importance of the regular season.
– Finishing the national championship game earlier. Alabama played LSU in the national title game on Jan. 9.
– There is an agreement to avoid playing games around the time students have finals at the end of a semester, which is usually around Dec. 2 to Dec. 21.
– If a format includes a postseason game on a campus site, as one proposal has been reported, no one wants to do it when school is not in session.
– There is also the preference to avoid any scheduling conflict with Christmas, and avoiding any head-to-head with NFL games.”
Well, the calendar info seems to be consistent. Since they seem to want to avoid everything from the week after CCGs until Christmas, and don’t want home games if school is out, it looks like neutral/bowl sites.
LikeLike
The MBB tournament should have more of a regional feel to the first weekend of pods than it currently does. I like the baseball set-up where there is one home seed and then relatively local teams make up the rest of the field.
Basketball should seed the top 16 teams and then have 3 tiers of teams under that, with one team from each tier going to a pod.
For instance old seeds 5-8 would be a tier, 9-12, would be a tier, and 13-16 would be a tier. The Selection Committee could then place each team in a pod closest to their school. The SC could still take into account conference rematches to make sure 4 Big East schools aren’t playing in Pittsburgh.
St. Mary’s grads probably don’t have jobs in Greensboro, NC but I bet a few of them do in Portland.
LikeLike
I agree. Its gotten absurd. You may have 4 northeastern teams in the west regional. They’ve gotten to the point where they try to make it difficult. I would argue that’s the problem with 1st round attendance. They used to only move the teams they needed when one region was too strong. Now they allocate teams based on their #1 to #68 seeding as if that was some type of scientific certainty. #1 will be with # 32, #33, #64, etc.. They could have #1 with #31, #35, #63 and it all make much more sense for everyone. I’ve looked at it a couple of recent years and they could have still avoided conference rematches and improved the travel for half the out of region teams with only minor modifications.
LikeLike
I don’t even think they should bother with avoiding conference games. That adds some spice to games. Go to pure geographic regions and seed among the local teams. Being a 2 instead of a 1 isn’t that big of a deal.
LikeLike
@Brian
You were right about Georgia State. Benson mis-spoke because he wasn’t supposed to reveal a secret. AJC has an article. Under FOIA they got a report Georgia State commissioned to study moving up to FBS. Study concludes, “GSU is well-positioned to make a transition to FBS” and “that the Sun Belt (Conference) would be the best fit.”
This doesn’t mean Georgia State has decided to move up, but they are evaluating.
LikeLike
bullet,
@Brian
You were right about Georgia State. Benson mis-spoke because he wasn’t supposed to reveal a secret. AJC has an article. Under FOIA they got a report Georgia State commissioned to study moving up to FBS. Study concludes, “GSU is well-positioned to make a transition to FBS” and “that the Sun Belt (Conference) would be the best fit.”
This doesn’t mean Georgia State has decided to move up, but they are evaluating.
Thanks for the post. I’m quoting it because some other might be interested in the SB expansion side of it.
Here’s the link for those that care:
http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-state/georgia-state-exploring-fbs-1357698.html
It was only logical that they at least look at it. You can never trust a bureaucrat to tell the whole truth about issues like this. I don’t know if they’ll jump, but the numbers look pretty good for them. They already have a SB sized budget, and the Atlanta market is valuable. I’m thinking they’ll decide to move up in the next few years. It’s just too tempting for the bean counters.
LikeLike
Lots of chatter on Big East boards that Temple will be added for the 2012 season, which would solve a lot of the scheduling problems caused by WVU’s departure.
A lot of people had hoped some of the WVU settlement money would be used to get Boise St a year early, but I’m sure the Providence mafia sees Temple as a win-win. The basketball-only schools don’t have their cut of the WVU exit fee reduced to help football, AND they are able to use the scheduling crisis to give cover for adding a school that helps the basketball side more!
LikeLike
So they’ll go to 13 when they add Navy? Add another school alongside Navy to go to 14?
LikeLike
Or lose UL and be back at 12.
LikeLike
Temple to Big East (all sports) in 2012
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/34946571
LikeLike
Suprised by this move. Unless there is knowledge of someone leaving for sure, it means that the conference is prepared to go up to at least 14 in football.
LikeLike
I wonder if this would have happened if WVU had to wait until next year and not left the remaining members with a giant hole in their schedule.
LikeLike
So the Big East in the last few weeks has managed to add two schools whose combined attendance for football isn’t 90% of what ECU does by themselves.
LikeLike
ECU is located in a rural city away from major TV markets.
Temple is located in a major TV market.
The BIG EAST is all about major TV markets.
ECU does NOT fit the BIG EAST profile, but Temple does.
LikeLike
So if WVU wanted to come back the Big East wouldn’t take them because they aren’t in a large market? It must suck to be the SEC and have a bunch of schools located in smaller cities.
LikeLike
The 5 remaining football playing BE members may prefer the $20M to having WVU back.
LikeLike
I think its a good analogy Phil. ECU would fill the WVU hole. They would be the only team in the conference whose fans supported them in large numbers and followed them to bowl games, which would enable the conference to get better deals. They have the potential to be the eastern Boise St.
They don’t fit the BE profile which is urban schools who love basketball and who don’t have many fb fans who care. Of course some, like UCF and SMU, don’t even particularly like basketball.
LikeLike
To me UCF is better positioned now than USF was when they joined the Big East so I am optimistic about that addition. I am okay with trying to buy low on a few schools located in large markets like Houston and SDSU. I just don’t get how you pass up a school like ECU already drawing 50,000 a game to a CUSA schedule, and instead give Temple another chance when they couldn’t support football back when they had a much more attractive schedule in the old Big East that included Miami, VTech, WVU, BC, Syr and Pitt.
LikeLike
Almost every school they have added is a project. Until the last couple of years, SDSU and SMU were like Memphis, among the worst teams in their conference. UCF has been inconsistent. Temple wasn’t able to win the MAC and, of course, one year in the original Big East they drew 17,000 fans-for the entire season. How Navy will do with upgraded competition is unknown. Houston has proven they can compete at the top level, but haven’t been particularly consistent in their CUSA time. Somewhere among that group they should have made room for ECU. But I suspect the basketball schools vetoed them.
It wouldn’t terribly surprise me if the MWC/CUSA rivaled the Big East in football strength in a few years.
LikeLike
RE: Phil’s analogy of West Virginia & ECU
I find this to be an interesting comparison, and I’ll get to that shortly.
First, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that ECU does not equal WVU. Regardless of the state’s small population consisting largely of poor residents (by American standards), WVU still represents an entire state. It represents “flagship,” and I believe that that notion somehow resonates with casual football fans as somehow more legitimate than a school with a name like “East Carolina.” WVU also has had a longer history of relevance in football than most of FBS, whereas ECU’s picture on the national season has been very limited. They are, by no means, the same. WVU of course carries an exceptional enough value that another rural school like ECU cannot compare to.
That said, the analogy still works.
ECU is not in a large market, by any stretch. But there is a significant presence of support interest in the well-educated, relatively wealthy Triangle, a presence way, way beyond what non-AQ’s have in other markets. (For example, the support within Raleigh for ECU towers over the support you’d see in Indianapolis for Ball State, for NIU in Chicago, or name-your-MAC school in an Ohio city.) And while the Triangle TV market is no Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth (SMU), or Philadelphia (Temple), it’s still the 27th largest market in the country, ranked well ahead of Boise and one spot ahead of… San Diego. The support for ECU football is NOT fifth in the state; Wake and Duke are easily behind them. I could digress with an argument that App State’s relevance in this state is ahead of Duke’s, but I’ll stop there. Anyway, ECU’s relevance in Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville, cities which are 90+ miles away but in the same TV market, compares well with WVU’s relevance within Pittsburgh, the closest TV market to Morgantown.
Look, I’m not an East Carolina fan at all. I have heard mixed reviews of their fans treatment towards visiting fans, and that’s putting it kindly. But the Big East’s continual dismissal of any value that school carries while taking in Temple and Memphis, among others with lukewarm support, is rather shocking. The school can’t even get a football-only invitation, which would hardly effect the non-football schools. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I won’t go as far as bullet in suggesting the MWC/C-USA league might be a better league on the field. The only schools left with even a smidgen of football prowess among 16 schools are ECU, S. Miss, Tulsa, Air Force, Fresno State, Nevada, and Hawaii. Even the re-made Big East has more than that. But the most capable school for long-term success among those is easily ECU. Calling them a potential “eastern Boise” isn’t without merit. A few years ago, ECU beat top ten teams Virginia Tech and West Virginia in back-to-back weeks, stumbled a little, but then went on to win the league. That’s the kind of team the Big East badly needs.
LikeLike
The BE may accept ECU for football-only, but I believe ECU wants a full invite (in part because they don’t think there is an acceptable place for their non-football sports otherwise).
LikeLike
@Richard,
I’m admittedly just throwing crap against the wall, but with Temple leaving, maybe ECU could join the A-10 for non-football??? Fellow NC school UNC-Charlotte is already in the league, and the A-10’s headquarter are in nearby Newport News, Va.
Other possible non-football options would be geographically-friendly CAA (home to several solid mid-majors in basketball) and the Southern Conference (which has five schools in North Carolina and is a decent league itself in baseball, ECU’s strongest sport).
If all else fails, the WAC would always take ’em.
In all seriousness, though, if that school is seriously keeping itself out of Big East football because of a demand for acceptance in all sports, then, no, it does not deserve to be in that league in any way, shape, or fashion. As questionable as some of the BE’s moves have been, it’s still the one with all the leverage. ECU making unacceptable demands can only hurt itself.
LikeLike
Eric,
Suprised by this move. Unless there is knowledge of someone leaving for sure, it means that the conference is prepared to go up to at least 14 in football.
1. It looks like Nova finally got told to sit down and shut up. It’s about damn time.
2. Temple is by far the most logical addition. Since they fixed their FB team, they should have already been invited.
3. UL is the consensus top choice for the B12, and UL has said they would accept an invitation. I think the BE has to plan like UL’s departure is only a matter of time unlike before when they waited to get blindsided by departures.
4. Temple puts them at 13 and 18 for those who lost count. If UL re-commits to them, then they probably look for #14. Otherwise they may end up always chasing an even number.
LikeLike
Temple gives them 12 in 2013 if Pitt and SU leave. Navy isn’t #13 until 2015. Possibly Army or Air Force will change their mind by then. Maybe Villanova will move up. Or maybe someone leaves.
LikeLike
Yes, I was just looking at the “final” numbers. Those are also the numbers in the article. I just put them there because I think many people have started to lose track.
LikeLike
I think even the Big East has started to lose track!
One of the articles posted DID have the numbers wrong. The writer was confused.
But they get a ccg even without SU and Pitt in 2013, so that is important from a revenue standpoint.
LikeLike
Justice finally done for Temple, if it is indeed invited as an all-sports member. And if Villanova doesn’t like it…well, it had its chances to join the big boys for football, but hemmed and hawed.
LikeLike
The problem facing the Big 12, of course, is who goes with Louisville? It’s mathematically impossible to play a 9-game football schedule with 11 members, and with an 8-game sked your inventory actually decreases from a 10-member round-robin. Brigham Young would be the favored choice, but it apparently wants to keep its football independence. Beyond that, it’s a gamble…Cincinnati? Rutgers? Connecticut? South Florida? All can argue potential as complements for WVU/Louisville, but none are sure things.
LikeLike
vp19,
The problem facing the Big 12, of course, is who goes with Louisville? It’s mathematically impossible to play a 9-game football schedule with 11 members, and with an 8-game sked your inventory actually decreases from a 10-member round-robin.
Being the B12, I just assume Texas would get spotted a win and only have to play 8 games.
LikeLike
Rutgers would make more sense for the XII then either Cincinnati (which has to play off campus because its own stadium is too small for the XII), UCONN (which plays off campus), or South Florida (which plays off campus).
Ultimately, “Boss DeLoss” will make the call as the de-facto commissioner of the XII.
LikeLike
Rutgers would leave for the XII in a nanosecond if “Boss DeLoss” were to OK the expansion.
Until “Boss DeLoss” gives up on Notre Dame, Rutgers and Louisville are stuck in the BIG EAST.
LikeLike
The boss will also have to give up on trying to get one or more teams to leave the ACC before settling for Rutgers.
LikeLike
The Sporting News just released an article on its website updating information from the Plus One meetings. Much of it has been covered in our discussions here on this board, but there are a couple of nuggets I found interesting. The first is that they’re looking at the possibility of moving up the season to allow for greater flexibility in December.
See http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-22/bcs-bowl-championship-series-plus-one#ixzz1n9LhnwDV
If they’re considering a late August start and having the conference championship games the last Saturday of November, then the semi-final games could conceivably be played the first Saturday of December with the championship game scheduled immediately after the major bowls in early January.
If they do that, does it make sense to have those semi-final games at bowl sites or at the home stadiums of the two higher ranked teams?
Also, if these games are played in early December, does that mean the two teams who lost will then have an opportunity to play in a bowl game?
It’s an interesting possibility. It would certainly minimize the concerns surrounding fan travel and logistics that would occur if the national championship game was one week after the semi-final games. It would also mean the games are played prior to exams and it would allow the winning teams approximately a month to prepare for its opponent rather than six days.
This would also help the bowls out because the losing teams join the inventory of available programs that would be available to the former BCS bowl games.
The article also states that “about the only certainty is the BCS points series will likely choose the four teams to play in the Plus One.” If that is true and I understand it correctly, then they’re lookiing at the top four teams in the BCS polls to participate in the playoff. Winning a conference championship would not be mandatory to get a berth in this four-team playoff.
Taking last year as an example then, we would have seen Stanford play LSU (perhaps in Baton Rouge) and Oklahoma State take on Alabama (perhaps in Tuscaloosa) in early December with the two winning teams going to the champioship game in early January. The two losing teams might then be part of the pool of teams to play in the major bowl games.
LikeLike
I’ll be really happy about moving the season up if they are going for a playoff. I didn’t think it was very likely, but thought it was the best way to deal with the various issues.
LikeLike
cutter,
The Sporting News just released an article on its website updating information from the Plus One meetings. Much of it has been covered in our discussions here on this board, but there are a couple of nuggets I found interesting. The first is that they’re looking at the possibility of moving up the season to allow for greater flexibility in December.
I think this is where it’s important to note that this is conference commissioners discussing it and not presidents. The presidents are much more likely to have serious concerns with starting the season earlier than the sports people. Starting earlier has academic calendar implications for quarter system schools. Finals are generally the penultimate week in August with graduation weekend a week before Labor Day weekend.
If they’re considering a late August start and having the conference championship games the last Saturday of November, then the semi-final games could conceivably be played the first Saturday of December with the championship game scheduled immediately after the major bowls in early January.
The first negative that comes to mind is that this maintains the long layoff problem. Do you really want 4 weeks between rounds of the playoff? Don’t you lose all the momentum that way? Also, it sounds like many people think players need a break between the CCGs and the playoffs, so that might be a sticking point.
If they do that, does it make sense to have those semi-final games at bowl sites or at the home stadiums of the two higher ranked teams?
For the reasons they seem to prefer bowl sites, I don’t think the calendar is a factor. For fans it makes much more sense to be at home.
Also, if these games are played in early December, does that mean the two teams who lost will then have an opportunity to play in a bowl game?
I’m guessing not.
The article also states that “about the only certainty is the BCS points series will likely choose the four teams to play in the Plus One.” If that is true and I understand it correctly, then they’re lookiing at the top four teams in the BCS polls to participate in the playoff. Winning a conference championship would not be mandatory to get a berth in this four-team playoff.
For whatever reason, TPTB can’t get past this fundamental mistake. They insist on using a bad system (biased human polls, and handcuffed computers given less weight because they might show how wrong the humans are) and not valuing conference titles while saying they want to protect the regular season.
LikeLike
I’ve seen other comments that the selection process is on the table. I just don’t think that gets addressed until they figure out what they are selecting. And it really isn’t relevant to the TV negotiations (except to the extent conference champs are a factor).
LikeLike
That would make sense, but since when have these people made logical decisions.
LikeLike
Based on what I read this morning about the meetings, I agree with your assessment. It sounds like they’re largely agreed on a four-team playoff, but as TPTB dig into the details, they’re finding themselves running into problems largely because they’re at cross purposes with one another.
I also have to imagine the conference commissioners are and have been in contact with the university presidents on these matters. These discussions aren’t taking place in a vacuum. I’ll also add that the Sporting News has a list of the individuals who are part of the immediate decision making process, which includes not only the conference commissioners, but also a Presidential Oversight Committee and an Athletic Director Advisory Board–see http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-22/bcs-bowl-championship-series-decision-makers
As far as the timing of the games goes, there’s going to have to be tradeoffs. If you’re concerned about the player’s health, it doesn’t make sense to forego the bye weeks during the season. OTOH, if you conduct a long layoff after the CCG before the playoffs start, then you run into a situation where there’s a drop off in the level of play. But if you have the semi-finals in late December and the final game in early January, you’re now making it difficult for the fans and for the logistics involved in going from one site to another in what would essentially be a week’s time. The bottomline is they’re juggling a lot of different interests here while trying to incorporate the bowls into the a playoff as much as possible.
That’s why I wondered that if the playoffs were in early December, would the losers of the semi-finals still be able to go to the bowls? There seems to be a lot of concern that a playoff would weaken the bowls, but if two of the best four teams in the country were put back into the pool of teams that could go to those games, then that would minimize the impact. The two teams that did lose would have a month of preparation, just like they do now, so the only difference is they played (and lost) one more game. Of course, if those teams weren’t conference champions and didn’t participate in a CCG (Alabama and Stanford from last year), then they’d be playing the same amount of games that a team that was in a CCG played.
I read an article this morning talking about a four-team playoff paying around $360M and saying that figure could vary depending on the decisions made regarding the timing of the games, the venue, etc. See http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/34948609
That article also says that “the idea of only conference winners being eligible is still on the table, mostly because it hasn’t been discussed to any broad degree” and that the method for ranking the teams hadn’t been discussed either. That goes back to my original point that it sounds like they’re at the point where they want a four-team playoff, but are still figuring out the details of how to do it in an optimal fashion.
The next meeting is 26 March with the annual BCS meetings taking place 24-26 April.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of spin coming out of the meetings. Delany saying he doesn’t know anyone who favors more than a 4 team playoff? He must not be very outgoing since Thompson (MWC commissioner) just proposed a 16 team model and was sitting across the table from him. Don’t know about the Arizona St. president, but the UGA president has been around a while and both proposed 8 team models. I’d also be surprised if the CUSA, WAC, SB and MAC commissioners didn’t support something larger than 4.
What’s interesting is that these commissioners may virtually all be gone or in different jobs by the time this is implemented. Delany and Slive are near retirement. I believe Swofford is also. Neinas will be gone by 6/30. Waters (SB) is retiring. Benson (WAC) is moving to the SB. Banowksy (sp?-CUSA) and Thompson (MWC) won’t both have jobs and Banowsky is rumoured to be one of the leading B12 candidates and Thompson is interviewing for Minnesota AD. Swarbick (ND AD) is also rumoured to be one of the leading B12 candidates. That leaves Scott (P12), Marinatto (BE-and will he even have a conference?) and the MAC commissioner (forget his name).
LikeLike
The only real reason I’d see for moving the season up would to better allow the playoff within the bowl structure. If you are simply going to make the playoff seperate from the bowls, there really isn’t a need for a move-up in dates, but if you want the semi-finals the week after the CCGs and want the losing teams to be eligable for bowls too, then there is a reason to move up the season to the final week August instead of the 1st in September. That lets you avoid issues with fall quarter exams and still give the same amount of time for people to prepare for bowls even with them announced after the semi-finals.
My prefered solution is no change, but if we are going to a 4 team playoff, this is exactly what I hope they do.
LikeLike
Eric,
I think they are looking at it solely with the idea of playing the semis the first weekend in December instead of after Christmas (they seem to have eliminated everything else). I don’t think they are even worrying about putting the losers into bowls or not, they just don’t want to play on the 10th or 17th or before the 27th or so. That leaves starting earlier but having a huge gap between the two rounds or playing after Christmas.
LikeLike
Brian,
You can certainly be right and its early enough there is a lot of different possibilities. I was thinking that if the semi-final losers aren’t going to bowls, there probably isn’t as much a push to get them to play before Christmas. Now that I think about it though, if they are planning on home games, I could still see the push to move up the season as you probably don’t want to delay those very far into December anyway. I do think going to bowls is still more likely to be a bye product if they push up the season however which I still view as a plus (I want every good team going to one and only one bowl).
LikeLike
Don’t most of the schools have multiple bye weeks in their schedules each year? I believe the B1G has two bye weeks each season. They could eliminate one of the by weeks and keep the same start date of Labor Day Weekend and play the semi-finals in early December.
LikeLike
Steve,
It depends on the year. In some years there is only 1 bye week, in others there are 2. If you eliminate the bye, teams would play 14 straight weeks in some seasons.
LikeLike
If you play Hawaii and are in a conference with a CCG, you could have been playing every week this year.
LikeLike
Plus One is a minus for college football
Matt Hayes, Sporting News
DALLAS – Get a good look at your game, America. Soon enough, you won’t recognize it.
Before long college football will look nothing like it does now. Before long, the four-team Plus One model that the 11 BCS conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick are working through will become an eight and eventually 16-team playoff.
Had the Plus One been in place last season, Oregon would’ve essentially been penalized for playing a tough game against LSU to open the season. (AP photo)
“The barn door is open now,” said one BCS administrator.
Soon enough, the lure of all that cash flowing through it will be too much to hold back.
Don’t think so? Listen to Kevin Ash, executive director of the Rose Bowl. There is no bigger college football brand; no more important game that connects the sport and its unique postseason.
The Rose Bowl was once the king that many of these same BCS administrators were begging and pleading to join the controversial new series in 1998. The Rose went kicking and screaming all the way back then, threatening at times to take its game and its Rose parade and all that tradition and go home.
Now look:
“All the bowls are concerned,” Ash told Sporting News. “But I think change is inevitable. You have to evolve with the system.”
This latest significant college football change is 14 years in the making. The next will be much quicker.
Why? Simple: money. A BCS source told SN Wednesday that money projections are nearly double the current $180 million payout from the 2011 season – that’s before the group of 12 sits down with television partners in April to drill deep into specifics.
It’s likely those numbers will be greater, especially when newly reorganized NBC enters the bidding with ESPN/ABC, Fox and CBS. Frankly, there’s no telling how crazy it could get – and that’s for a modified version of a playoff.
Once the Plus One is implemented, once television executives fight each other to land multi-billion dollar deals, the lure of that money will be too much for university presidents to ignore. That, and the reality that a Plus One isn’t much more definitive than the current system.
Forget about dissecting the previous 14 years to find trends of how a Plus One would’ve helped or hurt the game. Just look at the 2011 season.
The final four teams in the BCS rankings were LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State and Stanford. You want controversy?
One-loss Stanford was a spot ahead of Pac-12 champion Oregon – which beat Stanford by 23 points three weeks earlier in Palo Alto. I’m sure Oregon coach Chip Kelly would have been giddy with that BCS outcome.
Why were the Ducks No.5 instead of No.4? Because Oregon opted to play LSU on a neutral field to begin the season while Stanford chose to play footsie with San Jose State.
The biggest problem I have with the Group of 12 — all good men trying to do the right thing — is they’re being pushed into a situation they want no part of. I’d be a lot happier — and it would be more genuine — if they just stood up and said there is nothing wrong with our game.
Read the entire article at this link: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-22/plus-one-college-football-playoff-bcs-bowl-championship-series#ixzz1n9bWUVnI
LikeLike
He’s right. The BCS was the beginning of the end of real college football and the start of NFL lite. I hope the networks lose billions on future playoffs.
LikeLike
If there was nothing wrong with the game, then the confrence commissioners wouldn’t be compelled to make the moves they’re currently contemplating. Jim Delany didn’t suddenly find playoff religion through a voice from Heven–unless that voice is coming from the corporate headquarters of the networks.
I recall a Q&A session with Lloyd Carr back in August 2006 as part of a fund raising event. He supported a 16-team playoff with the opening rounds being played at the home stadiums of the higher seeded teams. Setting the format aside for a moment, the other point he made is that the BCS had actually made the bowl games less relevant. He recalled how the 2000 Orange Bowl game between Alabama and Michigan would have been a major highlight game, but had become something of a sideshow becuase all the attention was on the BCS national championship game.
Carr felt the way to re-energize the post season wasn’t to go back to the pre-BCS days, it was to set up a playoff. Keep in mind that his undefeated 1997 team was a co-national champion with Nebraska as both teams went undefeated, but the system at that time didn’t allow them to play one another. While the BCS fixed that to a degree, his comment was that it hurt the bowl system overall.
One last comment. What’s the most popular league and sport in America right now? It’s the NFL.
For me, personally, I think college football is better than the NFL, but it isn’t because of the way the two leagues set up their post seasons. I like the college game because the atmosphere around the games are better, the conference rivalries seem more passionate and to be frank, the offenses and defenses are more varied, so the actual games are much more interesting to me as a viewer. But I’m hard pressed to take that passion into the post-season because the current system has made the bowls less meaningful to me. I still watch the bowls to see competitive games and to tally which conference does better than the other one–neither of which would change for me if a playoff system was implented in parallel to the bowls.
I wish colllege football would become NFL Lite with an eight-team playoff system that only involved the very top teams in the game. I’ll take four for now because it’s progress–something that college athletics only does at a glacial pace.
LikeLike
For me, personally, I think college football is better than the NFL, but it isn’t because of the way the two leagues set up their post seasons. I like the college game because the atmosphere around the games are better, the conference rivalries seem more passionate and to be frank, the offenses and defenses are more varied, so the actual games are much more interesting to me as a viewer. But I’m hard pressed to take that passion into the post-season because the current system has made the bowls less meaningful to me. I still watch the bowls to see competitive games and to tally which conference does better than the other one–neither of which would change for me if a playoff system was implented in parallel to the bowls.
I wish colllege football would become NFL Lite with an eight-team playoff system that only involved the very top teams in the game. I’ll take four for now because it’s progress–something that college athletics only does at a glacial pace.
Very well said, this is what the vast majority of college football fans feel, as shown in numerous polls over the years.
While it still appears 8 is unlikely this round (though I wouldn’t rule anything completely out yet just because anon sources connected to the bowls and Delany say otherwise, spinning their agenda) perhaps the most important nuggets coming out of this week’s meeting was that they considered starting the regular season a week early and that there may be little support for a long-term deal. (Matt Hayes suggested in a radio interview yesterday that Delany wasn’t particularly persuasive or popular with many of the meetings participants.)
Now the idea of starting the regular season a week early may be primarily about playing the first round of the Final Four before finals so that just as many teams as now are available for the bowls and the title game can be played the night of Jan 1 or thereabouts. But it would be very easy to fit the entire Final Four into the 1.5-2 weeks between Christmas and the restart of school. So if they do move up the season start a week and stuck with just a Final Four, that probably leads to an extra round and an 8-team playoff in the following contract. Our long national nightmare then ends.
LikeLike
Putting the semi-finals the week before New Year’s causes 2 issues:
1) travel too close together for the winners making it difficult and expensive for fans;
2) crowds the remaining bowls by taking the best time slots as well as overshadowing them
I thought a while back that moving the season up a week would help with a lot of issues, but thought the logistics would be too much. Apparently its not as big an issue as I thought. And its not bad that more football teams will be able to go home for Thanksgiving instead of playing. It would also increase the value of ccgs since there would be more good time slots than the 1st week in December.
LikeLike
cutter,
If there was nothing wrong with the game, then the confrence commissioners wouldn’t be compelled to make the moves they’re currently contemplating.
Huge assumption. People change things that aren’t broken all the time.
Setting the format aside for a moment, the other point he made is that the BCS had actually made the bowl games less relevant. He recalled how the 2000 Orange Bowl game between Alabama and Michigan would have been a major highlight game, but had become something of a sideshow becuase all the attention was on the BCS national championship game.
Nobody is arguing the BCS didn’t hurt the bowl season.
One last comment. What’s the most popular league and sport in America right now? It’s the NFL.
The fly diet argument is not persuasive
For me, personally, I think college football is better than the NFL, but it isn’t because of the way the two leagues set up their post seasons. I like the college game because the atmosphere around the games are better, the conference rivalries seem more passionate and to be frank, the offenses and defenses are more varied, so the actual games are much more interesting to me as a viewer.
The atmosphere is better and the rivalries more passionate in part because the postseasons are different. The NFL used to have stronger rivalries back when losing mattered more.
But I’m hard pressed to take that passion into the post-season because the current system has made the bowls less meaningful to me. I still watch the bowls to see competitive games and to tally which conference does better than the other one–neither of which would change for me if a playoff system was implented in parallel to the bowls.
That’s an argument against the BCS, not for a playoff.
LikeLike
The atmosphere is better and the rivalries more passionate primarily because the players care more and the fans have more of a connection. I don’t think the rivalries in the NFL are any weaker except where teams have moved divisions. The old NFL Central and NFL East still have very strong rivalries as they’ve been together since the old NFL expanded to 16.
LikeLike
bullet,
I said “in part” for a reason. As for NFL rivalries, they aren’t the same when the loser can still get a wildcard and make the playoffs. CFB rivalries mean a ton more because losing that game can ruin a season.
LikeLike
For Brian:
1. No, it’s not a huge assumption. SEC Commissioner Mike Slive put this proposal out in 2008 and had it shot down almost immediately. Now the same parties who were completly against the idea of a playoff are now coming onboard, personified by none other than Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany. Rember him–he’s the guy who not too long ago said they’d rather go back to the pre-BCS bowl system then adopt a playoff system.
In this case, actions speak louder than words. These guys realize the bowl season is drawn out and that the BCS system has taken a lot of criticism in the media and from the fans. They’ve also seen some decline in ratings and drops in bowl attendance (due in part to a bad economy). They know they’ve devalued the post-season and they’re trying to come up with a solution that’ll satisfy all the stakeholders of the system. Will they succeed? I suspect what they come up with will still have some problems, particularly when it comes to picking the four teams for the playoff.
2. You’re the person who uses the term NFL Lite. Ironically, what we’re seeing transpire in college football is exactly that, but it’ll actually be better than the pro league in the way it’s set up. Because there are fewer games and even fewer playoff berths, the college football regular season will always mean more than the NFL regular season and it’ll do it maintaining the best it has to offer–strong traditions, great game day atmospheres, a largely regional feel for the conferences and a whole host of rivalries. Who know? If they do it right, college football may actually end up more popular than the NFL by becoming NFL LIte.
3. You really miss the mark on the rivalry thing–the structure of the post-season has next to nothing to do with it. My freshman year at Michigan was in 1978 when Notre Dame came back on the schedule for the first time since 1943. It was a match made in heaven–two of the most heralded, recognizable teams that were the winningest in college football and had all the intangibles you could possibly ask for in a matchup. The nature of the post-season then and thru the “Under the Lights” game earlier this year has not changed one iota in all that time. I would say the same thing for Ohio State–the two teams could be out of the Big Ten championship or contention for the Rose Bowl and still play like the bitter rivals they are. In fact, I’d say that the prime factor that makes all these rivalries really special is when both teams are really good.
4. Again, you just completely miss the mark on what the stakes and the passion would be for a playoff over the bowl system. First off, it’s going to expand the stakes in the conference champion games. Secondly, those playoff games are going to have a much higher degree of fan interest than any non-playoff bowl. So yes, this is a pro-playoff argument.
LikeLike
cutter,
1. No, it’s not a huge assumption.
Yes, it is. Coke changed their formula. Did that mean there was something wrong with the original formula, or that some suits decided they could improve things?
2. You’re the person who uses the term NFL Lite.
It’s hardly like I coined the term.
Ironically, what we’re seeing transpire in college football is exactly that, but it’ll actually be better than the pro league in the way it’s set up.
Way to set the bar low.
If they do it right, college football may actually end up more popular than the NFL by becoming NFL LIte.
No, it won’t. The NFL has a whole bunch of fans with no college affiliation and that couldn’t care less about any of the teams. The NFL will always have better players and coaches, too. The NCAA also fights against gambling rather than aiding it like the NFL. The sheer number of teams also mean fantasy football will never be as popular in CFB. Put together, there are way too many factors working against CFB. What will happen is that CFB will lose some traditional fans while adding some casual fans.
3. You really miss the mark on the rivalry thing–the structure of the post-season has next to nothing to do with it. My freshman year at Michigan was in 1978 when Notre Dame came back on the schedule for the first time since 1943. It was a match made in heaven–two of the most heralded, recognizable teams that were the winningest in college football and had all the intangibles you could possibly ask for in a matchup. The nature of the post-season then and thru the “Under the Lights” game earlier this year has not changed one iota in all that time. I would say the same thing for Ohio State–the two teams could be out of the Big Ten championship or contention for the Rose Bowl and still play like the bitter rivals they are. In fact, I’d say that the prime factor that makes all these rivalries really special is when both teams are really good.
When losing to your rival doesn’t really impact your overall goal, the rivalry suffers. The move to divisions has permanently hurt the OSU/MI rivalry, for example. A playoff making a loss to ND less important hurts the ND/MI rivalry, too. And the post-season has definitely changed since 1978. It added over 20 bowls and a BCS system to move the emphasis from winning your conference to winning the NC.
4. Again, you just completely miss the mark on what the stakes and the passion would be for a playoff over the bowl system.
No, you just don’t read what you actually write. You complained about how the BCS has made the bowls less meaningful to you. As I correctly stated, that’s an argument against the BCS, not for a playoff.
First off, it’s going to expand the stakes in the conference champion games.
Right. Because if LSU lost to UGA they couldn’t have made the playoffs this year. Oh, wait. Unless you make huge assumptions about the playoff system, there is no basis to believe LSU wouldn’t have made it or that other CCG winners would have had more at stake. Was WI going to be promised a spot? Clemson? OR won and still finsihed behind Stanford.
Secondly, those playoff games are going to have a much higher degree of fan interest than any non-playoff bowl.
A higher degree, yes. I won’t be one of them, but the totals will grow.
So yes, this is a pro-playoff argument.
That may be a pro-playoff argument, but that isn’t what you wrote last time now is it?
LikeLike
@Brian – I understand and respect your position against a playoff (although I don’t necessarily agree with it).
One quibble, though – I think the NCAA presents faux public indignation against gambling while knowing it greatly aids them just like the NFL. People that don’t watch a single moment of the college basketball regular season will tune into the NCAA Tournament specifically because of office pools. As a result, well over 90% of the NCAA’s revenue is from an event that is fueled by casual gamblers.
College football is also more popular with the “sharps” (full-time sports gamblers) in Vegas compared to the NFL because they believe that they can more easily exploit information gaps at the college level. All of the Vegas oddsmakers are going to be well-versed on every NFL team, but even the best ones can keep up with only a finite number of college teams. So, the sharps take advantage of that by becoming experts on certain college teams and conferences and betting much more on their games compared to the “squares” in the general public that gravitate heavily toward the NFL. Anyway, college football and college basketball are respectively the #2 and #3 most gambled upon sports after the NFL, so the NCAA is a net beneficiary of Vegas.
LikeLike
There’s an argument that an 8 team playoff ENHANCES the regular season. The regular season then has a goal beyond an exihibition game in a warm weather locale and a conference championship.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
One quibble, though – I think the NCAA presents faux public indignation against gambling while knowing it greatly aids them just like the NFL. People that don’t watch a single moment of the college basketball regular season will tune into the NCAA Tournament specifically because of office pools. As a result, well over 90% of the NCAA’s revenue is from an event that is fueled by casual gamblers.
I don’t think it’s faux indignation at all. I believe the large majority of the presidents would happily trade fewer March Madness viewers for absolutely no betting on college sports. I also think CFB is not MBB.
College football is also more popular with the “sharps” (full-time sports gamblers) in Vegas compared to the NFL because they believe that they can more easily exploit information gaps at the college level. All of the Vegas oddsmakers are going to be well-versed on every NFL team, but even the best ones can keep up with only a finite number of college teams. So, the sharps take advantage of that by becoming experts on certain college teams and conferences and betting much more on their games compared to the “squares” in the general public that gravitate heavily toward the NFL.
I’ll take your word for the preferences of gamblers. The sharps can also make money in part because the NCAA doesn’t do injury reports like the NFL, so they can get inside info. That’s part of the argument I made about the NCAA fighting gambling while the NFL abets it. The NFL actually encourages it.
Anyway, college football and college basketball are respectively the #2 and #3 most gambled upon sports after the NFL, so the NCAA is a net beneficiary of Vegas.
Gamblers will gamble. Passion for CFB wouldn’t drop as much or as quickly if all gambling stopped as NFL interest would, in my opinion.
LikeLike
bullet,
There’s an argument that an 8 team playoff ENHANCES the regular season.
There is, I suppose. It largely depends on how you evaluate it.
The regular season then has a goal beyond an exihibition game in a warm weather locale and a conference championship.
And that’s the problem. You want to convert the regular season into a means to and end rather than the focus in and of itself. That devalues the regular season. You essentially are turning it into a preseason for the playoff.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/02/florida-state-savannah-state-2012-football-schedule/
FSU replaces WV with Savannah State this year. SSU is from the MEAC and has never played a I-A team before. In 2012 they open with OkSU and FSU.
FSU still plans to play at WV next year, but I have to believe WV will bail on that game pretty soon, too.
What’s the reaction from Seminole fans, Michael?
LikeLike
WVU only has 2 ooc games set for 2013 and FSU would be at home. The other game is Maryland at Baltimore. They likely have 4 home Big 12 games in 2013, so they would need FSU home games.
I suspect they bailed on FSU to generate $ to payoff their buyout. They have a James Madison game at Fedex Field that their contract and guarantee made it impossible to get out of. They have a state mandated game at home vs. Marshall. And they have a home game vs. MD. They have 5 Big 12 home games, so they effectively have 8 home games next year. They decided to keep the home game and bail on the road game.
LikeLike
I was thinking more that having jumped to 9 conference games they may not want FSU on top of that. Plus they have 4 teams lined up even though only 2 have dates. They could easily try to keep ECU to replace FSU.
LikeLike
Personally? I think it sucks. I was hoping FSU could get a game against a Big East team that was in need of an opponent, but I guess this is just the way it is.
LikeLike
I think the BE is in too much turmoil, especially with Temple maybe joining. Until they settle the conference schedule, it’s hard to add OOC games.
How upset will FSU fans be if the road game stays so basically WV bought a home game with FSU for $500k (much cheaper than a non-AQ)?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7601712/maryland-terrapins-coach-randy-edsall-gives-danny-obrien-full-release
Based on the speed of his backpedal, Randy Edsall should be an NFL corner rather than a coach.
“While at first I thought it was important to limit the institutions to which they could transfer, I have since reconsidered my decision,” Edsall said in a prepared statement. “At the end of the day, I want what’s best for these guys and I wish them well in their futures.”
It’s amazing what unending media criticism both locally and nationally can do.
LikeLike
Seriously. Does anyone have any good Edsall stories? He just seems like a jerk.
LikeLike
He has been a disaster in College Park, as has Anderson as AD. Turgeon seems to be working well in MBB, and of course the Terrapins still have Brenda Frese in WBB. Heck, the Maryland baseball team, a perennial lost cause (a la Penn State men’s basketball), opened their season last weekend by winning two of three at UCLA.
LikeLike
Click to access MultiyearOverrideVote.pdf
Here’s the list how schools voted on the proposal to override the institution of multi-year scholarships. The measure only failed by two votes.
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/who-opposed-multiyear-athletics-aid-you-might-be-surprised/29639
Article.
LikeLike
Pro-override (among the AQs):
B12 conference
ACC – BC, Clemson, FSU, GT, UVA, VT
BE – UC, UL, RU
B10 – WI
B12 – Baylor, KS, KSU, OU, OkSU, TCU, TT, UT, WV
P12 – AZ, Cal, CO, USC
SEC – AL, LSU, UT, TAMU
Indy – Navy
There are some surprises here, unless the schools just listened to the coaches/ADs.
Really, WI?
LikeLike
It is interesting that the service academies split. They don’t give scholarships since they don’t charge tuition, which means they are likely voting on how this how it will help or hurt their competition. I wonder if this is a signal that Navy is expecting this move to help the Big East.
LikeLike
Very interesting list. Thanks.
LikeLike
Interesting. The vote was not the way it was portrayed in the media as big schools vs. small. The votes were all over the lot. It looks like Ivy League, MAC, Big 10, Pac 12 strongly in favor along with a variety of private schools and a scattering of others, as varied as Auburn and Texas Southern.
LikeLike
There were only about 30 AQ votes to override out of 205, versus 40-45 out of the 125 to not override. That means the little guys voted about 2:1 against it while the big guys split about 1.5:1 in favor.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in my about the Ivy League is that they don’t grant athletic scholarships so this will have no direct effect on them, but it will affect their competition.
LikeLike
http://www.bcftoys.com/programfei/
I’m not a proponent of many of the “advanced” statistics in college football because I don’t think they accurately account for the variety of approaches teams use, unlike pro sports which are much more uniform.
That said, here are the 5 year program rankings based on FEI:
Rk Team W-L PFEI
1 Alabama 51-12 .292
2 LSU 50-14 .266
3 Oklahoma 51-15 .231
4 Oregon 51-13 .217
5 Florida 45-17 .208
6 USC 50-14 .192
7 Oklahoma State 45-17 .190
8 Virginia Tech 50-15 .189
9 Ohio State 48-15 .180
10 Stanford 39-23 .180
11 Boise State 57-6 .180
12 Florida State 37-24 .173
13 Wisconsin 43-18 .173
14 Georgia 40-21 .171
15 West Virginia 44-17 .167
16 Arkansas 37-22 .155
17 TCU 51-10 .154
18 South Carolina 35-25 .153
19 Clemson 35-26 .145
20 Texas 48-17 .142
21 Auburn 39-21 .142
22 Iowa 37-23 .134
23 Penn State 43-18 .130
24 Miami 30-29 .128
25 Michigan State 41-22 .127
I saw the link on a blog that touted how many B12 teams were in the top 20 (5 counting the 2 newbies), runner up to the SEC’s 6, while the P12 and ACC had 3 and the B10 had 2. I showed the top 25 to point out how easily these sorts of numbers can “lie” since the B10 has 5 in the top 25, just like the B12 (SEC – 7).
To show how much the most recent season can matter, OSU dropped from #4 to #9 and their PFEI went from 0.223 to 0.180.
LikeLike
Those statistics certainly show how poorly Michigan did during the Rodriguez era and how last season showed the momemtum going in the other direction. Here’s UM’s ratings from past years:
2007: 11 (.186)/46-16
2008: 21 (.118)/39-22
2009: 37 (.087)/34-26
2010: 50 (.032)/33-27
2011: 32 (.101)/33-27
We’ll see how Hoke does with the program going forward.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2012/02/bcs_national_championship_supp.html
Some good news from the BCS meetings:
Hancock added the commissioners were “resolute about not having BCS games in the midweek after Jan. 1”.
That’s progress.
LikeLike
Random question for Texas fans.
Austin-American Statesman columnist Kirk Bohls tweeted yesterday that Iowa hired former Texas OC Greg Davis to fill their OC position. I think y’all have indicated in the past that Bohls is usually reliable, so is this likely true?
LikeLike
Bohls would probably know.
Greg Davis is probably the most reviled coach in Texas history. He came with Mack Brown in 98 and got the criticism while Mack didn’t. There were legitimate criticisms. He was predictable and didn’t adjust well. Texas had trouble in short yardage in later years probably because the O line was conditioned for pass blocking. Most Texas fans will say he was terrible. But the facts are that Texas had its most productive offenses ever under Greg Davis. His offenses produced lots of points.
LikeLike
Thanks, bullet. The OC seems to be the most hated coach on every team, so the Horn fans’ criticism doesn’t bother me. Hawkeye message boards are aflame and people have posted Texas offensive numbers for the last decade, but the haters just respond “that was with talent that Iowa will never have.”
Shrug. IMNSHO, I think fans don’t have a clue when it comes to coaching hirings, particularly assistants. So I’ll just trust that Ferentz knows what he is doing.
LikeLike
A couple years prior to Mack and Greg, the Texas offense had James Brown as QB, who later played in the CFL and Shon Mitchell as its #1 back. Shon hurt his knee the next year and was never the same. The #2 back was Ricky Williams. The #3 back was Priest Holmes. That offense didn’t produce the type of numbers Texas did under Mack and Greg. (For anyone too young to remember, Ricky and Priest are both former NFL rushing champions).
LikeLike
One potential fly in the ointment of Temple going to the Big East (and remember, OT, it’s not an acronym, so no all-caps, please) is that the Mid-American Conference reportedly has a two-year exit requirement. Is that true, and did Temple — being an associate member — get some sort of waiver from this as a condition of joining the MAC for football? (If so, one would think Massachusetts received a similar waiver.)
LikeLike
Temple will pay, literally, for the right to leave early.
Reports: Temple close to joining Big East for all sports – Mike Kern, philly.com
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/temple/20120223_Reports__Temple_close_to_joining_Big_East_for_all_sports.html
…The Owls, who played in the Big East for football only from 1991-2004 before being asked to leave, currently are members of the MAC for football and the Atlantic 10 for all other sports. Sources have said it would cost Temple about $3.5 million to leave the MAC immediately. A-10 sources indicated the fee for leaving that conference right now would be roughly $1.5 million, and “a lot less” if the exit took place a year after Temple gave notice of its intentions.
LikeLike
Q&A with Neinas.
Not a whole lot. All institutions signed grant of rights. Pursuit of a championship game won’t drive expansion.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45986/qa-big-12s-chuck-neinas-on-expansion
LikeLike
John Ourand @Ourand_SBJ Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Top sports on cable last week: TNT’s Celtics-Bulls Thu (2.4M viewers), ESPN’s Suns-Lakers Fri (2.1M), ESPN’s Ohio St-Michigan Sat (2M).
LikeLike
BYU agressively pursuing B12 invite. (See second article titled “Big 12 Rumors”).
http://byu.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1335173
LikeLike
If that is true, I suspect they’ll end up there with an annoucement within a year.
LikeLike
Aggressively pursuing doesn’t mean they’ll get it.
There’s a story by a San Diego radio guy that the money for the BE TV contract is not looking as good while CUSA/MWC is looking better than expected and Boise and SDSU are re-evaluating. However, for now I give that the credence of the WV Dude and the ACC schools to the Big 12. But a lot can happen between now and 2013. Certainly UL and BYU (or worse for the BE, UC or RU) to the Big 12 could wreck a lot of BE plans.
LikeLike
Apparently the target date for Brigham Young (and likely Louisville, too) would be 2013-14.
Divisional alignment would be difficult, as we’ve previously discussed; a strict North-South setup would create a North division encompassing three time zones. The other possibility is a semi-mirror alignment, splitting the four Texas, two Oklahoma and two Kansas members, with Iowa State and Brigham Young joining four in the West and West Virginia and Louisville joining the other four in the East.
LikeLike
Ultimately, it will boil down to whether BYU is completely sold long-term on independence or whether it can buy into the Big 12’s agreement to share all TV rights equally (except for the not-insignificant third-tier rights); and whether the Big 12 wants to be a Texas/Central U.S. conference with eastern exclaves, or if it wants to be a more powerful but equally far-flung version of the new Big East. I don’t buy the “Sunday issue” as being that much of a deal-breaker.
The first issue is a BYU-based issue. It’s on them.
The second is whether the Big 12 wants to risk appearing like the Big East: way too far flung. West Virginia to Lubbock is very far apart as is, but reasonable observers understand it. Plus, the addition of Louisville would provide somewhat of a regional continuity between the schools in the Central U.S. and WVU. But if the league that goes from Morgantown to Provo? That makes for a three time-zone league.
I could see this going either way. BYU and Louisville easily are the most valuable candidates as individuals out there (the Dude’s ACC raid rumors notwithstanding). But because of geography and the negative perception that can create in the eyes of the public (i.e., appearing to add far-away members out of “desperation,” even if it’s not really a “desperate move at all), BYU’s chances at being added may be diminished.
LikeLike
Pingback: Playoffs?! The Final Four College Football Playoff (or Plus-One or “Event”) Options and Why “Four Team Plus” Helps More Than the Rose Bowl « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT