This blog has been a hub of activity for conference realignment discussion and other issues in the business of sports for the past couple of years, but it has sometimes been difficult to get quantitative data to back up what many of us observe qualitatively (such as the popularity of fan bases and conferences). So, the following presentation direct from Nielsen (the TV ratings firm) about the 2011 sports year provides a treasure trove of previously unknown (at least to me) and fascinating statistics about pro and college sports TV viewership, social networking buzz and ad spending:
This slide presentation was uploaded by ceobroadband at slideshare.net. Nielsen analyzed everything from the four major pro sports leagues to the rising viewership of the English Premier League in the US, so there’s something here for every type of sports fan. It’s key that this analysis is coming directly from Nielsen itself, whereas a lot of other viewership figures that get reported these days come from leagues, conferences and TV networks themselves and are spun to put them in the most favorable light. As a result, the slide presentation is about as unbiased as you can reasonably get on the subject matters at hand.
One of the more interesting charts is on slide 4, where Nielsen tracked the social media buzz for the major pro sports leagues over the course of 2011 and news events where activity spiked on Twitter and Facebook. Major League Baseball can’t be happy to see social networking mentions hover around the NHL’s numbers and its 7-game World Series last year didn’t produce a real spike in activity compared to the NBA Finals. I’m not surprised by the fact that the NBA has more social networking buzz compared to MLB since the basketball league’s fan base skews younger, but I didn’t expect baseball to be on the social media level of hockey. (Note that there’s no point in comparing any other sport to the NFL in America: pro football blows everything else away on every metric. The only discussion is about who can take second place.)
For college sports fans, slide 9 presents some extremely pertinent information that few of us have seen before: the average TV viewer numbers per game for each of the 6 power conferences for both football and basketball. With so many issues in college sports, such as conference realignment and a football playoff, driven by television money, these viewership figures are enlightening (and surprising in some cases).
Here are the average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:1. SEC – 4,447,000
2. Big Ten – 3,267,000
3. ACC – 2,650,000
4. Big 12 – 2,347,000
5. Pac-12 – 2,108,000
6. Big East – 1,884,000
2. Big Ten – 3,267,000
3. ACC – 2,650,000
4. Big 12 – 2,347,000
5. Pac-12 – 2,108,000
6. Big East – 1,884,000
Here are the average basketball viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen:1. Big Ten – 1,496,000
2. ACC – 1,247,000
3. SEC – 1,222,000
4. Big 12 – 1,069,000
5. Big East – 1,049,000
6. Pac-12 – 783,000
2. ACC – 1,247,000
3. SEC – 1,222,000
4. Big 12 – 1,069,000
5. Big East – 1,049,000
6. Pac-12 – 783,000
Some takeaways from those figures:
A. The Big Ten and SEC deserve every penny that they receive and then some – The readers of this blog probably aren’t surprised by the football viewership numbers, but the proverbial icing on the cake is how strong both of them are in basketball. ACC alum Scott Van Pelt of ESPN once said, “Watching Big Ten basketball is like watching fat people have sex.” Well, the Big Ten even tops the vaunted the ACC in basketball viewership and it’s by a fairly healthy margin.
B. The ACC has an undervalued TV contract – The flip side of the Big Ten and SEC analysis above is that while the ACC’s basketball viewership strength isn’t unexpected, the much maligned football side actually has strong TV numbers. If you take a step back for a moment, it makes sense. Florida State and Miami continue to be great national TV draws (even when they’re down) and schools such as Virginia Tech bring in large state markets.
C. Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott can sell ice cubs to Eskimos – The viewership numbers for the Pac-12 in both football and basketball indicate that they shouldn’t be in the vicinity of the ACC and Big 12 TV contracts, much less currently above the Big Ten and SEC. The football numbers might be a little lower compared to a normal season with USC having the scarlet letter of not being able to go to a bowl this year, but one would think that some of that would have been countered by strong Stanford and Oregon teams. Meanwhile, the basketball numbers are just awful – the Pac-12 definitely needs UCLA to resuscitate itself to be viable nationally. The Pac-12 presidents ought to give Larry Scott a lifetime contract with the TV dollars that he’s pulled from ESPN and Fox.
D. Big East basketball is a weaker draw than expected – No one should be surprised by the weak Big East football numbers. However, the basketball and large market-centric side of the league actually had fewer hoops viewers than any of the power conferences except for the Pac-12, which doesn’t bode well with the league losing the strong draws of Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. The Big East was also widely acknowledged as the top conference in basketball last year, so the league was at its competitive peak in the post-2003 ACC raid era. This gives credence to the argument that large media markets in and of themselves don’t matter as much as large and rabid fan bases that draw in statewide audiences.
E. The Big 12 is appropriately valued – For all of the dysfunction of the Big 12, it might be the one conference whose TV contracts are actually in line with their viewership numbers. The Big 12 is ranked #4 among the power conferences for both football and basketball and the likelihood is that it will end up as the #4 conference in TV dollars after the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC when all is said and done.
There’s lots of other data to chew on here that I may examine in future posts, but for now, the college conference viewership breakdown is something that I haven’t seen before and puts some quantitative backup to what we have speculated was behind conference realignment moves.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Slides from slideshare.net)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
LSU’s Tiger Athletic Foundation approved plans for an expansion in the south end-zone of Tiger Stadium that will include 60 24-person suites, 4000 club seats, with some regular seats on top. Tiger Stadium’s capacity would grow from 92,400 to 99,500. This addition could be completed in time for the 2014 season.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/2179765-123/tiger-stadium-project-advances.html
A new tennis complex is also on the drawing board.
LikeLike
Alan,
Any reason they did not go all the way and wind up #1 in the SEC for seating? Maybe 3,000 more seats and they are ahead of Alabama and Tennessee.
LikeLike
duff – I’m not sure. Its probably still a work in progress. Extensive market studies were conducted for the suites and club seats. The existing waiting lists for suites and club seats already exceed the planned expansion. I think the idea is to keep demand high and make money.
LikeLike
I’m surprised they didn’t figure out a way to squeeze 500 more seats and claim 100k.
Texas has generally had a philosophy that they want enough seats to meet (or come close to meeting) peak demand as opposed to the scarcity concept that baseball uses. However, now that they are over 100k, I don’t think there’s room for a lot more.
LikeLike
bullet – if there’s enough public outcry, I’m sure they’ll add a few rows on the back of the upper deck to get over 100k. Right now, all the seats in the plan are accounted for: Club seats – SOLD; Suites – SOLD; move 1,000 visitor seats from existing seats up to the top of the new South upper deck (ala AlaBAMA) and sell the good seats to Tiger fans – SOLD; use the remaining 500 seats for various youth groups at discounted prices – CHECK; and update the scoreboards – CHECK. Now if they can do a little extreme home makeover on the recent West upper deck expansion that does not match the original style of the stadium (Roman coliseum), I would be very pleased.
LikeLike
Alan how about those Appalachian State Mountaineers?
😉
Good luck to the Tigers baseball team the rest of the way.
LikeLike
Michael – congrats to you and your ‘eers. Its early and its baseball. In ’09, when LSU last won the CWS, my Tigers dropped 2 or 3 to Frank’s Illini, and lost to Nicholls State. I take full responsibility for the losses as I was in Fort Worth and missed the entire series.
LSU should be a top 20 team and may make it to a Super Regional this year, but I don’t think my Tigers are CWS material at this point. They have three of the best starters in college baseball, but the bullpen is unsettled and hitting is light.
LikeLike
Light hitting Tigers? What in the name of Skip Bertman is going on down there?
LikeLike
Mike – thanks to the new bats, the days of LSU Gorilla ball are over. The transition to west coast/UTx small ball is still a work in progress. As a (now suffering) Oriole fan since birth, I do miss the days of the Earl Weaver-style good pitching, good defense, and the 3 run homer play my Tigers emulated during Skip’s run.
For those not familiar with Skip Bertman, he is one of the greatest college coaches in any sport. Skip ought to rank right up there with John Wooden and Dan Gable. He took over the LSU baseball program that had never really distinguished itself in 1984. The running joke at LSU was that prior to Skip’s arrival, the most quiet place to study on campus was the old Alex Box Stadium – during a game. During his 18 year career, LSU made 11 CWS appearances, won 7 SEC titles, and 5 CWS titles. He also coached an all-college USA team to the bronze medal in the 96 Olympics. Skip showed the rest of the SEC schools that you could make money in baseball, and he set off the explosion of improved facilities, increased budgets and increased success in baseball. Skip Bertman is greatly responsible for making college baseball what it is today in the region of the country where it is most popular.
LikeLike
No disrespect to Skip, but Rod Dedeaux was pretty good too.
LikeLike
Dedeaux was great, won more championships than Skip and has a great French name, but he didn’t transform the sport. USC was an established power prior to Dedeaux’s arrival. When Skip took over prior to the 1984 season, LSU baseball was roughly equivelent to Indiana football today(no offense – duff). Also, college baseball was much less competitive in the 60s and 70s than it was in the 90s.
LikeLike
Alumni in the SEC for some reason pushed for Mizzou because of TV sets when they should’ve taken West Virginia instead, since first WV has a great alumni base and strong TV viewership. The SEC A.D.’s listened to internet alumni hype and took the wrong team, they could probably sit on 14 and the Big Ten probably would’ve never had to expand past 12.
It’s pretty strange and after that the Big XII could’ve have expanded more sensibly and who knows who the Big Ten would have looked at for #12 or if Penn State might have actually taken the place of Pittsburgh in the ACC Expansion. Now we’re looking into a forced 16-team conference and now idiot alum’s want 18 or 20 teams?!
It wouldn’t take long until leagues split up back to 8 to 10 team leagues and maybe 12 again. It was a clusterfuck of a move by the SEC and the Big Ten made their own by taking a team like Nebraska only for it to blow up in their face quickly. Nebraska is no-longer AAU and they are not getting better in the Big Ten, they were better off building the program back-up in the Big XII where they were a big dog but they all coward to Texas which was a bad move.
I eventually thing the Big XII will be the league to get poached. Kansas, Kansas State will jump to Pac-12, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State will jump to the SEC and Texas, West Virginia will eventually make the jump to the ACC. My guess is that Big Ten will take Mizzou and Virginia while the SEC will snatch up Texas Tech. At that point, I think Larry Scott will swallow big and accept Colorado State then either look at Utah State or BYU (if they can finally give into the religious thing). ACC after all this can get Notre Dame to come in as a full-member.
At that point the 4-team Super Conferences will be in place.
LikeLike
hook em
LikeLike
I can’t believe more people watch BCS bowl games than the Final Four. Also, how can Nielsen account for the lack of representation in the pure volume of college basketball games compared to to their football counterparts. Even in this lackluster year in Illini sports, I still watch more minutes of basketball than the 13 football games.
LikeLike
Nationwide, college football is more popular than basketball. That’s basically it. In fact, college football is pretty clearly the #2 that Frank talks about in the article unless you count the Olympics. You and Frank happen to follow a school that actually cares about basketball outside the Tournament.
LikeLike
Chas,
I was thinking along the same lines. There is more more inventory in basketball than football, and generally, more windows in basketball where you aren’t competing directly with other Big Ten events. While there are clearly more football viewers, the volume of basketball viewers should close the gap pretty closely. So it’s a bit fascinating that while overall viewership numbers may be pretty close this doesn’t correspond with realignment being solely football driven (aside from the academic requirements for the Big Ten).
LikeLike
College football ratings on ABC and ESPN are pretty damn good. Saturday Night Football ratings that do worse than the Stanley Cup Final are probably below average. No other non-NFL sport can boast regular season ratings that top 3.0 as regularly as college football (well, maybe NASCAR). And the biggest regular season college football games, like the SEC Championship in recent years, can approach NFL territory. Duke-Carolina struggles to match a typical afternoon football game on ABC.
The volume of people watching college basketball (or any sport) tend to be the same people over and over, especially if it’s the same team over and over.
Advertisers prefer big events where one ad can reach millions of people to many smaller events where you have to rely on repetition. That’s why the Super Bowl is such a big event for advertisers.
LikeLike
Also, as noted below, both college sports skew really old, but basketball skews older, making the gap between them wider.
LikeLike
Does anyone know if the demographic trend for CFB fandom is trending older, or if it’s just one of those things where it’s fairly consistently about the same demographic? If it’s the first then it’s concerning, but if it’s the second, then it would mainly suggest that people don’t really become fans until they graduate college, which seems reasonable and doesn’t suggest any kind of potential long-term issue.
LikeLike
College bball actually brings in more advertising dollars in total than college football. However, most of the money made in college bball is in the postseason, and that revenue is split up (well, the best performing schools get more shares, but those are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions). When it comes to the money that schools/conferences can keep themselves (the regular season TV money and ticket sales), football brings in more than basketball (in most cases) by 2-1 and 3-1 ratios, roughly.
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
Considering it’s generally perceived as Kentucky and 11 afterthoughts, the SEC does surprisingly well in basketball — though if Kentucky and Vanderbilt were taken out of the equation, the SEC might trail the Pac-12.
LikeLike
From the NCAA from last season, the top 30 by conference ranked by game average :
SEC (4) = #1 UK ~24K, #5 UTn ~19K, #18 VU ~14K, #29 UAf ~12K
BigE (4) = #2 SU ~22K, #3 UL ~22K, #11 MU ~16K, #25 GU ~13K
ACC (3) = #4 UNC ~19K, #14 MD ~15K, #19 NCST ~14K
B1G (7) = #7Wis~17K,#10IL~16,#12IU#13OSU#15MSU~15K,#17PU~14K,#24MN~13K
B12 (4) = #9 KU ~16K, #21 UTx ~14K, #26 KSU ~13K, #28 ISU 12K
PAC (1) = #20 Arizona ~14K
The other 10 SEC schools :
11K = Alabama, Missouri
10K = Florida, South Carolina
09K = TAMU
08K = Georgia
07K = LSU
06K = Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Since only 1 PAC team made the top 30, not sure the SEC would still not be well ahead of them even if UK and VU were not included. ASU = 7K, Cal = 8K, CU = 7K, OU = 8K, OSU = 5K, USC 5K, Stanford 6K, UCLA = 8K, UT = 8K, WU = 10K, WSU = 7K. Surprising to many probably is how low UCLA’s numbers are, but I brought this up in a previous thread about UCLA’s dwindling “brand” status.
LikeLike
I was referring to TV viewership, not game attendance. Using the above criteria, N.C. State would rate higher than Duke, which hasn’t been the case since the Wolfpack men played all their home games at Reynolds Coliseum.
LikeLike
“UAf” is Arkansas, I presume.
Anyway, UK is a true king and Arkansas, Tennessee, and UF are all top 20 programs. UF has a big state, and you might not think of Arkansas & Tennessee as brand names, but the revenue they bring in indicates that they have plenty of fans.
In comparison, the Pac only has 2 top 20 programs (UCLA & Arizona).
LikeLike
Does anyone know what those average viewership numbers are represent? Are those per game, and do they adjust for the number of teams in the league?
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s ratings aren’t given (I’m not sure of the significance of the Michigan game on the chart. Did it have the second most viewers of a regular season game last season? The most in September?). However, given the fast fact at the bottom of that page that college football viewers skew older, I would bet Notre Dame games on NBC get decent ratings. Older fans still remember when Notre Dame was a national championship contender. This would seem to be reflected in the Michigan game viewership. It would also go along with Frank’s analysis of the ACC ratings. Older fans also still remember when Miami and Florida State were national championship contenders.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/ratings-acc-championship-game-notre-dame-on-nbc-mls-cup/
Ratings for Notre Dame’s home games in 2011. They were lowest since Notre Dame signed its first deal with NBC back in 1999, and have dropped sharply over the past two years.
LikeLike
I meant 1991, not ’99
LikeLike
For those who think UT and OU should be in separate divisions if the Big 12 goes to 12, the ACC ccg and Alabama/LSU games should give pause. Those two rematches both drew very low ratings.
LikeLike
Which is why the “Legends” and “Leaders” divisions were such a fantabulous idea! 🙂
LikeLike
Frank, thanks for the link, but they appear to deal with averages which helps the B12 +/- 10 as they have fewer members to divide by. It will be VERY interesting to see what happens to those numbers next season as the B1G and PAC were set at 12, but the SEC and ACC are still adding, and the Big East and B12 are contracting. If we have the 2012 numbers we will see just how big the TAMU and MU numbers are on the B12 averages.
As close as the SEC was to the ACC in basketball, with only ~ 20 thousand average viewer difference, I must question if the league is not as UK centric as it is always made out to be. I really did expect the ACC and B1G to be well ahead of the other 4, and the ACC was not. It does seem to reinforce my post in your last thread about viewers watching the better basketball teams play each other. I really think a 16 team NCAA double elimination would be a viewing boost, fueled by a 64 team elimination the week before.
LikeLike
Yeah I do think that especially with the Big East basketball, using averages hurt. Since the top games are the ones that are worth the most, I think undervalues them a little.
LikeLike
Yep, this is a silly way to look at television ratings. The Big East has 18 teams some of whom don’t have a football team or much of a national following. This completely skews the average ratings. If you multiply each average by the number of televised conference games they played you’d have a reasonable estimate of the total viewership of the conference. The Big East played more games than the other conferences and would easily win total views.
Likewise, statistics for a conference aren’t really that useful. Do they release ratings for individual games? With those you could actually start to see trends and figure out the draw of each team.
LikeLike
Wouldnt it hurt the Big 12? The 2011 calendar year still included basketball juggernauts Nebraska and Colorado.
LikeLike
The slide stated that (televised) games that had one of the conference participants are included in the averages. That means that televised SEC vs. ACC football games are counted in both conference averages regardless of the home team or TV contract it is broadcast under. Games that did not get televised (and all conferences have these for basketball) did not effect the average. Therefore, the part of the value that is not shown is how many games do these conferences get on TV per season.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
You’d have to think the SEC’s football #s will up significantly with the addition of Texas A&M as football-crazed Texas will start tuning in more. And the state of Missouri is very enthused about basketball, so the SEC’s basketball #s should go up a notch as well. Expansion will likely see the SEC widening it’s lead in football and nearly catching up to the Big Ten in basketball viewership. SEC basketball has a lot of potential. As one poster above noted, only the Big Ten has better basketball attendance (the Southern SEC schools don’t care much about basketball, but the northern schools sure do). And the SEC is flush with money. If they start investing that money in basketball as well as football, look out.
LikeLike
The SEC has been investing in basketball for a while. Some fan bases aren’t going to care much, but the SEC is almost always pretty tough. They just get under-rated because of UK.
LikeLike
Should criticism of the ACC’s undervalued contract goes towards John Swofford or towards the bad timing of the contract?
LikeLike
It was just timing IMO. It was the depth of the recession and everyone was amazed at the time how good it was.
LikeLike
It was about the worst timing for a contract to come up in a long time. Besides the economic climate when it came up it also was right before expansion took off. Fox was looking to get out of the sport. NBC was owned by GE still and in limbo. The Big Ten Network was still struggling to get on in the footprint. I believe that was also the time frame ESPN was putting together or renewing the MNF package.
LikeLike
Nobody forced Swofford to sign a 12 year contract that was horrible.
Also, it sounds like he is going to add 3 years to that horrible contract.
But his son is an exec for Raycom which got a piece of that horrible contract.
Yes, Swofford deserves criticism, even though he did have bad timing, he just did a bad job. Got worked actually.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
The Big 12 will be 5th by this time next year, and the SEC will pull farther ahead. This data set includes A&M and Mizzou, two of the four biggest draws for TV eyeballs in the conference, who won’t be there next year.
LikeLike
A&M and Missouri have big populations and are 3rd and 4th in fan attendance, but they aren’t necessarily the biggest TV draws. Missouri for football is hampered by having 2 NFL teams. There’s a reason the bowls frequently pass up Missouri. A&M is hampered by not having many good seasons the last 10 years as well as the NFL issue.
Colorado was the same as those two and when they talked to the TV people, they figured out that CU added less than average value. Coloradans want to go outside or watch the Broncos much more than the Buffalos. And Colorado had 4 or 5 bad seasons.
I suspect the Big 12 doesn’t change much.
LikeLike
So who in the B12 other than OU and Texas are bigger draws than A&M? A&M TV draws are closer to those two than the other members of the B12. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. I suspect the B12 changes greatly and for the worse without A&M and Mizzou.
LikeLike
Also, A&M and Missouri add more value to the SEC than to the Big 12. The Big 12 still has Texas and Kansas City.
LikeLike
If you are talking basketball maybe, but I bet the Big 12 beats the PAC-12 in football next year. They lose some interest, but the new configuration is also going to draw some more interest at least short term.
LikeLike
Since the exhibit is average viewers per game, I don’t see why the SEC would pull further ahead with A&M and Mizzou on board. I’d guess they’re average to a bit below-average for TV interest compared to most SEC teams.
LikeLike
TAM is not that big of a TV draw. They have only been on TV 5 times or more in a season something like 2 times in the last 20 years.
LikeLike
You got a link for that? I’m going to go out on a limb and say you made it up. For instance, last year A&M was on TV vs. SMU, Arkansas, OSU, Tech, OU, ISU, Missou, KSU, and Texas. So you actually believe A&M only played on TV 5 times in a season ONCE in the other 19 years? Seriously, you posted that and expect people to think you are speaking factually?
A&M brings huge sections of Houston and Dallas to any market along with all the mid-markets in Texas. A&M pulls stong TV numbers and has since the early 80s as the school expanded. Some of the comments on here can only make you lol.
LikeLike
I think it needs to be pointed out how much better the Big East football numbers look than expected. For a conference that has had no team in the BCS Championship discussion since WVU in 2007 (and a lack of marquee teams in general) they drew 80% of the viewers the Big 12 did and almost 90% of the Pac 12.
Combining that with the downside surprise in the Big East basketball viewership just reinforces what a f***ing crime it is that the conference has been destroyed by the Big East management’s overemphasis on basketball.
LikeLike
I hear that complaint a lot, but I’m not sure I actually agree with it. It’s not like any decision from the conference would have prevented the ACC or Big 12 raiding. I think they did their best with the hand they were dealt. If it feels like basketball is emphasized, it’s just because when its emphasized, it stands out better compared to the competition.
LikeLike
I think the Villanova invite and refusal of the ESPN offer triggered the Pitt and SU exodus. Maybe it would have happened eventually anyway, but it definitely precipitated what happened. I also think the Notre Dame, Marquette and DePaul invites seriously limited the conference’s flexibility in football and were a mistake.
UConn, Pitt, SU, WVU, UL, UC coupled with Rutgers, USF, UCF, Houston, Memphis and Temple (or even ECU or SMU) is a great basketball conference, let alone throwing in Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Providence and Seton Hall. But with all those basketball only schools, they were limited to 8 football teams.
LikeLike
The Big East rejected the offer because they thought they could get a better one (I said it was a mistake to refuse it at the time, but I can see why they did).
The original expansion to 16 probably was a mistake in retrospect, but at the time the conference expected to be splitting into two down the road. I don’t think it would have prevented expansion to 12 in football if the schools were united themselves though.
LikeLike
I believe that Pitt was one of the ringleaders in turning down the *SPN contract. From what I understand Pitt, WVU and Rutgers were the major opponents to Villanova. I don’t remember is Syracuse was behind Nova or not. IMO, the bottom line is that the conference should have expanded sooner. Period. The end up with Memphis, and in all likelihood Temple, who they could have had for years. The western additions may not have flown before things got so crazy but the league should have been thinking WAY, WAY outside of the box all along.
I think it is very important to remember that the outlook for their next contract was considered to be very good with the conference they had together and adding Boise, among others, would have only improved that yet Pitt and Syracuse bolted. I think that had A LOT to do with Nova being pushed on them. Whether that had to do with the bball schools and the BE office or just the BE office, it appears to have been the final straw.
LikeLike
It’s ironic, but I think that being effectively dropped from the Big East was a blessing for Temple, in that it spurred the school to make good hires in Golden and Addazio, step up recruiting and build the Edberg-Olson practice facility. Now that the Owls are back, they are ready to be very competitive in that league .. and would even if it included Pitt and SU.
LikeLike
I am not sure I agree with that. I think that Syracuse and Pittsburgh might have been willing to stay if the league had expanded beyond just tcu prior to their defections. The inaction, the back-and-forth indecisiveness by Villanova about whether to upgrade football lasted for nine months after TCU’s invitation in November of 2010 before Syracuse and Pitt bailed on the league. Contrast that with all five other leagues, who expanded carefully deliberately even when they were required to do so at a faster timetable than they had planned on. The Big East acted as though it had all the time in the world.
If the league had been more decisive (and, yes, perhaps if it was not so beholden by the demands of the schools who don’t play BE football), then Pitt and Syracuse might have remained in the league. After all, one was a founding member who had all but declined an ACC invitation back in 2003, and the other had been in the league since three years after its founding. The Big East, thanks to the favorable market for live sports, was due for a TV contract that could have matched the ACC’s. With the additions of Navy, UCF, and Houston, Pitt and Syracuse would have known the league’s identity going forward and its motivation to leave might have disappeared. Granted, TCU would have left no matter what, but losing TCU (whom the league never really had) doesn’t mean WVU would have left. The Big East could have simply added one more team among the many it has added and been all set at 12.
So, yes, I do think that there’s a lot of remorse in the conference office that it was held back by the need to please its basketball members (by waiting and waiting and waiting. Villqnova)
LikeLike
What I heared was during the expansion Pitt wanted to add UCF and Cuse wanted to add Houston but either would have been happy enough with either of those teams. USF though wanted to block UCF so came up with the Nova idea. The Basketball schools went along with this and schools like Pitt, WVU, Cuse and UConn where like what why would you do this and started to look for an exist path. The ACC gave Pitt and Cuse the out they needed and the weekend to decide so they jumped.
USF because of the power play to block UCF ended up with UCF anyways but at the cost of Pitt, Cuse and WVU and UConn the second they can get out.
LikeLike
Jim that’s very plausible. It’s dysfunction, and an inability for schools to unite behind the good ideas of a strong commissioner the way the Pac-12 did with Scott, that has been as much the source of the league’s downfall as anything else.
Speaking of which, the Pac-12’s results with expansion and, more significantly, with creating great TV contracts and league-owned networks provide a great comparison for the Big East. Both had lower ratings than their fellow power conferences. Both had factions (academic elites like Cal, Stanford, and UCLA who associate with WSU, ORSU, ASU with reluctance; USC and UCLA who wanted unequal revenue sharing; old Northwest schools vs. newer Arizona schools and mountain schools) but the Pac-12 came out with decent expansion results (no losses of schools) and fantastic financial results. The divisiveness within the Big East is even more pronounced than the Pac-12 or Big 12, but strong leadership and a willingness to work together could have prevented efections and resulted in a great TV future. Hbeing, at best, the fourth most popular league to watch, then the Big East could have gotten a deal about as good as the ACC or Big 12’s. Now, even the most shrewd negotiator or the best consensus-builder couldn’t overcome the loss ofvits best programs. It will always be sixth best in every regard.
LikeLike
I’m just not sure I buy that the basketball members have done anything to hold anyone back. If we ever heard of the football schools being united on inviting someone I could be convinced, but it sounds more to me like the basketball schools caved every time there was a conflict.
With expansion, we saw the same thing all of the place, teams in less prestigious leagues left for the more prestigious ones. Colorado joined the PAC-10 even though it was then making less money than the Big 12 and had revenue sharing even more inequitable. Not one of the Alliance members flinched when offered into the Big East. I just don’t see any circumstance where the ACC wouldn’t have been able to take Big East teams at will even if it did mean they think they’ll be stuck in lower contract for while.
LikeLike
Air Force passed on the Big East.
LikeLike
The Big East should have gone for TCU, Boise State, and San Diego State. And then UCF.
Now you’ve got quadrants:
UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers
WVU, Pitt, Cincy
Louisville, USF, UCF
TCU, Boise St., San Diego State.
Instead, they went TCU and sat on their hands.
LikeLike
IMO a huge part of their TV numbers is the fact that they’ve basically owned Thursday/Friday, since no other AQ league wanted to play on those time slots. Now that this is changing, I suspect that their numbers will take a meaningful hit.
LikeLike
The Big East has not been a major factor on ESPN’s Thursday night games for 3 years, once the BE example showed the other conferences the value of having the stage to yourself.
The Big East is on Friday a lot, but that is a bad night for ratings, especially when you are showing football on the night a lot of high school football games are being played. In addition, there were several occurrences this year where ESPN had Big East Friday night games on ESPN and ESPN2 at the same time, dividing the viewership.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s an apples-to-apples comparison, though. The cruddy BE games aren’t shown (or rather, they’re shown on “the Big East Network” produced by ESPNU and shown on various local/independent channels). That’s also true with the Pac, but not true for the B12, I believe.
LikeLike
There is a B12 Network (for basketball) syndicated by ESPNU. As noted by someone above, the third tier games (BTN, BE, B12, etc. networks) were not included in the averages.
LikeLike
This tells me that the Big East’s football schools might be more of a draw than most imagine. Again, a terrible product overall, yet they ARE the home school for large population bases. That’s the bare bones truth.
Marinatto mocked Rutgers/Minnesota as being a lousy draw for TV last year. The truth is Rutgers/Minny would draw better than Rutgers vs. 80% of the Big East…and Rutgers/OSU and Rutgers/PSU and Rutgers/Michigan and Rutgers/Nebraska would draw TONS more interest in NYC and nationally than any Rutgers/BigEast competition.
Stay tuned as the Big East is further dilluted…
LikeLike
How much are the average football viewership totals influenced by the audience? Meaning, the SEC has a national audience with CBS while the Big Ten is subjected to regional broadcasts through ABC/ESPN.
Also, the value of the TV markets/deals is heavily influenced by demographics which may include significant income differences between fan bases. ie. It’s fairly well documented that the income levels in the North are marginally higher than in the South. Same for the coasts vs. the Midwest.
LikeLike
Big Ten and the other leagues still have their games broadcast nationally. Basically, they’re on ABC regionally and on ESPN or ESPN2 everywhere else.
Having one game a week on a traditional, over-the-air network nationally certainly helps, but it’s not that big of a deal. It’s still just one game out of many others (depending on how many teams have byes or non-conference games in a given week) for that conference, and the SEC also many other games on ESPN, just like the Big Ten. In other words, the SEC’s ratings are an accurate reflection of how popular it is, not just at the regional level but at the national level.
LikeLike
I’d like to know the details on the CBS versus ABC/*SPN numbers. I think the CBS games have become an event. It is special because they have no competition within CBS. It is ALL SEC ALL THE TIME on CBS. *SPN does their alot of pimping for their SEC games but it is not the same and is at odds with their coverage of the other conferences. I don’t see the B1G catching up unless they move to Fox or possibly NBC, the ND games are an issue though, with the upcoming contract.
LikeLike
Man. I need to slow down and clean up what I’ve wrote before posting.
LikeLike
The SEC ratings this year are a little bit higher then their baseline average because of the huge ratings of the LSU/Bama regular season game. They also have an advantage over the Big Ten because they play prime time games all year long while the biggest gun in the Big Ten has played 1 prime time home game in its history. The SEC is the most popular and the Big Ten is not that far behind. The better demo for the Big Ten makes them much more valuable TV though.
LikeLike
@ Jim I agree with your comments and I would also add that I think that typical viewership between the Big Ten and SEC is pretty comparable in most years. If you adjust the numbers for the over the air CBS broadcast advantage (CBS is the nations most watched network) and factor in how most of the top programs in the Big Ten have been down recently I think you’ll get a comparable number. If Penn State, Mich, OSU and Nebraska/WI are firing on all cylinders like the SEC currently is it’s a different story. Not saying the Big Ten would be better just saying they would be comparable.
Everyone remembers the Michigan vs. OSU game in 2006 is still one of the all time most viewed regular season games in CFB. I think it edged out this years 1 vs. 2 matchup with LSU and Alabama.
LikeLike
@Kevin – This isn’t broken out, but the calculations consist of Nielsen-rated channels. That group would include the over-the-air networks, ESPN, ESPN2, FX and NBC Sports Net. It would NOT include regional sports networks (such as the Fox Sports Net affiliates) or the Big Ten Network.
So, I would look at these numbers as measuring the viewership of each conference for its Tier 1/high Tier 2 games on the national networks. Tier 3 games wouldn’t be included, so the Big Ten isn’t having many (if any) Indiana football games or Penn State basketball games in these numbers. (To address a separate duffman point, that means that the Big Ten basketball average isn’t going to get dragged down by Nebraska this year on this metric, but its football average likely saw a bump from the Huskers.
As a result, these figures are about as good as you can find publicly in terms of measuring how the top-level national TV contracts ought to be valued.
LikeLike
@Kevin – On your note about demographics, what I’ve seen previously is that the differences in income in terms of college football viewers from region-to-region aren’t that material (so the ACC and Big East aren’t going to be getting demo premiums, if that’s what you’re getting at). The demo argument matters more when comparing sports. Generally speaking, college football viewers nationwide have higher incomes and education levels than any of the pro sports leagues (which makes sense since you’re more likely to follow college sports if you actually went to college). Golf gets the largest premium because it (not surprisingly) has the highest income demo, while NASCAR’s large on-paper viewership gets discounted because it has a lower income demo.
More important than income is that the age 18-49 demo is critical to advertisers and, as a subgroup, the 18-34 year-old male demo is the most valuable of all. Those metrics favor the NFL and NBA the most.
LikeLike
Frank – exactly. While the South may have a lower per capita income than other regions of the country, Southerners drink just as much beer and probably buy more pick up trucks.
I would think that Bud, MillerCoors, Chevy and Ford aren’t displeased with their ad buys in the South.
LikeLike
Interesting data. Some comments:
NHL has got to be concerned long retired players blow away any current players in popularity.
Hope Solo got a good bump from Dancing with the Stars. Good marketing move by her agent.
College Football has to be concerened 71% of viewers are over 35. That’s not prime advertising age. I think Frank had found even more concerning numbers for college basketball a while back.
SEC, ACC, Big 12 are about the same in average viewership in bb per # of teams. A similar dynamic plays out in football. The larger conferences need to be able to parlay the extra content into well rated extra games or that rating advantage dissapates.
LikeLike
This is a very underrated point (the one about the age of college football viewers).
For all we talk about the popularity of college football, the fact of the matter is that it hasn’t translated anywhere near as well as the NFL.
College football has become a much more niche kind of sport relatively, and it’s hard to see how they reverse that easily.
In some states, people will grow up rooting for college teams as a result of their family’s rooting interests, but there’s going to be a lot more people every year going to colleges that are not D-1 football schools. Those people may not really keep their interest or gain an interest in college football at later points in life.
The best example is of how schools like USC, Texas, Ohio State, Florida will continue to grow their popularity but at the same time reach smaller % of their states’ college graduates. Of course those schools will never have anything to worry about, but schools like Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Georgia Tech, have got to be concerned about how they can maintain and grow their fanbases without being football powers. It’s only going to get harder to get butts in seats (and TV viewers) for those schools’ football programs unless they perform at a much higher level than in the past.
LikeLike
Well, I daresay that most football stadiums are filled by alums (outside of maybe the SEC and some B10 schools). TV viewership might be a concern, but it’s not facing the demographic problems MLB and college bball are facing (yet, anyway).
LikeLike
Another curious bit of data to me: Bowl Game Advertising dropped by half from 09-10 to 10-11, while the prior trends for bowl games was for steady 10% growth. Meanwhile, regular season advertising had actually decreased minimally (~1%) over the prior three years, but then suddenly jumped up by about 5%.
Perhaps the recent ruling to eliminate bowl eligibility for 6-6 teams, and consequently eliminate some bowl games, is an attempt to eliminate over-saturation of the product, and give a kick start to Bowl Advertising Revenue?
LikeLike
One very key thing to note about the new Pac-12 TV deal is that a LOT of the games are going to be at non-standard starting times, most notably Thursday and Friday nights. The current Nielsen data is almost entirely for games at fairly normal Saturday start times, when they’re going up against major BIG, SEC and Big 12 games. When they’re instead going up against the WAC/Big East (the current leagues who do Thursday/Friday), the ratings are likely to go WAY up. When people look just at the $$$ figure for the TV deal, they neglect to account for the sacrifices needed to make that happen. Similarly, when people bitch about weekday games, they neglect to realize that this sacrifice is a major reason why there’s so much TV money to go around.
On the same note, now that the Big East’s Thursday/Friday spots are getting poached (not to mention that their marquee team, West Virginia, is leaving), I’d expect their TV numbers to go way down. Instead of being the only game in town (or competing against the WAC, which is generally way down on the list of viewer interest) they’ll now be competing against a higher-prestige league. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them moving to MAC territory, Monday through Wednesday games, to try and rekindle viewer interest in their games.
LikeLike
You are way behind the times on the idea that the Big East owned a Thursday night spot. Other conferences took those spots after they saw the upside of being the only game on.
For example, the Big East was only part of 4 of the 14 Thursday night ESPN games in 2010, and only 2 of the 14 in 2011.
LikeLike
And while WVU is leaving, Boise will be joining next year and they seem to get pretty good ratings. Even if it will be odd for them to play more eastern schools games in the Philly market (if Temple is added) and NY via Rutgers could be interesting. Rutgers itself could really benefit from the changes. They had an extraordinary year in ’06 (? I think it was ’06, sheesh, a long time ago now) and put up some great ratings. The competition will be down overall but if they are winning will the bandwagon fans notice?
LikeLike
That’s really all us Rutgers fans have to go on right now. Most of us are in the 5th stage of grief when it comes to conference reshuffling, the one positive we have is despite his recruiting prowess Schiano was not a good game day coach and had one or several WTF losses every year. There is still a lot of talent in the program so a new coaching staff might be able to do more with it.
RU really has a two year window to win the Big East while that is still meaningful in terms of bowl selection and establish that they can be a solid program regardless of the coach.
Finally having some basketball success after a two decade downturn wouldn’t hurt either. That is one area the new Big East should help because RU will be losing 3-5 conference games against Syr/Pitt/WVU and replacing them with games that shouldn’t be as tough.
LikeLike
I hope the next couple of years go well and if the B1G looks into expansion again RU is included. I hope things go well except when we play and compete for recruits of course. 🙂
The players must think alot of Flood since there has not been any transfers, that I know of, since Schiano left and since he held on to all the recruits. Very good class. Here’s hoping that Flood is a better game day coach.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms – One thing that will be important next season: the NFL is going to be showing Thursday night games all year for the first time, so ESPN’s college football games on that evening are going to face a lot more competition. This is going to impact the desirability (or undesirability) of those Thursday night slots significantly because the large potential sports fan audience that was available previously is going to be split up.
LikeLike
I think it will drive the Big 5 from TH nights eventually. I don’t see ESPN paying a lot to challenge the NFL. That announcement could have a noticeable impact on the Big East and CUSA/MWC contracts.
LikeLike
No one watches CUSA/MWC anyway (which is why their TV contracts are so bad).
As for the BE, I think that depends on how many suitors there are. If NBC/Comcast still want to get a college football property (and ESPN & Fox still want to deny them), the BE will get paid.
We could see the BE try to “own” a weeknight slots as well (“Wednesday Night Big East Football on Versus Presented by Doritos”). Have 2 league games on weeknights (W & Th?) a week, and scheduling actually gets easier.
LikeLike
Tuesdays and Wednesdays are difficult. The MAC virtually moved to T & W late in the year. You have to be off the weekend before and weekend after. With TH you can do a short week without a bye week.
LikeLike
Right, which is why I suggested 2 weeknight games a week. Then, over a 3 week period, 4 teams can play a roundrobin on weeknights while the other 8 play each other. I think you can switch this around to do this for (maybe) 2 more 3-week blocks.
LikeLike
I would presume that CFB games on Thursday nights would try to overlap w/ the NFL as little as possible. If the NFL kicks off on 8PM EST then any Eastern leagues would kick off at 5-6PM and any Western leagues would kick off around 10 PM. You still get some hit from the NFL competition for the three or so hour period but enough of your game is in a non-overlapping slot that you still get viewership. If anything, you might get more since people are already set up to watch football, and “hey we get to watch more football after(or before) the NFL” could be a winning strategy.
LikeLike
Matthew,
A school would have to cancel afternoon classes to have a 5 pm kickoff on a weekday. I don’t see that as a likely choice.
LikeLike
Combined viewership –
1. SEC – 4,447,000 + 1,222,000 = 5,669,000
2. Big Ten – 3,267,000 + 1,496,000 = 4,763,000
3. ACC – 2,650,000 + 1,247,000 = 3,897,000
4. Big 12 – 2,347,000 + 1,069,000 = 3,416,000
5. Big East – 1,884,000 + 1,049,000 = 2,933,000
6. PAC 12 – 2,108,000 + 783,000 = 2,891,000
LikeLike
Bball has roughly twice as many league games.
LikeLike
B1G Baseball Update
Above .500 for the weekend: Nebraska (4-0), Michigan (3-1), Michigan St. (3-1), Purdue (2-1), Minnesota (2-2), and Illinois (2-2).
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/02/sec_will_discuss_switching_to.html
Interesting discussions with 7 of the SEC ADs regarding their scheduling issues. They mostly want to keep 8 games, keep cross-division rivalries and play everyone in the other division frequently, which are conflicting goals. Tennessee seems more flexible than most. I think they are finding out its tough to consistently fill a 100k+ stadium.
Last comment is interesting. TV wants more conference games the 1st two and last two weeks of the season. Does that mean some of the in-state ooc rivalries get moved to mid-season?
LikeLike
I don’t know if that is necessary. Maybe I’m not remembering right, but it seemed to me like there were a lot of non-conference/off weeks the last two weeks in the SEC for some reason. I think Georgia or South Carolina had their last SEC game 3 weeks before the CCG.
LikeLike
Yeah, the problem isn’t the last week of the season, it’s the 2nd to last week. It’s good for the SEC’s TV package that they spread out the ‘buy’ games throughout the season, but recently too many schools have moved their ‘buy’ game to the week before the rivalry game. Combined with unimpressive conference match-ups, it leads to probably the worst weekend of games for the SEC.
Here was last year:
MSU@Arkie
LSU@Ole Miss
Kentucky@Georgia
Vandy@TN
Samford@Auburn
Georgia Southern@Bama
Furman @Florida
Citadel@SC
You can see why ESPN and CBS haven’t been thrilled with this schedule.
The SEC could have improved the situation by forcing Auburn and Bama to play SEC West games, while still allowing Florida and SC get their ‘easy’ game the week before playing their ACC foes.
The 2 newcomers don’t look like they will improve the situation next year, as A&M scheduled Sam Houston State that weekend. Missouri still has that spot open and is looking for a home game; maybe they’ll be able to get a MAC team to visit if Temple moves to the Big East, leaving a gap in the MAC schedule.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
One thing I just noticed in the Nielsen presentation: bowl ad revenue compared to regular season ad revenue is WAY down. Regular season ad spend went up a bit, and bowl ad spend is down OVER 50% from last year! This may have a lot to do with the exploration of a playoff and the idea of cutting off some bowl games…
LikeLike
The bowl ad revenue dropoff is probably impacted by the move of BCS games from ABC to ESPN.
LikeLike
Good data but averages are completely irrelevant when it comes to TV contracts for college football and basketball. That’s why networks pay a premium for Tier I and Tier II rights. The are not paying to televise every single game, just the premier ones they will get ratings for. It does not surprise me that the Big east gets low averages overall for basketball with 16 teams. ESPN is not paying to televise Depaul- South Florida, but they know that with a weekly package they can televise Syracuse, Uconn, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Louisville in some combination almost every week. Same with SEC football, ESPN did not pay all that money to tellvise Ole Miss-Vandy.
LikeLike
Your ACC/undervalued argument has a weakness in that the breadth of televised ACC games is significantly lower than conferences like the Big Ten, SEC, and maybe Big XII (I dunno about the last part). So the ACC games shown on TV would be relatively better quality than these other conferences, artificially increasing the average viewership numbers. If the ACC had the same breadth as the SEC, I guarantee those average numbers decrease. And to be frank, you are only looking at one data point in a time series process, which means that ultimately it is relatively impossible to infer anything intelligently. You need to much more data that this.
I think that ACC does about as well as it can regarding TV $$$. If anything, it iss the SEC that appears to be undervalued more than all the other conferences.
LikeLike
On a slightly different tack, here’s Stewart Mandel on CNNSI arguing why a four-team playoff with conference champions only isn’t a good idea:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/28/conference-champion-playoff-requirement/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
As he points out, if this were the setup last year, then the semi-fina games would have been #10 Wisconsin (11-2) at #1 LSU (13-0) and #5 Oregon (11-2) at #3 Oregon State (11-1). That would have left Alabama (11-1) and Stanford (11-1) out of the mix because they didn’t win their divisions or their conference championship games. Other teams ranked ahead of Wisconsin in the final BCS poll were Arkansas (10-2 with losses to Alabama and LSU), Boise State (11-1 with a one-point loss to TCU), South Carolina (10-2 with losses to Auburn and Arkansas) and Kansas State (10-2 with losses to Oklahoma by 41 points and Oklahoma State by seven points) . These teams were listed #6 thru #9 in the BCS poll). Wisconsin’s two losses were to Michigan State and Ohio State.
Mandel also adds that if the tenth best team in the nation was in the playoff, it’d put increasing pressure on college football to go to an eight- or even sixteen-team playoff.
LikeLike
The #10 team making it in a huge fluke. It’s very rare not to have 4 champs/independents before that.
I personally don’t think leaving out any of those teams would have been a big deal, but I could see how some would use as it a call to expand.
LikeLike
Here’s a reason it is unlikely to happen (even though many of these teams have moved, the conferences remain):
2010 TCU MWC champ would be in
2009 TCU MWC champ and Cincinnati BE champ would be in
2008 Utah MWC champ would be in
2006 #6 Louisville BE champ would be in
2005 #6 ND or #7 UGA (depending on how indies were treated) would be in
2004 #6 Utah MWC champ would be in
I don’t think the Big 5 are going to want to make it easier for the other conferences to get in, especially #6 rated teams. I know the SEC and Big 12 won’t like this idea. The Pac likes it because they often fall outside the top 4 and would benefit. Fresno or ECU or Rice could be the team who goes unbeaten in the MWC/CUSA conference and ends up ahead of the B1G or ACC or Pac champ.
LikeLike
bullet:
You make an excellent point about how all the teams you listed are or likely will be in the larger conferences. With college football consolidating the better football teams into five conferences–ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and SEC–the chance a team from the Big East or Mountain West/Conference USA being rated one of the top four in the country isn’t very strong (I’m going to discount the MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt from this conversation for obvious reasons).
When I look at the ranks of the Big East and the Mountain West/C-USA, the only teams in those three conferences that have won a BCS bowl is Boise State. Connecticut has also gone to a BCS bowl and lost heavily to Oklahoma, so I really wouldn’t consider them a likely candidate program to get into a playoff (and the year UConn went to the Fiesta Bowl, they wouldn’t have been on of the top four conference winners). Hawaii, who will soon join the Mountain West, also made a BCS bowl, but lost to Georgia 41-10. UH, however, was #12 in the BCS in 2007 and they would have been behind Ohio State, LSU, Virginia Tech and UGa that year in the rankings.
That’s not to say that some team could go undefeated in those three conferences and make a four-team playoff, but given their current membership, it’s not a strong possibility and I don’t think it necessarily disqualifies discussion about having conference champions only.
We’ll see what happens. I have no doubt TPTB are seeing the same results we are regarding the circumstances of adopting a four-team playoff with conference champions only. They’re also going to have to figure out what they’re going to do with Notre Dame and Brigham Young if those two teams go undefeated and/or are rated in the top four of the ranking system being used. There are, of course, the highly rated teams like Alabama and Stanford that didn’t win their conferences last year–something else to consider as well.
They seem to be committed to only four teams, so I suspect we’ll see some combination with the top three conference winners plus one at large team (unless the top four teams are all conference winners). That allows ND and BYU an opportunity to get into the playoff, plus it allows CFB some flexibility in picking at least one of the four teams in the playoff. It may not be ideal, but it’s about as far as TPTB seem willing to go at this point.
LikeLike
Below is a summary of how many teams each conference would have placed in a four team playoff over the past 14 years. First number is the amount of teams based on top 4 BCS ranking and second number is the amount of teams based on 4 highest rated conference champions.
B12 – 14 / 9
SEC- 14 / 11
P12 – 9 / 11
B10 – 8 / 9
BE – 5 / 6
ACC – 4 / 5
MWC – 2 / 4
IND – 0 / 1
Every conference except the Big XII and SEC stand to gain by limiting the playoff to conference champions.
Also, as cutter mentioned, only the five major conferences plus the Big East, MWC-CUSA and independents would have a legitimate chance at making the playoff. For a MWC-CUSA team to make it, they would have to run the table and hope only 3 of the 5 major conferences had strong seasons. The only controversy involves picking the best 4 out of 8. Even if there is controversy over the 5th best team being left out, it seems much less likely that it expands to include pretty much everyone.
On the other hand, seeding based on highest ranking will immediately be pressured to increase to 8. Most don’t want to even begin at 4. And when you get to 8, the outcomes of regular season games lose importance. You’ll have situations where both teams playing in conference title games can lose and still make the playoff.
LikeLike
Question for everyone to ponder: if there’s a conference champ requirement, then is there really that much difference between a seeded plus-one and and unseeded plus-one at that point?
This past year, a conference champ requirement would have let in #10 Wisconsin over #2 Alabama. We may argue whether Alabama should have gotten into the national title game over Oklahoma State, but I have a very hard time justifying in my mind leaving out Bama in favor of Wisconsin in a 4-team playoff (and I’m a Big Ten guy). It would be one thing if all conferences were of the same size and had a conference championship game, but they’re not.
To me, the value of the seeded plus-one is that you can get the 4 best teams and have them play elimination games. If you bring in teams outside of the top 4 because of conference distinctions, then you might as well go to an unseeded system since the rankings don’t really matter if a #2 team can get left out in favor of a #10 team. The argument that conference champs “earn it on the field” belies the fact that some type of ranking system or selection process off-the-field is going to have to be used to determine which 4 teams go to a playoff, anyway.
The existence of independents muddy things even further. If Notre Dame ended up at #5 last year, should it have ended up in a playoff over #2 Alabama or, in an even better hypothetical, a #4 Stanford team that the Irish actually lost to just because it was an independent? On the flip side, can you shut a #2 ranked ND out of a playoff just because they’re not a member of a conference? Neither option seems equitable no matter what you may think of ND.
IMHO, a seeded playoff should have the 4 best teams no matter where they’re from. If all 4 happen to be from the SEC in a given year, then so be it. If a #10 team can get into a 4-team playoff over a #2 team, then I’d rather have the traditional Rose Bowl and other bowls and re-rank everyone after they’re played, instead.
LikeLike
I would have limits on the number of teams from a conference (2 for a 4 team, 3 for an 8 team) for several reasons:
1) You don’t really know until you play the games how strong someone is. There is limited ooc play. Even in basketball it becomes clear some years that a particular conference was underrated or overrated when the NCAA tourney starts.
2) How many teams should a conference champ have to beat out again? Its not fair to them.
3) The idea is not to simply have a tournament, but to pick the best team. If there are 3 teams in a conference ahead of you, can you really lay any type of claim to being the best? With 2, they may not have played, they may have actually beaten the team ahead but lost to other teams, it may be a 3 way tie and lost on tiebreaks, they may have had a bad day or injured player or it may have been on the road. It may be a weak claim when they win in the playoffs, but if you are 4th, there is no doubt.
4) To have legitiimacy, there needs to be some diversity of participation.
I think points 1,2 and 4 were all violated with the Alabama/LSU rematch.
LikeLike
I really dislike the BCS as it is now done. However, I prefer that to an unseeded +1. That exaggerates all that is wrong with the current system. Pairings are very different. One team may have a much tougher opponent. The two top teams may meet in a bowl. And most of all, one game gets extremely over-valued in determining how good a team is. That’s true whether you are limiting it to conference champions or not. In fact, unseeded +1 is probably even worse with conference champs only because only B1G and Pac champs would be likely to play a conference champ.
The only way they could screw up the current system more than doing an unseeded +1 would be going back to the pre-BCS system.
LikeLike
Frank,
The problem isn’t with conference champs, who DO belong, it is limiting the playoff to 4 teams. There should be an 8 team playoff with 5 (6?) conference champs and 3 (2?) committee selections. I don’t buy that you can ever know that 4 teams from a particular conference are better than the champs from other conferences since there is such a limited sample of games between conferences. The most important rule, first, win your conference.
LikeLike
I’m a little late to this thread, but the certainty and objectiveness that a conf champ requirement brings to the table far surpasses the downside. I’m sure there are plenty of years where a pro championship conference runner up is better than the team that made it to the championship from the other conference.
LikeLike
jj
But there is not always certainty or objectiveness with the conference champ. There are tiebreaks with the prime example being the Big 12 South in 2008. The SEC and Big 12 (and possibly others) break ties based in part on BCS rankings. So you can have the same situation in determining the conference champ as in selectig the teams.
LikeLike
Frank-
With the exception of the Big XII currently at ten members, all the major conference have or will have at least a dozen members and a conference championship game to boot (and the Big XII might soon have 12 members in due course anyway). While the conferences aren’t strictly uniform across the board (including in the number of conference games they play), the vast of majority of them will have a CCG and a resume of at least twelve games to evaluate over the season.
Does a seeded Plus One really bring about that uniformity you’re looking for? Take away the national championship game and the major bowl games may have looked like this:
Rose – Wisconsin v. Oregon
Sugar – LSU v. Boise State
Orange – Clemson v. West Virginia
Fiesta – Oklahoma State v. Stanford
Cotton – Kansas State v. Alabama
Who would the other teams in consideration play? Among the top ten teams, Arkansas and South Carolina aren’t in one of these larger bowls (and were rated higher than Wisconsin), but would their games (which might have been the Outback and Citrus Bowls against Michigan and Michigan State) have also counted as part of the play in to the national championship game or not?
Finally, would the five (or seven) bowl games above really have helped sort out the top four teams? West Virginia destroyed Clemson in the Orange Bowl, but would that have been enough to advance them to a playoff? If Wisconsin did win their game and Arkansas (which was ranked higher than the Badgers) also won, do they both get into the playoff or not? While a Plus One might help sort out the field (for example, Wisconsin and Stanford both lost the actual bowl games and would be definitively eliminated in those cases), would it still leave itself open to some interpretation because the bowl games weren’t all between evenly matched opponents?
I don’t think there’s a good four-team solution, although a seeded Plus One would probably be better than just using conference champions. It’s a rough approximation of an eight-team or ten-team playoff, but a bit messier because there’s no seeding (this assumes the bowls hold onto their traditional tie-ins). If you think the bowls would be happy with not having their traditional tie-ins, that’d be fine, but it just be a playoff in another name.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
Question for everyone to ponder: if there’s a conference champ requirement, then is there really that much difference between a seeded plus-one and and unseeded plus-one at that point?
You mean beyond the obvious fact that one is seeded and the other isn’t? What other differences were there even without the conference champ requirement? A seeded system still rewards the highest ranked teams by giving them the supposedly lesser opponents.
Also, why are you asking about a plus-one? Everything I’ve seen seems to indicate a playoff (separate from the traditional bowls) instead of a plus-one (NCG after the bowls).
This past year, a conference champ requirement would have let in #10 Wisconsin over #2 Alabama. We may argue whether Alabama should have gotten into the national title game over Oklahoma State, but I have a very hard time justifying in my mind leaving out Bama in favor of Wisconsin in a 4-team playoff (and I’m a Big Ten guy). It would be one thing if all conferences were of the same size and had a conference championship game, but they’re not.
As several articles have shown, WI this year would have been by far the lowest ranked team to make a champs-only playoff in the BCS era. If once every 15 years the #10 ranked team gets in I can live with it, especially knowing how inaccurate the rankings are and how few intersectional games we have to judge one conference against another.
To me, the value of the seeded plus-one is that you can get the 4 best teams and have them play elimination games.
Seeding has nothing to do with team selection. Those are two separate issues.
As for the “best” teams, that’s the whole problem. People don’t agree on what the best teams are. Does the coaches poll really tell us which are the best teams, considering the voters have a stake in the outcome and are too busy to watch everyone play? Is the Harris poll any better, as a bunch of old men with built in biases vote? How about handcuffed computer models that can’t even consider all the relevant data available? Why should I trust that top 4 to be the best?
On the other hand, conference races have a lot of games among a few teams so you get a decent sense of how good the teams are. We all know that on any given Saturday any college team can beat any other team, but you do the best you can with 8-10 games to judge a conference champ. That leaves a handful of teams to make a subjective pick of the “best” four from. One could even contend that winning your conference is part of being the best team, so any team that failed to accomplish that has eliminated themselves.
I hear all these playoff proponents talk about determining it on the field, so why doesn’t that apply to playoff eligibility too? If the complaint with the BCS is that it doesn’t pick the right 2 teams, why trust it to pick the right 4 teams?
If you bring in teams outside of the top 4 because of conference distinctions, then you might as well go to an unseeded system since the rankings don’t really matter if a #2 team can get left out in favor of a #10 team.
Really? So if I said OR should replace Stanford due to winning the P12 and head to head, suddenly the concept of seeding is out the window? You’re that confident in the BCS rankings that #4 is better than #5? Because #10 is in, suddenly pairing #1/#3 and #5/#10 is OK because #2 was eliminated by the rules? That’s silly. You are conflating two completely unrelated issues.
The argument that conference champs “earn it on the field” belies the fact that some type of ranking system or selection process off-the-field is going to have to be used to determine which 4 teams go to a playoff, anyway.
How is that any different than the argument that a playoff champ “earns it on the field?” Some ranking system was used to pick them, too. By that argument, why not stick with the BCS since you are so confident in it’s rankings?
The difference is that a conference champ has 7-10 games against conference opponents to prove their relative worth. There are only 3-5 games against the rest of the country to determine how teams compare nationally, and many of those are cupcake games that tell us nothing. By the end of the regular season, we have a a much better sense of the pecking order within a conference than we do nationally.
The existence of independents muddy things even further. If Notre Dame ended up at #5 last year, should it have ended up in a playoff over #2 Alabama or, in an even better hypothetical, a #4 Stanford team that the Irish actually lost to just because it was an independent? On the flip side, can you shut a #2 ranked ND out of a playoff just because they’re not a member of a conference? Neither option seems equitable no matter what you may think of ND.
I don’t think independents are a problem. You have professed confidence in the ranking system to pick the best teams, so eliminate non-champs and let the rankings do their job. People keep throwing up the strawman of a champs-only rule eliminating independents but we all know that isn’t true. The rule would only eliminate teams that tried and failed to win a conference championship.
IMHO, a seeded playoff should have the 4 best teams no matter where they’re from. If all 4 happen to be from the SEC in a given year, then so be it. If a #10 team can get into a 4-team playoff over a #2 team, then I’d rather have the traditional Rose Bowl and other bowls and re-rank everyone after they’re played, instead.
That’s a great sentiment, but it has two major flaws. First, nobody knows who the best teams are. You seem really confident in the BCS rankings, but I think they are horribly flawed. I’d say a better measure of best is what the teams accomplished during the season, and winning a conference is a major accomplishment. Second, nobody should agree to a playoff where biased polls can put 4 SEC teams into the system even if money is split equally.
As for preferring an unseeded plus-one to a seeded playoff, that ‘s great except the president want to move the NCG closer to 1/1. Unless the bowls move earlier, that option is gone.
LikeLike
bullet,
But there is not always certainty or objectiveness with the conference champ. There are tiebreaks with the prime example being the Big 12 South in 2008. The SEC and Big 12 (and possibly others) break ties based in part on BCS rankings. So you can have the same situation in determining the conference champ as in selectig the teams.
You keep bringing this up, but it sounds like a conference problem not a national problem. If conferences have bad tiebreakers, they should change them instead of expecting the playoff format to adapt to their bad rules. Nobody forced these conferences to use the BCS rankings.
LikeLike
@Brian
You have to have a tiebreak, whether it be BCS, points for/against, coin flip.
The point is that conference champion is not always clean.
LikeLike
And people “keep on” bringing up the conference champion as being certain and objective and clearly superior. Many (if not all) conference don’t have objective methods in the event of a 3 way tie or a tie when teams don’t play. And coin flips and computer polls are “objective” methods. Also objective is the points for and against common teams on odd weekends the NFL uses (alright its not THAT bad-but it is very arcane). The NFL method is because one year they were one game going the other way on the last weekend from having a coin flip. And I believe it nearly happened in both conferences.
People also talk about Wisconsin #10 being a fluke. Its true no other #4 champion in the BCS era was lower than #7. But its also true that this was the first year of the Pac 12 and the B1G + 1 + Nebraska. The Pac 12, ACC and Big 12 will now be on 9 game schedules. You could have Wisconsins more than once in 14 years. And maybe they shouldn’t be so low, but it clearly hurts the legitimacy. We could have multiple upsets in championship games and end up with a #1 LSU, a #3 Oklahoma St., a #10 Wisconsin and a #17 Clemson. Or worse yet, a CUSA/MWC or MAC school. Non-champs are clearly much more accomplished in many cases than conference champs of other conferences.
And I don’t think losing a ccg should be an eliminator unless all conferences have them and all conference champs get invited (making it a ccg AND 1st round of playoffs). And that’s not going to happen unless FBS restructures and eliminates a lot of schools.
LikeLike
There was one year back when the NCAA only invited conference champs and independents in basketball where USC was probably the 2nd best team in the country. They were 5th in the final regular season poll (#1,#4,#7 and #18 made the final 4). They only lost to UCLA. Yet 24 other teams got invited to the tourney. UCLA cruised to the championship. Yes, the deserving champion won. But there were a lot of less accomplished teams than USC in the tourney and USC stayed at home with a 24-2 record.
That was, coincidentally, the same year Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado finished #1,#2 and #3 in the final football polls.
LikeLike
bullet,
@Brian
You have to have a tiebreak, whether it be BCS, points for/against, coin flip.
The point is that conference champion is not always clean.
I agree you have to have tiebreakers, but some are better than others. The B12 could have used margin of victory or site of games, but they didn’t. They could have had rules that tried to eliminate the 3rd place team and then use head to head, but they didn’t.
You ignore these factors in you argument:
1. You’re talking about 1 conference race in 14 years that ended in a 3 way tie. That shouldn’t be the basis for making a playoff format.
2. There was also only one instance of 8-0 co-champs in the B10 in those years, and then the OOC games clearly showed the winner. Nobody seems likely to repeat this since everyone has a CCG or a round robin right now.
3. Once a team loses a game so a tiebreaker comes into play, they also lose the right to complain about the outcome. They had a chance to do something about it on the field and didn’t.
4. Tied teams are likely to be equivalent, but how likely are they also to be all the top teams in the country?
And people “keep on” bringing up the conference champion as being certain and objective and clearly superior.
It is certain, likely objective and to many people superior. At least it isn’t voted on by people who haven’t watched half of the teams play a game.
Many (if not all) conference don’t have objective methods in the event of a 3 way tie or a tie when teams don’t play.
I fully agree that many/most conferences have bad tiebreakers. That is an argument for better tiebreakers, not against using champs though.
And coin flips and computer polls are “objective” methods.
I’d support computer polls if they were not restricted in what data they could use and qualified math/stats experts agreed the various systems were unbiased and made sense.
People also talk about Wisconsin #10 being a fluke. Its true no other #4 champion in the BCS era was lower than #7.
Exactly. Once in 14 years is unusual, not the sort of thing you plan in happeneing.
But its also true that this was the first year of the Pac 12 and the B1G + 1 + Nebraska. The Pac 12, ACC and Big 12 will now be on 9 game schedules. You could have Wisconsins more than once in 14 years.
That is also a valid point. However, the non-AQs that have snuck into the top 10 are now in AQ conferences, so that will tend to move the 4th champs up a little.
Besides, based on #10 WI almost beating #5 OR in CA, who’s to say the rankings were anywhere near accurate? Maybe WI should have been #7 instead.
And maybe they shouldn’t be so low, but it clearly hurts the legitimacy.
That isn’t clear to me. I see winning a conference as a major accomplishment, greater than anything AL did last year until the NCG for example.
We could have multiple upsets in championship games and end up with a #1 LSU, a #3 Oklahoma St., a #10 Wisconsin and a #17 Clemson. Or worse yet, a CUSA/MWC or MAC school. Non-champs are clearly much more accomplished in many cases than conference champs of other conferences.
No, that isn’t clear at all. It depends how much a conference championship means to you. Apparently it means very little to you, while it means a lot to me. I think champs are more deserving of making the playoffs while a non-champ may be better acccording to some.
And I don’t think losing a ccg should be an eliminator unless all conferences have them and all conference champs get invited (making it a ccg AND 1st round of playoffs). And that’s not going to happen unless FBS restructures and eliminates a lot of schools.
And I think it should be an eliminator. Agree to disagree?
LikeLike
@Brian
Ohio St. definitely looked like a better team than Iowa, but they weren’t the “winner.” Both teams were perfect in conference.
You need to allow for reasonable circumstances (and 2 in 14 years is reasonable). The BCS formula put Nebraska in for 2001 because they overweighted schedule strength and # of losses and didn’t consider that someone might lose 1 game really badly, fall in the polls and yet still end up #2.
You also need to allow for conference changes. They are happening at a dizzying pace. Assuming the current structure will hold for 2 years, let alone 8 is a precarious assumption. We could conceivably find ourselves with 3 conferences far ahead of the rest in a few years. And in that case, the top 3 teams could easily be in one conference. As it is, I think the number of strong teams in the SEC in recent years is because of competition. Not only does the weekly competition make teams better, but the top coaches push each other to be their best. That encourages “clumping” of the top teams. Ohio State had a comparatively easy ride in the Big 10 over the past decade. Had Michigan and Penn St. not been in (by their standards) slumps, all three might have been better than if only one was very good.
Computer polls often don’t make sense in football where you only have 12 or so games, even without the handicaps the BCS puts on them. IMO the AP and coaches polls, as flawed as they are, usually make more sense.
I can agree with you on ccgs being eliminators in certain circumstances. I just think there need to be consistent circumstances for the contending teams in order to be fair. That’s one of the problems I have with an unseeded +1 where teams are put in different bowls against what could be very different levels of competition who may have very different levels of motivation.
LikeLike
As far as conference champs, I do value that. I just don’t agree with the extreme end of the spectrum that conference championships are all that should matter. Especially since the champs haven’t always done more than a team that was not a champ. In some cases they beat them out by tiebreaker.
And you could have a scenario where a team like LSU this year played a great schedule but lost a ccg and almost every other team had two losses (see 2007 where Ohio St. was the only 1 loss team). I don’t think ignoring the rest of the season gives you the best group. I can’t imagine an 8 team playoff this past year without LSU in that scenario (again unless everyone was playing ccgs and essentially all the conferences were included).
LikeLike
bullet,
@Brian
Ohio St. definitely looked like a better team than Iowa, but they weren’t the “winner.” Both teams were perfect in conference.
Yes, but OSU was 5-0 OOC and IA was 3-1, and OSU played a tougher OOC schedule. That’s an easy choice, which was my point.
You need to allow for reasonable circumstances (and 2 in 14 years is reasonable). The BCS formula put Nebraska in for 2001 because they overweighted schedule strength and # of losses and didn’t consider that someone might lose 1 game really badly, fall in the polls and yet still end up #2.
That’s 2 of 14*6, or 2 of 84 champs (2.4%) if I ignore all the non-AQs. And those two times, a deserving team was chosen. Nobody really debates that OSU was the right choice. You (and your fellow UT fans) may debate whether UT deserved it over OU, but it’s not like OU was undeserving. IA could have made an argument by beating ISU (I think that was their loss), but they didn’t. UT could have claimed their place by beating TT, but they didn’t. I feel no regrets if teams lose a playoff spot by losing a game.
You also need to allow for conference changes. They are happening at a dizzying pace. Assuming the current structure will hold for 2 years, let alone 8 is a precarious assumption. We could conceivably find ourselves with 3 conferences far ahead of the rest in a few years.
We could, but I doubt it. At least 4 conferences (B10, SEC, B12, P12) are making top dollar and have king programs. The ACC is just a notch below in money. Which 3 are going to move away from the rest, and how will we really know they are better?
They can always come back and eliminate the rule later if circumstances change. It’s not carved in stone. But hypothesizing a future world where only 3 conferences matter as a justification for not taking champs only seems like a stretch to me.
And in that case, the top 3 teams could easily be in one conference.
Top 3 teams in what sense? The “best” 3? The most accomplished 3? That’s the problem with your argument. AR may be great, but they lost to AL and LSU. They could argue that makes them #3, but there’s no way in hell they deserved a playoff spot. Did OU, UT and TT all deserve a spot? No, of course not. I just don’t have the sympathy for the runner-ups that you have.
As it is, I think the number of strong teams in the SEC in recent years is because of competition. Not only does the weekly competition make teams better, but the top coaches push each other to be their best. That encourages “clumping” of the top teams. Ohio State had a comparatively easy ride in the Big 10 over the past decade. Had Michigan and Penn St. not been in (by their standards) slumps, all three might have been better than if only one was very good.
Competition helps, but so do bandwagon media opinions all selling certain teams they are in business with as the best. Playing by different recruiting rules helps, too. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that UF couldn’t maintain their status when Meyer didn’t oversign and AL and LSU did like madmen.
Computer polls often don’t make sense in football where you only have 12 or so games, even without the handicaps the BCS puts on them. IMO the AP and coaches polls, as flawed as they are, usually make more sense.
Unfettered computer polls can, if properly programmed, measure who has accomplished the most without bias. Coaches can’t overcome their bias. AP votes show strong regional influences, too, just like Heisman voting. If you haven’t seen every game for every relevant team, then you can’t make an informed vote.
I can agree with you on ccgs being eliminators in certain circumstances. I just think there need to be consistent circumstances for the contending teams in order to be fair. That’s one of the problems I have with an unseeded +1 where teams are put in different bowls against what could be very different levels of competition who may have very different levels of motivation.
Right now everyone either plays a CCG or a full round robin. Either way, the best 2 teams have to face each other at some point. What more do you need?
LikeLike
bullet,
As far as conference champs, I do value that. I just don’t agree with the extreme end of the spectrum that conference championships are all that should matter. Especially since the champs haven’t always done more than a team that was not a champ. In some cases they beat them out by tiebreaker.
It’s not all that matters, it’s just a clear criterion to eliminate teams. The seeding would look at the whole season, certainly.
And you could have a scenario where a team like LSU this year played a great schedule but lost a ccg and almost every other team had two losses (see 2007 where Ohio St. was the only 1 loss team). I don’t think ignoring the rest of the season gives you the best group. I can’t imagine an 8 team playoff this past year without LSU in that scenario (again unless everyone was playing ccgs and essentially all the conferences were included).
I think taking champs only gets you the most deserving group, and that’s what matters to me. Best is completely subjective and people will never agree about it. And why worry about 8 teams this past year? I thought we were staying in the reasonable world of 4. And I would have no problem omitting AL or Stanford this past year from a 4 team playoff.
LikeLike
I think the compromise could be the 3 top rated conference champions have an auto-bid while an at-large team can get a bid if they are ranked ‘x’ spots ahead of the 4th rated conference champion. This addresses the Alabama over Wisconsin dilemma, but solidifies Oregon being taken over Stanford.
If the semi-finals are held at home field sites, an at-large selection, if it would occur is denied home field advantage.
LikeLike
“You ignore these factors in you argument:
1. You’re talking about 1 conference race in 14 years that ended in a 3 way tie. That shouldn’t be the basis for making a playoff format.”
Ehh, you haven’t been paying attention to College football.
Just in 2010, the Big 12 South ended in a 3-way tie again! In 2010, the Big Ten ended in a 3 way tie! I’m not going to start clicking through years, but I’m fairly confident the SEC West has finished in a 3 way tie more than once (though not recently). If Oklahoma would have defeated OSU last year there would have been another 3 way tie for that conference championship.
These haven’t caused a whole lot of controversy because none were competing for the BCS bowl. If anyone’s foolish enough to have a playoff system that only includes conference champions, this is going to be a fairly frequent complaint.
LikeLike
“The B12 could have used margin of victory or site of games, but they didn’t.”
I’m not of the opinion that those would be better tie-breakers.
LikeLike
Neil,
Your compromise will create even more controversy. They would need to rank the conference champs where there could be controversy between teams 3 and 4. Then rank the at-large teams and decide who was the 1st at-large. Then, they would have to judge if the 1st at-large was more deserving than the 4th conf champ. Even last year where Alabama seems like a clear choice, their body of work was very similar to Stanford’s as both teams went 11-1 and lost the most important game on their schedule.
Similar to taking the 4 highest ranked teams, I think it will quickly lead to an 8 team playoff. If the compromise is to limit a playoff to 4 teams, the best solution is to only allow conference champs.
Frank,
I agree with bullet that an unseeded plus-one would be less desirable than what we currently have. To go back to the old bowls, I think you’d need to have a 4 team playoff afterwards.
LikeLike
Neil,
Your compromise will create even more controversy. They would need to rank the conference champs where there could be controversy between teams 3 and 4. Then rank the at-large teams and decide who was the 1st at-large. Then, they would have to judge if the 1st at-large was more deserving than the 4th conf champ. Even last year where Alabama seems like a clear choice, their body of work was very similar to Stanford’s as both teams went 11-1 and lost the most important game on their schedule.
TX_Andy, there is no system that won’t involve ranking of teams. So your initial comment about more controversy makes absolutely no sense to me. As for your latter comment, there is a huge difference between comparing Alabama with Wisconsin and Stanford with Oregon.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
Just in 2010, the Big 12 South ended in a 3-way tie again! In 2010, the Big Ten ended in a 3 way tie!
There is no controversy when teams with 2 conference losses tie. Nobody cares if one of them gets left out. And the B10 can’t have co-champs anymore.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The B12 could have used margin of victory or site of games, but they didn’t.”
I’m not of the opinion that those would be better tie-breakers.
Good. That makes me think those are decent ideas, then.
If you look back at that season, where they the 3 played each other and MOV were about the only differences in their conference schedules. They beat everyone else and had equally difficult North opponents. UT won neutral site and barely lost on the road. OU lost neutral site and won big at home. TT barely won at home and lost on the road big.
Otherwise you have to go to the OOC games:
OU – I-AA, BE, P12, #23 non-AQ
UT – 3 non-AQ, SEC
TT – 2 I-AA, 2 non-AQ
They all won out, but OU played the hardest schedule. Is OOC SOS a better conference tiebreaker?
LikeLike
Oh right, as a tOSU fan, you wouldn’t have a problem with a process that rewards coaches for running up scores.
LikeLike
The issue is, to me, that if we’re going to have a playoff, a player or a coach or a fan needs to have a 100% objective do this and you are in rule. Not do this and if some dudes vote Bama or OSU or Texas or whomever ahead of you, then it’s oh well you tried buddy.
In other words, the playoff has to account for the idea that the participants are on a more or less equal footing and everyone can win.
If that means we break D-1 into 2 or 3 divisions then so be it. If that means sucking up a little less dough when K-State makes it, then that’s the way it is.
LikeLike
Richard,
Oh right, as a tOSU fan, you wouldn’t have a problem with a process that rewards coaches for running up scores.
Right, because Tressel was so famous for running up the score. Or are you referring to Fickell and Bollman running it up in those 6 wins?
As a tiebreaker for a division champ, MOV in the three team round robin doesn’t seem unreasonable as a later tiebreaker. Once you’ve exhausted other choices, saying OU was +44, UT was +4 and TT was -38 is a reasonable set of data to consider. They still have 2 choices from there – eliminate the worst team and proceed to head to head (my preference), or choose the top team. They could also say TT won at home and lost on the road, OU lost neutral and won at home, while UT lost on the road and won neutral and use that as a criterion.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football More Popular Than You Think | A.C.C. College Football
Re: Frank’s point to ponder
The question should be: Why should a non-conference champ ever get to participate in a playoff?
Let us look at Alabama specifically. The only justification for them being in the NC was that a bunch of people and computers decided that they were the #2 team. But whether they should have been ranked #2 is purely speculative. The rationale was as follows: a) Dominated the SEC (considered the superior conference), except for an OT loss to the #1 team in a game they could have/should have won. b) Beat a mediocre Penn St. team soundly on the road. That is it.
The case against Alabama: a) Had a chance to win the conference championship, with home field advantage, and failed to do so. b) Had a chance to beat the #1 team already, on its home field, and failed to do so. c) Did not have to play the best teams in the SEC East: Georgia and South Carolina. d) Played an appallingly weak OOC schedule, which is made even more appalling when you consider that the SEC only plays 8 conference games and Alabama got to avoid the two best teams in the SEC East.
Bottom-line, Alabama had no excuse for not winning its conference championship if it wanted to claim to be the best team in the country.
On the general level, why bother with conferences or conference championships, if they do not serve to eliminate teams from national championship contention? It is ridiculous.
LikeLike
redwood86,
Name me one sport which has a playoff for it’s championship, that has a requirement that the teams in the tournament have to be conference champions. I can’t think of one. Heck, do the other college football divisions even have that requirement?
LikeLike
Before they expanded their playoffs, (almost?) every sport had that rule (MLB, NFL, MBB, etc).
LikeLike
That is true, but they don’t now.
What about other college sports? Did the NCAA basketball tournament (or the NIT previously) ever have that requirement? What about the College World Series? Do the other football divisions that have playoffs have that requirement? I’m just curious because I’ve never really thought about it before (and haven’t looked it up yet).
LikeLike
NCAA bb did, until they expanded from 25 to 32, require a conference champion or independent. NIT never has. NBA never has.
So far as I know, the other divisions have never had that requirement for football. Although Division II and III had small fields in the 60s and 70s, so you pretty much had to be unbeaten to get in. And that didn’t guarantee you got in. Now its large and there are a number of wildcards. Conference champion automatic slots are limited to half the field with half reserved for wildcards (who might be conference champs from the weaker conferences).
I don’t recall baseball having a requirement for a conference championship. They don’t now.
LikeLike
“On the general level, why bother with conferences or conference championships, if they do not serve to eliminate teams from national championship contention? It is ridiculous.”
Eh? Why don’t you apply the same logic to college basketball (or baseball or hockey or volleyball, etc.)?
LikeLike
I’m not surprised by the weak Big East basketball numbers for many reasons. Basketball, other than the NCAA tournament (whose popularity is driven by gambling/office pools/brackets) simply isn’t particularly popular in the US; especially compared to football. Those that do watch college hoops, I think, are doing so mainly because they have passion for their alma mater. I don’t think there are too many college basketball fans who are team fans for reasons other than school allegiance. In other words, there aren’t too many Wal-Mart Wolverine and the like basketball fans.
Some of the Big East schools are commuter schools, which don’t engender the same kind of loyalty or passion for the school that the state schools do. I think this is probably because most of the students don’t live on campus ever and so they don’t develop that sense of community like students who live in dorms on campus for a couple of years. Take Cincinnati for example. It’s a fairly large school with over 40,000 students. But it is the quintessential commuter school. There isn’t the same level of school spirit that you find at a place like Ohio State or Wisconsin. They don’t draw well in football, which illustrates a lack of community support. My guess is OSU fans outnumber Bearcat fans in the city of Cincinnati by at least four to one. Cincy sometimes draws well for basketball, but I would argue that is only when they have a winning program. Additionally, there isn’t all that much of a winning tradition at Cincy (unlike Louisville, for example). After the championship seasons of the early 60s, the Bearcats struggled until the Bob Huggins era. They struggled to make .500 in most seasons and only made a handful of NCAA tournament appearances. That kind of mediocrity doesn’t lend itself to building a fan base that will watch games on TV in high numbers.
If you look at the basketball history of most of these schools, outside of Georgetown, Syracuse, Connecticut, and Louisville there are no long running eras of sustained excellence. Other schools have had good runs of a few years but these are not the type of long runs that build fan bases outside of alumni. Moreover, the alumni get conditioned to the up and down nature of these programs’ good fortune and therefore don’t get too animated unless their team is doing really well. And I would argue that for these schools their alumni only get excited during the NCAA tournament if their schools make deep runs.
And then you have schools like South Florida (which has no genuine sporting tradition yet), Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence who have almost no basketball traditions of excellence. These schools are insignificant when it comes to basketball viewership on TV.
DePaul has a wonderful tradition in basketball. But the program has been an afterthought for at least 20 years hasn’t been excellent since the days of Aguirre and Cummings in the early 80s. Besides, DePaul isn’t even the most popular team in its own hometown. There are probably 6 or 7 Big Ten schools after Illinois and Northwestern who have more popularity in the city than DePaul.
Marquette has good tradition but it is one of those commuter schools and it is a small school to boot. There aren’t very many alumni out there and they come from a relatively small town in a relatively small state.
Notre Dame basketball simply does not have anywhere near the tradition of the football team.
Georgetown has great tradition. But it’s a smaller school and my impression is that the students there are not too concerned with sports. And the graduates simply aren’t the kind of people who make sports on TV a very high priority. We’re talking about people in government and high-powered lawyers and the like. My guess is they don’t have too much time to watch a lot of sports and if they do they are watching Redskins football. I do think that Georgetown is one of the teams people hate and it goes back to John Thompson II. He was not too likeable when he brought the Hoyas to prominence. I loved the guy and what he stood for but I knew so many people who called him a racist and a jerk and a thug and other unpleasant words. Whether that was driven by prejudiced attitudes or not probably is a discussion for another time, but I think the strong dislike for Georgetown has carried over to contemporary times and prevents the Hoyas from being more popular outside of their core fan base in certain demographic groups.
St. John’s is a decent sized school in a huge city. If any Big East school could pull casual fans who are not alumni, it seems like SJU would be it. But I think the lack of popularity of SJU illustrates what many people have said about the New York market and the Northeast market in general. This is an area of the country that is pro sports oriented; probably more so than any other part of America. If St John’s can’t draw viewers, how can the rest of the conference do so?
Villanova suffers from the same problem as SJU. Philly just isn’t a college town.
Seton Hall and Providence are just small blips on the sporting radar screen.
None of the Big East’s private Catholic schools will ever generate big TV viewership. They just aren’t big enough or have enough graduates. And most of them are commuter schools.
Louisville is another commuter school but they have a terrific basketball tradtion that they have sustained to this day. However, they are not even the most popular team in their own state. I think this makes it hard for them to draw large numbers of TV viewers. I think the Cardinals have some casual fans outside of their home area, but basketball isn’t popular enough where this would produce enough viewers to make a big difference.
Syracuse is a great basketball power but they are in an isolated part of the country and don’t really register outside of their home area. Another example of the idea that pro sports are more important to people in the Northeast. Same thing for UCONN.
I think Pitt falls into the category of commuter school. And they’ve had good teams of late but there isn’t a great basketball tradition at the school. No final fours. No transcendent players or coaches. Send it in Jerome isn’t enough.
I think it is safe to say that the Midwest and South have lots of fans of college sports. It isn’t just about pro sports in these areas so these schools draw more casual fans. Couple that with the fact that both the Big Ten and SEC members are all huge state schools, for the most part, with lots of passionate alumni and it seems fairly clear why there is such disparity between viewing levels of these conferences and the Big East.
LikeLike
You make some good points, but I think you seriously under-rate the basketball traditions of those schools. Providence does have two final fours. I haven’t studied Cincinnati’s record year-by-year, but I seem to recall them always being a threat to win their conference from MVC to GMW to CUSA days. I’m not old enough to remember Big O as a Bearcat and their 5 straight trips to the final 4, but I still have always thought of Cincinnati as a very good basketball program. Seton Hall wouldn’t have gotten into the Big East unless they were decent. And they do have 1 final 4 which is more than most schools. St. John’s has been to the final 4 and was an NIT or NCAA regular for years back when not everyone got in the postseason. Villanova rates up there very close to Georgetown and Syracuse. Marquette has two national titles.
LikeLike
Texas A&M and Missouri have agreed to pay $12.4 million each to leave the Big 12 and join the Southeastern Conference in July.
Big 12 Interim Commissioner Chuck Neinas said Tuesday in a statement that the agreements were reached “though a collegial, respectful process among the Conference, its institutions,” and the departing schools.
Texas A&M will receive unspecified benefits from the Big 12’s new television contract with Fox Sports and “certain other concessions.”
“We appreciate the Big 12 working with us on a quick and amicable settlement,” said Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin, who indicated that the bottom-line financial impact of the withdrawal settlement for the university will be $9.31 million.
Missouri waived any claims to revenue from the TV deal, which takes effect in July, and agreed to pay the Big 12 another $500,000 to cover officiating expenses for 2011-12.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-big12buyouts
LikeLike
A&M reports $9 mil buyout
http://blog.chron.com/aggies/2012/02/aggies-big-12-differ-on-buyout-number-either-way-its-done
LikeLike
It’d be interesting to see what the calculation of the buyout per the by-laws was. Beebe said A&M would earn $20 million under the new contract. I saw this year’s distributions recently, but can’t find the link. Kansas was 1st, UT 2nd, OU 3rd. I believe A&M and Missouri were around $10 million, but don’t remember for sure.
If $20 and $10 were the figures, the calculation would be $27 million (90% of two years). I expected they would get the same discount as Nebraska, which was 50%, which would give a $13.5 million figure.
LikeLike
Found it-2009-2010 distributions. The calculation would probably be based on 2010-11 and 2011-12.
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185173/a-look-at-revenue-sharing-in-the.html
Missouri was $10.396 million
A&M $9.266
LikeLike
Wait, wasn’t it going to be $30 to $40 million? I’ve read that countless times on this blog but Longhorns and from mouthpieces for Texas like Chip Brown. A&M sources have always countered it would be more in line with Nebraska.
Exact amount will be $9.31 million per the Dallas Morning News. A&M will get $3.1M to offset the $12.4M being withheld.
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/texas-am-must-forfeit-931-million-in-rev-1.html
LikeLike
I’m kind of surprised its that low. I figured that since they announced after July 1st, the one year fewer notice, combined with the contract at stake being higher would have had pushed the figure closer to $20 million (not necessarily that high, but closer than it ended up at).
LikeLike
The new Fox contract doesn’t kick in until 7/1/12, so it may be that those higher revenue figures don’t apply. I had thought it kicked in this year.
LikeLike
This is what I have been able to piece together.
Both schools agreed to $12.4 million exit fees. Someone posted a few days ago that the “calculated” exit fee was $23.8 million, which is less than the $30-$40 million suggested before. If so, their $12.4 million would have been around 50%, similar to Nebraska. If it was based on future revenue, the figure would be around $40 million, but its almost certainly based on the last 2 years. In the 2 years ending 6/30/2010, the calculated figure was around $19 million (those years included Nebraska and Colorado). The Fox contract doesn’t start until 7/1/12, so the big jump in Big 12 revenue hasn’t happened yet. The only significant increase would be from sharing 10 ways instead of 12 for this year. So, that would make the $23.8 million seem reasonable (roughly $10 million in 2011 + CU/UNL exit fees of $15 million split 10 ways + $10 million *12/10 in 2012=$23.5 million). Someone from A&M a while back said avoiding the increase in exit fees from the Fox contract was a factor in the rush to declare by 8/31.
There is a “signing bonus” from Fox for $4 million per school. In essence, even though the Tier II contract jumping from $20-$90 million/year doesn’t go into effect until 7/1/12, they bumped it to $60 million this year with the signing bonus to be paid in July. A&M agreed to stay during the summer of 2010 based on the new Fox contract. As part of this deal, they get $2 million of the $4 million signing bonus. A&M probably claimed they were entitled to all of it, so the two sides agreed on half. Missouri got no guarantees as noone was inviting them at the time. Their late move also forced the Big 12 to chip in $5 million towards WVU’s Big East early exit fee.
So both get $12.4 million withheld but A&M gets $2 million from Fox and some other undisclosed concessions. They don’t pay a 500k officiating fee which Missouri does.
All this makes it clear basing the exit fee on revenues is very complicated. You can see why the BE and ACC have moved to flat fees.
LikeLike
The “calculated” fee is 100% of 2 years revenues if you give less than 6 months notice, 90% for 6-12 months notice (which UNL, MIssouri and A&M fell into) and 80% for more than 12 months (which Colorado was doing so they got a better deal than UNL). A&M may also have argued that 8/31 was 12 months since competition doesn’t begin in August, even though the fiscal year starts 7/1.
LikeLike
@FranktheAg
Its all in the definitions. Loftin is right and Chip Brown was right depending on how you define it.
Missouri $12.4 million + $4.0 million they would have gotten in July from Fox if they stayed + 500k referee fees =$16.9 million
A&M $12.4 million + $2.0 million forfeited from Fox=$14.4 million for a total of $31.3 million.
I’m guessing Loftin is defining it as $12.4 million -$2.0 million from Fox -500k referee fees not paid-600k undisclosed “concessions.”
I look at it as Missouri would have had $16.4 million more in their pocket in August if they stayed. A&M would have had $13.3 to $13.9 million more (depending on what those 600k concessions are).
LikeLike
Good breakdown, bullet.
LikeLike
This was still a sweet deal for A&M. Getting TV money that Fox will not pay until after they are in the SEC. keeping the exit $$$ paid to them by KS, KS St, Ia St, and Baylor to stay in the conference (apparently that was only for the year) which TX and OK refused to take. A&M probably got a better deal than Mizzou because TCU was already selected ($5M damages) before Missouri announced their exit so A&M could attribute the $20M damages for WVU exit to MO.
LikeLike
I don’t think the conference ever agreed to giving disproportionate distribution of the exit fees. That was one of the reasons Loftin was upset. I believe everyone just got their 1/10th share.
LikeLike
Duff – I correctly predicted the pain.
Good win.
LikeLike
I told you it would happen, but now I am worried about a loss to PU
Both will go dancing, even if they exit the B1G tourney early. I am just bummed Bloomington is not a host site 😦
I have this uneasy feeling the NCAA will put UK in YUM, with IU for a rematch. If it happens, hopefully the local Card fans will make it red.
You guys beat us by a similar number when we played there, so it is all good. I still have a man crush on Izzo, so it is not like I felt totally bad for losing the first game.
LikeLike
PU will be hungry no doubt.
That was the loudest I’d seen your crowd in awhile. We have the better Tom, but Crean’s a good coach. I’ll be curious to see how this goes for a few years. Right now the state fans seem to be all like well if we had to lose to someone, may as well be them. It will be fun to see if that attitude changes much.
LikeLike
jj,
I hope not. I am concerned about the younger fans being more negative than positive. I am all for cheering and getting loud, but when fans get abusive there is no place for that. IU is an top school with real history, it would be a shame if the kids lost sight of this.
LikeLike
I’m a UK fan, and there’s no way you all end up in the Yum Center. You would have to fall to an 8/9 seed for that to happen. You all are going to be a top 4/5 seed, most likely. Now, I could see the NCAA putting you as our 4/5 for a potential Sweet Sixteen rematch, but that would be in Atlanta or St. Louis.
LikeLike
Huh? Yum would host 2 pods of 4, and the 2 pods don’t have to be in the same regional (at least, it’s been that way for several years; I don’t think they’ve changed it).
LikeLike
Oh right, I saw what you were responding it; yeah, IU could end up at YUM, and IU & UK could stage a rematch, but IU & UK won’t hold a rematch at YUM.
LikeLike
Its possible this has been posted here before. This report shows where the Division I players come from and shows by conference. One interesting surpise-the leading state for SEC players-Georgia. Florida leads for the Big East and ACC. Texas leads for Big 12 and CUSA. California leads for Pac. MIchigan nudges out Illinois for B1G.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/specialprojects/sports/starsearch/
LikeLike
According to the map that’s the case, but if you look at the numbers below, it shows Ohio with 205 in the conference above Michigan’s 153. Given Ohio usually produces more, I bet that’s accurate. http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/items/starsearchbig10.pdf
LikeLike
When I clicked on Notre Dame it looked like it was giving a total for the whole country but Georgia, for one, was lower than for the SEC alone. The maps are nice, but based on what you saw, there may be some issues with them.
It looked like for the B1G it was pretty much dependent on how many schools were in the state, except for Ohio, which was higher than the others, as it was not far behind Illinois (based on the map).
LikeLike
Thanks for that link. I had always wondered where Tulsa (my original home town) ranked on the list of top prospect producers per capita, and now I know (13th). Not all that surprising since it has 2 of the top 25 high schools football programs in the country located within 10 miles of each other
LikeLike
Frank,
How can the Pac-12 justify the large TV package they received last year? It was reportedly the largest and richest of any conference. They rank 5th and 6th in FB and BB. Pac-12 combined viewership is dead last. I can understand the SEC, B10 and even the ACC earning their paycheck but the Pac-12 is apparently a massive fraud. The B12 may be receiving a bit more than they deserve and the B East a bit less but the Pac-12 requires a significant downgrade.
LikeLike
Part of it was timing and Larry Scott’s skills as a negotiator, but I think it gets back to something I said awhile ago, that a lot people disagreed with; that ESPN and Fox decided to overpay for the PAC-12 in order to box out NBC. Comcast/NBC was the early leader to land the PAC at a rate of $180 million a year, but ESPN and Fox agreed to team up and offer $250 million a year just to preserve their oligopoly (which is really a biopoly) over college sports.
LikeLike
That’s definitely a big part of it. Especially with NBC’s recent launch of NBC Sports, the last thing that ESPN would want to do is give them a marquee football package up front.
They’ll probably let them have the Big East package (as in let them overpay), given that the next round of bidding isn’t for a couple of years at least (Big Ten and Big 12)…
LikeLike
I don’t know that they necessarily overpaid to shut out Comcast. But we do know for certain that they had 3 serious bidders; something I don’t ever recall seeing for a college conference contract much less many professional television deals.
We also know that two of the bidders teamed up to out-bid a 3rd much like the NCAA tournament deal between Turner and CBS. At the very least you can say the more bidders the higher the likely price.
LikeLike
The reason I say they overpaid is because neither was willing to give the PAC the same amount NBC was. Now part of that is that ESPN doesn’t have as many slots in its schedule to fill as NBC did (though I suspect Fox easily could have handled the inventory).
Admittedly, it is hard to define when someone “overpays” for a unique widget, since you could always say that market price is whatever anyone is willing to pay. But in this case I doubt the PAC is going to be anywhere near as profitable as the massive deal it received would imply.
LikeLike
Oh I’m not saying they didn’t overpay. It is pretty clear they did. I’m just not sure there did it to shut out Comcast. The fundamentals don’t support what the Pac-12 got paid. If ESPN/Fox think they got a good deal out of that contract, the Big Ten needs to give them a call and start negotiations several years early.
LikeLike
Nah, the money will still be there in 2015. I don’t see either the economy or interest in college football cratering by then.
LikeLike
Ok, I see what you’re saying. Yeah, there are multiple factors at play (timing and Larry Scott’s skills as a commissioner for instance) but I still think they were trying to keep NBC and the new NBC Sports Network from getting a foot in the door of major college sports (except for Notre Dame whose ratings have plunged recently).
LikeLike
@frug – Another regional factor was that Fox needed to retain content for its two LA regional sports networks. Fox had just lost its most important LA property (the Lakers, who are starting their own network with Time Warner Cable) and is still in danger of losing its second most important one (the Dodgers, who might end up teaming with the Lakers). Losing Pac-12 games on top of that might have caused Fox to shut down one of the 2 networks, which they obviously don’t want to do in such a large cash cow market. The subscriber fees for those networks are so large that Fox found it worth it to pay the Angels $150 million per year for their games. (That’s how they were able to afford Albert Pujols.) The Dodgers would cost even more, but Fox would happily pay it to lessen the power of the new Lakers network.
LikeLike
The PAC deal is large, but not massively so. It will start around 17M/school and escalate to 24(?) over the life of the contract. What really makes it valuable is the number of “tier 1” (a term that really doesn’t apply to the Pac’s contracts) games reserved for the P12N’s. Profitable before it launches, before anyone other than the initial carriers have signed on, and before any ad revenue has been added. If blocking competition were paramount it would seem the PAC contract was low by at perhaps 50% or more. By the end of the ESPN/Fox contract I’ve heard some speculation that P12N revenue may surpass it. (BTN may surpass the primary contract this year, almost did last year)
LikeLike
The fact that the PAC got a contract that is inconsistent with what other conferences with better ratings have and protected “tier 1” games for themselves is all the more evidence that ESPN and Fox overpaid, and it’s tough to believe that they would have done that if they didn’t view NBC as a potential threat.
LikeLike
frug,
It doesn’t PROVE that they overpaid. It does seem to indicate that they overpaid or that current contracts are undervalued. Or both.
LikeLike
Go Cael!
LikeLike
I’m off to West Lafayette for the B1G wrestling championships in the AM. Jealous?
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
B1G moving to summer baseball? Interesting article from TV channel 4 in Detroit. Provides summer inventory for BTN in addition to football reruns. Maybe Wisconsin will add baseball?
http://www.clickondetroit.com/sports/Big-Ten-might-take-look-at-summer-baseball/-/1719176/9151850/-/lyaog5/-/index.html
LikeLike
Terrible idea. Not that the Big Ten has had good luck even making it to the College World Series, but to completely give up is a non-starter.
LikeLike
I agree. Playing summer ball and opting out of the NCAAs would only make the level on B1G baseball worse. No self-respecting pro prospect would ever sign with a B1G school if this happened. The B1G needs to realize that baseball is different than football and change its signing rules, invest in indoor practice facilities, and upgrade their ballparks. If Nebraska, Wichita State, St. John’s, UConn, and Louisville can field competitive teams, so can Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.
LikeLike
Alan,
It’s really just the recruiting rules holding them back. Many/most B10 teams have indoor facilities and decent ballparks. The timing of the season hurts, too, though. They have to play so many more road games to start the season. Until the rules change, no school will up their commitment to baseball.
LikeLike
Brain – the B1G ought to change their rules. Baseball cannot be reasonably compared to football regarding oversigning of players. Baseball players have so many more options than do football players. There is almost no certainty that a college signee will ever set foot on campus. They can sign with a MLB team right out of high school. JUCOs ain’t just for dummies when it comes to baseball. JUCOs allow more flexibility in future MLB signings and play a high level of ball. Prospects pit the college, JUCO, and MLB teams against each other. Every year, fans of elite college baseball programs are sitting on pins and needles on August 15, the MLB signing deadline. A couple of years ago, my Tigers lost a Friday night starter and QB of the future to the Dodgers after he enrolled in school, had a dorm room, and participated in fall camp. That’s also the backstory for the Elliott Porter saga, but I digress. The bottom line is you can’t fit a round peg into a square hole. What sounds great for football, just can’t work in baseball.
LikeLike
Alan,
They probably should change them. I haven’t put much effort into finding out their justification for not adapting to the reality of the situation. It’s not like any other conference would agree to these restrictions, whereas the football rules make sense to stop unethical coaches.
I just don’t care because it’s baseball, America’s most boring sport. I’d be fine with OSU just dropping baseball.
LikeLike
“No self-respecting pro prospect would ever sign with a B1G school if this happened.”
I don’t get why you think that is necessarily true. The Cape Cod League gets top prospects, for instance. Almost all baseball prospects care more about making it in MLB than winning in college, so if the B10 provides a better venue for that (wooden bats, TV exposure in the summer, stiff competition, etc.), I don’t see why a B10 summer league wouldn’t get the top prospects that want to improve their draft status.
Maybe some other northern leagues (or the Pac, which would also have a TV channel that would have a need for programming in the summer) would join in.
LikeLike
The ACC considered doing this in the 1970s, when it had only seven members. It wouldn’t have meant much one way or the other at a school in a large metro like Maryland, but in the Research Triangle, which I believe at the time had no minor-league teams (I’m not sure when the Durham Bulls were revived), it might have worked given the intensity of the UNC/State/Duke rivalries (with Wake Forest out in Winston-Salem getting a lesser bump). Not sure why it ultimately decided not to.
I believe Iowa plays high school baseball in the summer.
LikeLike
vp19, you’re correct that Iowa plays HS baseball as a summer sport.
LikeLike
I’ve heard Delany mention this in the past. I’m not wild about it, but something needs to be done about B1G baseball. The quality of play is weak, and most of the games are away from home due to cold weather and they compete with the NCAA basketball tournament. Fans don’t really get involved in following the teams the way they should. Maybe the NCAA should look into a summer season for all conferences. Starting baseball in February just makes it very difficult for B1G teams.
LikeLike
I don’t see why the B1G needs to do something about baseball. I don’t see the ACC/SEC wringing their hands about wrestling and hockey. Having a few regional sports retains some character in different parts of the country.
LikeLike
@greg – The difference is that I wouldn’t call baseball a regional sport. There are cultural and historical reasons why hockey is played more in the Great Lakes Region and New England and lacrosse is a major sport in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic. In contrast, baseball is a widely-played and watched sport nationally. It’s the NCAA baseball calendar itself (where half the season is played when Northern teams can’t really play at home) that has turned college baseball specifically into a regional game. At the high school and pro levels, baseball isn’t regionally played at all. MLB is also most popular in Northern markets such as New York, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis. Changing *when* you play hockey or lacrosse wouldn’t impact whether they’re played in the South one bit, but being able to play baseball in the fall or summer in the North (as opposed to February) makes a massive difference.
That being said, the suggestion that the Big Ten should opt out of the NCAA Tournament is insane to me. Alan is right that this would be a killer for Big Ten recruiting (even with a wood bat option). Nebraska, which is the de facto home team for College World Series site Omaha, would also have a visceral reaction to that suggestion. I’m fairly certain that this was thrown out there publicly to focus attention on how much the NCAA calendar in and of itself is killing college baseball in the North as opposed to being seriously considered by the Big Ten.
The fall ball proposal, though, is a much more reasonable and realistic. That linked article says that NCAA rules don’t prohibit schools from playing in the summer (which is news to me), so why would it not be allowed in the fall as long as the same overall practice time/game limits are observed? That seems a bit arbitrary. A fall schedule also allows games to be played when all students are on campus, which is another advantage over a summer schedule. I really hope that proposal can get sold to the rest of the NCAA or else you’ll see more Northern teams drop baseball sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
I don’t think the season has hurt northern baseball. They competed in the 50s and early 60s. Nebraska is competitive. Wichita State is competitive (without AQ $ behind them) I think the B1G just hasn’t invested.
Its ridiculous to have college baseball primarily in the summer when the majority of the student body is not on campus.
Fall seasons run into the same issue as the traditional one as the weather can be difficult at the end of the season when teams are supposed to be peaking. In any event, it would involve competing with football which would hurt the sport.
LikeLike
I see-its a partial fall season. It would be interesting to see if the presidents approved it. They are squawking about football becoming a 2 semester sport (by a week-for only some schools).
LikeLike
bullet,
Was the season the same in the 50s and 60s? I really don’t know. Certainly the recruiting rules have changed.
LikeLike
Brian, in the old days the college baseball season tended to run a few weeks later because university calendars ran a few weeks later. (Most schools that had a semester system had the break in January.) For a few reasons — economics for having semester break coincide with Christmas-New Year’s, shortening spring on campuses to help minimize student protests in the days of the antiwar movement — colleges increasingly moved their calendars up a few weeks so that the academic year went from mid-August through May instead of September through early June. (I think the only colleges of note that still have a January semester break are Princeton and Harvard.) Anyway, one of the big losers in this was spring sports such as track, and especially college baseball outside the Sun Belt. It’s why Big Ten baseball has weakened, and why Syracuse hasn’t fielded a baseball program since the mid-’70s. (It’s interesting to note that SU and Iowa State — which ended its baseball about a decade ago — both still field softball, probably for Title IX purposes.)
LikeLike
vp:
Out of curiosity, I looked it up. Harvard seems to have a typical semester schedule now. Princeton is still old-school, with fall finals not ending until after Christmas and spring classes starting in February.
Note that pretty much every school on a quarter system runs Sept->June, but fewer and fewer schools are on a quarter system now.
LikeLike
Frank, you make some good points. But high school baseball is definitely regional, the northern states just can’t compete with the southern states. Head over to Baseball America’s web site and check out the top high school teams and prospects, and they are totally dominated by sun belt schools.
I didn’t mean to infer that the B1G shouldn’t attempt to compete at baseball, but if they continue to lag, it is what it is. Monkeying with the schedule isn’t going to make a huge difference.
LikeLike
I agree Greg. I also think the metal bats is an issue. I literally never watch college baseball. I think the bats have something to do with it.
LikeLike
What exactly is your problem with metal bats? Last year they implemented requirements that deadened the metal bats so that they matched the performance of the wood ones. They are used primarily to save money. As Alan in Baton Rouge laments above, the days of Gorilla ball are over.
LikeLike
Mike,
I won’t speak for anyone else but I hated the ping and the ridiculously large sweet spot. The new rules makes sense and I’m glad they implemented them. I’m all for saving them money, but juiced bats were silly.
LikeLike
It’s the ping.
LikeLike
Yeah, I hope that the B10 (which can afford it) uses wooden bats at least during conference play (and in special series; for instance, against the Pac or BE). They’d have more success drawing fans to the ballpark and getting TV viewers. The ping really is offputting.
LikeLike
For the record, most of the metal bats don’t ping anymore.
LikeLike
Frank:
I have to say that i just don’t get why you all think moving games to summer would “kill” B10 baseball (more than it is, anyway). Most top baseball recruits play because they have dreams of making it in MLB, not to win in college anyway.
LikeLike
Major League Baseball has very little competition during the summer, except during Olympic years which is only for two weeks. Might not be a bad idea to create a B1G summer season and televise a bunch of games on BTN. Right now summer is basically a “dead season” on BTN. Not sure if they would consider doing the same thing with softball; Probably not.
LikeLike
Here’s another article on the B1G moving baseball to the summer or fall. I think a 56 game wood bat league culminating with a tournament hosted by Nebraska at the new stadium in Omaha, home of the college World Series, would be very interesting; Especially if they could convince a couple other northern conferences to play at the same time. Definitely worth looking into.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120229/SPORTS0203/202290438/1361/Big-Ten-weighs-break-from-NCAA-baseball-format-to-play-in-summer
LikeLike
If this actually has legs, I wonder if it’s in part a bit of a test run for operating outside the NCAA’s auspices in general. If the BIG can organize the logistics of moving their teams for a whole sport into an entirely different format, that could be a very interesting test run for a much bigger move for a much more important sport. Could certainly be wrong, but that’s my immediate take from that news.
LikeLike
Could the Pac-12 be convinced to join the northern schools? Surely, Delany and the B1G would try to take advantage of what appears to be a very good working relationship between the conferences. The Pac-12 will also be looking for summer time content for their network.
LikeLike
@joe4PSU – The Pac-12 is waaaay too good of a baseball conference to drop out of the running of the College World Series. However, the partial fall schedule proposal from the Big Ten would be aided greatly with the Pac-12’s support. That’s also where the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership can be leveraged, as the main thing that the Big Ten would need even if the fall ball proposal passes is to get top baseball schools to actually come up North to play. If the Pac-12 schools are willing to schedule games with the Big Ten in the fall, then that’s a great scenario.
LikeLike
You could have a player complication. What is someone plays for Ohio St. in the fall but transfers at mid-term to Miami? Does he get to start playing in February?
LikeLike
I don’t see the Pac-12 joining a summer league. If the BIG wants to give that a shot, they’d need to look for other northern schools. I could certainly see the Pac-12 supporting an option to play a few games of the schedule in the fall, especially since there are three universities (UU, CU, WSU) in VERY cold weather sites (CU doesn’t do baseball now, but I’d assume it’s a matter of time).
LikeLike
I believe the better solution to the baseball conundrum is allow for a two semester schedule, do the OOC schedule in August and September and then do the conference schedule in April and May with the playoffs in June.
LikeLike
“You could have a player complication. What is someone plays for Ohio St. in the fall but transfers at mid-term to Miami? Does he get to start playing in February?”
bullet:
Don’t transfers have to sit out a year in any sport? Basketball players leave after the fall and then start in the spring for a different school the next year all the time. I don’t see any complication there.
LikeLike
I guess it depends on how you define “autumn”. Both the B10 & Pac (and other northern leagues) could place baseball in August, before college football starts, filling their conference channels with programming in a month when there usually aren’t any live sports.
LikeLike
Pat – no player with a dream of playing pro baseball will ever sign with a B1G team if the B1G plays summer ball. They would have to give up the chance to play in superior summer leagues, most notably the Cape Cod (wood bat) League, where all the pro scouts hang out. Are the Tampa Bay Rays really going to send a scout to West Lafayette in July, or go to Martha’s Vinyard and watch teams full of prospects?
I would hate to see the Midwest give up on college baseball, but this idea, if it happens, will only make B1G baseball worse.
LikeLike
Alan:
No pro scout goes to West Lafayette now anyway. One of the reasons ideas like these are floated is because it’s hard to make B10 baseball worse.
BTW, I checked the schedule, and the Cape Cod regular season ends 8/3 (playoffs end 8/13), so the B10 could conceivably fit in games in August.
LikeLike
Biggest concern that comes to my mind with this is, even is if that would hurt players going to the majors. Does summer count as the end of the last school year or begining of the next. If its the end of one, Major League teams aren’t going to wait till the Big Ten season is over to take drafted players.
LikeLike
That would be an issue. If you are drafted in June, your “advisor” will tell you to shut down to prevent injury.
LikeLike
College baseball players have to declare for the MLB draft by March 20th, even though the draft is in June. Therefore, their decision to go pro will have to be made well before any summer season begins. Declaring for the draft makes them ineligible for college ball.
(A college player must have completed his junior season before he can declare for the draft. MLB will not touch freshmen or sophomores. I wish the NBA would adhere to this philosophy so we could get rid of the “one-and-done” bull shit that is ruining college basketball. Hello Kentucky!!)
LikeLike
Are you sure about this? I don’t believe there is any Football or Basketball style declaring for the draft in NCAA baseball. Here is who is eligible for the draft:
Certain groups of players are ineligible for selection, generally because they are still in school. The basic categories of players eligible to be drafted are:
•High school players, if they have graduated from high school and have not yet attended college or junior college;
•College players, from four-year colleges who have either completed their junior or senior years or are at least 21 years old; and
•Junior college players, regardless of how many years of school they have completed
A Club generally retains the rights to sign a selected player until 11:59 PM (EDT) August 15, or until the player enters, or returns to, a four-year college on a full-time basis. A player who is drafted and does not sign with the Club that selected him may be drafted again at a future year’s Draft, so long as the player is eligible for that year’s Draft. A Club may not select a player again in a subsequent year, unless the player has consented to the re-selection
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/rules.jsp
Players who are drafted play all the time in the NCAA tournaments and players with eligibility remaining can sign up until school starts. If they choose not to sign, they are still allowed to play. They are even allow to retain agents who can act in an advisory role.
LikeLike
Are indoor baseball stadiums feasible for the Big Ten schools? Southern/western teams might be willing to play there if they knew it wasn’t in the blistering cold, and drawing elite recruits would be much, much easier.
I know that those kind of facilities aren’t cheap, but I’m not suggesting retractable roofs and luxury boxes; simply a covered stadium. Heck, FCS scholar like North Dakota State have indoor football stadiums. A baseball stadium wouldn’t be much bigger or more expensive.
LikeLike
Minnesota played indoors at the Metro Dome last year. The B1G could probably play a tournament up there in February or March. I don’t think Ford Field in Detroit or Lucas Oil in Indianapolis are configured for baseball. Not too many options in the mid-west. If I’m not mistaken, one of the New England schools (Boston College ?) has an inflatable dome for workouts and batting practice for softball and baseball, but that’s the only one I can think of.
LikeLike
Minnesota actually does host tourneys at the Metrodome (like this weekend’s Dairy Queen Classic with Nebraska, New Mexico State and West Virginia).
It’s tough to justify building a domed baseball stadium when for most schools baseball doesn’t make money. College baseball just isn’t going to attract large crowds to justify it. Teams have built indoor practice facilities (Nebraska’s just opened this year) and use indoor football facilities when possible.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, I’m a little surprised that the Gophers haven’t started to become more of a force in B10 baseball. You’d think that being able to play indoors would be a draw (as would being able to watch baseball indoors to fans).
LikeLike
@Richard – It’s because watching baseball at the Metrodome is like watching baseball at the seventh gate of hell. It’s why everyone (Twins, Vikings, Gophers football) is running from that place like the plague.
LikeLike
Save up your BTN money!
1)Work with the White Sox or Cubs to build a domed minor league/Big Ten stadium in (or near) Chicago.
2) First 4 weekends of the baseball season, hold 4 tournaments, each with 3 Big Ten teams against 3 teams from around the country. Should be able to get some fans of the schools, and of the Big Ten in general, to show up. Maybe the Pac 12 partnership could lead them to supply 6 of the 12 visiting teams each year?
3)Televise those games on the BTN; most of them probably on the overflow channels, since basketball is still going strong at that point.
4)During the summer BTN might air some games of the minor league team to get some live sports programming.
Unrealistic, but if the Big Ten Network really brings in the $$ like rumored you could dream.
Do the Western Big Ten teams hold a tournament in the Brewer’s park?
LikeLike
All incredibly unrealistic and/or foolish. BTW, the first 4 weekends of the college baseball season is early Feb/late March, so no, no tournament will get people to watch baseball games outside in the freezing cold.
However, they probably should play the Pac or (if the Pac is unwilling), BE baseball over 4 weekends in August if approved.
The B10 should hold their conference tourney at one of the Chicago ballparks as well; that’s actually a really good idea that I’m surprised hasn’t happened yet.
LikeLike
There could be tournaments in Detroit, Indianapolis, Minnesota or St. Louis where there are domed stadiums. And conceivably they could play in Cincinnati where it isn’t quite as cold as the upper midwest. That could be attractive enough to get good programs to travel north. If not the Miami’s, you could certainly get strong CUSA and Sun Belt programs (probably the 5th and 6th best baseball conferences).
Rice and UH have had a tourney early in the season using Minute Maid Park.
LikeLike
@Richard – Basketball tournaments have attendance issues during weekday games, imagine how bad attendance would be for Baseball. Playing the B1G tournament at Wrigley or whatever they call the Sox’s field would be a novelty for a year or two before crowds of 1,000 in a 40,000 seat stadium start to become an issue.
LikeLike
Mike:
Good point, so I would hold the conference tourney over 3 days with 5 teams in it.
Fri:
Game1: #2 vs. #5
Game2: #3 vs. #4
Sat:
Game3: Game1 & Game2 losers
Game4: Game1 & Game2 winners
Game5: Game3 winner vs. Game4 loser
Game6: #1 vs. Game4 winner
Sun:
Game7: Game5 winner vs. Game6 loser
Game8: Championship
So, double elimination until the championship game.
LikeLike
@Richard – Regular season championship would be important (a plus). Five games over three days would tax a pitching staff, not sure if you want to do that a week before regionals.
LikeLike
OK, on second thought, I’d move the “Game 4” to Friday night.
As for taxing the pitching staff, it’s not much different from what happens now with the way the current B10 baseball tourney is set up (possibly 6-7 games over 4-5 days, including doubleheaders Fri & Sat). Pitchers would have 4 days off before regionals and managers wouldn’t be able to start starters on short rest.
LikeLike
The “Houston Classic” is this weekend at Minute Maid Park. Rice, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee are playing a round robin F, Sat and Sun. The players like being in a big league park. The fans go. I really think it could work as an early season tourney for B1G squads in the domes or in Cincy or St. Louis major league parks. Might take a couple years to get established, but would give them games in their region.
LikeLike
bullet:
I don’t think college baseball draws enough to pay to reconfigure football stadiums to be baseball venues (and baseball in a dome isn’t all that appealing). Outside of the Metrodome, the only option is likely August games.
LikeLike
@Richard twit pic from Nebraska’s game at the metrodome. Saturday day game vs New Mexico St.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Culver7/status/176044985039323137?photo=1
LikeLike
Sweet. The Metrodome is branded as a B10 stadium now.
LikeLike
This is a nice podcast synopsis dealing with the plus 1 and further expansion on CBS sports with Brett McMurphy. It starts at the 25:00 minute point of the podcast.
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/35032425
Nothing new that this blog doesn’t already know.
LikeLike
MGoBlog took a look at the same Nielsen report and came up with a post titled “The Real Reason We’re Talking Playoffs”. Brian Cook looks at the graphic for advertising dollars over the years and shows a major dropoff for the college football post-season between 2009/10 and 2010/11.
See http://mgoblog.com/content/real-reason-were-talking-playoffs
LikeLike
@cutter – I think someone mentioned this earlier, but much of that ad revenue drop is likely the result of the BCS bowls moving from over-the-air Fox to cable ESPN that year.
LikeLike
Frank: MGoBlog does acknowledge the move from broadcast to cable in his post, but then adds:
“But when paired with declining interest, the cavern between postseason formats screams “grit your teeth and do something literally everyone else wants.”
He points out that the NCAA men’s basketball tournament changed formats to multiple broadcasts on a number of CBS outlets and compares it to the bowl games on cable.
While he may be a bit off target here, I think we all acknowledge that a four-team playoff should bring more revenue (ad revenue plus money paid to the universities) not only via its format, but also if it went back to be broadcast on ABC over ESPN.
I’m just curious to see how they’re going to put this together, when they’re going to schedule the games and how the four teams are going to be decided. Now that should be interesting.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I like how they are patting themselves on the bat for being so amazing at MGoBlog. Um…ND and the first night game in Ann Arbor had something to do with that game’s popularity…and the Sugar Bowl, well, it was THE night game on that night, in the heart of bowl season. Again, it’s not about how awesome Michigan is…but the novelty/window of those games.
LikeLike
To continue the baseball discussion…
Not a huge fan of the site Corn Nation, but a few days ago they posted an article concluding:
The bottom line is simple. If Big Ten teams (and Commissioner Jim Delany) expect to be taken seriously as a baseball conference, the out of conference scheduling must improve
They then got a response from Purdue’s head baseball coach Doug Schreiber:
http://www.cornnation.com/2012/3/1/2835120/purdues-doug-schreiber-big-ten-baseball-scheduling-improving-rpi-inequity-difficult
Again, I think you gloss over the fact that most Big Ten teams are on the road for their first 18-20 games. I think the winning percentages of the Big Twelve teams would be affected somewhat if they had to play their first 18-20 games on the road.
You also need to factor in that once conference play starts, Big Ten teams, like most other conferences, have to play teams that are within 3 hour drives for their midweek games. Big Ten teams have had to miss quite a bit of class prior to conference play starting and really can’t afford to go out on the road midweek for several days at a time. There are not a lot of great RPI non-conference opponents or conferences in the Midwest for Big Ten teams to play on a regular basis or that will play Big Ten teams more than a couple times a season. Some will only agree to play once. This makes it hard to improve your RPI once conference play starts.
So, according to your rationale, Big Ten teams need to play a murderous, non-conference schedule prior to their conference season when 95% of these games will be on the road. It may help with improving the RPI’s a little, but probably not the overall winning percentages, which will cancel out the tough schedules being played.
Again, I agree that all Big Ten teams should play a tough, non-conference schedule. I think that most of the teams are playing quality, non-conference opponents, especially early in the season and compared to the power conferences. However, improving RPI’s by improving non-conference opponents (which is the only control teams have when scheduling) is not as easy as you would make it seem to be.
[snip]
I appreciate your interest in college baseball and coverage of Nebraska and Big Ten baseball. We are all trying to improve the conference.
Interesting to see a coach’s perspective on B1G baseball challenges. I am also shocked that a head coach would respond to a blogger. Way to go Doug!
LikeLike
The Purdue coach has been leading the charge in trying to fix the baseball issue within the conference. His proposal to split the season between the fall and spring was rejected by the “power” baseball conferences (SEC, Texas, Pac 12 and ACC).
I can’t say that I’m a fan of a summer schedule, I think something has to give for northern teams to have a shot at having a successful season. Today is March 1st, and teams in the SEC have been practicing since late January. Practicing outdoors at that. No team in the BIG has been able to go outside, let alone practice, and by all accounts, it has been an extremely mild winter in the midwest. This is a huge issue.
The other sticking point, is that baseball generates revenue for schools down south. LSU, Texas, TA&M, and ASU to name a few, can have seasons where the baseball team breaks even, which is important given the shrinking athletic department budgets. You don’t want to jeapordize their revenue stream by shifting schedules, but there should be a way to accomodate everyone, at least you would think a way exists. We will see what happens.
I”m glad the Purdue coach responded, he has been carrying this torch for five years at least.
Boiler Up!!!!
LikeLike
redsroom3 – LSU’s baseball program grosses over $9 million per year. To put it in perspective, that’s more money than most D-1 men’s basketball teams bring in, including the LSU men’s team.
Granted, LSU is the No. 1 revenue producer in college baseball and it ain’t close, but there is money to be made in this sport. And 30 years ago, LSU baseball team wasn’t any better than Purdue’s baseball team.
LikeLike
Alan,
That was my point. It’s a huge revenue generator for sourthern schools. ASU’s program makes money as well. I’m sure the same is true for Texas, Miami, FSU and USC to name a few. You don’t want to take money from those schools for sure, but only playing in the spring puts northern schools at an extreme disadvantage. I don’t know how you bridge this divide.
The LSUs of the world play northern schools in the beginning of their season, which helps them out greatly, especially in terms of winning records and experience. While Purdue gains experience, their record suffers and they play away from West Lafayette. So, all around, it hits them hard….
LikeLike
alan,
do you have a link for the LSU baseball data?
one for SEC baseball as a whole?
NCAA D I baseball?
LikeLike
duff – I’ve seen LSU’s revenue numbers mentioned in the local press, but don’t have a link.
Here’s the NCAA final attendance figures for 2011, which should be decent indicator of revenue.
Click to access National-Attendance-Report-FINAL.pdf
LikeLike
I knew the actual attendance numbers, but I was looking more at gate receipts or Tier 3 TV numbers. We already know attendance numbers can be manipulated in the tickets sold vs actual turnstile numbers. Gate receipts would at least be an indication if they were “dollar tickets” or full price. A certain school not far from Bloomington does not have the live attendance numbers their ticket sales seems to indicate. In addition, they get a big push with steeply discounted tickets. If the NCAA ever regulates something I would love to see them do this.
I keep looking at that LHN deal with 15 million for a single non conference football game and a bunch of lesser sports. Kansas has basketball, and Baylor has womens basketball. Not sure how baseball gets split in the B12, but I know Texas is a top school there. All this makes me wonder about demand across the US for non football TV demand. As much as we discuss financial data, it would be interesting to see the demand show up in data we can actually look at. 9 million at LSU is not exactly pocket change, but how does it break down?
a) tickets
b) concessions, parking, misc
c) “donations”
d) TV revenue
LikeLike
Why are people even playing baseball at this time of year?!
Christ, even MLB knows when to schedule Opening Day, and they’re run by Bud Selig!
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Dan Wetzel wrote an article titled “Configuring a Playoff Field isn’t Hard: The Guys in the Suits Just Need to Keep it Simple”– see http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=At5wSjqAyLWLVh7l9UKuzlMcvrYF?slug=dw-wetzel_college_football_playoff_keep_simple_022912
Here’s the concluding paragraphs:
Scott has one thing right: Rewarding conference champions with a spot in the playoff would increase the value of the regular season. We’ve argued that for years. The Big Ten, for one, has seen a number of highly competitive races lack national interest because they didn’t impact the BCS championship game.
The BCS made those regular seasons mean less.
There are, at this point, five major conferences, with the Big East a debatable entity as No. 6. That leads itself to an eight-team playoff – six automatic bids and two at-large spots. Yet Scott, among others, has expressed an unwillingness to make a move to that large a field at this point.
With the pending Mountain West-Conference USA merger and the highly possible death of the WAC, college football may have only nine conferences by 2014, when the changes would be made. To give every league an automatic bid would require either a 12- or 16-team tournament.
Sixteen would allow for seven at-large bids, a number so big that it actually would affect the way the regular season is staged. A 12-teamer would allow for three at-large bids, but then the top four teams would get byes and the first round often would become a non-competitive mess.
These are the detail devils everyone talks about, but they only come into play when bad initial decisions are made.
Just keep it simple.
If college football is set on a four-team playoff, then it needs to just set the field with the four best teams, regardless of conference affiliation. Yes, subjectivity still comes into play, but as long as the commissioners are unwilling to create a larger field, that can’t be avoided.
The playoff will work fine as long as the suits in charge don’t complicate this. That should be easy because it really isn’t very complicated.
LikeLike
Interesting that Wetzel seems to be backing off his 16 team proposal. He suggests that 7 at large is too many as it may harm the regular season. He suggests 12 would result in 1st round blowouts.
Scott hasn’t ruled out more than 4. His wording was that more than 4 would be difficult to fit into the academic calendar. Difficult is unlikely, but not impossible.
Just to look at 12 this past season, assuming there were 9 conferences and assuming the conference champs get the byes and the 1st 4 seeds:
1st round
Un(12th seed) Northern Illinois (10-3) at #2 Alabama (11-1)
Un(11th seed) Arkansas St. (10-2)–or Louisiana Tech of WAC 8-4 at #4 Stanford 11-1
#23 (10th seed) WVU (9-3) at #6 Arkansas (10-2)
#18 (9th seed) TCU (10-2)–or USM of CUSA 11-2 at #15 Clemson (10-3)
2nd round
#2 Alabama/NIU at #10 Wisconsin (11-2)
#4 Stanford/ASU-LT at #5 Oregon (11-2)
#6 Arkansas/WVU at #3 Oklahoma St. (11-1)
#15 Clemson/TCU-USM at #1 LSU (13-0)
LikeLike
Part of the argument here I just don’t get is the notion that in order for this to be conference champs (and presumably independents) we have to include all conference champs. Why is that? Taking the top 4 conference champs/independents doesn’t seem to me to have anymore inherent flaws than taking the top 4 teams in the rankings.
LikeLike
Eric: I agree with your premise as well. I don’t think anyone would think the Sun Belt Conference champion is equivalent to the SEC champ in terms of a playoff. The main questions are how large of a playoff off should be considered (as bullet says, Wetzel seems to indicicate he’d go as high as eight teams) and how many conference champions should get autoberths. When talking about an eight-team championship, people on this board have talked about giving anywhere from the top four to top six conference champions an autoberth with four to two at large teams.
Wetzel initially talks about having a small committee selecting and seeding the top four teams as the simplest soluton, but then goes into a discussion about conference champions getting autobids and Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott’s comments. When he writes about other playoff scenarios (8-team, 12-team, 16-team), he doesn’t discuss about how these teams get seeded. Maybe he feels that it should just be by committee or some other rating system that replaces the BCS polls. Perhaps he has some other thoughts on if conference champions should be rated higher than other programs.
Since he talks about having six conference winners plus two at large teams in the playoff, I suspect he’s just going to let the committee or the rating system pick the program 1 thru 8 and if the two at large teams get slotted wherever they land, even at #1 and #2. I’d be curious to hear what procedure he would use to slot the eight teams in a 6/2 type of arrangement.
LikeLike
Wetzel has championed a 16 team playoff with all 11 conferences getting in (“Death to the BCS”). The BCS has been a cartel to shut out the smaller conferences and he’s promoting inclusion rather than setting up haves and have nots. That’s why its interesting that he talks about a 12 team having a boring first round.
LikeLike
bullet: Wetzel called the first round of a twelve-team playoff with the top four teams getting byes a “non-competitive mess” in the first round with the assumption that there would be nine conference champions picked with three at large teams. He’s assuming there will only be nine conferences by 2014 due to a Mountain West/Conference USA merger and the highly possible death of the WAC. That’d leave the following conferences in the hunt:
ACC
Big Ten
Big XIII
Pac 12
SEC
Big East
Conference USA/Mountain West
Mid-American (MAC)
Sun Belt
In most season, I assume the 9 thru 12 seeds would come from the four conferences I listed at the bottom. Seeds 1 thru 8 would come from the five major conferences plus the three at large teams.
Would a team between the #12 Sun Belt Champion or the #11 MAC Champion against the #5 or #6 seeds likely be boring? I imagine the answer would be yes and Wetzel seems to indicate much the same. A twelve- or even a sixteen-game playoff would be too many teams for this sort of setup.
But go to an eight-team playoff with the top five conference champions and three at large and you have something that’s probably better than the 12 or 16-team scenarios. I doubt there’s be too many mismatched first round games, especially if the top five conference champions have to be in the top 12 or 14 of the rating system utilized.
LikeLike
I agree. Although a 10 to 12 team playoff with allowances for all champs if they meet certain criteria would still be competitive. In most (and probably nearly all) years, the MAC and Sun Belt wouldn’t qualify. I like 10 to 12 because it is more inclusive for the “minor” conferences.
Even though I like 10-12, I wouldn’t recommend they go to that number immediately until they see the impact of an 8 team playoff first.
I wouldn’t be stunned to see an 8 team playoff come out of this review. Except for the B1G, I don’t think any conference has totally rejected it. Scott’s comments were that it was difficult to fit in the academic calendar. He didn’t say it was impossible.
LikeLike
ACC may hold key to renewed rivalries.
Interesting article on further conference realignment.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7633311/next-round-realignment-renew-rivalries
LikeLike
Woj forgot about “Boss DeLoss”.
Rutgers will join the XII in a nanosecond if the Boss were to finally give up on Notre Dame.
LikeLike
That’s a ‘mail it in’ column with little connection to reality or cause and effect.
So in that spirit, I proposed the B1G forget about moving baseball to summer and instead spearhead creation of stock car racing as an NCAA sport. Would be pretty awesome to watch the Ohio St and Michigan cars battle it out, WV spin Pitt into the wall, ND without teammates never able to make a run, the SEC cars constantly being fined for illegal modifications, the Aggie car running into jet driers on caution laps, and Nike making the Oregon car invisible so that all you see is a green driver floating around the track at 150mph.
LikeLike
Woj is nuts.
First of all, he’s assuming the ACC wants to go to 16, which it would do only if Notre Dame is one of those two newcomers (and in the longshot event that happened, the ND partner would be Rutgers, not Connecticut, as New Jersey is a bigger market and Boston College has been promised ACC exclusivity in New England).
Second, he’s viewing it from a basketball perspective, not football. West Virginia has a fine basketball program, but that’s not what lured the Big 12 to Morgantown.
I agree this is indeed a “mail it in” column, and proves someone who should know better doesn’t truly understand how college athletics works…or worse, he does know and is simply playing to the peanut gallery.
LikeLike
It’s kind of sad that virtually anyone who’s posted on here could write a more relevant article that that load of crap.
LikeLike
Unfortunately so typical of sportswriting these days.
LikeLike
No way the Big Ten invites Kansas. Zero chance of that happening. And no way Mizzou leaves the SEC any time soon. 50 years from now? Who knows. But not any time soon.
LikeLike
Kansas (assuming they can break from KSU) is unlikely, but certainly plausible for the Big 10, especially if they can’t raid the core of the ACC. I also agree that Mizzou probably wouldn’t leave the SEC, but the SEC has no exit fees or waiting period and the Big 10 was their first choice, so it’s not out of the question (of course I see Mizzou even less likely to receive an invite from the Big 10 than a KSUless Kansas).
LikeLike
To be perfectly honest, Duke is the only pure basketball school that I could ever see joining the Big Ten (and it’d have to be in conjunction with UNC obviously).
Kansas just seems too hard to justify from a football standpoint. With a combo of UNC-Duke you get the Mid-Atlantic population factor along with UNC football and UNC-Duke basketball.
Nebraska and Penn State showed just how much basketball itself is being weighed here. The only real exception to that is probably Duke in a combination with UNC because of the combination you get there…
LikeLike
Well Kansas football is considerably more valuable than Duke’s (and Duke’s BB is only marginally more valuable than Kansas’). But that gets back to point, Kansas is probably only an option if the Big 10 can’t lure the top ACC teams. Assuming they keep the AAU requirement for schools not located in South Bend, then the Big 10’s options outside of the ACC and the Jayhawks are Texas, Notre Dame, Rutgers and (maybe) Missouri. Obviously Texas and Notre Dame are the big guns, but you can make a case for Kansas being more valuable to the Big Ten than either Rutgers or Mizzou (if they are even an option).
Hell, even if you include the ACC you are only adding Pitt, Maryland, UVa, UNC, Duke and G-Tech to the list, and of those only UNC is clearly better than Kansas from the Big 10’s perspective. (Pitt adds no media markets, Duke is basically Kansas, and Maryland, Uva and G-Tech don’t have any property more valuable than Kansas’ MBB team. Plus G-Tech would create some travel problems.)
Again, it’s not likely that Kansas would get picked, but they would be a decent “throw in” if the Big 10 were to add somebody like ND or Texas and they needed someone to balance the divisions. (and if they go to 16 that becomes even more likely).
LikeLike
Yeah, Kansas isn’t a massive stretch for the Big Ten assuming that they can come without Kansas State (which would be a non-starter). It’s doubtful that KU would be involved in a Big Ten expansion to 14 at this point, but it’s not crazy to at all think that they could be part of a 16-school Big Ten.
LikeLike
The difference is that Duke is a top flight AAU university. Kansas is a bottom of the rung AAU university. So Duke is slightly more valuable in basketball and market. More valuable in the CIC and in reputation. Kansas is more valuable in football, but they aren’t that valuable. Either one would simply be filler in football to get to an even number. So where Kansas is more valuable, it really doesn’t matter. If UNC was in the B1G, I think Duke would be much more likely to get the last spot than Kansas.
LikeLike
I see the Big Ten as the most conservative of the major conferences when it comes to expansion, and their history shows it. They added Michigan State in the 50’s, waited 40 years, added a school almost anyone would love to have in Penn state to get to 11, waited 20 more years despite being one school away from being able to stage a CCG, and finally added another traditional power in Nebraska.
Contrast that with the ACC, which has added schools on four different occasions since 1978, doubling the size of the league from 7 to 14. The SEC added schools with, on paper, less upside than the Big Ten has added. The SEC was the first to get to 12, and while the ACC was the first to invite enough schools to get to 14, the SEC will be the first power conference to field 14. The Pac-12 was very conservative when it comes to expansion, but with Larry Scott they’ve proven to be very aggressive in this new era. The Big 12 I wouldn’t describe as conservative; it’s only been in existence for 16 years (and was a a product of schools dismantling their historic conferences to create a new one), and it has structured itself in such a way to lose 4 teams but gain two.
Meanwhile, the Big Ten has merely added two can’t miss schools in the past 60 years.
So, yes, if the Big Ten was aggressive like the ACC, Pac-12, or even SEC, it might be likely to add a school like Kansas, but every indication shows otherwise.
The only schools I could see the Big Ten adding would be Notre Dame and 1 or 3 partners. That partner or partners are most likely to come from the ACC and/or be Rutgers. Oklahoma has zero chance given its lack of AAU statusl (only ND gets an exception there) and its inability to be separated from, in the eyes of the B1G, the even more academically inferior Oklahoma State. Texas is similarly tied to Tech, which makes them a non-starter.
Therefore the only schools with realistic chances at being invited are schools that (1) the Big Ten would see as a complement to Notre Dame and (2) Notre Dame would request as a familiar, geographically-frienly (I.e., eastern) rival. Kansas doesn’t fit that bill. Nor does Missouri.
LikeLike
Texas Tech isn’t AAU or anywhere close, but they, along with Houston, recently qualified to draw from the Texas Tier I fund, which is a state fund to assist “emerging research universities” in achieving Tier I status (UH, Tech, UT Dallas, UT Arlington, North Texas, UT San Antonio, UTEP and Texas State in rough order are universities that can get money from the fund once they meet certain qualifications). Houston has already made the classification as Carnegie High Research. In 10 to 20 years with the efforts by the state and growth in the state (and enrollment caps at UT and A&M pushing good students to other schools), Texas Tech might be at the Kansas level.
LikeLike
I’m not saying the Big Ten couldn’t take Kansas if they absolutely had to expand. But if Kansas is their best option for expansion, I can’t see the Big Ten expanding.
Kansas is even weaker than Nebraska academically, and is terrible at football. The population of the state of Kansas is tiny. KU’s enrollment is relatively small and is declining. They just aren’t a good candidate for the Big Ten. They would fit in better with the Pac 12. They’re more on par with a Colorado or a Utah.
LikeLike
B10 unlikely to invite anyone except two schools that can invite themselves; Texas & ND…
After those two, you have to look at are there any two schools together the B10 would take to get to 14? Would the B10 be interested in any 2 of Missouri, Rutgers, Maryland, Kansas, NC, Duke?
I think most of these schools at best only pay their own way and don’t increase the B10’s revenue per school on its next tv deal. As most all of us have concluded, its ND (or Texas) or bust for the B10.
B10 isn’t too worried about finding a partner with either, I’d expect they’d accept any number of universities as program #14 to partner with either Texas or ND.
LikeLike
http://alabama.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1337082
Nick Saban will be offering 4 year scholarships starting with the 2013 class. I’m sure he’ll still find ways to cut players (continued medical redshirt abuse, etc), but I wanted to acknowledge the move since I’ve criticized him before. It’s only fair.
LikeLike
Good move, glad to hear it. We’ll see what happens down the line of course, but he deserves credit for this at least.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, this is way OT, but do you have an opinion about Big Ten baseball potentially breaking away from the NCAA? A Michigan blog was floating the idea, and I thought your input would be great!
http://mgoblog.com/content/big-ten-should-take-its-baseball-and-go-home
LikeLike
scroll up.
LikeLike
I’m pretty excited about the B10 proposal to allow play of up to 14 baseball games in the fall (I would suggest 4 weekends in August, before college football starts). One question though: why would approval be needed to play in the fall but not the summer? Is it because there is a rule stating when college baseball can start but not when it can end?
BTW, if 14 baseball games can be played in the fall, I’d suggest in August vs the Pac (both leagues have a TV channel to fill then), or, if they pass, the BE. Maybe even some in MLB stadiums.
The spring schedule would be a BE/B10 challenge to kickoff the spring + 1 OOC series/tournament before conference play starts.
LikeLike
For fans of teams that are facing the end of rivalries because of realignment:
I am investigating the impact of conference realignment in intercollegiate athletics. In particular, I am interested in gauging fan perceptions toward rival teams for schools that are changing conferences in the coming years. If you would like to provide your perception of your favorite team’s rival in the current and new conference, please follow the link to the survey below.
http://fs21.formsite.com/havard22/form6/index.html
Thank you and your help is very much appreciated.
Cody T. Havard, Ph.D.
University of Memphis
LikeLike
Quote from aTm’s SBnation blog, where the researcher asked for assistance. Take the survey if you want to.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football More Popular Than You Think | PAC-12 Football
Value of a home game
One of those potential events could be a Southern Miss-Nebraska football game played at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in 2013.
When asked what kind of pay-off that USM could be looking at for the game, Hammond answered between “$1.2 and $1.5 million after expenses.”
That’s an impressive figure compared USM came out with approximately $400,000 when the Cornhuskers came to Hattiesburg in 2003.
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20120302/SOUTHERNMISS/120301015
LikeLike
Value of a home game for a decent non-AQ.
LikeLike
For example, Michigan is being paid $4.7M to play Alabama in Jerryworld, which is about what UM would get in profit from a home game:
http://detroit.sbnation.com/2010/8/8/1612134/michigan-alabama-2012-dallas-cowboys-stadium
LikeLike
Update on Temple
Temple has given the Big East a verbal agreement it will join the league in 2012, but an official announcement can not be made until the Owls finalize their settlement to leave the Mid-American Conference, sources told CBSSports.com.
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/35063868
LikeLike
Good maps showing where the talent is in various sports:
http://www.sportsgeography.com/projects-whosgotgame.htm
The thing that jumps out at me is that CA (and rest of the west coast to a certain extent) in baseball is like the deep south in football: A big region that produces a giant number of players. Meanwhile, most of the south in baseball (outside of a few low population states) is more akin to OH, TX or the ACC core in football: pretty good; above average, but not the dominant region.
This can be seen in Boyd Nation’s college rankings (he shows that the teams west of the Rockies tend to get penalied by RPI because they rarely ever play teams east of the Rockies, so even though they tend to be the best in the country, just because they beat each other up so much and don’t get to play weak northern teams that much, thei RPI profiles are similar to southern teams.
Also, of the 17 North Americans who were in the top 10 in WAR in either pitching or hitting in 2011, a whopping 9 were Californians (compared to 5 southerners, 2 northerners, and an Oregonian in Jacoby Ellsbury).
Meanwhile, the north has a hold on basketball talent (though the Mississippi delta produces at an above average rate as well). What’s interesting is that while the stretch from NC up to NYC has a heavy concentration of college basketball recruits, the Midwest actually produces NBA players at a better rate. My theory is that hype (and interest in HS basketball) may be the reason for the difference.
LikeLike
Maybe midwestern players learn the fundamentals. Although NBA players don’t know fundamentals that much anymore.
LikeLike
bullet:
I thought what you said was true was true 10-20 years ago (when they pretty much didn’t call traveling in the NBA), but these days, NBA players seem to be able to combine solid fundamental play with immense athleticism. My theory is that the overall athleticism has increased so much all around that no player can get by on sheer athleticism but sloppy fundamentals any more.
LikeLike
I’m really talking about blocking out and free throw shooting. There are no pure shooters anymore either.
There used to be players you could bring in off the bench who would nail an open 15-20 footer.
Speaking of fundamentals, today is the 50th anniversary of Wilt Chamberlin’s 100 point game, which, of course, is still the record. He had a rare good free throw shooting game that day. His 55 rebounds in another game is also still a record. He averaged 50 points and 25 rebounds a game that year.
I was pointing out to one of my children that today is Texas Independence Day. However, at their school they are celebrating Dr. Seuss’s birthday. And, its Wilt 100 day at ESPN.
LikeLike
“There are no pure shooters anymore either.”
“There used to be players you could bring in off the bench who would nail an open 15-20 footer.”
??? Steve Novak? To me, there are a ton of pure shooters in the NBA (bench players who’s sole role is shooting open jumpers). Frank and those who watch the NBA more frequently can likely name more.
Free throw shooting percentage in the NBA also hasn’t declined:
Just curious, bullet, how many NBA games do you watch these days?
LikeLike
I’d disagree about the jump shooting and free throw shooting. If anything, the big change is that many power forwards have turned into face the basket jump shooters instead of back to the basket post players.
Now, the boxing out does seem poorer these days, although I think it has less to do with players not knowing how the box out and more that there’s much more of an emphasis on getting transition points with the rise in athleticism. That’s really where the Heat (as much as I loathe them) excel. They might give up some offensive rebounds, yet that’s because LeBron and Wade will streak down the floor as soon as the other team shoots. When the Heat do get the rebound, they often get a quick outlet pass and get a 2-and-1 with LeBron and Wade in the open floor, which is completely unstoppable. Personally, there’s nothing more infuriating than watching my teams, the Bulls and Illini, give up offensive rebounds since proper boxing out by everyone can always prevent that, but I can understand the tradeoff if you’ve got super-athletic wing players that can take advantage of the transition game.
LikeLike
Interestingly (or maybe not), college players have consistently been worse at free throws than NBA players (by about the same margin) for decades:
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1611
It’s in one of the early links.
LikeLike
I haven’t watched a lot in the last 5 years.
Those were interesting articles and supported my perception. Except for last year the free throw shooting is well below where it was in the 80s. It was really low in the late 90s. FT% has recovered somewhat in recent years, but part was due to foreigners, who shoot 1.4% better. WNBA players shoot better.
I don’t know how long you have been following the NBA, but if you started in the 90s, you would have a very different perception. I followed a Houston Rockets team in the 70s that had Rudy Tomjanovich, Mike Newlin and Calvin Murphy, 3 great pure shooters. Rick Barry was with them for a couple of years. Barry and Murphy are Hall of Famers, who, when they retired, were #1 and #2 on the all time FT% list at around 90%. Murphy broke Barry’s record 1 year by hitting 95.8% of his free throws. It wasn’t broken for 28 years (a Spaniard broke it).
Every team had one of those guys, who, if he gets clear on a screen was deadly. Larry Bird was a great pure shooter. Denver averaged 126.5 points a game in 81-82 and went 136 games without scoring less than 100. Has any team even scored 126 points yet this season? Teams rarely won scoring below 100. The Lakers hold the FG shooting % with 54.5% in 1984-5. A lot was Jabbar and Worthy up close, but they had a lot of great outside shooters. The NBA became a really ugly game in the 90s compared to what it was before.
LikeLike
Some of the low % in that study in the 70s have to do with the ABA. The number of pro teams tripled from 9 to 27 in the space of a few years. It dropped down to 22 in the late 70s with the merger of the ABA and NBA. There was definitely some dilution prior to that.
LikeLike
bullet:
I watched the NBA some in the ’80’s and in the ’90’s during the Jordan years. Compared to college ball back then, NBA ball in the ’90’s was too physical and dreary for my taste. Now the NBA players are as athletic as they’ve ever been, but the skill level is at an insane level as well. They’re almost like video game characters the way they can create shots, score from any angle, fly to the hoop, and block shots a foot above the rim. Open shots are nearly automatic, and the defending is good too (guys can strip and block without fouling despite players and the ball moving at lightening speeds). Now when I switch from the NBA to college ball, it’s like watching 10 unathletic guys scrapping it out on the playground, missing open shot after open shot, fouling all the time, and scrumming below the rim for rebounds, often times just exploiting their physicality or size rather than skill.
I think what it is is that basketball is most entertaining when skill is on display, and skill is on display when players can’t win just by using their physicality. In college ball in the ’80’s, players weren’t generally athletic enough to just win with physicality while that was more true with NBA players. Now college ball has reached the stage the NBA was in in the ’90’s, while in the NBA, nearly everyone is an athletic freak (and the league really has cracked down on negative play), so you have to outskill/outscheme the other guy to win.
LikeLike
I think one big issue was the decision to allow the zone defense in 2001. Forced players to refine their skills since they no longer had to worry about just beating one guy (that’s an oversimplification but it gets my point across).
LikeLike
There is definitely an increase in athleticism in the NBA over the last few years. The 90s did have a lot of 2 man game. The Rockets/Knicks final was pretty ugly, especially considering the enormous talent on the floor.
The problem in the colleges in the 80s was that it was a transition period. Its one of the reasons I dislike John Thompson and the Big East. His Georgetown teams mugged the opponents and the Big East style of officiating took over the game. I remember one game against Dayton that was really bad. Some of the things that weren’t called fouls might have been assults if they were in a bar. They were trailing UK in the semi-finals that year and just started mugging the dribbler and UK barely got a shot off the 2nd half, scoring only 11 points. As you say, few college players had the talent for them to use NBA style officiating. Reminds me of a kids game with my son the other day where they were loose on calling fouls and it was just one jump ball after another. The teams scored half what they normally did. I liked the college game better in the 70s and early 80s (except that there was no shot clock). The players have to be stronger now to handle the physicality while agilty had a higher priority before. We’re finally starting to get more players who combine the two traits well.
LikeLike
frug:
Good point. The NBA’s loosen of the defensive rules to allow zones has made it more entertaining and more of a thinking man’s game.
LikeLike
It was getting hard to police anyway. Several teams were already playing zones. That was part of the idea of the 2 man game-to expose zones. The teams would have to play a real man-to-man or risk getting a technical foul.
LikeLike
Interesting article.
Its a reprint of a 1995 Athlon article about the end of the SWC and Birth of the Big 12. It has a lot of parallels with what has been happening the last couple of years.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/look-back-birth-big-12
LikeLike
I hadn’t read that in a while, but this quote stuck out this time:
“Miami’s support is four miles wide and an inch deep. If they drop off, that will plummet.”
LikeLike
I was amazed at the typos, do they not have proofreaders anymore?
LikeLike
In reading that it appeared to have been scanned an put through an optical character recognition system. It was probably not stored digitally when written in the 1990s.
LikeLike
New NCAA sport for women launched today! Florida State defeated UAB 5-0 in —- “Sand Volleyball”. Not sure if they wore bikinis or school uniforms. Can’t find a picture yet of the game, but I assume bikinis would be too “titillating” for the NCAA Poobahs. Wouldn’t want to tarnish the image of that exalted organization (sarcastic!).
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46609853/ns/sports-college_basketball/
http://usavolleyball.org/news/article/30643
LikeLike
Wonder if Delany voted in favor of this sport? Will they have playoffs?
LikeLike
Blazers, Noles Play First Sanctioned Collegiate Sand Volleyball Match. FSU 5 UAB 0.
http://www.uabsports.com/sports/w-svolley/recaps/030312aaa.html
http://www.uab.edu/uabmagazine/2012/february/netgain
LikeLike
New NCAA women’s sport launched today — Sand Volleyball. Florida State beat UAB 5-0. Wonder if they wore bikini’s or school uniforms. Can’t find any pictures of the game, but bikinis are probably too titillating for the NCAA poobahs. Wouldn’t want to tarnish the image of that exalted organization (sarcasm!).
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46609853/ns/sports-college_basketball/
http://usavolleyball.org/news/article/30643
LikeLike
Apologies if this may have been mentioned prior to (I did not read through every comment yet), but one reason the Pac numbers may be poor is that they are still working off of Hansen’s TV deal. While I love what Scott has done for the conference, and he very well may be able to sell ice to Eskimos – Hansen could not sell ice in Phoenix during the summer.
Finding the Pac on TV (prior to next year when the Scott deal kicks in) consisted of Thurs night or finding the needle in the SEC, B1G, ACC Saturday haystack. The only real place to find Pac games were on FSN networks which are 100% regional. I would have to venture to say that lack of exposure hurt them in these rankings. I am not saying that they would beat out the SEC or B1G, because they wouldn’t, but I have to believe that their numbers would be much stronger with more exposure throughout the year (as well as prior years leading up to in order to create a buzz or a larger “following” or interest to programs outside of USC).
LikeLike
Chuck Neinas wants conference champs only in four team playoff. I believe that’s three conference commissioners supporting champs only. Nearly a done deal. I assume this means Big-12 is going to at least 12 teams. Where does that leave the independents?
http://newsok.com/a-four-team-playoff-in-college-football-what-a-fantastic-thing-that-would-be/article/3654549?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
There will be provisions for independents if they are ranked significantly higher than a conference champion… Which 3 commishes are “pro” conference champions?
LikeLike
There are only two: Neinas of the Big 12 and Scott of the Pac-12. The supposed third is former SEC commish Roy Kramer.
LikeLike
I think we can safely assume that Delany is aligned with Scott. Therefore, three commissioners plus one influential former commissioner support conference champs only. Sounds like a done deal.
LikeLike
IRT the indepedents, I suspect that there will be some provision for Notre Dame and Brigham Young (unless BYU has joined the Big XII). My guess is that if ND or BYU are in the top four of the system or poll used to rate the teams in the playoffs, then those two programs would supplant a conference champion (if the four conference champion system is utilized).
The problem with that approach, however, is that it would have exclused a team like Alabama from last season just because they were in a conference–even if they had the same record as a hypothetical 11-1 Notre Dame or Brigham Young team from last year.
In the end, the system might give the top three conference champions an autobid and leave room for one at large team to become the fourth member of the playoff. If the at large is also a conference champion, then that’s the way it would work out. If not, then that leaves room for an independent and/or a non-conference champion team that had an outstanding season.
LikeLike
I don’t see how they exclude independents (especially when ND is one). And I also don’t see them giving ND an advantage over a team in a conference.
They haven’t shut out wild cards before in the BCS and don’t in any other sport. I don’t see the presidents doing any system any more restrictive than the 3 champs and 1 wild card as you describe, cutter.
LikeLike
I don’t think there will be a wildcard. I think they really do want to emphasize the conference races and thus don’t want it assumed a conference will get a 2nd bid.
More likely, I think the actual rule will say, “The top 4 conference champs or independents, limit one per conference”. If there is a worry that independents will have an easier rode (and since we’re only talking Notre Dame, I don’t think that’s a worry), then I think they’d say:
“The top 4 champions will be in. An independent can replace one of those teams if it is higher than 2 of the champions or in the top 4 overall” So in effect, Notre Dame would have to be the 3rd highest conference champ/independent to get in rather than 4th.
LikeLike
Solution: the top 2 in the final bcs standings are automatic, if a conference champ finishes in the top 4 it is also automatic;
Form a committee to make the other selections.
LikeLike
I found the TV ad dollars for college bball vs. college fball to be quite interesting. Sure there are more D1 teams, and more games per season in roundball, yet regular season and tourney seem to blow the fball numbers away. Also there were nearly identical 20 mil. viewers for the fball title game between two traditional powers, and the NCAA title game between UConn & Butler. It seems to me that college basketball is fairly well underrated by many who preach Football uber alles…
LikeLike
The big difference is that in the areas where the individual schools and conferences keep 100% of the revenues (regular season TV rights & ticket sales), college football brings in twice as much as college basketball, on average, which is why conference realignment is still primarily driven by football.
LikeLike
There’s also the issue that for your average games, dollars simply don’t rise proportionally. Games aren’t valued by how many people watch, but rather by how many people watch vs. how many people would watch something else the network would air (the opportunity cost in economics terms).
For instance:
Lets say a Big Ten football game can get 10 million viewers, while an Big Ten basketball game can bring 2 million viewers, and an episode of Sportscenter could get 1 million viewers. The Big Ten football game brings an extra 9 million people as far as ESPN is concerned, while the Big Ten basketball game only brings 1 million extra.
This is a big part of the reason football is more valuable too. 10 million in one sitting, rather than being five times more valuable than 2 million people, is actually 9 times more valuable.
Then there is also the fact that there are a lot more choices out there for basketball. For instance, the ACC will bring in more basketball fans the SEC, who will bring more fans than the Atlantic 10, but the gulf between ratings for your average game isn’t nearly as great meaning the extra payout to the better leagues is less.
LikeLike
Well yes, but that’s reflected in the TV revenue numbers (which are higher for college basketball in total than for college football, but not for regular season games).
LikeLike
The Des Moines Register has a Sunday feature on basketball guarantee games, with numbers for most B12 and B10 schools. The tenor of the article is a little off-putting, as all the big school coaches and administrators complain that the little schools are expecting good money to come in and get their butt kicked (the two conferences went 90-2 in guarantee games this year, with Kansas taking one of the losses).
Its a multi-part article, the main article includes links to the sub-sections. The second link contains the actual per-school guarantee schedules and payments.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120304/NEWS/303040023/The-cost-of-a-winning-schedule
http://http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120304/NEWS/303040025
LikeLike
The Des Moines Register has a Sunday feature on basketball guarantee games, with numbers for most B12 and B10 schools. The tenor of the article is a little off-putting, as all the big school coaches and administrators complain that the little schools are expecting good money to come in and get their butt kicked (the two conferences went 90-2 in guarantee games this year, with Kansas taking one of the losses).
Its a multi-part article, the main article includes links to the sub-sections.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120304/NEWS/303040023/The-cost-of-a-winning-schedule
LikeLike
@Loki
Did Rice settle for 60k vs. A&M (80-90 seems to be the going rate) since they wouldn’t guarantee they would lose? Rice and Davidson were the 2 wins in those 92 games.
LikeLike
Uh, they’re paying more because the big-money programs sell enough tickets to make guarantee games worthwhile (or more worthwhile than scheduliung home-and-homes). This market doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Seems Bilas is the only big-school guy in the article who understands economics.
LikeLike
Frank,
At least SIU isn’t going dancing as well.
Also, Illinois St. stealing a bid affects NU’s chances negatively.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why but I always find myself rooting for the Salukis when they make the tournament or if they are on TV.
LikeLike
Actually, so do I (though my interest is weaker now). Granted, I grew up in southern Illinois.
LikeLike
Not like anybody on here is probably watching, but Purdue and Nebraska have gone to overtime yet again! For those who do not watch WCBB this game went to triple OT during the regular season. This time around it is for the B1G tourney and the trip to the NCAA.
LikeLike
I will admit to watching it. Good game.
LikeLike
Duff,
It was a great game, and a fitting end to the tournament.
I’m sorry I missed the game during the regular season. Let’s hope the men’s tourney is just as compelling.
Boiler Up!!!
LikeLike
redsroom3,
It was interesting as Nebraska was coming on in WCBB before the B12 split, and Purdue had the “status” in the B1G. It was exciting to watch and will be interesting if this is an “unexpected” bonus of Nebraska in the B1G. I think PU is an NCAA host site for the women so that will give you guys the home court till the regionals. Are you planning on going?
After the big win against MSU I really worried about dropping the game to you guys in the mens game. That 10-0 run in the first half gave enough breathing to withstand the second half run you guys made. A rematch in the championship game for the B1G crown, hummmmm. 🙂
.
jj,
It is not how you start but how you finish. Izzo got those early losses yet here he sits with the #1 seed in the B1G tourney. It is on like Donkey Kong in that bracket! Good luck till then.
LikeLike
Thanks. Looking forward to this more than usual this year. MSU is usually pretty bad in this event. I could easily see IN playing UM or OSU.
LikeLike
It looks like the AQ status for Football will soon be a thing of the past. With March Madness about to start, college basketball should drop the AQ (win conf tourny, get in even if have a losing record) for teams to get into the tourny. Hopefully, Frank will have a post to bring attention to this subject.
LikeLike
B1G Baseball Update.
3-0 Purdue (Auburn, Southern Miss, Charleston Southern)
3-1 Ohio St. (Michigan, Western Michigan (1-1),Villanova)
2-1 Iowa (Youngstown St, Austin Peay (L), Akron); Minnesota (New Mexico St, West Virginia, Nebraska (L)); Nebraska (West Virginia (L), New Mexico St, Minnesota)
2-2 Northwestern (Western Michigan (L), Xavier, Villanova (L), Chicago State)
1-1 Penn St. (Samford); Illinois (St John’s, Coastal Carolina (L))
1-2 Indiana (E TN ST)
1-3 Michigan (Ohio St, Chicago St (W), Xavier (2))
0-3 Michigan St (Texas A&M)
Purdue keeps winning, Michigan St hung around a tough opponent.
LikeLike
Should we assume those Purdue wins are as impressive as they would seem to be given the location of those opponents?
LikeLike
Auburn doens’t look like an SEC power this year. So. Miss has been decent and I don’t know much about Charleston Southern. Right now, Purdue looks like it has a good team. We’ll know for sure in two weeks after games against Missouri St. and Wichita St.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-03-04/nfl-bounty-investigation-wont-stop-with-2011-saints
Does this surprise anyone else? Sounds like this coach may have been paying bounties at Washington, Buffalo, Tennessee, Jacksonville, in additon to New Orleans, for knocking out players. Also the Saints apparently put into a pool for knocking out certain players (good players, not players who they owed for something done to them).
LikeLike
Didn’t surprise me. This isn’t localized to one man either. I wouldn’t be surprised if every team in every sport at one point had something like this.
LikeLike
Are the Saints the NFL equivalent of the Charlestown Chiefs?
LikeLike
Tramel on Big 12 expansion
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/03/03/big-12-expansion-smu-is-not-a-candidate/
Only one problem: You can not make a case for the Big 12 inviting Southern Methodist University.
I really didn’t think we needed to go over this again, but I guess we do. The driving force in conference expansion, the No. 1 criteria, is television money. Not geography. Not culture. Not academic reputation. Not even athletic success. All those things have their various value. But television money is No. 1.
[snip]
Brigham Young would make financial sense for the Big 12. Louisville, Cincinnati, Rutgers, Houston, all would be questionable financially but range from probably would pay off (Louisville, Rutgers) to probably wouldn’t (Cincinnati, Houston). Of course, those other criteria come into play, too, which changes the viability in certain ways.
But New Mexico? Southern Miss? SMU? They don’t work. They don’t work at all.
LikeLike
The most interesting part of Tramel’s opinion there is that Rutgers would pay off but Cincinnati probably would not.
LikeLike
Not that surprising to me. Rutgers brings NJ and the potential for NYC. Cincy’s probably the 4th or 5th most popular sports brand in it’s own (fairly small) city (Xavier doesn’t have a football team, but the X-men have better bball attendance than Cincy by a decent amount).
Granted, Louisville is in an even smaller city, but their only competition for local fan support is UK, and they evidently get a fair amount of local support, judging by their bball revenue.
LikeLike
Richard,
Louisville has UK in the south, and IU to the north. The CJ still carries all three and the red across the river is more crimson than cardinal. The BB revenue is skewed by beer sales and suites – with YUM, Humana, Brown Forman, Papa Johns, and host of corporate HQ’s the cost of entry to a YUM game is raised by the abundance of corporate checks. Even selling the numbers they are, they are not meeting positive financial numbers. If UL stumbles or can not find a media star like Pitino going forward it could get ugly quickly. Cal has brought UK back, and now the Tan One has IU headed back in the right direction.
When UK said they would drop one of UNC / UL / IU, it looked like it would be UNC on the chopping block. This seems to reinforce my observation that old fans in IN and KY want the past to return, and knock UL back down in the process. Look at it as a diamond with IU vs UK on one axis, and UC vs UL on the other. That is between 1 of 4 and 1 of 5 banners for every NCAA basketball championship ever played! Which leads to my next point.
I agree Xavier basketball gets nice attention, and Cintas is a great venue to watch a game in, but discounting the Bearcats seems to miss some key points :
A) – UC has an endowment of around 1 Billion which puts them in select company in D I sports schools.
B) – As you mentioned, X does not have a D I football team, but UC does, which means they are not out of the running.
C) – While not be top 25, but they may be Top 50, which means they can actually compete for a BCS MNC. Not saying the odds are great, but they have a better chance than many below them in the lesser conferences. Remember they finished #2 in the BE, and that included a broken foot that probably kept them from #1
D) – Natural rivals with Louisville. UL is #2 all time on Cincinnati’s football history behind Miami OH (who they have played since the 1800’s) with only 5 games played before 1950. That means the other 45 games are so have been in the post WW II era, and in the past 40 years they have played pretty much interrupted. On the flip side, UC is UL’s #1 all time opponent. While no OU vs TU in stature, they are only 1.5 hours drive from each other which means it is not hard to be fan and rive to a game at the last moment.
E) – TV values are complimented and not cannibalized like CUSA teams. If SMU or Rice join the B12, they are just new schools in the current footprint. Linking UL + UC + WVU gets a part of the bandwidth between Kentucky and Pennsylvania. While not great as islands, they get a boost as island chains. This also makes AD’s happy as you can create pods to shorten travel distance and cost, so you get something like this :
Pod A = WVU + UC + UL
Pod B = KU + KSU + ISU
Pod C = OU + oSu + TT
Pod D = UT + BU + TCU
With shared Tier 1 and Tier 2, each Pod could have its own TV deal for Tier 3. Since the LHN is already in place they could just pay BU and TCU for content while the other 3 Pods could band together for regional niche markets. Selling LHN or Sooner TV in Pod A could be done PPV, while Pod A’s own Tier 3 could find purchase in major metropolitan markets (LOU / CIN / PIT) as a basic channel at maybe 5 to 50 cents a subscriber. Same thing with bundling Pod B in their local area, or viewed another way :
Pod A Tier 3 = WVU (1/3 owner) + UC (1/3 owner) + UL (1/3 owner)
Pod B Tier 3 = KU (2/3 owner) + KSU (1/6 owner) + ISU (1/6 owner)
Pod C Tier 3 = OU (2/3 owner) + oSu (1/6 owner) + TT (1/6 owner)
Pod D Tier 3 = UT (8/9 owner) + BU (1/18 owner) + TCU (1/18 owner)
While you can adjust the share values you get a fit that flows with the historic desires of the top schools in the food chain.
LikeLike
” Even selling the numbers they are, they are not meeting positive financial numbers.”
Eh? What financial numbers? Louisville bball cleared $16.8m; football cleared $3.3M:
Also, from a link there by Dosh:
” Louisville only missed the self-sustaining athletic departments list for the 2009-2010 school year by approximately $1.8 million. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them make the list in coming years with increased revenue from the football stadium expansion and new basketball arena. The athletic department confirmed for me today that revenue from the new basketball arena exceeded projections for ticket sales, suite rentals and concessions, although final numbers are not yet available.”
Mind you, only 22 athletic departments in the whole country are self-sustaining (not on there is UK, though IU is on that list; half are football kings).
Cincy trails Louisville in both football and bball revenues and profit & Rutgers in football revenue.
BTW, a $1B endowment is pretty good, but 36 FBS schools have a bigger endowment (and no one’s going to rush to add Rice or Vandy to their conference, both of whom have several times Cincy’s endowment). Another 12 Div-I bball schools have bigger endowments.
The biggest problem is that Cincy is a small market that has 2 pro teams already. Louisville is smaller, but they’re the biggest game in town (both Lexington and Bloomington are out of town). Rutgers is surrounded by pro teams, but they have a potentially huge market.
LikeLike
richard,
UL may be making money, but the venue itself seems to be having troubles paying their debt!
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy (@mcmurphycbs)
If Plus-1 only has conference champs, look for Bama to join Sun Belt, Georgia to Big East, Ark to WAC, S.Carolina to MAC
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1164492.html
CFN’s top 50 OOC games for 2012 are in the link.
1. AL vs MI (Dallas) 9/1
2. ND @ OU 10/27
3. UF @ FSU 11/24
4. MI @ ND 9/22
5. AU vs Clemson (Atlanta) 9/1
6. BSU @ MSU 8/31
7. OkSU @ AZ 9/8
8. SC @ Clemson 11/24
9. ND @ USC 11/24
10. Miami vs ND (Chicago) 10/6
If that’s the top 10, this will be a boring year. 4 of the 10 are traditional games, which lowers their value in my eyes.
LikeLike
A Notre Dame fan? 4 of 10 and 6 of the top 17?
I wonder if many games were victims of conference realignment. FSU/WVU would have been interesting. I would probably have put it behind only AL/MI on the list of 10 above.
LikeLike
More just a function of all their games being non-conference whereas the conferences themselves have maybe 3-5 marquee non-conference matchups each.
LikeLike
bullet,
A Notre Dame fan? 4 of 10 and 6 of the top 17?
They do play several big name teams this year, but 4 of those 6 are traditional. I think the ND/OU and ND/Miami games are big.
I’d bump some of the next 10 up to replace the traditional OOC games and AU/Clemson since they’ve played a bunch recently (NCSU/TN, NE/UCLA, UC/VT, FSU/USF, UW/LSU).
I wonder if many games were victims of conference realignment. FSU/WVU would have been interesting. I would probably have put it behind only AL/MI on the list of 10 above.
Yeah, that would be top 3 for sure. I don’t think many others were lost, it may have just been a down year. OSU has Cal, for example, which is nice but not as prominent as their top OOC game has been most years. The move to 9 game schedules is having an impact, too. Wait until the B10/P12 deal kicks in, and the ACC, BE, B12 and P12 are at 9 games. There won’t be many major intersectional games left that aren’t traditional unless the B10/P12 match up causes it.
LikeLike
More realignment rumors, this one from the Georgia Tech board. Not sure it will happen, but sounds plausible.
http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2012/3/5/2846545/monday-afternoon-rumor-mill-where-i-guarantee-that-you-didnt-see-this
LikeLike
From the link:
There’s a rumor being reported by Kelly Quinlan of JacketsOnline.com that comes from a couple contacts he has who work for a certain company with four-letter name (it doesn’t start with F, either). This rumor states that the ACC is pushing pretty hard to get Notre Dame and Rutgers to join the conference, which would make the conference round out at 16 after the addition of Pitt and Syracuse. However, they’re saying that this scenario does not have as much weight in likelihood as the next rumor: one that involves Tech leaving the ACC. (obligatory)
You read that right, there’s a rumor with a little more smoke than the other one mentioned that involves said four-letter TV network pushing on the Big Ten (or so) to add Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, and Georgia Tech by the year 2016. Georgia Tech would be offered $25-30 million in TV revenue (from the Big 10 network), meaning travel issues would be nonexistent. The same group expects the SEC to go after NC State and Maryland, also trying to reach 16. (Personally, I get the feeling that if the SEC gets Maryland, the Big Ten goes after Virginia, while the Big Ten getting Maryland would mean the SEC would go after Virginia Tech.) It’ll be really interesting seeing where this goes over the coming months and years. Folks expect the scene of conference realignment to heat up again at the end of this season, so we could see something around that time or earlier suggesting this will happen.
FWIW – Rutgers, Maryland, and Georgia Tech are able to move without having to worry about little brothers. If this rumor is made up, it at least gets that part right. Not sure why Tech would even think about it. It’s a long way from Atlanta to the B1G.
LikeLike
It’s less than 600 miles to OSU. Besides, they are right next to the world’s busiest airport. They can get to anywhere but PSU pretty easily.
LikeLike
You read that right, there’s a rumor with a little more smoke than the other one mentioned that involves said four-letter TV network pushing on the Big Ten (or so) to add Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, and Georgia Tech by the year 2016
ESPN must be very sure the Big Ten is going to re-sign with them.
LikeLike
Yeah, that part seems a tad unrealistic. On the other hand, Delany could work with ESPN to put together a deal to present to ND that would entice them to join.
LikeLike
Or maybe ESPN to the B10: add ND and these 3 other schools and this is the deal you will get.
Still, I’m a bit skeptical because how would it help ESPN (or any network) to see one of the strongest leagues stronger (and the ACC, which they have under long-term contract to favorable terms, weaker)?
LikeLike
So they expect the Big Ten to go after Maryland & Georgia Tech from ACC and the SEC to go after NC State & Maryland.
Assume the above to be true for a second, those rumors that had FSU & Clemson looking into joining the Big 12 would make a whole lot of sense; this would be a ‘maim the ACC’ scenario, when we had been pondering ‘devour the Big 12’ for the past few years.
Of course, these rumors ignore the Big Fish in the ACC: UNC. Would they look to move North or South when everyone else gets on the phone? Surely the Big Ten would skip 1 of Rutgers/Maryland/GT to get UNC? Maybe a 2nd to get Duke as well (giving ND another private school).
If the SEC is looking to expand, NCState and Maryland would certainly be high on the list, but I would think UNC and the Virginia schools would be the first try.
Maybe the Big Ten can steal Maryland and GT and the rest of the ACC would stay put at a 12 school size.
Anyway, maybe ESPN isn’t so much looking to help the Big Ten, but to get some big ACC teams to the Big 12 and to the SEC, where they’ll likely have a stake in a conference network.
LikeLike
Why would ESPN want to help the Big 12? They own all the ACC’s rights. They only own Tier 1 of the Big 12 for the next few years and network for Texas. It seems moving ACC teams to the Big 12 would help out FOX and their Tier 2 contract and do nothing for ESPN.
ESPN may be pushing more schools into the ACC but I highly doubt they would help push a school away given how inexpensive and locked down the ACC is for them.
LikeLike
ESPN owns the ACC and SEC long term, the much simpler solution is to have the ACC play the SEC the same way the B1G plans to play the PAC in the future. lex parsimoniae if you look at the total map.
LikeLike
Well, if the Big Ten were to actually expand to 16 teams, then Notre Dame, Rutgers and Maryland make sense to the degree the conference would be looking to get the BTN on basic cable in the mid-Atlantic and the northeast. I assume the feeling is that a fourth team from that area, such as Connecticut and Boston College, wouldn’t be necessary to accomplish tha goal.
So why not Georgia Tech as #16? The school’s located in Atlanta, so it’s in the midst not only of a major population center, but in the midst of ACC/SEC territory. The Big Ten would be able to split on an east-west divide as follows:
East – Georgia Tech, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
West – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
The Wisconsin-Minnesota-Iowa triumvirate is brought back and Nebraska has natural rivalries with all three teams. Illinois is paired with Northwestern and Purdue with Indiana.
In the east, Notre Dame gets annual games in the east and plays two teams on its regular schedule (Michigan and Michigan State) plus OSU and PSU. Add USC to the Irish’s non-conference schedule as a regular Pac 12 opponent and schedule the remaining non-conference games as desired. Michigan and Ohio State get put back into the same conference. Admittedly, this division looks stronger than the west, but in terms of alignment, rivalries and traditional in-state opponents, etc., it lines up pretty well.
Seven games in the division, one intra-division game, one non-conference games with a Pac 12 (or 16) team and three non-conference games. Otherwise, it 7-2-1-2 in terms of scheduling with the Big 10(16) playing nine conference games as a possibility.
LikeLike
As a fan of Ohio State playing a mainly traditional Midwestern schedule, I’d hate that. It would half feel like Ohio State left the Big Ten and joined an eastern conference. I hope that if they did go with these 4 (which is unlikely, but fun to play along) they’d do pods.
LikeLike
This Terp fan agrees with you regarding pods; it’s the best way to give everyone a chance to play Notre Dame.
How could pods be done with these four newcomers?
A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
B: Notre Dame, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan
C: Ohio State, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
D: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Georgia Tech
Three games in pod, four vs. one other pod (rotating), one vs. each of the other two pods
One guaranteed out-of-pod opponent (with a substitute opponent when pods face each other):
Ohio State-Michigan
Notre Dame-Penn State
Michigan State-Wisconsin
Purdue-Indiana
Nebraska-Georgia Tech
Maryland-Illinois
Rutgers-Minnesota
Northwestern-Iowa
Notre Dame keeps its three traditional Midwest rivals and everyone else sees ND in its stadium once every six years.
LikeLike
That’s better than anything I was coming up with. I think it’s pretty good actually.
Only issue might be them wanting to keep Ohio State-Penn State. I’d take 3 traditional teams over an eastern pod, but I doubt the powers-that-be would let that game end now so you probably need Ohio State in a pod with Michigan or Penn State.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m seeing the following pods with an 8 game schedule (protected game in parenthesis). You’d play most of the non-protected opponents 1/3rds of the time.
West:
Nebraska (PSU)
Wisconsin (GTech)
Iowa (NU)
Minny (Michigan)
East:
PSU (Nebraska)
Rutgers (Maryland)
NU (Iowa)
Illinois (OSU)
South:
ND (MSU)
GTech (Wisconsin)
PU (IU)
Maryland (Rutgers)
North:
Michigan (Minny)
OSU (Illinois)
MSU (ND)
IU (PU)
I’d have to think this through to see if this works.
LikeLike
@Richard
ND would probably insist on playing Michigan every year.
NW and Illinois also wouldn’t play annually which could be an issue.
LikeLike
frug:
Northwestern is “NU”. Nebraska is “Nebraska”.
Also, ND will have to put up with playing Michigan only 4 times in 6 years once the Pac arrangement starts anyway even if they stay as an independent, so they won’t get to play Michigan annually regardless. Going from playing 4 times in 6 years to 2 times in 6 years isn’t a huge deal (IMHO).
Anyway, I revised by pods below.
LikeLike
Eric – Penn State is already in Ohio State’s division with Michigan and Michigan State being just to the north and Notre Dame to the east. If you were to pick four teams in an expanded Big Ten that OSU would likely want to play on a regular basis, those would be the top four. But heck, if the conference were to go to nine conference games, then the Buckeyes would get two more Midwestern teams on the schedule.
I actually do like the pod idea and think it’s a great way to make sure that teams rotate thru the schedule while making sure the major programs get mached up with their traditional foes. I don’t know the present NCAA legislation says about this, but we do know that the then 16-team WAC did do this, but without success. Their problem was that they didn’t keep the traditional rivalries in place. Your idea with the one guaranteed out of pod game would work well. However, does it keep the competitive balance in place that was used to set up the Leaders and Legends Divisions in the first place? Or is that important?
For Brian: I admit that the split I proposed is based more on geography and traditional rivalries and less then on what the Big Ten did when Nebraska entered, i.e., to have a competitive balance between the two divisions. The Big Ten went back to 1993 to figure out how the the present Leaders and Legends Divisions would look like last time. Here’s what we’d get with the three new teams:
East
Georgia Tech 137 – 98
Maryland 109 – 116
Michigan 164 – 72
Michigan State 123 – 108 – 1
Notre Dame 141 – 90 – 1
Ohio State 188 – 51
Penn State 163 – 72
Rutgers 92 – 130 – 1
East Total 1,117 – 737 – 3 (.6025)
West
Illinois 89 – 133 – 1
Indiana 75 – 144 – 1
Iowa 134 – 97
Minnesota 98 – 129
Nebraska 184 – 60
Northwestern 100 – 118 – 1
Purdue 116 – 111 – 3
Wisconsin 167 – 70 – 4
West Total 963 – 862 – 7 (.5276)
So yes, in terms of competitive balance, the overall record for the East would be much better than the West by 154 wins and if the Big Ten went by competitive balance, then the conferences would have to be altered in some manner–perhaps Michigan and Michigan State go west with Indiana and Purdue going to the east.
If the CFB does adapt a playoff system with conference champions getting autobids of some nature, I don’t know if having the Big Ten divisions completely in balance competitively is as much of a necessity. I readily admit that the better teams in the west would have an easier go at winning more of the champions than their eastern counterparts. But if winning the conference championship game is a prerequisite for getting into a playoff, I don’t know how much that really matters.
But as a Michigan alum and fan, when I look at the East Division, I see top tier teams that have regularly appeared on UM’s schedule in the past–ND, MSU, PSU and OSU. This doesn’t represent much of a change in terms of the Wolverines’ past competition. What would be a change is getting into the conference championship game with the likely opponent being Nebraska, Wisconsin or Iowa.
Oh, well. It’s all fun speculation at this point. As I wrote before, unless there’s a major change in college football’s post season or future conference realignment that prohibits or makes it extremely difficult for Notre Dame to get to the national championship and/or schedule enough quality football games, I can’t see ND going anywhere at this point. That said, figuring out which division ND and the other three schools would reside along with the present Big Ten members would be a nice problem to have.
LikeLike
cutter,
[as a reminder, cutter proposed the following split:
East – Georgia Tech, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
West – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
and Eric objected to playing so many eastern schools as an OSU fan]
Eric – Penn State is already in Ohio State’s division with Michigan and Michigan State being just to the north and Notre Dame to the east. If you were to pick four teams in an expanded Big Ten that OSU would likely want to play on a regular basis, those would be the top four.
I assume you meant that ND is just to the west of OSU. Mistakes happen.
That said, as an OSU guy those sure wouldn’t be my top 4.
1. MI – obvious
2. PSU – border rival lite
3. IL – Illibuck
4. IN – border opponent (carryover from MBB rivalry in western OH)
There are short term feelings for certain teams (WI right now), but those would be my top 4 in general. I’m completely indifferent to MSU, like most OSU fans, and I’d put ND on the bottom of my list. OSU and ND have played twice since WWII (regular season), and that’s twice too often for me. I’d put the rest of the B10 on my list before any of GT, MD or RU, too.
But heck, if the conference were to go to nine conference games, then the Buckeyes would get two more Midwestern teams on the schedule.
The ninth game helps, but it doesn’t change that half of the division is eastern. Whatever teams get put with ND and the 4 eastern teams would feel a little out of place. For many reasons, it would be better to split them two and two so they get integrated into the conference faster and so everyone plays them equally.
I actually do like the pod idea and think it’s a great way to make sure that teams rotate thru the schedule while making sure the major programs get mached up with their traditional foes. I don’t know the present NCAA legislation says about this, but we do know that the then 16-team WAC did do this, but without success. Their problem was that they didn’t keep the traditional rivalries in place. Your idea with the one guaranteed out of pod game would work well. However, does it keep the competitive balance in place that was used to set up the Leaders and Legends Divisions in the first place? Or is that important?
Pods are fine by the rules as long as you play every team in your division that year. The NCAA can’t prevent a conference from realigning their divisions every year.
The balance issue is key with B10 pods. You really need all of them about equal so every pairing works and no teams get easier paths to the CCG. The lack of balance breeds infighting.
For Brian: I admit that the split I proposed is based more on geography and traditional rivalries and less then on what the Big Ten did when Nebraska entered, i.e., to have a competitive balance between the two divisions.
I’d say completely overriding what they said when they did the split is based less on what they did last time, yes. While they used the term “competitive balance,” I think we all know they meant brand/media balance as well. Putting 4 kings in one division and 1 in the other is bad for business. You greatly reduce the odds of a king/king CCG, you give 1 king an easier path to the CCG so the other 4 fan bases are irate, and you lessen the value of the 4 by giving them more losses while elevating lesser programs that don’t get the same national attention. With your plan, you also separate all the western schools from OSU and MI and PSU and ND. Why would they accept that?
Any realistic plan would have to split them 3-2 or 2-1-1-1 for pods. I just don’t see the B10 accepting anything else. They can play with where MSU, WI and IA fit in to keep rivalries or balance, but the kings have to be spread out for everybody’s benefit.
The Big Ten went back to 1993 to figure out how the the present Leaders and Legends Divisions would look like last time.
Right. I used numbers since 1996 in my other post since that’s when the B12 started, plus another season has passed making 1993 that much less relevant.
[cutter’s numbers]
National W% ranks since 1996, grouped where appropriate:
OSU 2, NE 9
WI 14, MI 15
PSU 22, GT 26
ND 36, IA 37
MSU 43
PU 50
MD 62
NW 72
MN 80
RU 91
IL 98
IN 111
So yes, in terms of competitive balance, the overall record for the East would be much better than the West by 154 wins and if the Big Ten went by competitive balance, then the conferences would have to be altered in some manner–perhaps Michigan and Michigan State go west with Indiana and Purdue going to the east.
Something would certainly have to change, yes.
If you take a top 8 of OSU, MI, PSU, NE, ND, WI, IA and MSU (ACC numbers put GT in this group, but I think they’d do worse in the B10), there are a few good ways to divide them. True east/west is not really one of them.
Rivalries and balance:
OSU, MI, ND, MSU
PSU, NE, WI, IA
E/W feel:
OSU, NE, WI, IA
MI, PSU, ND, MSU
True E/W:
OSU, PSU, MI, MSU
NE, ND, WI, IA
If the CFB does adapt a playoff system with conference champions getting autobids of some nature, I don’t know if having the Big Ten divisions completely in balance competitively is as much of a necessity. I readily admit that the better teams in the west would have an easier go at winning more of the champions than their eastern counterparts. But if winning the conference championship game is a prerequisite for getting into a playoff, I don’t know how much that really matters.
It matters tremendously to the fans of those teams in the east. Why should NE, WI and IA be gifted an easier path to the CCG, and thus the playoff and ultimately a NC? Balance is crucial if the CCG is the only pathway to the playoff.
But as a Michigan alum and fan, when I look at the East Division, I see top tier teams that have regularly appeared on UM’s schedule in the past–ND, MSU, PSU and OSU. This doesn’t represent much of a change in terms of the Wolverines’ past competition. What would be a change is getting into the conference championship game with the likely opponent being Nebraska, Wisconsin or Iowa.
MI is used to playing them, but MI is also used to those other 4 having similarly difficult schedules. OSU isn’t used to playing ND (thankfully), but also plays a tough OOC game every year. Fans already complain about WI and MSU getting easier B10 schedules with MN and IN as locked games. Letting NE and WI have IN, MN, IL, NW and PU while OSU, MI, PSU, ND and MSU fight among themselves will not be accepted by many fan bases (or ADs or presidents).
Oh, well. It’s all fun speculation at this point. As I wrote before, unless there’s a major change in college football’s post season or future conference realignment that prohibits or makes it extremely difficult for Notre Dame to get to the national championship and/or schedule enough quality football games, I can’t see ND going anywhere at this point. That said, figuring out which division ND and the other three schools would reside along with the present Big Ten members would be a nice problem to have.
Yes, it’s harmless speculation. But even accepting the premise of the rumor, I can’t see the B10 making the split you proposed. Only PSU (maybe ND) wants to play all those eastern schools annually, and everybody would want a level playing field in terms of schedule difficulty and media attention.
LikeLike
cutter,
E – OSU, MI, PSU, ND
W – NE
They wouldn’t accept that split without ND involved, why would it be OK now?
LikeLike
Pretty certain they’d split in to pods of 4 if they actually happens (no way the traditional B10 schools go about a decade without playing some other traditional B10 schools, which is what would happen with a straight split). Maybe with semifinals as well? That would require a rule change, but the SEC may be for a rule change also (as well as possibly the ACC and Pac).
Frank wrote a post describing the mechanics of an 8-game schedule with 4 pods of 4:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/conference-realignment-if-i-was-richer-id-still-be-with-ya/
Obviously with different pods if adding GTech instead of Texas (Maryland would take Syracuse’s spot without missing a beat).
Only ND rivalry that _must_ be protected is Purdue (Michigan and MSU plan to play ND 4 out of 6 years going forward anyway). ND would probably insist on GTech as a rivalry game as well. Maybe an Eastern school. MSU likely has to play ND at least 4 out of 6 years. I don’t think Michigan would mind playing ND only 2 out of 6 years as that allows them to schedule other big-name matchups.
LikeLike
In my scenario above, you could swap permanent out-of-pod games to have Georgia Tech play Notre Dame and Penn State play Nebraska.
LikeLike
In the scenario that the B10 goes to 16, many of us would like to see pods. I’m not sure the B10 office is in favor of that, though. I think they are concerned that casual fans will be confused by the rotating divisions. It helps you play everyone more frequently, but I don’t know if that is enough to win over TPTB.
Even with pods, it’s hard to keep everyone happy.
Appease ND and PSU:
A – PSU, RU, MD, GT
B – MI, ND, MSU, PU
C – NE, IA, WI, MN
D – OSU, IL, NW, IN
You’d have to lock several games (OSU/MI, PU/IN), and the lack of balance will be a sore spot.
Balance and rivalries:
A – OSU, PU, IL, IN
B – MI, ND, MSU, NW
C – NE, WI, IA, MN
D – PSU, GT, MD, RU
Based on conference W% since 1996, the order is OSU, MI, NE, GT, WI, PSU, IA, PU, MSU, NW, MD, MN, IL, RU, IN. Based on overall W%, ND would be after PSU and before IA. I also tried to keep geography together. MSU is on the rise and PU is down, so that hurts the balance. I also assume GT wouldn’t do as well in the B10 as in the ACC.
I could easily see the B10 leaning towards divisions with the edges versus the middle:
Inside – OSU, MI, ND, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
Outside – NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, MD, RU, GT
The balance is decent, almost every major rivalry is preserved, and everyone gets to play the local opponents. The downside is the new guys are all in one division and might feel like outcasts. It certainly makes travel to half of their opponents more difficult. It would slow the integration of the new schools to the B10 to keep them isolated, too. WI, IA and MN might complain about not seeing OSU and MI more, and everyone would want ND.
They’d go to a 9 game schedule (7-2, no fixed), and hopefully have the inside play one east team and one west team each year. I’d prefer to rotate every year, but I assume they’ll stick to 2 years so you get a home and home.
LikeLike
In a 16-team Big Ten with Notre Dame, you will need pods; otherwise, teams in the other division will only have ND visit their stadium once every 14 (or 16) years.
The “balance and rivalries” alignment is good, especially since you can set things up so the permanent out-of-pod games involve A vs. B and C vs. D. In years where that’s the regular pod matchup, have A and B each play one game vs. C and one vs. D.
LikeLike
vp19 – Uh, no offense, but there are a bunch of other really good football teams other than Notre Dame in this hypothetical 16-team conference. Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin are right up there either in historic terms and/or in win-loss records over the last two decades.
That said, I do like the pod idea that you present, but I recall one of the problems with the WAC in the mid 90s was that fans got confused because teams were changing divisions every two years to accomodate the pod setup. I don’t know if fans have gotten smarter or more sophisticated since then, but seeing that they’re still tripping over the membership of the Leaders and Legends Divisions, I’m not too optimistic. Most would be happy with a straight geographic arrangement instead as borne out by the polling data (and then they’d argue about which division is stronger than the other one).
Whatever the league would do, I think they’d at least like to see the following:
1. Keep Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin together, preferably along with Nebraska.
2. Keep Illinois and Northwestern together (i.e. play one another annually).
3. Keep Purdue and Indiana together.
4. Keep Michigan and Ohio State together.
5. Keep Michigan and Michigan State together.
6. Allow Penn State to play Rutgers and Maryland on a regular basis.
7. Keep Michigan, Michigan State and Notre Dame together.
Perhaps a different type of split with a protected rivalry (in brackens) would work for two divisions:
Division A
Georgia Tech (Notre Dame)
Iowa (Purdue)
Minnesota (Indiana)
Nebraska (Penn State)
Wisconsin (Michigan State)
Ohio State (Michigan)
Illinois (Rutgers)
Northwestern (Maryland)
Division B
Maryland (Northwestern)
Penn State (Nebraska)
Rutgers (Illinois)
Purdue (Iowa)
Indiana (Minnesota)
Notre Dame (Georgia Tech)
Michigan (Ohio State)
Michigan State (Wisconsin)
That’d require seven division games, one game with a protected cross-division rival, one more cross-division game and three non-conference games (perhaps with one being against a Pac 12 team). It’s not as neat a solution as the pods, but I throw it out there for consideration. Georgia Tech is going to have to travel regardless of where they end up, but I don’t think they’d mind annual games with Notre Dame, Ohio State, Nebraska and Wisconsin too much in terms of a trade-off.
IRT Notre Dame, they’d have annual games with three teams they currently play on a regular basis in the Big Ten (Michigan, Michgian State, Purdue), one with a traditional power in the B10 (Penn State), two games with east coast teams (Maryland, Rutgers) and an annual contest with Georgia Tech (along with Indiana). Add one more cross-division game plus the annual contest with USC and two other non-conference games (or one if the annual game with Navy is kept in place).
LikeLike
cutter:
9 conference games and B10 schools play some neighbors only twice in 16 years? The Little Brown Jug (oldest college football trophy game in the whole country) not played for 14 straight years? Yeah, that’s not going to fly. Regardless of whether fans can keep pods separate (and here in the B10, fans care more about college football than WAC fans, so I don’t think that would be a big issue), it’s the only way to make 16 schools in the B10 work.
LikeLike
Richard:
A lot of sacred cows have been sacrificed on the altar of college football realignment lately, so the idea that Michgan and Minnesota won’t be playing one another annually for the Little Brown Jug actually isn’t as earth shattering as Texas and Texas A&M not playing or Kansas and Missouri parting ways, etc. I’ll also add that as a Michigan fan and alum, playing the Golden Gophers is way down the priority list of conference football opponents. If someone were to tell me that Michigan had a regular schedule of Notre Dame, Michigan State, Penn State and Ohio State on the schedule and Minnesota would be on the schedule two years out of 14 or 16, I wouldn’t sweat it too much.
I really like the pod idea and would love to see it implemented for a hypothetical 16-team conference. Given CFB’s recent track record regarding adaptation and change, I don’t know if it would actually happen in the Big Ten (or any other conference) right away.
But yes, the whole discussion of putting 16 teams in two divisions and deciding where they go, who they play, how many conference games should be on the schedule, whether or not there should be protected rivalries and how competitive balance should be measured and assessed when putting together these divisions shows how difficult it is to balance competing interests. Simply put, outside of using a pod system, there isn’t a really great way to do it and to balance all the competing interests and desires.
We’ll see what happens. Right now, the SEC is wrestling with a 14-team conference and whether or not they want to play eight or nine conference games. If it’s the latter, I suspect the thinking is that it might make it more difficult for a SEC team to win the national championship. However, with a four-team playoff plus the possible requirement of a conference championship as a prerequisite for getting into it, that might be a lesser concern. Whatever they and the ACC opt to do will help set the standard for the future.
LikeLike
I don’t see anything but pods if the Big Ten goes to 16. It’s not because of playing Notre Dame, it’s to keep the conference one. If you have two 8 team divisions, you don’t have a conference. You have 2 conferences with a scheduling agreement. Teams that have usually played each other every year for 100 years would all of a sudden be playing at most (assuming 9 conference games and no-crossovers) 2 out of 8 years. That’s not a conference or a recipe for long term success. It could have worked in the PAC-16, but that was only with a very straight forward dividing line and even there, the Arizona schools wouldn’t have liked it.
LikeLike
Eric,
I don’t see anything but pods if the Big Ten goes to 16. It’s not because of playing Notre Dame, it’s to keep the conference one. If you have two 8 team divisions, you don’t have a conference. You have 2 conferences with a scheduling agreement. Teams that have usually played each other every year for 100 years would all of a sudden be playing at most (assuming 9 conference games and no-crossovers) 2 out of 8 years. That’s not a conference or a recipe for long term success. It could have worked in the PAC-16, but that was only with a very straight forward dividing line and even there, the Arizona schools wouldn’t have liked it.
For serious football fans pods are a no brainer. The B10 has to worry about the other 90% of fans, though. How many 70 year old alumni are going to understand rotating pod pairings and divisions changing every two years? Hell, how many ESPN broadcasters will get it right? Most people won’t know who’s in their division in any given year, and that’s a problem. The B10 would have to seriously consider divisions with a 9 game schedule. If you don’t play home and homes, you’ll see every team once every 4 years and play at every stadium once every 8. With pods, you play those other 8 more but the 4 less. That’s why I proposed my split before, with the western 4 and eastern 4 as one division (2 groups of 4 with a strong need to play each other) versus the middle 8 (a tangled web of rivalries and history). It even gets the smaller western states access to some prime recruiting grounds (GA, MD, NJ) as an advantage.
LikeLike
Brian,
While the pods are difficult to understand I think that’s actually more of a reason they’ll avoid 16 (hopefully) than a reason they’ll avoid them at 16. The mantra coming from the Big Ten offices has been “we want to play each other more.” I just don’t see them agreeing to go to 16 and only playing half the conference twice every eight years. If they decide on 16, I think pods are agreed to beforehand.
LikeLike
While it’s fair to characterize the Big Ten’s position that way, the Big Ten-Pac-12 agreement was put in place to replace the potential 9th Big Ten conference game. So you know Delany and co. don’t mind forgoing Big Ten games if something else comes up…
LikeLike
That would never work in a million years. With ND, UM, OSU and PSU in the same division you have way to much wealth concentrated in the East.
LikeLike
FWIW, the idea is polling pretty well.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to be sure, but it’s hard to see any situation where the Big Ten goes to 16 and goes for pods in one fell swoop at this time.
That’s why it’s harder for me to see Georgia Tech as an option right now but it’s a possibility like anything else.
Most likely, the Big Ten would have to get Notre Dame and Rutgers in a move to 14. Then after a while (read 20 years), if there’s a possibility of grabbing Maryland + Va Tech or Maryland + Georgia Tech, the Big Ten is likely to look at that.
Again though, as with any scenario for 16, why wouldn’t the Big Ten go to 14 with Notre Dame + Rutgers or Notre Dame + Maryland and just call it a day for a long long time?
Unless, there’s a possibility of semifinals to a CCG being introduced, it’s hard to see anyone going to 16. These conferences still like to be smaller than full fledged leagues. At 16, you really are a football league instead of a conference.
The SEC is stubbornly staying at 8 games for now even with 14 members. Is that going to float with 16? And can the Big Ten or SEC go to pods without destroying a lot of rivalries?
LikeLike
I almost think 16 works better than 14 (and am very against either). With 14, you almost have 2 separate football conferences united by a championship game. Outside of a locked crossover (probably not going away), you would only be playing 1 or 2 of the other 6 every year (depending on if you have an 8 or 9 game schedule). With 16, you’d have more breaks from most teams, but the gaps would be shorter and more spread out.
LikeLike
Zeek:
16 instead of 14 because ND mostly likely would want games in the east and SE (a national conference, if you will) if they deign to join the B10.
LikeLike
Its hard for me to see that any of those teams justify going from 14 to 16. You get Notre Dame and 1 other.
16 really gets you into the two conferences tied by a TV contract. With 14, you could still play everyone at least twice in six years with a 9 game schedule and 1 fixed game. Without fixed games you could get everyone at least 4 out of 10.
And if you wanted, you could still do pods with 14. For example (without putting a lot of thought into who goes where)
West WI, MN, IA, UNL
East ND, Rutgers, PSU, NW
Rotating group 1 IL, IU, OSU
Rotating group 2 UM, MSU, PU
You could play every team at least every other year with an 8 game schedule (3 teams X 4 games + 10 teams X 2 games =32 games over 4 years).
LikeLike
bullet:
If you can add ND while just expanding by 2, you’d stop at 14. However, if ND demands to bring along 2 eastern and 1 southern teams as a condition of them joining, then you’d have to seriously consider 16 (it’s the only reason the B10 would go to 16 instead of 14 first). As I lay out below, if you add 2 eastern & 1 southern team & put, say, GTech & one of Rutgers/Maryland in ND’s pod, ND’s geographical coverage would be very similar to their “national” schedule now as an independent, with the only difference being the games @Pitt being shifted a few hundred miles westward to being @Columbus, @Bloomington, and @Evanston.
LikeLike
Brian & Vincent: The thing to keep in mind is that to get ND, ND would have to be appeased, and I’m pretty certain that ND cares more about playing a “national” schedule (well, as much of one as possible) rather than playing all 3 traditional Midwestern B10 rivalries annually (especially since the Michigan and MSU ones would switch to 4 games in 6 years after the Pac agreement starts anyway). Really, only Purdue would be adamant about playing ND annually. That also means 8 conference games, not 9 (Iowa and the big name programs wouldn’t want both 9 conference games & the Pac agreement anyway)
So, thinking about it some more, here are the pods with protected annual games first in parenthesis and the opponent that each team would play 4 times in 6 years second in parenthesis (everyone else is played 2 times in 6 years). Last number is order by winning percentage (16 is highest, 1 is lowest), courtesy of Brian.
West:
Nebraska (PSU, ND) 14
Wisconsin (Illinois, PU) 12
Iowa (NU, Maryland) 9
Minny (GTech, Michigan) 4
North:
Michigan (OSU, Minny) 15
MSU (ND, PSU) 7
NU (Iowa, Rutgers) 6
Illinois (Wisconsin, IU) 3
East:
OSU (Michigan, GTech) 16
PSU (Nebraska, MSU) 11
Rutgers (Maryland, NU) 2
IU (PU, Illinois) 1
South:
ND (MSU, Nebraska) 10
PU (IU, Wisconsin) 8
GTech (Minny, OSU) 13
Maryland (Rutgers, Iowa) 5
I believe all traditional rivalries are at least somewhat protected. The Little Brown Jug game is still played 4 out of 6 years. MSU even gets to have it’s precious annual game with NU.
Maybe Wisconsin & Iowa switch their permanent rivalries with NU and Illinois, so each school plays the 2 in the other pod 2/3rds of the time.
The divsions are actually somewhat balanced (obviously, 2 kings in the east, but with 5 kings and 4 pods, there’s no good way to avoid that; the East actually comes out weakest using ordinal rank of conference winning percentage since 1996 as the criteria). Average rank:
West: 9.75
North: 7.75
East: 7.5
South: 9
LikeLike
From ND’s perspective, they can still keep the series with USC, Navy, & Stanford and still have one more game to play on the East Coast, Texas, or SE.
In the next 4 years, they will play outside South Bend in the following places:
Ireland: 1
Midwest: 7
East Coast/Northeast: 7
West: 5
South (including Texas): 1
In the B10, they would play a southern team once a year, an eastern team 1 & 2/3 times, and a Midwestern team 5 & 1/3rd times, on average. If they still play USC & Stanford annually and Navy on the East Coast, then say their remaining game against a western school a third of the time and an eastern school 2/3rds of the time, their distribution over 6 years would be
Midwest: 16
East Coast/Northeast: 10
West: 7
South: 3
If you apply the percentage of ND’s current schedule played in each region over 36 games, they would be
Midwest: 12.6
East Coast/Northeast: 12.6
West: 9
South (including Texas): 1.8
The biggest difference is a shift from East Coast games to Midwest games, and that difference is literally shifting 3 games @Pitt to games @tOSU, @IU, and @NU.
LikeLike
Missouri vs Arkansas to be crossover game in SEC. Also, aTm vs South Carolina.
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/3/5/2846069/texas-am-south-carolina-sec-football-rivals
LikeLike
Mizzou would not like to lose their pipeline to Texas recruits, but I suppose beggars can’t be choosers (+ they can establish new ones in FL and GA, though FL is farther away from MO than TX is).
LikeLike
Very good move in my opinion. Texas A&M and Missouri were never rivals and didn’t play every year anyway until the last year of the Big 12 when it went to round robin. Missouri being in the east should have its crossover with the other border state. Them and Arkansas are more likely to become rivals than them and A&M.
On the flip side, Arkansas will like it and South Carolina would rather have access to Texas recruits than a game that doesn’t mean that much vs. Arkansas. Only school I don’t think gains anything here is Texas A&M and I don’t think they really lose anything either.
LikeLike
I think that aTm gains exposure on the East coast which may help the transition. While I really like this arrangement (and predicted it) I do think Mizzou probably would have preferred a biannual game in Texas, not just for the recruiting but also because they have a large alumni base in the state.
LikeLike
Mizzou already has a basketball rivalry with Arkansas. The two schools have played each other 37 times (mostly in the last 30 years) with Arkansas leading the series 19-18. Those were always hotly contested games.
The two schools have only met 5 times in football, with Missouri leading the series 3-2. I think it’s likely that the SEC will play up Missouri and Arkansas as a big rivalry game, and will likely move it to a showcase time slot and date for national TV, maybe on Thanksgiving.
I’m not sure how much playing at Texas A&M every other year was going to help Mizzou in recruiting Texas. It seems to me that when Missouri left the Big 12 they also left behind much of their Texas recruiting. They will need to concentrate more on the southeast now.
As much as there has been talk of Missouri playing in a conference with schools that are far away, and as much as people seem to think Mizzou doesn’t belong in the East, it actually ends up working for the best for Mizzou. With Arkansas as their cross divisional rival, Missouri now plays 4 border state schools on a yearly basis: Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt. In the Big 12 they had 5: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State. South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida really aren’t that much farther from Missouri than Texas, Texas Tech, and Baylor. In the end, it’s pretty similar, especially now with Arkansas as the cross divisional rival. The University of Arkansas is less than an hour from the Missouri border.
LikeLike
It makes sense at the end of the season. With 7 teams in a division, not everyone can play a division game. So A&M/LSU replaces Arkansas/LSU and Missouri/Arkansas is also end of season, along with UM/MSU, AL/AU, UK/TN. UGA,UF,SC and Vandy play out of conference.
LikeLike
I like that. I think is a great way to end the season. Only one kind of left out is Vandy, but there’s no way around that with 3 others ending out of conference and they get the next to the last week for the game they want.
LikeLike
Vandy has a budding rivalry with Wake (OK, I’m not sure how fierce the rivalry is, but they’re similar smaller private academically prestigious southern schools with the exact same colors in bordering states, so there’s potential there).
LikeLike
Arkansas was probably the biggest proponent for admitting Missouri to the SEC because it gives them a new regional rival. The Razorbacks have been a bit of an outlier since leaving the Southwest Conference and losing their big rivals Texas and aTm. If the SEC ever goes to 16, they want a pod of LSU, Arkansas, aTm and Missouri.
LikeLike
If these rumors of the demise of the ACC have any merit, I suppose we might see the Big Ten and SEC taking the best of the ACC, with the rest merging into the Big 12.
Rutgers, Maryland, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech to the Big Ten
North Carolina, Virginia to the SEC
Florida State, Miami, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pitt to the Big 12
Boston College, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest to the Big East.
But I find it really hard to believe that the ACC would fall apart like that. I have a tough time believing this rumor.
Maybe something like:
Rutgers, Notre Dame, Virginia, Georgia Tech to the Big Ten
Maryland and NC State to the SEC
Texas, Texas Tech, OU and OSU to the PAC
West Virginia, Louisville, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and UConn to the ACC
Baylor to the Big East
Or maybe we won’t see superconferences at all. Maybe the Big Ten is done expanding. I tend to think that’s the most likely at this point.
LikeLike
Big Ten: Missouri, Maryland, Notre Dame, Kansas/Rutgers
SEC: Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State
ACC: Rutgers, UConn
Big East: *folds*
LikeLike
That would certainly make the most sense, but I doubt it ever happens for a number of reasons.
LikeLike
1. The SEC is a non-starter for Maryland.
2. North Carolina won’t go anywhere without Duke (ESPN will make sure of that).
LikeLike
The SEC is a non-starter for UVA and UNC as well.
Going back to the Big East is a non-starter for any of those schools. They would take who they wanted out of the mess that is the Big East and create a new ACC.
But I don’t think we’ll see anyone move within the Big 5 until at least the next round of contract negotiations 10 years from now.
LikeLike
The B12 and the B1G are just about to start negotiations or will in the next couple of years. Considering the long term contracts that they will likely sign, why not sort some of this out now? Who other than the SEC, and possibly the Pac (I don’t remember how long their contract runs), will be negotiating in ten years? The ACC is tied up until 2025 or 2026 after the recent three year extension aren’t they?
LikeLike
B12 Tier II (and almost certainly the new Tier I) will expire about the same time as the SEC, Pac and the current ACC (before the extension). B12 schools have signed over their rights for 6 years, which stretches beyond the B1G window. So there will be a LOT of discussions going on around that time.
As for now, I don’t see the B1G expanding w/o ND or Texas and I don’t think either is interested right now.
LikeLike
I think all of these “non-starter” rules go out the window if the ACC is actually falling apart, as is being suggested. Short of that I agree that those core AAU ACC schools likely would not join the SEC.
LikeLike
The thing is, unless the Big 12 manages to pluck out a lot of ACC schools, it’s hard to see the ACC falling apart. The Big Ten isn’t going to be proactive; they’re waiting on ND or Texas. The SEC is at 14, and they’re not likely to make a move that would put UNC at the doorstep of the Big Ten, so why would they make a move unless Florida State decides that they want to bolt the ACC for the SEC?
And even then, the ACC is now at 14. Is UNC ever really going to want to leave the ACC where it’s the king of the hill with the core North Carolina based schools? If the ACC loses 2 schools, they’re back to 12, that’s not much of a loss. Money is important, but in the same way that Texas wanted its own roost, UNC probably thinks the same way. And the East Coast has way more population than Texas + smaller Midwest/Southwest states, so there’s no real population threat to the ACC even if they do lose a school like Clemson or even Florida State.
The only possibility I see for UNC is someday going to the Big Ten, but that scenario really does require the ACC to fall apart (5 or so schools leaving) and it’s hard to see how that can happen unless the Big 12 pulls off an all time stunner and grabs Florida State, Clemson, and 2 or so others.
UNC to me is a 4th or 5th mover kind of school like Texas. Unless a lot of schools start bolting, they aren’t going to be looking at options. Even if the money differences only grow in the future…
LikeLike
Other thing is, I think Texas is more likely to go to the ACC than UNC is to leave the ACC.
Dodds himself said a few weeks ago that Texas would look East if they left. They’re looking at the ACC or Big Ten or some kind of grand alliance of schools if they ever have to leave the Big 12.
LikeLike
In any scenario that involves the ACC surviving, one would think the founding schools would not leave. That means North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Virginia, Clemson, Maryland.
Now, Clemson and Maryland are periphery rather than core schools, so they would be less solid. And perhaps NC State would want to differientiate itself from UNC in the same way Texas A&M is trying to do with UT, but other than that, one would think the other 5 would be loyal to the ACC.
But if the ACC is to totally fall apart, I think anything is possible. The only reason this would be happening is if the ACC were at a severe financial disadvantage comapred with neighboring leagues. If the ACC is paying $16M per school and the B1G and SEC are paying $35M per school, for example. In this case there would be a rush among ACC schools to occupy the 4 or 5 openings in those two leagues. The best of the best would be eligible for those spots. This means the prestigious AAU schools like North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, Duke, and Georgia Tech. I could see 3 going to the Big Ten and two going to the SEC. Maybe Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia Tech to the Big Ten, and North Carolina and Duke to the SEC. The rest of the ACC wouldmerge with Texas and the best of the Big 12 to create teh 4th super-conference.
I personally don’t think superconferences are likely at this point, but if they do happen, this is a way they might happen.
LikeLike
Andy:
NCSU’s board of trustees is the same as UNC’s board of trustees, which means they aren’t going anywhere without UNC’s approval, which means we won’t see a TAMU-type situation in Carolina. Plus, my impression is that NC St. people get along far better with UNC than A&M folks ever did with Texas.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7649441/syracuse-reports-possible-drug-policy-violations-ncaa
So what do people make of the Syracuse drug scandal? If proven, violating your own drug policy is a pretty big no-no. It’s possible that Boeheim and others really didn’t know, but it’s pretty ballsy for somebody lower on the totem pole to decide on their own to falsify results for years. How did this not get caught sooner? And why has the NCAA known for over a year? Even they shouldn’t take that long to investigate this.
LikeLike
Probably time for Boeheim to retire; Too many scandals. It’s hard for me to believe he didn’t have at least some knowledge of what was going on with Bernie Fine and this most recent scandal. Most likely, he decided to turn a “blind eye” to the situations. I think he will be gone before Syracuse enters the ACC, maybe even after the NCAA tournament this year. The university will find a way to ease him out as gracefully as possible so they can move on and begin to rebuild their reputation. I’m sure they will want to enter the ACC with a clean slate.
LikeLike
From what I read, Boeheim ran his basketball team like an NBA coach. That is, he expected his players and coaches to work like it was a real job. He also didn’t ask or care about what was going on in your personal life. All that mattered was that you always showed up and did your job well. The rest of your life was your life and not his concern.
If that’s the case, I can certainly see a guy like Boeheim not knowing about non-basketball stuff going on with his charges.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/59734/3-point-stance-seven-on-seven-summit
An important issue for CFB that has largely been under the radar is the the growing threat that is 7 on 7 tournaments. AAU has destroyed MBB with its corruption and promotion of selfishness, and the same could happen to CFB. I’ll be curious to hear if anything comes out of the meeting being hosted by Lane Kiffin. WIth he and Urban Meyer both involved, you have people on the cutting edge of recruiting to explain the issues and how bad it has gotten.
LikeLike
In Texas its tied into the high schools and doesn’t seem to have the agent issue.
Interesting with all the talk of simplifying they are talking about restricting non-coaching personnel. That would be a real administrative nightmare defining jobs that fall into the restricted area and those that don’t.
LikeLike
As you know, it’s all about the money. The little guys can’t compete with AL having an NFL sized staff, so you throw them a bone by limiting it. The big boys will be OK without the extra people.
LikeLike
Of course, the real question is why should anyone be forced to limit themselves just so that the little guys can pretend to compete (they can’t compete primarily b/c they don’t have the fanbase, the facilities, the tradition, the same quality education, etc. as the big guys). This sort of thing papers over the fundamental issue that the little guys don’t have the same sort of program as the big boys and never will.
OTOH, staff sizes are pretty bloated and cutting them down really isn’t a bad idea. I just think “let’s throw the little guys a bone” is a terrible justification for policy.
LikeLike
It is a terrible justification, but it fits many NCAA decisions in my mind.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/a-conversation-with-acc-1373711.html
Interview with John Swofford. One of his big issues is “finding the right governance approach nationally that best serves an increasingly heterogenous NCAA membership.” I interpret that as Division I is too big.
Says its too early to say there will be 4 team playoff, but there won’t be an “NFL-type playoff.”
On whether there was an inclination to limiting to conference champs, his response was “Not yet. That would be part of the discussion.”
LikeLike
ACC is still in the process of altering its agreement with ESPN.
Q: Are you concerned about the revenue disparity between the ACC’s television contract and some other leagues’ larger deals? Will a renegotiation of your ESPN contract address that?
A: It will. One of the benefits of our expansion . . . is that it allows us to renegotiate our television contract. A lot of TV negotiation is timing and circumstance. The deal we made just a couple of years ago was an outstanding one at the time, [but] circumstances changed and other players came into the marketplace. So the relativity of it changed sooner than we would have ever dreamed, but this gives us the opportunity to [alter] that arrangement, and we’re in the process of doing that.
Q: One report had each ACC school gaining an extra $1 million to $2 million per year from the renegotiation. Is that correct?
A: We haven’t finalized that yet. I’d rather not comment on that at this point, other than to say that I think we’re going to be very pleased with where we are financially when all is said and done.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner is reporting on his Twitter account that the PAC will announce next week that they will be holding next season’s BB tournament in Las Vegas.
Smart move if true.
LikeLike
They really just need to overcome the talent dip/exodus to the NBA and for UCLA to become relevant again.
Considering that both are at all-time nadirs, they’ve got a lot of work in both of those departments.
LikeLike
Talk about impeccable time management and organizational skills. LSU women’s basketball coach Nikki Caldwell coaches the Lady Tigers all the way to the SEC Tournament Championship game on Sunday, gives birth today, and will we ready to coach the Lady Tigers in the NCAAs beginning March 18, most likely in Baton Rouge.
http://theadvocate.com/home/2249293-125/its-a-girl-caldwell-delivers.html
Mom and baby girl (future Lady Tiger?) are doing fine.
LikeLike
Alan,
Congrats on a new lady tiger!!! Having a 7 week old newborn myself, that is quite impressive!!!!
Wow!!!
LikeLike
red – while I had nothing to do with it, I’ll pass along your well wishes the next time I see Coach Caldwell.
On another Lady Tiger topic, reigning LSU Homecoming Queen, former LSU women’s soccer goalie, and future TV personality, Mo Isom is getting a tryout with the LSU football team as kicker. If she makes the team, she will be the first girl to make a BCS football team.
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2012/mo-isom-lsu-football/?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150615055684262_21733037_10150615092494262#fb175d5302de54
LikeLike
Alan, impressive resume for Isom. But I need to nitpick and point out that Katie Hnida made the team at Colorado before playing and scoring at UNM. She suited up at Colorado but never played in a game. The situation allowed Gary Barnett to display yet another ugly aspect to his personality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Hnida
LikeLike
Greg – thanks. I overlooked Hnida’s cup of coffee with the Buffs. I should have written that Mo could be the first girl to actually play for a BCS team.
Here’s a link with her homecoming pic and a video of her 90 yard goal in a soccer game last year. She’s got looks and the leg.
http://mrsec.com/2012/03/womens-soccer-star-trying-out-for-lsu-football-team/#comments
LikeLike
Alan:
Don’t be shy; we all know you’re a latter-day Genghis Khan (minus the killing and pillaging, presumably):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456789/Genghis-Khan-The-daddy-lovers.html
LikeLike
Richard – Killing? No.
Pillaging? Only on CFB road trips.
The rest? Sworn to secrecy.
LikeLike
As long as we’re back on the wild super c speculation, has 15 teams ever been vetted?
How about 3 divisions of 5 with 9 games. You would play the 4 in your division, 3 from 1 other and 2 from the last. Then flip the non-dividional opponents next year. No crossovers. A team would get every other team in 2 years and a home and road with them in 4 years. 2 best records play for championship.
A
Neb
Wisc
Ia
Minny
Mizzou / Texas / Kansas
B
UM
OSU
MSU
Ill
NW
C
PSU
ND
Pur
In
Pitt / MD
LikeLike
You couldn’t hold a CCG if you did that.
LikeLike
Well, there are a couple of obvious issues:
1. NCAA rules would have to change.
2. An odd number of teams makes scheduling harder as not everyone can play a conference game the same week.
If you change the rules, you can rethink 12:
West – NE, WI, IA, MN (medium)
Central – NW, IL, PU, IN (easy)
East – OSU, PSU, MI, MSU (hard)
The east will dominate the media coverage, but the west is pretty stout competitively and the central is balanced despite lacking star power. Play 3 in pod, 3 in another pod, and 2 from the last pod. Two best pod champs meet in the CCG. It’s still not ideal since you lose many king/king options for the CCG, but you restore the rivalries.
Balanced:
A – OSU, PSU, PU, IN
B – MI, MSU, NW, IL
C – NE, WI, IA, MN
You’d need to lock OSU/MI (and could lock PSU/MSU if that helped for scheduling), but now each pod has a king, a second strong team and a weakling. OSU and MI play 3-1-4 (3 in pod, The Game, 2 from each other pod or 3/1) and everyone else is 3-3-2 (3 in pod, 3 from one pod, 2 from the other).
Since you’re throwing out unusual ideas, though, try 13:
Add ND and nobody else to dilute the cash.
A – MI, ND, MSU, PU, IN
B – OSU, PSU, NW, IL
C – NE, WI, IA, MN
Everybody plays their pod, obviously, and The Game is locked.
A – 4 in pod, 2 from each other pod
B, C – 3 in pod, 3 from one pod, 2 from the other
MI – 4 in pod, OSU, 1 from B, 2 from C
OSU – 3 in pod, MI, 2 from A, 2 from C
LikeLike
Brian:
your 13 isn’t bad at all. the rules can always be changed.
LikeLike
It’s certainly good for cash if ND didn’t demand an east coast partner. I think PSU would throw a fit about not adding somebody eastern, though, and with decent cause. Nobody likes to be the outlier, and east coast access cold be a windfall for the B10.
Take my 13 and add RU or MD to pod B.
A and B play 4 pod games and 2 from each of the other pods, with the OSU/MI exception.
C plays 3 in pod, 2 from one pod and 3 from the other.
LikeLike
Pretty much, if you’re going to add ND, why not add Rutgers or Maryland to maximize the value you get in NYC or DC given the concentration of Big Ten alumni (especially Penn State alumni along with solid presence from other schools like Michigan/Ohio State/Michigan State) in either of those areas. You really do want to plant a flag in one of those two metros if you get ND…
LikeLike
I agree. I just wanted to show the 13 case since we were talking odd numbers that will never happen.
LikeLike
I’ve played around with crazy ideas like 3 5-school pods. For your idea to work, obviously the NCAA rules would have to change. You could also have 3 5-school pods without changing the rules. 2 of the pods would combine to form one division while the other pod makes up the second division. The 10-team division plays roundrobin and 1-interdivisional game for 10 league games. The 5-team division plays 4 games in their little division and 2-interdivisional games for 6 games. Teams would have 4 years of 10 league games and 2 years of 6 league games over 6 years. The interdivisional games could be with permanent rivals (one in each pod).
Pods with permanent crossover rivals in parenthesis and ordinal rank of conference winning percentage (from Brian) last (in 15 being best)
Pod A (8.6 average strength):
Michigan (OSU, PU) 14
MSU (ND, Northwestern) 6
Wisconsin (Illinois, Rutgers) 11
Iowa (Nebraska, PSU) 8
Minny (IU, GTech) 4
Pod B (7.4 average strength):
OSU (PSU, Michigan) 15
Nebraska (Iowa, ND) 13
IU (PU, Minny) 1
Northwestern (MSU, Rutgers) 5
Illinois (Wisconsin, GTech) 3
Pod C (8.0 average strength):
ND (MSU, Nebraska) 9
PSU (OSU, Iowa) 10
GTech (Minny, Illinois) 12
Rutgers (Wisconsin, Northwestern) 2
PU (IU, Michigan) 7
Pretty balanced. The pod with the fewest kings has the highest average strength, and the pod with 2 of the 3 highest kings has the lowest average strength, which is what you’d want to see.
You’d obviously want to plan for the 2 years out of 6 when you’re in the smaller division, as getting to the title game is much easier then. The smaller division would also be the one that plays all of the B10-Pac series games (if each of the Pac teams play one game, then 2 of the B10 teams in the smaller division play 3 Pac opponents while the other one plays 2 Pac opponents.
The non-ND kings would still be able to hold 7 home games a year (though obviously, when playing 10 league games, the other 2 are guarantee games & big time OOC series have to take place when playing in the small division). A school like Iowa that has to play ISU every year would have only 6 home games 2 out of 6 years, but they could hold 8 home games when they’re in the smaller division. ND would only be able to play USC & Navy (and maybe visit Hawaii) the 4 years when they’re in the big division, but they could also play Stanford & BC the 2 years when they only have 6 league games.
In fact, this system is so crazy and thought-provoking that I really wish it came about.
LikeLike
You’d still have to change the rules to have a CCG. The current rule requires equally sized divisions, though they’ve given exemptions for the MAC to be off by 1.
LikeLike
Oh shoot. Right, then amend that rule.
LikeLike
Bill Rhoden wrote a column about the demise of the BE due to ignoring CFB. Nothing really new except a lot of quotes from Mike Tranghese blaming everyone else and claiming he foresaw that they would regret declining to invite PSU. He says he wanted the BE to split rather than go hybrid and blamed the bad TV deal on Miami getting probation. He also sounds bitter about SU leaving.
I don’t know how much of that is accurate and how much is a self-serving version of history, but Tranghese definitely throws SJU, Nova and Georgetown under the bus. Marinatto doesn’t come off great either.
LikeLike
Big East was a better football conference than the ACC back before Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College left; at the time I felt they were both a distant #5… End result is largely the same; it was either going to be the Big East’s top programs leaving for the ACC or vice versa…
FWIW I see the B10 able to steal Penn State away from the Big East even if PSU joined back in mid 80’s.
LikeLike
I don’t know that I’d say that. They both were mostly 1 team conferences. The ACC had FSU’s great run, a few great UNC teams, and some quality GT and UVA teams. I think the hybrid format and brief history of the BE always meant the ACC had an edge.
The BE said no to inviting PSU the same year the B10 invited them according to the article. I enjoyed the arrogance to assume that PSU would have chosen the BE over the B10. They might have chosen the BE, but I’d think it would have been a hard choice.
LikeLike
There have been stories from PSU officials that if the ACC had invited Penn State in the early ’80s, it would gladly have joined and the move to the Big Ten might never have taken place. Add the possibility of Syracuse back then as well (SU and Florida State were both considered as the 9th member, the vote was deadlocked 4-4 and eventually wound up in FSU’s favor), with Miami as member #12 along with FSU, and that would have been a heckuva conference in the 1990s — one dozen, same as today, with Penn State and Syracuse replacing Boston College and Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
Carry that forward, and it might have meant VT in the SEC instead of Arkansas. Then what would the collapse of the SWC have yielded? If AR was still around, does Baylor not make the B12 (or someone else)? The B10 would likely have still been at 10. Would they have pushed to steal Big 8 teams then? SWC teams? Would UT have been an option? NE?
LikeLike
Ctually, I think it still would have been Arkansas and SC in the SEC. VT wasn’t a valuable commodity until the mid-atlantic to late-90’s. Remember, Beamer’s first 4-5 seasons in the late 80’s were losing seasons, and although SC also was not exactly a powerhouse either, it was a better known entity and had a 70,00-plus seat stadium back then.
Come to think of it, if PSU would have joined the ACC back in the80’s or 90’s, alongside Miami and others, VT would never have had any Big east to use as a platform to grow into the solid programthat it is today.
LikeLike
And also, Arkansas was a national power in 89. They’ve slipped in the SEC. South Carolina was a nobody at the time. Arkansas would have still been #11. And the demise of the SWC was inevitable with all the city school’s being hurt by the pros.
Timing is important. If the SWC had collapsed when Arkansas left, Houston might have been in the Big 12 and Kansas St. left out. But Houston’s fb and bb programs both took a nosedive at that point and Bill Snyder took over KSU.
LikeLike
I agree the collapse of the SWC was inevitable, regardless of what happened with Arkie. In the post-BCS/expanded cable package era of nationalized college sports a conference with 7 schools in one state never would have worked.
That said…
There is no way K-State ever would have been left out. Remember, the Big XII began as an expansion of the Big 8. UT, aTm, Baylor and Tech all applied for admittance to the Big 8. It wasn’t until after they were accepted that the conference decided to reject the Big 8 history and declare themselves a new conference. (Houston over Baylor definitely could have happened though)
LikeLike
OU and OSU discussed joining the SWC. There was also a discussion of a full merger.
Basically, SMU, TCU and Rice didn’t add value. For that matter neither did Tech or Baylor-or several Big 8 members.
KSU was awful before Snyder. They could have very easily been left out in whatever happened.
The Big 8 story is that the Texas 4 joined the Big 8. What really happened was the best 12 programs from the 2 conferences got together. Only Houston was anywhere close to making the cut among the other 4.
LikeLike
The SWC proposed the full merger. Never had a chance with the B8. B8 wanted the 4 big TX public schools, but TX politics allowed Baylor in instead of Houston. Happened very fast when UT said it would explore all options (UT and A&M had an offer from PAC, but A&M wanted to go SEC at that time). Texas state politics kept UT and A&M from both the PAC and SEC since both TT and Baylor would have suffered the fate of Rice and SMU if they moved to the power conferences.
LikeLike
Michael and bullet,
What I was thinking was that the timing would be different. Tranghese said it was PSU to the B10 that kickstarted everything, so what if that didn’t happen in 1989 but PSU joined the BE for MBB in the early 80s?
Maybe the SEC delays expansion for a couple of years until the SWC explodes anyway. In the 1994 season, VT played in the Sugar Bowl. AR might have preferred the B12 and playing UT every year. VT wasn’t a big name like AR, but it brought a bigger potential TV audience. Would the SEC have looked at a map and said with SC and VT, eventually we might get a NC school too and own the SE?
Would the B12 divisions have been different if AR was around? Would it have been a full merger? Would that mean NE was still happily playing OU every year and not in the B10? Or would UT have looked elsewhere and decided to jump like they almost did?
LikeLike
The Big 8 story is that the Texas 4 joined the Big 8.
It wasn’t a story, it’s what happened. There wasn’t any “discussion” of a merger; there was a proposal by the SWC schools. (Though the Big 8 was willing to consider negotiating TV contracts together). Yes some people had mentioned the possibility of the Oklahoma schools joining the SWC in the early ’80s but that died out once Arkansas left and it became clear the SWC was on life support.
No Big 8 member could have been left out of the Big XII.
LikeLike
There was a recent article by a retired Big 8 president saying they were surprised when Texas and Texas A&M weren’t interested in bringing along the rest of the SWC schools. They had a meeting that he expected to include all 16 schools.
As for KSU, you may not remember how bad they were. They were regularly 1-10, 2-9 and drawing 20k fans a game. It was always KSU (Kansas St.) and KSU (Kent St.) at the top of the bottom 10. These things are about money and KSU was a serious drag at the time, as were TCU, SMU and Rice (who were all winning more and drawing better than pre-Snyder KSU-at least until the SMU death penalty). Its been many years so I’m not certain, but I think I remember a Kansas St. official making the comment that they could have been left out.
These things are about money and Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska were the key players.
LikeLike
Had A&M joined Arkansas in the SEC at that time and Texas and Colorado joined the Pac, with the Big 8 surviving but w/o UT or A&M, things would have been very different. They likely would have invited Texas Tech, Houston and perhaps some of the other original CUSA schools or WAC schools.
LikeLike
Had A&M joined Arkansas in the SEC at that time and Texas and Colorado joined the Pac, with the Big 8 surviving but w/o UT or A&M, things would have been very different. They likely would have invited Texas Tech, Houston and perhaps some of the other original CUSA schools or WAC schools.
In that case, then yeah it may have happened, but you have to remember that KU and KSU share a BoR so barring a complete meltdown they would have been stuck together and Kansas was a net positive to the conference.
The fact is, once it became clear that UT and A&M had no option besides the (then) Big 8, the Big 8 had (almost) all the leverage and it would have been impossible to leave behind any Big 8 schools.
LikeLike
When the SEC expanded, they wanted Arkansas, Texas, A&M and then 1 from FSU & Miami. South Carolina was only invited after 4 of those schools turned them down. So I don’t think VT would have jumped the line, although they might have been picked before SC.
I’ve heard (and read) several different stories about how the Big 12 was founded. In most of them, it was only the Longhorns and Aggies that were going to join the Big 8. The Conference would either going to stay at 10 or add 2 more non-Texas schools (BYU was 1 target, and I think Louisville might have been the other). Politics, of course, lead to 2 other Texas schools joining.
LikeLike
B8 never considered just TX and A&M because both PAC and SEC were interested and would have invited these two schools to join, leaving the B8 high and dry. Neither the PAC or SEC were willing to take baggage in the form of TT, Baylor, or Houston. Texas politics and the fact that A&M wanted to go SEC and TX PAC (and a split would not work with the TX politics of the day) resulted in the B12 since the B8 was willing to take some baggage and TT (leg.) and Baylor (gov.) were the best connected.
LikeLike
Hard to see FSU joining the BE with an invite from the ACC (and FSU would have gotten an invite from the ACC with a BE invite). Remember that Miami originally joined the BE only because the ACC turned them down at the time.
LikeLike
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/quad-qa-big-east-commissioner-mike-tranghese/
Here’s an interview with Tranghese from 2009 that has a lot of good stuff about Penn St (such as the fact that, despite years of speculation, Syracuse did not torpedo Penn St. back in the ’80s, voting in favor of adding PSU all 5 times Gavitt brought the matter up for a vote). However, the most interesting part (at least to me) is his speculation that had Penn St. been admitted we might still have independents.
LikeLike
There are some blatant contradictions in the two articles, such as why Tranghese retired when he did (fear of flying impacting his job versus realignment) and when the issue of bringing in PSU came up (1982 vs 1989).
I think he is dead wrong about independents, though. Outside forces pushed them to join conferences. Where were they all going to get the TV money from to keep up with the power conferences? Once the NCAA lost control of the TV package, independents were mostly doomed.
Something that stuck out to me was the discussion about the hiring of Marinatto. Tranghese clearly felt that the next commissioner needed to have experience with the BE, and all TPTB apparently told him that was the deciding factor in choosing Marinatto. Where were the voices saying they needed an outside viewpoint and some fresh ideas? Where were the people saying Providence shouldn’t always provide the commissioner? Instead, the BE kept choosing the good friend and former lieutenant of the previous guy. Tranghese talks about how he recognized the importance of football, so where was the recommendation to hire someone with some serious CFB experience?
LikeLike
IIRC, there were differing dates with differing purposes.
In the late 70’s or early 80’s Paterno tried to put together an all sports conference with football as its marquee sport (just like the Big Ten or SEC) using the eastern independents as its core (or entirety really). Too many of those schools shot it down, electing to join / stay with the Big East basketball conference and remain independent in football. They honestly thought they were having their cake and eating it too.
Fast forward to 1982 and PSU tries to gain admittance to the Big East, for basketball only, and is shot down. The simple reason is, certain schools that loved the bball focus were worried (rightly so) that PSU would push to include football into the Big East. Ironically, turning the Big East into what it is today. In 1989 there was some confusion on whether PSU was actually going to join the Big Ten or not…the Big East voted, again, to invite PSU as a counter, but, again, was voted down.
Speaking as a PSU fan and one mildly interested in the history of it…I really think think PSU would have chosen a Big East or ACC invite over the Big Ten in the 80’s timeframe. They viewed the joining of a conference as a strictly sports move. What’s more, to be brutally honest PSU wasn’t that “complete” of a school, preferring to focus more on practical sciences as opposed to business, economics, or other Liberal Arts focused endeavors (truly, Paterno can be thanked for the growth in those areas due to his belief in their importance and active fundraising for them).
Nowadays, its comical to see people say PSU is going to join the ACC or any other conference. Penn State is exactly where it wants, and should, be.
LikeLike
Another thing to keep in mind: An eastern all-sports conference might well derived not from the Big East, but the Atlantic 10 (or its predecessor, the Eastern Eight). At one time in the late ’70s, that league included Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple. Had it been able to corral Syracuse and Boston College before the Big East was founded in 1979, it would have a seven-member core, and it might have been able to persuade Maryland to ditch the ACC and make it eight.
LikeLike
Penn State has made the Big Ten a better conference in football and in sports beyond football. Should be interesting to see how this Hockey conference plays out. I am a casual or less than casual Hockey fan but it definitely has my interest. This is coming from a Wisconsin fan where Hockey was our number 1 sport for a long time.
In a prefect world I would like the Big Ten to stay at 12 schools but I really think PSU needs a travel partner at some point. Whether that is Maryland or Rutgers I am fairly indifferent although I think there is more growth in the DC market. If it doesn’t happen when the new television contract is signed it may be another 20 years.
All these “look backs” of hypothetical moves is always fascinating. I remember at one time many thought the Big Ten should and was going to add Iowa State. It’s probably a good thing that the conference leadership takes a very deliberate approach to conference expansion. These moves are extremely difficult if not impossible to unwind.
LikeLike
@Kevin
I was a big proponent of the NorthEast expansion to 16 for the Big Ten, but the more I think about it the more I really thing the Big Ten is done for a decade or two.
I think the B1G and Pac are going to focus on this “collaboration” of all sports and consider that the “new expansion”. They’ll (try to) help establish and promote each other’s conference networks as legitmate channels of interest across the nation and use that as a spring-board for when their next tv contracts come up in 2030 or so. They might expand again then, but then again they might just consider a “tightening” of their collaboration too.
LikeLike
The Big Ten though is clearly done out west. The only school that the Big Ten was really after out there was Nebraska (besides the longshot on Texas). Considering that the Big Ten passed on Missouri (and has on the past), I don’t see them working into future plans.
Now the Pac-12 collaboration brings them to the Big Ten’s border in Colorado, and it’s really hard to see what anything out west other than Texas brings to the table.
The next move will be Eastern, the only question is whether or when it happens.
It is likely to require Notre Dame + 1 or possibly two Eastern schools neither of which is Notre Dame.
Either way, future expansion is likely to solve Penn State’s Eastern synergy issues; the only question is how long we all have to wait.
LikeLike
We might all have to wait for ND to decide to go somewhere.
LikeLike
Slive speaks on the home semis and champions only final four. He’s open to home semis, but doesn’t think the final four should be limited to conference champs.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/03/slive_currently_opposes_only_c.html
While my Tigers certainly got the short end of the stick last season, I have a compromise to the champions-only debate.
1. Use the current BCS formula and take the 3 highest ranked conference champions, with the two highest ranked conference champions getting home field advantage in the semi-finals.
2. Team #4 would the the highest ranked team not among the 3 conference champs. It could an independent Notre Dame, a division runner-up Alabama, a conference co-champ from a conference without a title game, or a conference champ from another conference not in the top 3.
The one caveat would be that a non-conference champ could not host a semi-final game.
LikeLike
Alan, I like your idea of #4 being a wild card. Covers a lot of possibilities and should keep a lot of parties happy.
LikeLike
I would just limit it to 2 teams from the same conference.
Theoretically, you could have Notre Dame, Army and BYU all go unbeaten and end up the top 3. This wouldn’t allow for that. But limiting it to 2 teams from a conference keeps you from getting too much subjectivity and possibly inviting 3 or 4 teams from one conference.
LikeLike
If the top 3 are all indies, only one is the indy champ. They are choosing to be indy, they can accept the downsides as well as the upsides.
LikeLike
Alan,
With all due respect, I hate it. Division runner up whomever can sit down and shut up and win their conference next time.
But if your plan becomes the general basis for the playoff, I’d force the runner-up to play at their conference champ in one semi-final even if it’s 3 versus 4. No one-conference NCG, and no getting a second shot on a neutral field for the NCG. Go on the road in conference in December and beat them the second time around. I’d actually prefer to make it best two out of three, but that doesn’t work logistically. Then the “real” conference champ can face somebody else for the NCG to see how good that conference really was.
LikeLike
I don’t think its fair to the higher ranked team to have to beat the same team again. Its hard to beat a good team twice in a row.
LikeLike
It isn’t fair, and that’s why the runner up shouldn’t be there. But the other two teams shouldn’t be punished either, and the NCG shouldn’t be ruined by being a conference game.
LikeLike
bullet – I’m glad you feel my pain. As I stated above, I put this plan out as a compromise. I don’t like what happened to LSU this past season and wouldn’t want it to happen to another team. If I was the czar of college football, I’d take the four highest ranked conference champs, play semi-finals at the Orange and Sugar on New Year’s Day, and the NCG at the Rose the Sunday before the Super Bowl.
My compromise ain’t perfect. It wouldn’t have helped Texas Tech in ’08, but it would have helped Texas in ’08 and Michigan in ’06. Does a conference runner-up or independent have an easier path to the final four than a conference champion that had to play a CCG? Yes. That’s why I penalize them by not allowing a non-conference champ to host a semi-final game.
We can talk about what’s perfect and each have our own opinion of “perfect”. My plan is something I think TPTB could agree to do.
LikeLike
Alan – I think this is the way the conference commissioners are going to arrange it because they’re going to need to make room for the independents plus it awards a team from a power conference that didn’t necessarily win the national championship. If this arrangement was in place last season, Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma State and Oregon would have been in the playoff with Stanford on the outside looking in.
I can also understand why Slive wouldn’t be enthusiastic about taking only conference champions given the SEC’s recent success. However, if the SEC were to run into a dry patch in terms of football, then it might be something he may want to rethink.
Whether it’s thru conference realignment whereby the conference championship games become de facto quarter-finals or when TPTB opt to go an eight-team playoff outright, we’ll eventually see some format where the top four or five conferences get autobids and there’ll be room for perhaps three or four at large selections. It won’t happen in the near term, but we’ll see that happen eventually, IMHO.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC will hit a dry spell anytime soon.
The 12 kings and a half dozen or so princes are the ones who threaten to win an MNC and the SEC has a disproportionate number of these. I haven’t updated the data for the last two years, but over a 25 year period, the 16 teams who won MNCs (other than Georgia Tech) accounted for 68 of the 75 top 3 finishes and 102 of the 125 top 5 finishes. They were also the only teams in the top 5 more than twice. Those teams included Florida, LSU, Alabama and Tennessee. Georgia and Auburn were the next two schools on that list (which doesn’t include Auburn’s MNC) with UGA having a 2nd and 3rd place and Auburn having a 2nd and 4th.
Those 16 teams were by current conference:
SEC FL, LSU, AL, TN
B1G OSU, UM, UNL, PSU
ACC FSU, Miami FL
Big 12 UT, OU
Pac 12 USC, WA, CU
Ind ND
The other 6 teams who made the top 3 were:
SEC UGA, AU
Pac 12 OR, UT
ACC GT, VT
LikeLike
They might if they ever have to actually follow the same rules as everyone else, like not paying $180k for a QB, and also not treat players like only commodities. The non-oversigning SEC schools have all had ups and downs. It’s just the rules abuse factories in the west that constantly reload and never lack for elite depth at any position no matter what happens.
LikeLike
How would Notre Dame get into a National Championship game if they weren’t in a conference if only conference champions can attend? I think I see what JD is doing here….
LikeLike
Forcing ND in to the ACC?
LikeLike
By not being a runner up in a conference. Anyone with common sense knows that they aren’t talking about excluding independents, just teams that fail to win their conference.
LikeLike
Wow, I was working my way down this blog, and realized I was getting behind
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/sports-data-from-nielsen-tv-viewership-for-college-conferences-and-pro-sports-social-media-buzz/#comment-124637
^^^^^^^^ here is link from above on why the B12 will add UL and UC and Tier 3 issues
.
Adding to that I think the ACC will stronger, and not weaker, and see the following :
ACC adds Notre Dame and Uconn
SEC stays at 14 till they near the end of the ESPN deal
B1G stays at 12
PAC stays at 12
B1G gets to 12
The future “buddy” system for college football
B1G and PAC buddy up for OOC games
ACC and SEC buddy up for OOC games
B12 and Big East / non AQ FBS schools buddy up for OOC games
.
Alan, congrats to Nikki Caldwell, but I have 3 questions for you?
a) do you attend the games?
b) will she be the next UT WBBC?
c) will you attend the NCAA this year in NOLA, and if so how can I contact you?
.
jj, did a follow up on your IU vs MSU post that may get lost, so check it out. If the SEC did stick at 14, and the B1G decided to go to 14 with the ACC and B12 scenario above I say the time is right to add Rutgers and Toronto. It keeps academics in the forefront, and expands the B1G footprint North and East. it also means the B1G makes history as the first multi national conference!
LikeLike
duff –
a) I haven’t been to a girl’s game in a few years. I’m a bandwagon basketball fan. While I have season tickets for the men, I only go to about 3 or 4 games a year. My secretary’s sons are very appreciative. I do plan to attend the NCAA Women’s 1st and 2nd round games in Baton Rouge.
b) From everything I hear, Nikki Caldwell is very happy in Baton Rouge. She has been well received and LSU is paying her very well. We all hope Pat Summit can continue to coach forever, but I understood that the succession plan at UTn was to promote from within with Mickie DeMoss. I could be mistaken, but hope I’m right. I don’t know how Caldwell could turn down Tennessee, if offered.
c) I will be in New Orleans that weekend. I’m standing in a wedding that Saturday, so I can’t attend the semi-final games. Right now, my plan is to hang around and grab a championship game from one of the semi-final losers. duff – shoot me an e-mail at alanmillerlaw@yahoo.com.
LikeLike
Realignment may slow now that Temple will be in the BE in 2012 replacing WVU. I doubt that the ACC is about to break-up or GT will get an invite to the B1G. The new playoff selection criteria may force some further actions in the next few years if it is only conference champions from a CCG. That would force action by the B12 to expand and Notre Dame to join a conference. In that case ND might join the B12 (Notre Dame Network?) rather than the B1G to keep more third tier rights. However, the most likely situation is a NCG selection process that allows ND to stay independent and the B12 to remain at 10.
LikeLike
I agree that it is unlikely that ND will be forced to join a conference but I think that all conferences will require a CCG. Maybe they give the B12 a waiver to hold the game with ten schools until, and unless, they add two more schools but it would be unfair to allow a conference to not play a CCG. It is also unfair that an independent won’t have to play a CCG, the path to the playoff needs to be as uniform as possible. That is the screwed up world of college football.
LikeLike
No way they require CCG’s but allow independents to play for the national title.
LikeLike
Well, maybe not. It certainly doesn’t make sense but this is college football. Until a few years ago championships were won strictly by the votes of guys who never saw most teams play. Even now the MNCG’s participants are still selected by those same guys.
To be fair everyone should be in a conference, preferably of the same size, and everyone should play a CCG or no one should.
LikeLike
To be fair everyone should be in a conference, preferably of the same size, and everyone should play a CCG or no one should.
joe4psu,
That has been the backbone of my B12 debate this past season! When you move towards a common position – in this case a CCG – the outlier will be punished until they conform. I know brian hammered me about this, but I think the more the CCG becomes the standard, the more the B12 will be penalized for not having one. This will become more apparent when the OOC for the B12 does not provide compelling match ups. Notre Dame is the only Top 25 team on the B12 OOC at this point. Baylor now plays TCU as a conference foe, and TAMU moved to the SEC which made their tilt with Arkansas a conference game for the SEC. PSU was rewarded for playing Alabama last year, and Michigan will be rewarded for playing Alabama this year if they wind up in the hunt at the end of the season.
Notre Dame is an exception because it is a “national” brand not confined to the state of Indiana, and because it maintains national exposure via their games across decent opponents in AQ conferences {ACC = 4 in Miami FL + BC + WF + future ACC member Pitt, B1G = 3 in PU + MSU + UM, PAC = 2 in Stanford + USC, IND = 2 in BYU + Navy, and B12 = 1 in OU} which gives them a very respectable schedule while not being a member of any of them. The only way the B12 can overcome their “regional” flavor is to schedule “brand” OOC games as Oklahoma has done. TCU scheduling UVA, or WVU scheduling MD only helps if these schools are actually good the year they play them. This happened to KSU last year when Miami FL ended the season 6-6 and off the radar as a Top 25 team, which I think kept the Wildcats behind Boise State, Oregon, and Arkansas in the final BCS poll.
My premise this past season was that without the CCG and OOC Top 25 opponent the B12 would slip in conference power over 3-5 years unless one of the 2 remaining “brands” can go undefeated to have a real shot at keeping the conference as a whole in the spotlight. Your separate and unequal point is spot on.
LikeLike
duff – TCU and Oklahoma of the Big XII will continue to schedule “brand” OOC games. The Horned Frogs and the Sooners both play home and homes with LSU this decade.
LikeLike
I disagree about everyone should play a CCG or not. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC, and PAC-12 all chose to leave a traditional set-up and go to a CCG. If that hurts them/helps them so be it. No one else should be forced to have one if they don’t want one (I kind of wish we’d dumb it in the Big Ten to be honest).
LikeLike
duffman and joe4psu,
To be fair everyone should be in a conference, preferably of the same size, and everyone should play a CCG or no one should.
joe4psu,
That has been the backbone of my B12 debate this past season!
I think you’re taking too narrow of a view.
ACC – 8 games + neutral site CCG (headed to 9 + CCG)
BE – 7 games (headed to 8 or 9 + CCG)
B10 – 8 + neutral site CCG (headed to 8 + 1 P12 + CCG)
B12 – 9
P12 – 9 + home CCG (headed to 9 + 1 B10 + CCG)
SEC – 8 + neutral site CCG
Indy – 12 of varying difficulty
Why is 8 games plus a CCG automatically harder than a full round robin of 9 games to you? You make no allowance for the quality of those 12 games versus the extra cupcake many teams are playing in their 12th game. The B12 champ has to play all the top teams in its conference, unlike UGA last year in the SEC for example (missed AL and AR – 2 of the top 4 teams). UT won the B12 in 1996 after going 6-2 in conference without beating a ranked team all season until the CCG (0-1 against the three ranked teams in the North). The top 3 teams in the North were all ranked and undefeated against the South, but the South champ just had to win one upset to win the conference. That’s the harder path you want to mandate over a full round robin?
Every conference has a different plan, and even within a conference every team has it a little different based on their OOC schedule. USC will have 9 P12 + 1 B10 + ND every year plus a CCG. I’m supposed to believe that LSU playing 8 SEC + N TX, Towson, Idaho and UW + CCG is equal to that, but OU potentially playing 9 B12 + ND + TN + Tulsa in 2015 is too easy?
SOS is a factor in any subjective ranking system, so playing 12 games versus 13 is a factor. So is playing a I-AA, 2 weak non-AQs, a weak AQ and 8 conference games before a CCG. 13 versus 12 isn’t the only issue for SOS.
When you move towards a common position – in this case a CCG – the outlier will be punished until they conform.
The outlier isn’t and shouldn’t be punished by a good system. Said system will consider all the facts, and notice that playing one extra cupcake doesn’t really make most SEC schedules any harder than B12 schedules. Or do you really consider that Sun Belt game a risk for the SEC champ?
I know brian hammered me about this, but I think the more the CCG becomes the standard, the more the B12 will be penalized for not having one.
My main issue is that I don’t believe the CCG is the problem. The B12 champ can’t dodge any good team in conference while all the CCG champs usually miss a top team or two. You never allow for that fact in your argument. I think playing the 9 best teams in your conference balances out an extra cupcake game. And remember, all 10 B12 teams play 9 conference opponents while only 2 SEC teams do. I think all the extra Sun Belt and I-AA opponents balance things out.
This will become more apparent when the OOC for the B12 does not provide compelling match ups. Notre Dame is the only Top 25 team on the B12 OOC at this point. Baylor now plays TCU as a conference foe, and TAMU moved to the SEC which made their tilt with Arkansas a conference game for the SEC. PSU was rewarded for playing Alabama last year, and Michigan will be rewarded for playing Alabama this year if they wind up in the hunt at the end of the season.
Due to the upheaval, I think a year or two of shaky schedules is understandable. Look at some of the home and homes coming in future years:
OU – TN, OSU, ND, LSU
UT – ND, USC, MD, Cal
OkSU – Clemson
TCU – LSU, AR
WV – MSU, MD
ISU – IA every year
I didn’t check the other programs, but that’s not terrible on top of 9 conference games that include all (but one if you’re on the list) of UT, OU, WV, OkSU and TCU every year.
Notre Dame is an exception because it is a “national” brand not confined to the state of Indiana, and because it maintains national exposure via their games across decent opponents in AQ conferences {ACC = 4 in Miami FL + BC + WF + future ACC member Pitt, B1G = 3 in PU + MSU + UM, PAC = 2 in Stanford + USC, IND = 2 in BYU + Navy, and B12 = 1 in OU} which gives them a very respectable schedule while not being a member of any of them. The only way the B12 can overcome their “regional” flavor is to schedule “brand” OOC games as Oklahoma has done. TCU scheduling UVA, or WVU scheduling MD only helps if these schools are actually good the year they play them. This happened to KSU last year when Miami FL ended the season 6-6 and off the radar as a Top 25 team, which I think kept the Wildcats behind Boise State, Oregon, and Arkansas in the final BCS poll.
Being KSU was a factor last year, too. So was getting crushed by an OU team that wasn’t great. Winning a bunch of close, high scoring games built no confidence in their D either. They couldn’t even manage a 10 point margin against anyone but Kent State and KU (and they played Eastern KY). Having an offense built around a non-throwing QB doesn’t generally impress voters either unless you’re truly an option team.
My premise this past season was that without the CCG and OOC Top 25 opponent the B12 would slip in conference power over 3-5 years unless one of the 2 remaining “brands” can go undefeated to have a real shot at keeping the conference as a whole in the spotlight. Your separate and unequal point is spot on.
If you run the numbers, the B12 improved by adding TCU and WV to replace TAMU and MO. CO isn’t looking like a major loss either. UT and OU will continue to keep the B12 prominent nationally, especially as TX continues to grow in size.
LikeLike
@ Alan,
I said all along the Sooners are the outlier for the B12 as they seem to have no historical problem with scheduling strong OOC. They really seem most SEC like in making a jump, which I keep thinking may be closer to happening. The B1G does not seem to want them from the academic side, and we have seen the PAC turn them down flat. The SEC will allow the folks in Norman to keep their Tier 3, and across the SEC footprint, that would be a massive footprint compared to what they have in the B12. It even plays well for the current SEC as you could have OU anchor the west, and move Alabama and Auburn east to keep the Alabama / Tennessee and Auburn / Georgia block happy with all 4 being in the same division. Iowa and Iowa State broke long ago, and if the 16 team conferences come, maybe oSu and KSU just become casualties in the mergers.
I think TCU is in a different boat being a private school in a state full of FBS football schools. Winning in lesser conference is easier, so it allows for higher status OOC games. As FSU found moving from IND to ACC, that extra loss or 2 means no MNC run. Boise State has the luxury of playing 1 high sight OOC game because it only plays 1. They are in essence the FSU of this era but playing in a non AQ instead of playing as an IND. I find it telling that PSU, FSU, and Miami all have dropped since going to major AQ conferences. I said it back when Bowden played as an IND that not being in a good conference added at least 1-2 wins per season. Not saying Bowden was a bad coach, just that the extra loss or 2 means no MNC runs. I still expect TCU to be a top school, but the first 5 – 10 years in the B12 may affect how they schedule.
.
@ Brian
I think you’re taking too narrow of a view.
ACC – 8 games + neutral site CCG (headed to 9 + CCG)
If their end game is adding Notre Dame and Uconn to get to 16, I tend to agree. However, until that happens I have the suspicion that you will see an ACC vs SEC cross game in place of the 9th conference game, and maybe this means 8 conference games + 1 SEC game + 1 FCS game + 2 FBS games. Swofford said 9 will not become the standard till after Pitt and SU join, and if ESPN has to choose between FSU vs UF or FSU vs SU / Clemson vs USC or Clemson vs Pitt, lets just say I will believe it when I see it.
BE – 7 games (headed to 8 or 9 + CCG)
The Big East is slipping in football, and the future adds are getting less returns than the teams leaving. WVU / TCU are gone, and Pitt / SU are already out the door. I can see no combination of 12 or 16 teams that allows them to become a predator. Louisville seems to be the next gone, and Cincinnati as a tag along means the Big East will get pounded again. As an 8 or 10 team league, they can become the B12 in the east – where they can all play each other – but that will not mean they will be a challenge to the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC. In short, who cares what the Big East does in football.
B10 – 8 + neutral site CCG (headed to 8 + 1 P12 + CCG)
The B1G is in no hurry to pass 12, and can stay at 12 even if the ACC and SEC go to 16. The fact that the 9 game B1G conference schedule does not happen till 2017 after the contract expiration in 2015 / 2016 is very telling. The B1G + PAC = 9th crossover game makes perfect sense if this never comes to pass. 8 conference games + 1 PAC game + 1 FBS AQ game + 2 FBS non AQ games (via MAC) to get to a 12 game season.
B12 – 9
This is the downward spiral conference going from 3 “brands” , some nice support schools, and a CCG to 2 “brands” , a few top schools + more bottom schools, and no more CCG. They lost a state AND “brand” with Nebraska jumping to the B1G. They lost states with Colorado and Missouri, and they lost a fantastic “support” school when TAMU jumped to the SEC. The issue with the B12 is they lost their top schools, but kept all their bottom ones. If you look at it another way, even if they add UL and UC, how many 80K to 100K football stadiums can the B12 support? They are now a ship taking on water, as if all they offer is the RRR, they lose national appeal, but if WVU starts winning the league, they just sink the “brand” status of OU and UT. When the fall schedule rolls around, the only Top 25 matchup they have OOC is Oklahoma vs Notre Dame! Just because they are rearranging the deck chairs does not mean they are not still sinking. Suppose over the next 5 – 10 years UT and OU muster a bunch 8, 9, or 10 win seasons – but never go undefeated or 1 loss – and stay out of the spotlight except for the RRR game? Nebraska could do the same in the B1G, but they will not have to rely on 1 game a season for their identity.
P12 – 9 + home CCG (headed to 9 + 1 B10 + CCG)
The PAC probably has to go to 9 conference games just because of location. The bottom of the PAC is more FBS non AQ like, so it is no big deal. 9 conference games + 1 B1G game + 2 FBS non AQ makes sense when you look at geography. There are just not as many football schools in the west, and far west, to schedule. Look at the FBS spread based on the Mississippi River in terms of conference “flavor” – notice the imbalance?
East :
AQ = Big East + ACC + B1G + SEC + IND (Army / Navy / Notre Dame)
non AQ = CUSA (east) + MAC + Sun Belt
West :
AQ = B12 + IND (BYU)
non AQ = CUSA (west) + MWC + WAC
SEC – 8 + neutral site CCG
The SEC can play 8 conference + 1 ACC OOC + 2 FBS + 1 FCS. While the SEC does play FCS, they really play with 1 FCS conference with over 400 games played all time. What conference is that you ask? The SoCon, which was the mother conference to 11 of the 12 current SEC schools. Only Arkansas was not a SoCon member at one time. In essence, the SoCon is the B1G’s version of the MAC except 1 is bottom FBS, and the other is top FCS. Both have roughly ~ 400 games with their “big brother” conference. This makes sense as the MAC is inside the B1G footprint, and the SoCon footprints well with the SEC east teams, and some of the SEC west teams. In the future I can see the SEC play 8 + 1 ACC + 1 FBS + 1 Sun Belt + 1 SoCon / Southland FCS.
Indy – 12 of varying difficulty
With Army and Navy headed to the Big East, that leaves BYU and Notre Dame, who can both play as “national” schools because their fans are not limited by a state or regional footprint.
.
Why is 8 games plus a CCG automatically harder than a full round robin of 9 games to you? You make no allowance for the quality of those 12 games versus the extra cupcake many teams are playing in their 12th game. The B12 champ has to play all the top teams in its conference, unlike UGA last year in the SEC for example (missed AL and AR – 2 of the top 4 teams). UT won the B12 in 1996 after going 6-2 in conference without beating a ranked team all season until the CCG (0-1 against the three ranked teams in the North). The top 3 teams in the North were all ranked and undefeated against the South, but the South champ just had to win one upset to win the conference. That’s the harder path you want to mandate over a full round robin?
It is not a question of what I think, because I actually prefer 10 team conferences, but that cow is already out of the barn, and not matter what I do, my power can not put that cow back in. It is a question of what then becomes the norm, and the norm now, and in the future, is 12 conference teams + a CCG. Call it what you like, but to me it is a money grab for the CCG, and now the ACC + B1G + PAC + SEC are all locked in for the future. Like it or not, these 4 conferences have a seat at the main table with the B1G and SEC at opposing heads of that table. The B12 and Big East had a seat at the table, but they now find themselves fighting not to be placed at the kiddie table. Only 3 schools are left that really make a difference, and this is how they may land in the end :
Notre Dame = ACC 1st, B1G 2nd, PAC 3rd, SEC 4th
Oklahoma = SEC 1st, PAC 2nd, B1G 3rd, ACC 4th
Texas = PAC 1st, B1G 2nd, ACC 3rd, SEC 4th
Even if any of these possible combinations comes to pass, the B12 as it exists today will become the SoCon of the past. With zero brands, and no football stadiums over 60,000 seats, what would let them compete with the Big 3 / 4 conferences? What I never lose sight of is the “needle” moving conference realignment for the past quarter century has been Notre Dame, and I am just pointing out that I never lose sight of this no matter what has happened in between during the past quarter century. I am choosing to focus on the top games that generate ratings than wasting my time focusing on games 11, or 12! The B1G playing a MAC school makes as much difference as a SEC school playing a SoCon school. They are generally wins, but can have upsets, like when FCS SoCon school Appalachian State beat Michigan in the Big House in 2007. Again, the B12 seems to not have great OOC vs Top 25 match ups, so this will come back to bite them in the backside as we go forward and they are the exception, and not the average. Watching IU beat Towson, WKU, or Akron mean about the same to me, as none of these games mean squat if IU has a chance to win a division, a CCG, or a MNC. I guess I just never why these type of a games are not as easily dismissed by a Buckeye fan who is used to contending for these higher goals?
Every conference has a different plan, and even within a conference every team has it a little different based on their OOC schedule. USC will have 9 P12 + 1 B10 + ND every year plus a CCG. I’m supposed to believe that LSU playing 8 SEC + N TX, Towson, Idaho and UW + CCG is equal to that, but OU potentially playing 9 B12 + ND + TN + Tulsa in 2015 is too easy?
I have said all along that Oklahoma is the scheduling outlier in B12 scheduling, and you have confirmed it by using them as you example as well. I think OU will always be in the MNC hunt if they have a good season BECAUSE of this. What I am talking about is the other 9 schools in the B12 going forward – TAMU was the one scheduling UA, and MU was the one scheduling ASU – as out side of OU, and possibly WVU, who will schedule tough long term? Is it that hard to see the difference between Top 25 and Top 100 when it comes to scheduling? If Oklahoma State scheduled Southern Cal in the PAC instead of Arizona, and won, I am willing to bet good money they would have been forgiven the Iowa State loss in overtime. Do you think this is possible as well?
SOS is a factor in any subjective ranking system, so playing 12 games versus 13 is a factor. So is playing a I-AA, 2 weak non-AQs, a weak AQ and 8 conference games before a CCG. 13 versus 12 isn’t the only issue for SOS.
Again why waste your time and energy worrying about the bottom of a schools schedule, and focus more on the top? The Buckeyes played 2 MAC schools and a PAC that I would only care if they lost (similar to the upset of UM by App State) for their 3 bad OOC games. I give credit to them for scheduling Miami FL, but Miami has been on a skid since entering the ACC which may mean switching to FSU or Va Tech instead, or Southern Cal / Oregon (if they can maintain what they have built) / Stanford (if they can compete in a post Luck world) in their B1G vs PAC game in the future. If Ohio State plays say Oregon State in their B1G vs PAC game, you may understand me not watching a snooze fest that may be less competitive than a MAC team. If you are so worried about 10 / 11 / 12, then how could you ever put Boise State in the Top 50, much less the Top 25, or even higher and let them play for a MNC? Not only is 10 / 11 / 12 suspect for Boise State, but so are 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9! Please tell me you would want Ohio State passed up for a MNC shot if they went 12-1 and won the B1G CCG while Houston and Boise State went undefeated and played for the MNC instead?! As Ohio State and Michigan dropping out of the B1G to join the MAC would be about the same as the Boise State schedule.
The outlier isn’t and shouldn’t be punished by a good system. Said system will consider all the facts, and notice that playing one extra cupcake doesn’t really make most SEC schedules any harder than B12 schedules. Or do you really consider that Sun Belt game a risk for the SEC champ?
Let me distill this to the simplest form when playing OOC :
me : how good is the top OOC game
you : worry about the bottom OOC games
My main issue is that I don’t believe the CCG is the problem. The B12 champ can’t dodge any good team in conference while all the CCG champs usually miss a top team or two. You never allow for that fact in your argument. I think playing the 9 best teams in your conference balances out an extra cupcake game. And remember, all 10 B12 teams play 9 conference opponents while only 2 SEC teams do. I think all the extra Sun Belt and I-AA opponents balance things out.
Again, the CCG means 2 things :
a) You had to play a 13th game – 1 more than a B12 or Big East school
b) The 13th game is against a Top 25 team, and probably a Top 5 or 10 team
Due to the upheaval, I think a year or two of shaky schedules is understandable. Look at some of the home and homes coming in future years :
OU – TN, OSU, ND, LSU – {yes on all 4, again, OU is the outlier}
UT – ND, USC, MD, Cal – {yes on ND / U$C, no on MD and Cal}
OkSU – Clemson – {yes, but where are other schools?}
TCU – LSU, AR – {yes, but were these scheduled when they were BE bound?}
WV – MSU, MD – {yes for MSU, no for MD – think Ohio State scheduling AZ}
ISU – IA every year – {no choice, as this is the only in state rival game}
I didn’t check the other programs, but that’s not terrible on top of 9 conference games that include all (but one if you’re on the list) of UT, OU, WV, OkSU and TCU every year .
BU – Duke in 2017 and 2018 is only FBS AQ, scheduling IU next in 2023?
ISU – sans IOWA, no AQ schools scheduled through 2021
KU – Duke in 2014 is the only AQ in the next 6 years, scary!
KSU – cancelled H & H with Va Tech already, Snyder does not like tough OOC
OU – 12/13 Notre Dame, 14/15 UTn, 16/17 tOSU, 18/19 LSU = YES!!!!
OSU – Clemson in 2019 and 2020 with no AQ’s till then
TCU – 13/14 LSU, 15/16 Arkansas, will these be honored in B12? after 2016?
UT – 15/16 Notre Dame, 17/18 U$C, 19/20 Notre Dame, still leaves 12/13/14
TT – the worst OOC scheduler in the conference! and maybe the country?
WVU – 12 FSU game cancelled, 13 FSU ?? MSU in 14/15. 16/17/18/19 ??
On your points on KSU I can see them as well, but if they had beaten FSU @ FSU in place of OU (say the opponents had been flipped) I still think they would have been on the radar more as look at all the goodwill OU got for beating FSU @ FSU. It helped OU that FSU came back strong and finished a respectable 8-4, while it hurt KSU when Miami finished 6-6. The difference is OU has a history of scheduling tough, and Snyder was not happy with Miami on the schedule, and has expressed in the press his disdain for scheduling tough OOC games.
If you run the numbers, the B12 improved by adding TCU and WV to replace TAMU and MO. CO isn’t looking like a major loss either. UT and OU will continue to keep the B12 prominent nationally, especially as TX continues to grow in size .
We must agree to disagree on this point! CU has a MNC from 1990, and they joined the Big 8 after WWII so they are newer to big time football. I actually think they will do well with the money the new PAC 12 deal will put in their coffers. Do I think they will challenge Southern Cal for dominance of the PAC? Probably not, but they have a ~60% all time win record and should find a spot in the middle of wealthy conference. TCU has been able to differentiate itself as a team away from UT / TAMU / TT / BU by being in another conference that was not as competitive. They are closer to ~50% all time, and feel they will become where they were in the old SWC. They must carve a niche in a city as a private school, while CU could carve their niche as the flagship public school in an entire state. The Buffs also have about 10,000 more seats in their stadium.
Missouri is a large population state, and MU is the state flagship. Just getting the travel crazy SEC fans coming to town probably means an 80,000 seat stadium in the near future. TAMU has fans just as crazy as the SEC and it would not surprise me in the least if their 80,000 + stadium gets bumped to 100,000 + if they have decent success in the SEC. If they do well they may wind up with the biggest stadium in the SEC and the state of Texas! If TAMU gets to 8-9 win seasons and a few 10+ seasons, they could challenge Happy Valley for the #1 stadium in the USA. Somehow I do not see WVU or TCU getting anywhere near that kind of number. Even if they do nothing, they should have no trouble selling out to traveling SEC fans. The bigger issue is the upside for TAMU in the other sports as they just won a NC in WCBB, and they can draw fans for baseball crazy SEC folks (as Alan and Bamatab have posted on here in the past) which TCU and WVU can not match.
Viewed another way :
Nebraska = “brand” + MNC + stadium + fans
Colorado = MNC
Missouri = stadium + fans
Texas A&M = stadium + fans
replaced with
WVU = none (small stadium, small state)
TCU = none (smaller stadium than WVU, must share 1 city in state)
you are a math guy, so can you show your math on that statement?
UNL + CU + TAMU + MU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WVU + TCU
TAMU + MU >>>>>>>> WVU + TCU
LikeLike
Duff:
Just a few things:
1. I don’t believe OU can/will ditch OK St. They’d be in the Pac already if they did/could.
2. FSU won their 2 national titles as a member of the ACC.
LikeLike
BTW, Duff, FSU averaged about 1 loss a year their first 8 years in the AC, so by your reasoning, the ‘Noles would have been undefeated for 8 straight years (from ’92 to ’99) if they had simply stayed independent.
LikeLike
richard,
sorry, my error in that I did not specify at the 10 – 12 range. I brought this up in several posts about the progression from 8 teams, to 10, to 12 and the CCG issue. Since were discussing this I thought it was implied.
Old ACC = Clemson / Duke / MD / UNC / NCST / UVA / WF
not exactly a murderers row of college football, and only 7 teams
Ga Tech got them to 8 when the B1G and SEC were already 10 in 1978
FSU got them to 9 in 1991 and MNC’s in 1993 & 1999
Miami & Va Tech got them to 11 in 2004
Boston College got them to 12 and a CCG in 2005
Playing 11 games and no CCG is 2 fewer games in a season meant their season really was just Miami and Florida when they went 12-0 in 1999. Granted they met Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl, but they had a month to prep for them. Since the divisions FSU has compiled the following records :
2005 8-4
2006 6-6
2007 7-5
2008 8-4
2009 6-6
2010 9-3
2011 8-4
.
Same with Miami, as 3 MNC’s were as IND, and 2 were Big East, but since the ACC went to 12 and a CCG the records have been:
2005 9-2 with 2 losses coming from conference mates FSU and GT
2006 6-6
2007 5-7
2008 7-5
2009 9-3
2010 7-7
2011 6-6
As you can see neither school has been where it was even tho at least 3 of the 14 might have been MNC worthy, and 3 more should have been at least 10 win seasons. I think TCU will get 8 wins in the B12, but getting 10, 11, or 12 wins maybe almost impossible now that they will have to play better teams more often, and attrition can take its toll. It also illustrates that a bad season for FSU / Miami would still be a good season at IU.
LikeLike
@duffman
Its just no contest right now. TCU and WVU make the Big 12 stronger than they were with CU, MU and A&M. For that matter, it makes them stronger than with Nebraska over the last 10 years (balanced by CU, MU and A&M). Now in terms of potential, TCU and WVU are at their peak, CU is at their bottom and UNL is down some. MU and A&M have potential but haven’t demonstrated it very often. So long run, it probably does make the Big 12 weaker.
As for scheduling I guess you haven’t looked much at SEC or B1G schedules lately. Texas Tech the worst scheduler? They have scheduled pretty weak since the Leach era, but have you ever looked at Wisconsin? Big 12 schedules are no different than what the SEC has historically done and the B1G has been doing the last 5 years.
Oklahoma St. had a series with UGA. You can’t expect many kings on a schedule as the kings don’t like teams like Oklahoma St. who they may struggle with, but don’t get much credit for beating. TT and KSU schedule weaker than they should. KU and BU need to not schedule too strong ooc (see IU and UK). Other than those 4, the scheduling isn’t especially weak. As for Texas, Notre Dame 4 times, USC twice, OU every year in conference, Ohio St. in the recent past. Can any school in the country other than Notre Dame say they have played that many kings?
LikeLike
And with the Big 12, the powers don’t schedule Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Florida A&M and the Citadel like Alabama and Florida do. KSU wouldn’t even schedule most of those schools.
LikeLike
Notre Dame = ACC 1st, B1G 2nd, PAC 3rd, SEC 4th
Oklahoma = SEC 1st, PAC 2nd, B1G 3rd, ACC 4th
Texas = PAC 1st, B1G 2nd, ACC 3rd, SEC 4th
The ACC has two things going against it where its pursuit of Notre Dame is concerned: It simply doesn’t have enough of a football brand, even with Florida State and Miami on board, and its core market is the Carolinas and Virginia, home to relatively few Catholics (ND students, alumni or fans). The Big Ten has a significant Catholic population in its territory, and its resources (Big Ten Network, CIC) more easily allow it to grow to a 16-member, quasi-national “superconference” that would placate most of ND’s qualms than the ACC could.
Let’s put it this way — the Big Ten could lure Maryland and Georgia Tech, but what schools could the ACC bring in to make it more “national”? No one from the Big Ten or SEC, certainly, probably not Brigham Young, either. The Texas flirtation with the ACC was a sham from the outset. What’s left — Louisville? A nice complement to ACC basketball, perhaps, but not something that would satisfy Notre Dame for football.
ND’s only realistic conference option in a landscape that requires conference membership for football playoff participation is the Big Ten, and both sides know it. Thus, they are trying to work out some sort of deal for a potential marriage.
LikeLike
duffman,
@ Brian
I think we’re talking past each other here. I said you (and joe4psu) take too narrow of a view because you both profess that everyone should have to play a CCG to be “fair” to everyone else. My point in showing how every conference currently schedules (and is about to schedule) was that the conferences already have a wide disparity in terms of scheduling, so it seems very arbitrary to me to say that a CCG is the difference in making schedules fair.
You two both seem so focused on some teams playing 13 games while other play 12 that you ignore the quality of those games. Why is 8 AQ conference games, four cupcakes and a CCG fair while 9 AQ conference games, one decent OOC game and two cupcakes is automatically unfair? You say I’m focused on the weak OOC games, but I say you choose to ignore the number of losable games. As I pointed out, the B12 champ has automatically had to play all the other top teams in their conference. That is not true for any conference with divisions, and in fact those champs often miss 1-2 of the top teams. I just don’t see the basis for argument of fairness being tied to the CCG.
I wasn’t talking about expansion, or which leagues are tougher, or anything else. I was responding to that one line you posted. Most of what you wrote seemed to address other issues, not the fairness doctrine of CCG that I was calling into question.
ACC – 8 games + neutral site CCG (headed to 9 + CCG)
If their end game is adding Notre Dame and Uconn to get to 16, I tend to agree. However, until that happens I have the suspicion that you will see an ACC vs SEC cross game in place of the 9th conference game, and maybe this means 8 conference games + 1 SEC game + 1 FCS game + 2 FBS games. Swofford said 9 will not become the standard till after Pitt and SU join, and if ESPN has to choose between FSU vs UF or FSU vs SU / Clemson vs USC or Clemson vs Pitt, lets just say I will believe it when I see it.
Pitt and SU will join in 2013. I don’t think it’s projecting too much to say they will go to 9 games then. 3 ACC teams already play an SEC opponent. I don’t think the two leagues will move to a full 14 game series, since they don’t have the same incentives as the B10 and P12 and most of the SEC isn’t looking for another decent game. So you’ll see the ACC at 9 + CCG with 3 of the teams having a locked SEC rival.
B10 – 8 + neutral site CCG (headed to 8 + 1 P12 + CCG)
The B1G is in no hurry to pass 12, and can stay at 12 even if the ACC and SEC go to 16. The fact that the 9 game B1G conference schedule does not happen till 2017 after the contract expiration in 2015 / 2016 is very telling. The B1G + PAC = 9th crossover game makes perfect sense if this never comes to pass. 8 conference games + 1 PAC game + 1 FBS AQ game + 2 FBS non AQ games (via MAC) to get to a 12 game season.
The 9th B10 game is dead. Delany said it’s not going to happen with the P12 deal. As for the rest of your equation, I only listed mandatory games for each conference. There’s no basis to assume every B10 team will also play 1 more AQ plus two non-AQs OOC. I’ll bet you that several will play a I-AA and two non-AQs, so we should be honest about that.
B12 – 9
This is the downward spiral conference going from 3 “brands” , some nice support schools, and a CCG to 2 “brands” , a few top schools + more bottom schools, and no more CCG. They lost a state AND “brand” with Nebraska jumping to the B1G. They lost states with Colorado and Missouri, and they lost a fantastic “support” school when TAMU jumped to the SEC. The issue with the B12 is they lost their top schools, but kept all their bottom ones. If you look at it another way, even if they add UL and UC, how many 80K to 100K football stadiums can the B12 support? They are now a ship taking on water, as if all they offer is the RRR, they lose national appeal, but if WVU starts winning the league, they just sink the “brand” status of OU and UT. When the fall schedule rolls around, the only Top 25 matchup they have OOC is Oklahoma vs Notre Dame! Just because they are rearranging the deck chairs does not mean they are not still sinking. Suppose over the next 5 – 10 years UT and OU muster a bunch 8, 9, or 10 win seasons – but never go undefeated or 1 loss – and stay out of the spotlight except for the RRR game? Nebraska could do the same in the B1G, but they will not have to rely on 1 game a season for their identity.
You assume they are on a downward spiral, but you have no actual evidence. In their one year without NE, they were the toughest conference and had plenty of top 25 teams. It may sound bad to lose TAMU, but TCU has been the better team for a decade. WV is a bigger name and has more history than MO, too. The B12 has more quality programs than the BE, ACC or P12. You are down on the league and look for any reason to denigrate them. Losing NE hurt, but CO has been terrible for years. They got better on the field as a conference by losing CO. They also got better by trading TAMU and MO for TCU and WV. Yet you say they added bottom schools (TCU and WV both coming off multiple BCS games are bad, apparently). The B12 will slide to midpack as a conference most years, sure, especially when Baylor doesn’t have an elite QB. But OU, UT, TCU, WV and OkSU is a decent core.
P12 – 9 + home CCG (headed to 9 + 1 B10 + CCG)
The PAC probably has to go to 9 conference games just because of location. The bottom of the PAC is more FBS non AQ like, so it is no big deal. 9 conference games + 1 B1G game + 2 FBS non AQ makes sense when you look at geography. There are just not as many football schools in the west, and far west, to schedule.
The P12 went to 9 several years ago, and added the CCG last year. While I agree that the bottom of the P12 is weak, every conference has that. Or do schools like Duke, IN, MN, IL, KS and Vandy not count? I would say all the power conferences have a weak bottom, the real differences are in the strength of the middle teams.
SEC – 8 + neutral site CCG
The SEC can play 8 conference + 1 ACC OOC + 2 FBS + 1 FCS. While the SEC does play FCS, they really play with 1 FCS conference with over 400 games played all time.
First, most SEC teams don’t play an ACC team every year. Only 3 of 14 do, so don’t play it up like a conference-wide phenomenon. Second, playing I-AA’s is not defensible for anyone. Sure they’re in the SEC footprint, but so are CUSA and the Sun Belt.
[Why is 8 games plus a CCG automatically harder than a full round robin of 9 games to you?]
It is not a question of what I think, because I actually prefer 10 team conferences, but that cow is already out of the barn, and not matter what I do, my power can not put that cow back in.
In this case it is, because you talked fairness. That’s an opinion, and thus what you think is all that matters.
It is a question of what then becomes the norm, and the norm now, and in the future, is 12 conference teams + a CCG.
That’s factually inaccurate.
ACC, BE, SEC – 14 teams with a CCG
B10, P12 – 12 teams with a CCG
B12 – 10 teams with no CCG (for now – they may go back to 12 soon)
ACC, BE, B12, P12 – 9 conference games
B10, SEC – 8 conference games
The “norm” is to play a CCG, but it’s also to have 14 teams and play 9 conference games. I don’t hear you decrying the unfairness of conferences that have only 12 teams or only play 8 conference games.
>Call it what you like, but to me it is a money grab for the CCG, and now the ACC + B1G + PAC + SEC are all locked in for the future.
It is a pure money grab, but it may still be the best plan with 12 or more teams. I like it better than playing 8 of 13 or 9 of 13 or 8 of 12. 9 of 11 is the same as 8 of 10 (the old B10 plan), which is not too bad but has a lot of co-champions which most fans don’t like.
Like it or not, these 4 conferences have a seat at the main table with the B1G and SEC at opposing heads of that table. The B12 and Big East had a seat at the table, but they now find themselves fighting not to be placed at the kiddie table.
This is where I don’t follow you. I see these 3 tiers (listed alphabetically within each tier):
1. B10, SEC
2. ACC, B12, P12
3. BE
I don’t follow your leap to put the B12 on the bottom rung. The ACC added Pitt and SU for cripes sake. They expanded their already large group of bad to average football teams. How does that vault them ahead of the B12? The P12 isn’t overloaded with kings, either.
Only 3 schools are left that really make a difference, and this is how they may land in the end :
Notre Dame = ACC 1st, B1G 2nd, PAC 3rd, SEC 4th
Oklahoma = SEC 1st, PAC 2nd, B1G 3rd, ACC 4th
Texas = PAC 1st, B1G 2nd, ACC 3rd, SEC 4th
They’ll land independent, B12 and B12 respectively. None of them are going anywhere in the near future because the tradeoffs make it not worth it.
Even if any of these possible combinations comes to pass, the B12 as it exists today will become the SoCon of the past.
OK, you want doomsday scenarios with almost no chance of happening? What if USC leaves the P12? What happens to them? What if FSU and Miami/Clemson/VT leave the ACC for the SEC? Of course the B12 is screwed if its two kings leave. Any conference would be. I guess I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here.
What I never lose sight of is the “needle” moving conference realignment for the past quarter century has been Notre Dame, and I am just pointing out that I never lose sight of this no matter what has happened in between during the past quarter century.
What does that have to do with CCGs and fairness? That was the subject under discussion, and my replt to you was solely about that issue. This is why I am confused about your response.
I am choosing to focus on the top games that generate ratings than wasting my time focusing on games 11, or 12!
We were discussing winning championships and fairness. Ratings has nothing to do with it.
I have said all along that Oklahoma is the scheduling outlier in B12 scheduling, and you have confirmed it by using them as you example as well. I think OU will always be in the MNC hunt if they have a good season BECAUSE of this. What I am talking about is the other 9 schools in the B12 going forward – TAMU was the one scheduling UA, and MU was the one scheduling ASU – as out side of OU, and possibly WVU, who will schedule tough long term?
I can’t predict anybody’s longterm scheduling tendencies, but I did point out that there were several decent series coming up for other B12 teams in the next few years.
OU – TN, OSU, ND, LSU
UT – ND, USC, MD, Cal
OkSU – Clemson
TCU – LSU, AR
WV – MSU, MD
ISU – IA every year
KSU – Auburn, Miami
Baylor, KS, TT – nothing impressive
That’s a list for those schools based on what they have contracts for right now, and many of the B12 schools don’t have many OOC set for the future years, meaning they may add some more good series as they fill their schedules. UT has several good teams on there. TCU is playing 2 top SEC teams. WV has played 1 tough OOC game every year for a while. ISU has to face IA every year. I just don’t see the impending doom for their schedules that you do.
If Oklahoma State scheduled Southern Cal in the PAC instead of Arizona, and won, I am willing to bet good money they would have been forgiven the Iowa State loss in overtime. Do you think this is possible as well?
No, I don’t. I think the SEC love in the media has been so strong for so long that AL was going to trump them no matter what because the loss was to ISU. If they had lost to TAMU or UT (both only 1 game better in conference) instead, then I think OkSU might have gotten in.
I don’t see you dumping on everyone else for playing the AZ’s instead of the USC’s. Few schools can manage to always play a king OOC. OSU and OU are pretty good at it, but OkSU doesn’t have the cache to swing it. How can you hold that against them? It takes 2 to schedule a game.
Again why waste your time and energy worrying about the bottom of a schools schedule, and focus more on the top?
In my eyes, you’re the one focusing on the bottom (game #13) while ignoring the top. The B12 champ will often play more good teams than the SEC or B10 champ in conference, and all of them will have done it in 9 games. Claiming the CCG is what makes for fairness actually says that the extra cupcake the B12 champ misses is the important factor in fairness.
The Buckeyes played 2 MAC schools and a PAC that I would only care if they lost (similar to the upset of UM by App State) for their 3 bad OOC games. I give credit to them for scheduling Miami FL, but Miami has been on a skid since entering the ACC which may mean switching to FSU or Va Tech instead, or Southern Cal / Oregon (if they can maintain what they have built) / Stanford (if they can compete in a post Luck world) in their B1G vs PAC game in the future.
If I had to guess, Miami was probably still in the BE or just moving to the ACC when the OSU series was scheduled. OSU tends to schedule those big series up to 12 years in advance (we have UGA in 2020-2021, for example).
Please tell me you would want Ohio State passed up for a MNC shot if they went 12-1 and won the B1G CCG while Houston and Boise State went undefeated and played for the MNC instead?! As Ohio State and Michigan dropping out of the B1G to join the MAC would be about the same as the Boise State schedule.
I wouldn’t like it, but I couldn’t deny that two undefeated teams had a good case to make. Good teams can play bad schedules. Boise crushed UGA last year, and UGA won the SEC East and has LSU beat for a half. How good was Boise?
I’d hope that SOS would make the difference for OSU, but it probably would all depend on where all 3 were ranked preseason. If both were top 10 teams, OSU might be SOL. I’d be upset, but understand that the voters have always tended to put record before SOS on their ballots (look how many basically list teams in order of winning percentage). OSU would have accomplished more, but it doesn’t mean they’d win the vote (much like OkSU over AL).
Let me distill this to the simplest form when playing OOC :
me : how good is the top OOC game
you : worry about the bottom OOC games
No. Try this to distill total scheduling:
me – quality is at least as important as quantity
you – 13 is better than 12 no matter what
Again, the CCG means 2 things :
a) You had to play a 13th game – 1 more than a B12 or Big East school
b) The 13th game is against a Top 25 team, and probably a Top 5 or 10 team
a. See, you prove my point about your opinion. Why is 13 important if game 12 was a I-AA and 9-11 were Sun Belt?
b. Yes, the CCG is a tough game. But did you face that team during the first 12 or get to miss them? How many rated conference teams did you get to miss? The B12 champ didn’t get to miss any of them.
I think the difference is you assume the 9th conference game in the B12 is the worst B12 teams while I assume it is average. Both the B12 and SEC champs play 9 conference games. Only the B12 champ is guaranteed to have played the 9 toughest conference games.
me – If you run the numbers, the B12 improved by adding TCU and WV to replace TAMU and MO. CO isn’t looking like a major loss either. UT and OU will continue to keep the B12 prominent nationally, especially as TX continues to grow in size .
We must agree to disagree on this point! CU has a MNC from 1990, and they joined the Big 8 after WWII so they are newer to big time football. I actually think they will do well with the money the new PAC 12 deal will put in their coffers. Do I think they will challenge Southern Cal for dominance of the PAC? Probably not, but they have a ~60% all time win record and should find a spot in the middle of wealthy conference.
In the past 21 seasons since the MNC, CO has won less than 56% of their games to place #41 nationally. Others of interest – #4 NE, #22 TCU, #23 WV, #25 TAMU, #63 MO. CO was in a wealthy conference the past 20 years and didn’t do that well, while TCU and WV won despite the money. If it just took money, the Redskins would be great. CO may bounce back to be decent, but now that TCU has momentum again they may stay good, too. The new recruiting limits make it much more possible for them to compete with OU and UT than back in the day of unlimited scholarships.
Viewed another way :
Nebraska = “brand” + MNC + stadium + fans
Colorado = MNC
Missouri = stadium + fans
Texas A&M = stadium + fans
replaced with
WVU = none (small stadium, small state)
TCU = none (smaller stadium than WVU, must share 1 city in state)
you are a math guy, so can you show your math on that statement?
Yes. First, I’d point out your data is wrong. TCU has 2 MNC’s, topping CO’s total. Second, I’d point out that I was talking on the field and you aren’t. Third, I’d point out that I never said that losing NE wasn’t a big loss. I said replacing TAMU and MO with TCU and WV was a net gain on the field and that CO isn’t looking like a big loss. Fourth, I’d point out that the TV people told the B12 that losing CO would cost them nothing, so how big of a loss is it even in intangibles? Fifth, I’d point out that CO and MO may be bigger states but WV has much more fervent CFB fans.
TAMU + MU slightly < WVU + TCU
LikeLike
@ vp19
In that ranking, not all schools are equal so I went back and tried to put some numbers with each school and its final conference landing spot :
Notre Dame = ACC 46% B1G 45% PAC 8% SEC 1%
Oklahoma = SEC 70% PAC 25% B1G 4% ACC 1%
Texas = PAC 80% B1G 10% ACC 9% SEC 1%
I agree with your points but offer the following as counterpoints :
a) Notre Dame vs Miami sells tickets and recruits in catholic south florida
b) Pitt (PA) + SU (NY) + BC (MA) + MD (MD) = lots o east coast catholics
c) Uconn (CT) as #16 means more east coast and catholic exposure
d) ACC has more private schools like Notre Dame, B1G = state schools
e) Notre Dame has already been playing BE and ACC schools in other sports
f) ACC = ESPN, who will broadcast their secondary sports nationally
g) Donors may accept this as a “compromise” to independence
h) Covers 11 states, including 2 of the Big 4 (NY and FL)
To be upfront, after the mess with everybody else, I am happy for the B1G to stay at 12 and play cross games with the PAC. As Frank said all along, it is not getting ND at #13, but how much you get diluted by team #14, #15, and #16. TAMU was a great get because of size and academic standing. Georgia Tech and Maryland and Rutgers seem less likely to pay for themselves. I agree that the B1G and SEC are safe from poaching, but Notre Dame already has Chicago / Detroit / Indianapolis by proximity.
If the B1G landed ND + UT + OU + Toronto, that is a statement, but Texas seems way to crazy now to act like a reasonable partner long term for the B1G. OU has academic issues, even tho it would reunite UNL vs OU, and OU will not be threatened to schedule tough OOC. Toronto would make a strong statement, but how many B1G alumni would see it as the long term move. That leaves you with ND + a lesser set of 3 schools.
Too many intangibles for me to be as positive about ND as I was a year or two ago.
LikeLike
Brian:
I believe TV told the B12 to please stay together, and inspite of the loss of CO and Neb the remaining conference members would receive a defacto raise. It wasn’t a reflection of any particular schools worth, or that of the conference, as much as it was a bribe to buy time and avert conference Armageddon.
LikeLike
Basically, the TV people told the Big 12 that Colorado wasn’t worth much. That was a surprise to everyone. The problem with CU is the Broncos, Nuggets, Rockies and the actually Rocky Mountains. Colorado is essentially a pro sports market and CU faces the same issues a University of Houston does, except they don’t have to compete with Texas and Texas A&M in their home market. When you consider the success they have had in the past, the size of their alumni base and the local population, their 50k seat stadium would seem pretty small.
LikeLike
ccrider55, bullet,
I think the networks contract resolution with the B12 after Colorado and Nebraska left had something to do with avoiding the B12 collapsing, and may have had something to do with CO’s value, but even more so it reflected the how undervalued the contract was in the first place. The eventual Pac-12 contract, the B12 tier 2 contract with Fox and the numbers being thrown around for future contracts proves that. The subtraction of A&M and Mizzou, and the addition of TCU and WVU without changes to the B12 contract seems to be further proof.
LikeLike
bu2,
As for Texas, Notre Dame 4 times, USC twice, OU every year in conference, Ohio St. in the recent past. Can any school in the country other than Notre Dame say they have played that many kings?
I defended UT as also scheduling well OOC, but I think several schools can match that list of kings:
OSU – MI and PSU every year, NE 40% of them time (including 2011-2012), an OOC king most of the time (recently – TX, USC, Miami; upcoming – OU, princes VT and UGA)
MI – OSU, NE and ND every year, PSU 40% of the time, AL in 2012
PSU – OSU and NE every year, MI 40% of the time, AL
NE – MI and PSU every year, OSU 40% of the time (incl. 2011-2012), OOC series with VT, Miami, TN
Others with a case – LSU, FL, FSU, Miami, OU, maybe OR
LikeLike
UO? OU? Oregon is hurt by there only being one king in the Pac. Hard for OU and Texas to play more kings than Michigan & OSU (2.4 in conference, ND most years for Michigan and a king many years OOC for OSU) or UF (FSU, LSU, and Georgia every year + ‘Bama 2/5th of the time), as they’d have to schedule 2 kings OOC each year to do so.
Also GTech (Georgia & Miami every year + FSU 2/5th of the time), Tennessee (‘Bama, UF, and UGa every year + LSU 2/5th of the time), and Auburn (‘Bama, LSU, and UGa every year + UF 2/5th of the time). UF was Auburn’s second permanent crossover rival back in the days when the SEC had 2 protected rivalries, so Auburn’s schedule was chockful of kings then.
For that matter, the non-kings in the B10 and SEC play kings at least 2.8 times a year. Hard for OU and Texas to top that.
LikeLike
Richard,
UO? OU? Oregon is hurt by there only being one king in the Pac.
Since he asked if anyone could match TX, I think OU and OR fit the bill. Both play 1 king in conference every year and have a reputation for scheduling top programs OOC. I agree that they can’t be the top 2.
Hard for OU and Texas to play more kings than Michigan & OSU (2.4 in conference, ND most years for Michigan and a king many years OOC for OSU) or UF (FSU, LSU, and Georgia every year + ‘Bama 2/5th of the time), as they’d have to schedule 2 kings OOC each year to do so.
Also GTech (Georgia & Miami every year + FSU 2/5th of the time), Tennessee (‘Bama, UF, and UGa every year + LSU 2/5th of the time), and Auburn (‘Bama, LSU, and UGa every year + UF 2/5th of the time). UF was Auburn’s second permanent crossover rival back in the days when the SEC had 2 protected rivalries, so Auburn’s schedule was chockful of kings then.
For that matter, the non-kings in the B10 and SEC play kings at least 2.8 times a year. Hard for OU and Texas to top that.
I mentioned several of those teams, but I suppose it depends on which teams count as kings versus princes (especially in the south where the line is often blurred). As you point out, the toughest schedules will be the non-kings. How about MSU for the top?
MSU – MI, NE and ND every year, PSU and OSU 40% of the time, also has AL and Miami series coming up. That’s over 4 kings per year for the next 10 years.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s hard to top Sparty.
LikeLike
With Nebraska now in the Big 10, it adds a lot of kings to the B1G play lists.
The SEC schools just aren’t consistent enough to really put more than Alabama and Florida as kings. Although LSU is trying.
LikeLike
bullet – just an FYI, Florida’s first SEC championship was in 1991 and they have 7 total to go with 3 NCs since 1996.
Since the formation of the SEC, Alabama leads with 22 league championships and 9 NCs, followed by Tennessee with 13 (2 NCs), Georgia with 12 (1 NC), LSU with 11(3 NCs), Auburn with 7 (2 NCs), and Ole Miss with 6 (1 NC).
LikeLike
brands by attendance
B1G = Michigan 112K, Ohio State 105K, Penn State 101K, Nebraska 85K
SEC = Alabama 102K, Tennessee 95K
BXII = Oklahoma 85K, Texas 101K
PAC = Southern California 75K
IND = Notre Dame 81K
near brands by attendance
ACC = Florida State 78K, Va Tech 66K, Clemson 78K – Miami was 49K
B1G = Wisconsin 80K, Michigan State 74K
SEC = Florida 89K, LSU 93K, Georgia 93K, Auburn 86K
future brands by attendance
B1G = Iowa 76K
SEC = South Carolina 79K, Arkansas 67K, TAMU 87K
PAC = Washington 63K, Oregon 59K, Arizona State 59K
problem children – good teams drawing bad numbers in good seasons
BXII = OK State 57K, WVU 56K, TCU 34K, Baylor 41K, KSU 49K
BigE = Cincinnati 32K, Boise State 34K
PAC = Stanford 50K
viewed another way Missouri (6-6) drew 62K, Kentucky (5-7) drew 60K, Colorado (3-10) drew 50K, and Texas Tech (5-7) drew 55K. The issue is the drawing power is segregated by conferences into 3 groups :
#1 B1G / SEC = 70K + range
#2 BXII – TAMU’s 87K and MU’s 62K / PAC / ACC / BE = 50K range
#3 MWC / CUSA / WAC / Sun Belt / MAC < 30K range
Trading high volume schools like UNL 85K + TAMU 87K + MU 62K + CU 50K (284 / 4 = 71K) for 2 lower draw schools WVU 56K + TCU 34K (90 / 2 = 45K) is going to knock the conference numbers way down. Even if the BXII splits Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools like Texas and Oklahoma are just going to put bigger space between themselves and the other 8 schools in the revenue they get from home games. Realistically, how many BXII schools can build an 80K to 100K stadium to keep up with a Texas or Oklahoma?
LikeLike
duffman,
brands by attendance
As you well know, attendance is only one measure. While some of the brands draw the most butts, I think TV numbers better reflect brand status. Teams in major cities tend to have weak attendance but it doesn’t make them lesser brands necessarily (USC, Miami). It does make them more susceptible to losing status, though, as the buzz fades more quickly.
Just to take two examples from your numbers:
PAC = Southern California 75K
…
B1G = Wisconsin 80K, Michigan State 74K
Does anyone doubt that USC is a king and a much bigger brand than WI or MSU?
future brands by attendance
B1G = Iowa 76K
SEC = South Carolina 79K, Arkansas 67K, TAMU 87K
PAC = Washington 63K, Oregon 59K, Arizona State 59K
What’s your definition of a future brand? That’s a new category for you, I think. I can see OR, although I’d say they are a brand already (but not yet a king), but IA is on the decline in my opinion. Ferentz had his best run from 2002-2004, but I think the rise of MI and MSU and the addition of NE has IA sliding to 4th in their division and into the 3rd tier of teams (swapping with MSU). ASU is essentially IL to me. They seemingly have everything necessary to succeed and yet they never really do.
problem children – good teams drawing bad numbers in good seasons
BXII = OK State 57K, WVU 56K, TCU 34K, Baylor 41K, KSU 49K
BigE = Cincinnati 32K, Boise State 34K
PAC = Stanford 50K
My problem with this group is that you didn’t factor in stadium capacity. Based on past success leading to demand, many schools have a smaller stadium. It takes years of changed fortunes to justify expansion. Many schools are expanding as they get more successful, though.
Boise – 33,500 (headed to 53,000)
TCU – 34,000 (was 44,358 in 2010, will be 50,000 in 2012)
Cincinnati – 35,097 (talking about going to 40-45,000 but are hemmed in by other buildings)
Baylor – 50,000 (studying building a new, on campus stadium)
KSU – 50,000 (actually shrank despite adding seats in the last renovation)
Stanford – 50,000 (the old stadium was much bigger)
OkSU – 60,000 officially, but more like 58,000 actually based on record crowds
WV – 60,000 (used to be 63,500 before remodel, still the biggest on campus in the BE)
Out of your whole list, Baylor is the only one not at 90+% of capacity on average.
Your list is mostly schools that have stunk for most of the past 50 years or weren’t even I-A. How could they justify having 70k seat stadiums already?
Trading high volume schools like UNL 85K + TAMU 87K + MU 62K + CU 50K (284 / 4 = 71K) for 2 lower draw schools WVU 56K + TCU 34K (90 / 2 = 45K) is going to knock the conference numbers way down.
Oh, I see. You’re back to finding any excuse to rag on the B12. TCU’s numbers will grow significantly with the expansion and the upgrade to the B12. I think you can pencil them in at 50k. WV will also improve a little with the conference upgrade I would think. The BE never brought OU or UT to town. So that means the new guys will bring more like (110k / 2 = 55k) which hurts the conference average less. Basically, they can replace CO and MO for numbers, but there is no replacement for NE and TAMU in that department. None of the realistic future additions would replace those two either.
Even if the BXII splits Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools like Texas and Oklahoma are just going to put bigger space between themselves and the other 8 schools in the revenue they get from home games. Realistically, how many BXII schools can build an 80K to 100K stadium to keep up with a Texas or Oklahoma?
Every conference deals with this issue to some degree, and the growing TV money helps ameliorate it actually. How do IN, NW, PU, IL and MN keep up with OSU and MI and PSU?
LikeLike
Most important is ticket revenue, not raw attendance. This is why ECU (50K+) never got the BE invite. Renovations are reducing capacity at many stadiums because high revenue generating club seating and boxes are replacing bleacher spaces. Although this seating may take 2x the room it produces 10x the revenue. It is also important to keep demand greater than capacity to keep ticket prices up and require donations for the right to buy tickets.
LikeLike
@Alan
I understand. But Spurrier and the 90s put Florida on the map. They are just a team that is viewed as a threat nearly every year. Duffman will say they (and FSU and Miami) haven’t been around long enough, but I think that only impacts how long it would take them to fall out of king status.
You know those TN and AL fans aren’t going to like those MNC stats you gave. They claim a championship on every obscure computer poll that ranks them #1. Its funny to go into Neyland Stadium and see all those banners hanging claiming championships that noone else (except maybe Alabama) would actually recognize (yes TN fans, its in the NCAA record book, but still….).
LikeLike
These brands take a long time to lose and a long time to earn. Although if you win 5 MNCs in a short period like Miami, it can expidite that process. However, if Boise goes 5-7, noone will pay attention to them the next year. Notre Dame could have another half dozen 5-7 seasons and still draw attention.
I would put a half dozen schools in the 2nd tier: UCLA, LSU, UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and Virginia Tech. VT I think has moved themselves up into that tier. Tennessee probably would have been viewed as a king in the 60s, but moved themselves down in the 70s and 80s. It will take quite a few bad seasons to knock them out of this tier. UCLA is at risk of slipping. They’ve only been ranked in the final poll once since 1998 when they were last in the top 10. Pitt and SU are two schools that have played themselves out of a high category.
Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin, Clemson, Arkansas and A&M would probably be in the next group with Oregon arguably with them. Schools like WVU, South Carolina and Iowa would be close behind.
These are my personal observations, but they pretty closely correlate with all-time win %. After 2009:
1 Michigan
2 Notre Dame
3 Texas
4 Ohio St.
5 Oklahoma
7 Alabama
8 USC
9 Nebraska
11 Penn St.
12 FSU
15 Miami FL
16 Florida
10 Tennessee
13 UGA
14 LSU
17 Auburn
23 Virginia Tech
28 UCLA (they’ve slipped in recent years)
21 Washington
24 Colorado
26 A&M
32 Arkansas (they’ve also been slipping)
34 Clemson
51 Wisconsin (the’ve gone from 54.1% to 56.5% in 15 years)
Other top 40:
6 Boise (with only 42 years and only 15 in FBS), 18 USF (only 10 years), 19 Miami O (121 years), 20 Arizona St. (a lot of pre-Pac success), 22 Central Michigan, 25 WVU, 27 Georgia Tech, 29 So. Miss, 30 Bowling Green, 31 Fresno, 33 WKU (only 1 in FBS in 2009), 35 and slipping MIchigan St., 36 Utah, 37 BC, 38 Syracuse, 39 Army, 40 Middle TN (11 in FBS).
LikeLike
bullet:
MSU should be on the same tier as Wisconsin. Also, slipping? .698 winning percentage the past 4 years (above their historical .590). .571 the past 13.
Not much slippage compared to, say, Washington (historical winning percentage of .611 but not a single year more than a game above .500 the past 10 seasons) or Tennessee (more success that UDub recently, but only 2 years in last 7 (barely) above historical percentage of .689 (at .692 & .714).
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m taking a longer than 4 year perspective. Michigan St. was 23rd on the all-time list after the 1995 season, but have fallen 12 spots in those 14 years. They had a 10 year drought in being ranked until a couple years ago and had gone longer w/o a B10 title or share of a title than anyone but IU and MN. There was a time MIchigan St. was higher than Wisconsin, but I think they’ve had too long a dry spell. The division analysis showed them clearly in the 3rd tier with Iowa and Wisconsin alone in the 2nd tier. It takes more than a few good seasons to build a brand and its been a long time since their 1966 game with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Here are my triggers for more power conference realignment:
1. Notre Dame decides they are at a significant disadvantage getting in to the play off and decide that the best way in is through a conference.
2. ESPN convinces the ACC to grab UConn and Rutgers. Maybe ESPN wants to launch an ACC network (NY Carriage). Maybe ESPN loses the Big East contract and wants to devalue the competition. Maybe the ACC’s media contracts continue to fall behind and decide they want another renegotiation?
3. A clear #12 emerges for the Big 12. Louisville + ? = Profit!
4. ESPN exercises and out clause and shuts down the LHN. The Texahoma four engineer a way to dissolve the conference to get their media rights back from the conference and migrate somewhere.
5. The rumored SEC network is created and adding two additional schools makes financial sense.
Any others?
LikeLike
I could see *SPN wanting the ACC to twist the dagger again especially since there seems to be a good chance that they won’t get the BE. I’m not convinced that the ACC would be willing to take UConn and RU though. Even if they jump to the ACC and UL would jump to the B12 what is the determining factor that makes ND join a conference? It is VERY likely that they will get included the playoff without joining a conference.
I’d actually like to see the changes, that we all know are coming eventually, be worked out over the next few months to a year. Let’s stop pussyfooting around and get this done. All the commissioners should get together, with instructions from the conferences, and begin discussing real realignment. They can conference call with the presidents for updates at breaks or each night, or both. Decide if there are going to be 6 (11, 12?) conferences at the same level (DI, hooty tooty, whatever classification) and if there are going to be 10, 12, 14, 16 or 24 schools in each. Then set about realigning by geography and competitive balance. Discuss a single commissioner for the whole hooty tooty classification who will negotiate ONE tv contract. If the big dogs don’t want to share too far down the line limit the number of conferences and schools in the hooty tooty classification.
This financial and competitive separation of conference makes no sense. Either each conference is a classification unto itself or there should be a classification under whose umbrella all schools and conferences fall, equally.
Utopia complete. Or Derangedland. I’m guessing more of the latter.
LikeLike
Without knowing how the playoff is set up, its hard to predict anything in regards to ND.
LikeLike
How about this:
Obama gets re-elected, leading the south to secede again (TX and SC already talked about it). The southern schools come out of the closet and officially become AAA pro football, while the NCAA reforms around the north and west only (the only American schools left). The ACC, BE and B12 are torn apart and reform.
LikeLike
Succession is for traitors.
LikeLike
Another scenario:
The SEC sufficiently ticks off UGA, TN, AL and Auburn and they split off to form a superconference with more money, bringing along UK, UF and LSU and leaving behind Vandy, the 4 newcomers and the Mississippi schools. They add 5 schools from ACC and/or Big 12.
LikeLike
What would the SEC do that a majority of its members would split? I would imagine an 8-6 vote would cure it.
LikeLike
It would have to be a number of things that would get them thinking. Ending AL/TN and AU/UGA. More cheating and stretching the rules. Its clear that UGA and UF are miffed at what has been going on in the SEC west. With the WAC 16, it was the division alignment that got AF, CSU and WY thinking and then they really split for money. So in this scenario, there would have to be a number of annoyances that got them to start questioning if they could do better in a new configuration.
LikeLike
How much would a league of LSU, AL, AU, TN, UK, UF, UGA, FSU, VT,NCSU make? Maybe throw in Miami and Oklahoma or A&M to get to 12.
LikeLike
The fantasy of Longhorn fans everywhere. There is zero indication that this would ever happen.
LikeLike
Andy – agreed. Nobody’s leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Times change. UGA and UF and Georgia and Florida are not as similar to AL, MS, LA as they used to be. You can see the cracks.
Doesn’t mean its likely to ever happen, but the potential is there in 10 or 20 years.
LikeLike
You’re right that there is more separation between a school like Florida and the Mississippi schools. That might be one reason why the Florida president was one of the leaders in the recent expansion. I forget his precise title, but he is something like the current chair of the SEC and, by all accounts, has established a strong relationship with the president of Texas A&M. They’re supposed to be flying their regents and a whole bunch of other administrators to College Station for the A&M/Florida game in week 2. I think there has been discussion of some collaboration between the schools, but nothing specific has been announced.
LikeLike
Really good interview with Florida president on BCS.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/2012/writers/andy_staples/03/08/florida-machen-postseason/
Some interesting points
SEC is discussing a plan with B1G and will try to put out a joint proposal. Not talking to anyone else.
Thinks +1 is ok for now but does not write off the possibility of a larger playoff either now or in the future.
Driven by Presidents “through” the commissioners.
And with regard to our discussion above, the UF president was the Utah president when the MWC split from the WAC.
LikeLike
correction on link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/03/08/florida-machen-postseason/
LikeLike
@bullet – This whole package from Andy Staples (which includes several Q&As with different university presidents) is excellent. I highly recommend it to everyone here, particularly with all of us knowing how the school presidents (as opposed to commissioners and ADs) are the ultimate decision-makers. Very interesting about how the Big Ten and SEC are the ones putting together a proposal. Delany and Slive know that if they’re able to agree to a proposal between the two of them, they’re likely going to push that proposal through. It’s much easier to get two conferences to agree upon a proposal than the 7 founders or all 12 voting members of the BCS (the 11 conferences plus Notre Dame).
LikeLike
There’s a box in this article linking to 8 other interviews Staples has with college presidents on the same topics. They are also interesting reading on those president’s views.
LikeLike
NCAA president sees lots of momentum for a playoff.
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_20133264/ncaa-chief-emmert-sees-move-toward-football-playoff
Instead of “Hell no!” many presidents are saying they want to talk rationally about it.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Your fantasy is a trip to read, but there’s no path that can lead to it happening. For instance, if UF and UGa are ticked off enough at ‘Bama & LSU to leave the SEC, why would they join a new conference with those schools? Also, as someone else pointed out, there’s no way a majority of the SEC schools gets ticked off enough about the rules and schedules to leave; they’d simply change the rules/schedules. It would have to be a minority of SEC schools really ticked off at the majority & having the option of leaving (sorry, Vandy & MS schools).
Finally, TAMU has more in common with schools like UF and UGa than they do with schools like LSU and ‘Bama (other than geography). It’s unlikely that TAMU gets left behind.
LikeLike
Again, its like the MWC withdrawal from the WAC. 5 of 16 schools got ticked off, decided to leave, and then took who they wanted from the rest. And ultimately it was about money-maximizing it. That’s what all these things are about. The SEC doesn’t have the advantage of geographic isolation the Pac does or the advantage of homogenity that the B1G does. There are schools who don’t add anything and other schools who don’t add much.
More likely than not, the SEC is stable for a long time. But going from 12 to 14 adds instability. Going to 16 increases instability even more. The 4X16, rather than being a model for stability, could lead to constant, major changes. Going to 18 or 20 means its just a matter of time (Big East and MWC/CUSA).
LikeLike
No money-maximizing scenario leaves out TAMU.
LikeLike
The thing about the SEC that most helps stability is that the brand name of the league itself is worth a fairly substantial amount of money. It’s not just Florida, Alabama, etc. it’s the SEC-SEC-SEC. Until/unless they enter a prolonged period of on-field struggles and/or major off-field scandals (and by major I mean where they have 3+ teams with bowl bans at the same time), I don’t see that changing.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/03/07/iowa-ferentz-son.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a8
So some info came out about the hiring of Brian Ferentz by IA since the school has a no nepotism policy.
While qualified for the job, it was not clear until Wednesday how Brian Ferentz’s hiring complied with a university policy that says hiring involving blood relatives “should be avoided where possible, and otherwise disclosed and managed” to ensure employees are treated fairly.
The policy says that any hiring that moves forward despite a conflict must have a “sound institutional reason” for existing and a management plan in which the relative with decision-making power is removed from all decisions affecting the other’s employment. If an acceptable management plan can’t be developed within six months, one of the related individuals must leave the university.
Technically IA says it’s OK because the AD hired and will oversee Ferentz, not his dad.
What a load of crap. How is that avoiding hiring blood relatives “where possible” at all? His dad booted the long time OL coach over to DL to create a vacancy his son was eligible for, and he was far from the only OL coach qualified and available. Said Kirk about moving the OL coach, “Fair to say he was a little surprised on that one. But I guess I’ve got some executive privilege. I exercised it.” How does that fit with “the relative with decision-making power is removed from all decisions affecting the other’s employment” either?
LikeLike
It’s football dude. That’s job number 1 at schools these days.
LikeLike
I know, and I really don’t care what IA does anyway. It’s just the blatant lying in the explanation the irks me. I also happen to think nepotism in the coaching staff is a terrible idea, because the relative is rarely good enough to justify the headaches (think Dick Tressel and Jay Paterno just from the B10).
LikeLike
All I can say is WOW! The MAC may have just tripled its distributions.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/id/7656299/temple-football-play-big-east-2012-season
Not surprisingly, Temple will be in the Big East for football for 2012 and all sports for 2013. But the MAC got $6 million out of them. The contract was $2.5 million and 2 year notice. Unlike the Big 12 (who would have been stuck with 9 teams and needing a 9 game schedule) and Big East (who would have been stuck with 7 teams and needing a 7 game schedule), the MAC could probably have re-worked its schedule without significant issues. The only problem is dealing with the odd number of teams. But they’ve done it for several years like that.
It will be interesting to see if the MAC goes for WKU or Illinois St. or someone else to get back to 14.
LikeLike
The MAC will be down to 12 soon enough so it doesn’t have to do anything in the short term. The 12 all-sports members of the MAC aren’t going anywhere.
UMASS will jump to the BIG EAST in a nanosecond if the BIG EAST were to need to reload after Louisville (XII), Rutgers (ACC or XII), and possibly UCONN (ACC) leave.
Others waiting to move up besides UMASS:
1. Georgia State – a lock to go to the Sun Belt if and when it gets its financial house in order
2. Texas-San Antonio – a lock to go to “Mount USA” or the BIG EAST, whichever one calls first, because the WAC is toast as a football league after its leftover membership (i.e. the idiots running Idaho, Utah State, and New Mexico State) ran off Karl Benson
3. North Texas – a lock to jump from the Sun Belt to “Mount USA” as it wants to avoid Karl Benson like the plague
4. Florida International – a lock to jump from the Sun Belt to “Mount USA”
5. Hawaii – needs to do something after 2013, when its agreement with the Mountain West expires
==
The BIG EAST will continue to serve as the farm system for the ACC and the XII.
Conversely, the BIG EAST will continue to use “Mount USA” as its farm system.
LikeLike
Yet another example of the brilliance of the Big East leadership. Discussions are going on about eliminating the BCS automatic bids, and the weakness of some of the Big East champions is definitely a big impetus for that. Your TV package is up for bid at the end of the year. You lost your best team to the Big XII. You have $20 million in WVU exit fees in your pocket, do you:
a) pay the $8-10 million dollars to get Boise for 2012 so that you stay as strong as possible on the field while so many major things are happening, or
b) pay $6 million to get Temple for 2012 and (a footnote in yesterdays Marinotto press conference) give Villanova $1 million to continue to explore moving up in football, with the promise of another $2 million if they make progress in the next 3 years?
You can’t make this s**t up.
LikeLike
The basketball schools (and Louisville) were behind the move to add Memphis and Temple.
The BIG EAST is still run by the basketball schools i.e. the Providence/Georgetown/Seton Hall faction.
Louisville (XII) and Rutgers (XII or ACC) packed their bags months ago and are ready to move out when (not if) they get the phone calls.
LikeLike
UConn too, given the public comment about wanting an ACC invite. Honestly, I’m pretty sure there isn’t ANYONE in the Big East who’d stick around if a better offer came around (and ND fully joined a league, it certainly wouldn’t be the Big East).
LikeLike
Phil,
Paying Nova says to me that it’s only a matter of time until they lose more FB schools. I think ECU fans may collectively have their heads explode if another school gets in before them, though.
LikeLike
@McMurphyCBS: Sources tell @CBSSports “there is no doubt” Pitt, Syracuse will be in ACC in 2013 bit.ly/xgogha
http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/35133476
LikeLike
@BryanDFischer: Larry Scott says it’ll likely be summer before the Pac12 comes close to a consensus on a new BCS proposal.
LikeLike
OK, here’s mine. 4 super-conferences with pods:
Big Ten
Nebraska-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin
Michigan-Michigan State-Illinois-Northwestern
Ohio State-Purdue-Indiana-Notre Dame
Penn State-Rutgers-Maryland-Georgia Tech
Pac 12
Stanford-Cal-USC-UCLA
Oregon-Oregon State-Washington-Washington State
Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma State
Arizona-Arizona State-Colorado-Utah
ACC
kansas-Kansas State-Iowa State-Louisville
Syracuse-Pitt-Boston College-UConn
Florida State-Miami-Clemson-Wake Forest
West Virginia-Virginia-Virginia Tech-North Carolina State
SEC
North Carolina-Duke-South Carolina-Georgia
Florida-Kentucky-Tennessee-Vandy
Alabama-Auburn-Ole Miss-Mississippi State
LSU-Texas A&M-Mizzou-Arkansas
LikeLike
Swap Virginia Tech and N.C. State with UNC and Duke (neither of which have any desire to be in the SEC), and you might be on to something…though this leaves a few current BCS schools (or likely candidates) out in the cold — Brigham Young, Texas Christian, Baylor, to name a few. There are simply too many “big-time” schools to do a 4 x 16, and you’re not going to force anyone who’s presently there out of the equation.
LikeLike
I don’t think Virginia Tech will split from Virginia. Florida State and NC State seem more likely.
North Carolina/Duke might be a stretch for the SEC, but with so many moving parts you never know. The SEC would be much more lucrative than the ACC in this scenario. UNC and Duke may chase the $$.
LikeLike
The thing is, because of their reliance on their BB programs to pay the bills, UNC and Duke might actually make more money by sticking in the basketball centric ACC despite a lower conference distribution. This is particularly true for Duke since they make more gross revenue (not just profit) of their MBB program than their football program (the only AQ school to do so).
LikeLike
The SEC is an improving BB conference, and the ACC is in decline. How many teams outside of UNC and Duke were in the top 25 this season?
As for the SEC, Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt all average more than 14k attendance per game and have solid to elite basketball programs. Alabama, Texas A&M, and Mississippi State have had their share of success as well. LSu has been to the Final 4 not too long ago. Add in UNC and Duke and the SEC would be just as strong as the ACC or Big Ten in basketball.
It’s possible that SEC schools will soon be pulling in as much as $35M per year while ACC schools are making a little over half of that. If that happens, most any ACC school would have to consider making the switch.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that your new ACC also has Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Kansas and UCONN. In addition FSU is a top 25 team this year and WVU is a solid program.
The new ACC would give UNC and Duke much better BB matchups than the new SEC would.
LikeLike
True. Still, I think Virginia Tech is unlikely. I’d say Maryland and Florida State are the most attainable options that the SEC would have interest in. NC State would be tricky and Virginia Tech would be very difficult for the SEC to get. Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami would be options if the SEC were interested, but I doubt they are. And then there’s always Oklahoma if they can free themselves from OSU.
LikeLike
Even if V-Tech and NC State stayed, maybe the SEC would take WVU and ISU would get left out of the ACC.
The the other possibility is that UNC could head north in place of G-Tech (if Duke was part of the deal they could replace one Maryland or Rutgers)
LikeLike
“The new ACC would give UNC and Duke much better BB matchups than the new SEC would.”
I don’t think it would be that much better. Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, TN, etc. It would be close enough that the overwhelming difference in football quality (not to mention other sports) would mean the financial decision would strongly tilt towards the SEC.
But politics, and perhaps academics, will likely either keep them in the ACC or move them to the Big Ten with Virginia and Maryland.
LikeLike
Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, Kansas and Louisville is a stronger basketball core than the new SEC has to offer.
As for the football, yeah it would be better, but the travel costs would be much lower in the ACC. NC State is less than an hour away, Wake is about 90 minutes away and Virginia and V-Tech are closer than any SEC schools (and Clemson is closer than any besides USCe). Going from the ACC to the SEC would probably mean (at least) another $2-$3 million dollars in travel expenses. Add in $20 million in exit penalties (which would have to be paid through loans since UNC isn’t self sufficient) and you are looking at most of the additional revenue being eaten up.
As for the extra football revenue, yeah it would be there but I’m not sure it would really offset. (This is especially true for Duke who could be in a conference with USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, tOSU, ND, Michigan, PSU, Alabama and Florida and still not make any money on its FB program.)
Plus, like I said, if they wanted to they could get the same conference distributions, comparable football and better BB by going to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I left off BYU, TCU, Baylor, Cincinnati, South Florida, Boise State, San Diego State, Houston, Air Force, Navy, SMU, and Central Florida. There just wasn’t room for them. These schools would probably need to join together and form a 5th conference.
LikeLike
Forget about it.
Boss DeLoss does NOT want anything to do with the PAC, and the PAC doesn’t want the Okies by themselves.
Boss DeLoss would rather put the ‘Horns in the ACC or the B1G.
(The Okies can go the ESS EEE CEE and Tech can go to the BIG EAST. Boss DeLoss will look out for #1 only now that it is no longer attached to aTm.)
The PAC’s only hope for further expansion is a change in NCAA legislation so that Canadian schools can join the NCAA at the Division I level right away without having to spend time in Division II first.
British Columbia (a.k.a. UBC) has a $1 billion endowment, enrolment (spelled with one “l” instead of 2) of over 40000 undergrads (more than Cal, more than UCLA,) a fleet of helicopters to ferry boosters, access to a downtown retractable domed stadium that is one 30-minute bus ride away from campus, and a pipeline full of American Football players in its back yard (high schools in British Columbia play American Football, not Canadian football.)
The UBC administration has made it clear to the NCAA: it won’t join at the Division II level. Division I or bust.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think you have to take Dodds at his word.
He made it clear in his latest interview that he would look east for partners (implying the ACC with an outside chance at the Big Ten).
The media markets are in the east even with the ever southwestern progression of America’s population midpoint. That’s never going to change.
LikeLike
If the PAC were to expand to 16, the 4 new schools will be in the North:
PAC North
British Columbia
Simon Fraser
Calgary
Alberta
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
PAC South
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
LikeLike
The B1G would also benefit if the NCAA were to allow Canadian schools to join Division I without having to work their way up from Division II.
Toronto and McGill, both AAU members, would fit the B1G.
McGill would be a marginal candidate for the B1G, as it is an English-speaking school in a TV market that is 80% French speaking (French-speaking UQAM is the biggest school in the Montreal TV market.)
(McGill would be a better fit for the Patriot League if McGill doesn’t want to jump in with the B1G sharks right away.)
==
Out west, UBC has made it clear what it wants: PAC or bust. Not “Mount USA”, not WAC, not Big Sky, not Division II.
Simon Fraser has also made it clear where it wants to ultimately end up: PAC. Simon Fraser wants to play in the Rose Bowl (even though it is still winless in Division II play after 2 seasons. Simon Fraser’s only wins so far were against Canadian schools in exhibitions.)
LikeLike
Are Canadian colleges legitimately ready to play top-tier Division I sports? If they are going to go the U.S. route with full scholarships, let them play a few years in the lower levels of D1, in a conference such as the Big Sky, before they try to compete against the big boys.
LikeLike
I have no objections to the University of Toronto. I think they’re the best possible candidate, I just don’t find the prospect likely, as they’d have to sever ties with their traditional rivals.
LikeLike
“Out west, UBC has made it clear what it wants: PAC or bust. Not “Mount USA”, not WAC, not Big Sky, not Division II.
Simon Fraser has also made it clear where it wants to ultimately end up: PAC. Simon Fraser wants to play in the Rose Bowl (even though it is still winless in Division II play after 2 seasons. Simon Fraser’s only wins so far were against Canadian schools in exhibitions.)”
If the Pac 12 was interested, couldn’t they sign an agreement where they play in Division II for a few years and are pre-admitted to join the Pac 12 in year 3-4? Even if that wasn’t technically allowed right now, I don’t know why another schools would block an amendment to allow it.
LikeLike
Yeah, despite what OT has said, I’m not sure at all that the Pac is interested. When your top football games fail to draw more than 10K and you have trouble beating Div II teams, you probably have a little more work to do before you can join the big leagues.
LikeLike
The difference between Simon Fraser and British Columbia:
Simon Fraser, being the younger public school in the Vancouver metro area, is willing to work itself up step by step. Step 1 is to take its lumps in Division II (still winless in football after 2 seasons.) Simon Fraser is at least 5 years away from being able to move up to the Big Sky.
UBC Vancouver, being the flagship public school in the province with its dedicated fleet of helicopters to ferry boosters (in addition to bigger endowments and more students and alums compared to half the PAC schools,) believes that it can buy its way to the Rose Bowl right away.
UBC, if it were to ever join the PAC, will rival the 2 LA schools and Oregon in the “arrogance” department.
==
Not unusual to see urban schools trying to buy their way into big time sports in a compressed time period. Texas-San Antonio is now doing it. Georgia State will be next. UBC will take the same route if given the chance.
LikeLike
OT:
That’s nice, but all that booster support is resulting in less than 10K attendance for UBC’s top football games. I’m sure some SMU boosters think they can buy their way in to the Rose Bowl as well. Doesn’t mean it will happen.
LikeLike
Andy:
NCSU is a member school of the UNC System. 8 of their 13 trustees are appointed by the UNC Board of Governors. In other words, the chances of NCSU leaving without UNC’s permission is nil. The chances of UNC and NCSU separating are also about nil. The chances of UNC and UVa being in different conferences is close to nil (as are the chances of UVa and VTech separating).
Also, ND would join a conference only if they get to still play a somewhat national schedule. They’re not going to be in a B10 pod with 3 other Midwestern schools, 2 of whom they have little history with.
The following pods are much more likely (and I laid it out above, actually):
Ohio State-Indiana-Penn State-Rutgers
Purdue-Notre Dame-Maryland-Georgia Tech
Here’s my post from above:
The thing to keep in mind is that to get ND, ND would have to be appeased, and I’m pretty certain that ND cares more about playing a “national” schedule (well, as much of one as possible) rather than playing all 3 traditional Midwestern B10 rivalries annually (especially since the Michigan and MSU ones would switch to 4 games in 6 years after the Pac agreement starts anyway). Really, only Purdue would be adamant about playing ND annually. That also means 8 conference games, not 9 (Iowa and the big name programs wouldn’t want both 9 conference games & the Pac agreement anyway)
So, thinking about it some more, here are the pods with protected annual games first in parenthesis and the opponent that each team would play 4 times in 6 years second in parenthesis (everyone else is played 2 times in 6 years). Last number is order by winning percentage (16 is highest, 1 is lowest), courtesy of Brian.
West:
Nebraska (PSU, ND) 14
Wisconsin (Illinois, PU) 12
Iowa (NU, Maryland) 9
Minny (GTech, Michigan) 4
North:
Michigan (OSU, Minny) 15
MSU (ND, PSU) 7
NU (Iowa, Rutgers) 6
Illinois (Wisconsin, IU) 3
East:
OSU (Michigan, GTech) 16
PSU (Nebraska, MSU) 11
Rutgers (Maryland, NU) 2
IU (PU, Illinois) 1
South:
ND (MSU, Nebraska) 10
PU (IU, Wisconsin) 8
GTech (Minny, OSU) 13
Maryland (Rutgers, Iowa) 5
I believe all traditional rivalries are at least somewhat protected. The Little Brown Jug game is still played 4 out of 6 years. MSU even gets to have it’s precious annual game with NU.
Maybe Wisconsin & Iowa switch their permanent rivalries with NU and Illinois, so each school plays the 2 in the other pod 2/3rds of the time.
The divsions are actually somewhat balanced (obviously, 2 kings in the east, but with 5 kings and 4 pods, there’s no good way to avoid that; the East actually comes out weakest using ordinal rank of conference winning percentage since 1996 as the criteria). Average rank:
West: 9.75
North: 7.75
East: 7.5
South: 9
LikeLike
As a Maryland fan, I like this setup; who could complain about playing Notre Dame every year? (The schools annually met in basketball during the ’70s and ’80s.) The Georgia Tech-Purdue game (the Engineering Bowl?) could also evolve into an engaging rivalry. It’s a nice, balanced blend for just about everyone, and would satisfy those who require an 8-game conference schedule as well.
LikeLike
Appreciate the support, Vincent.
LikeLike
If current trends hold true, the idea of Notre Dame joining any conference and maintaining a “national schedule” doesn’t have much credence. There are perhaps four conferences that Notre Dame might consider for membership–ACC, Big Ten, Big East and Big XII.
With the ACC going to 14 teams perhaps as early as 2013, the conference is going to play nine conference games. While ND membership in the ACC promises games up and down the Atlantic seaboard either with pods or divisions splitting up 16 teams, the important point here is that ND would be committed to nine conference games. That leaves three games on the non-conference schedule of which two could well be filled up with USC and Navy. Now if you feel that a national schedule means a trip every other year to Los Angeles, ten games against teams located from Boston to Miami plus one more non-conference game, then then ACC would be the route to go.
If the Big Ten were to get Notre Dame with one other team and stayed with the eight-playoff game plus one non-conference game with a Pac 12 team (starting in 2017), then that leaves Notre Dame leverage to play Navy plus two more non-conference games. This assumes that USC is permanently assigned as ND’s Pac 12 opponent. That at least gives Notre Dame one more open non-conference date than the ACC and means the Irish would be playing most of its games with teams between Nebraska and New Jersey (assuming Rutgers is the 14th team).
I can’t foresee Notre Dame actually joining the Big East for football. ND didn’t do it before the past realignment in 2003 and certainly didn’t do it before West Virginia, Syracuse and Pittsburgh left (not to mention TCU). Just on a wild assumption they were to do so, I suppose Notre Dame would be part of a 14-team conference with nine conference games and could theoretically play coast-to-coast, in Texas and in Florida. That said, having San Diego State, Houston and Central Florida as regulars on the schedule isn’t exactly what Notre Dame is looking for at this point.
The final option that has been floated by the Big XII is an associate set up like Notre Dame has with the Big East. Supposedly, ND would play three or four Big XII teams and have the rest of their teams moving from the BE to the B12. I don’t know if this would work equally well with a 10 or 12-team Big XII, but it’s certainly something DeLoss Dodds has put out (although we don’t know what the other members of the conference think about it). If anything, that would be the only option being discusssed in any manner that would give Notre Dame a national schedule.
The bottom line is this–regardless of pods or division, Notre Dame will not have the national schedule it wants or envisions if it joins a conference with a full membership. The ACC would give ND exposure in the northeast and into Florida, which I suspect the Irish would like, but it also means only one open non-conference game (if USC and Navy take the other two slots).
The Big Ten–if it stuck to an eight-game conference schedule with 14 teams and the arrangement with the Pac 12 is kept intact–would mean games thru the Midwest with some on the East Coast (Navy, Rutgers), the annual game with USC plus two more open slots for non-conference games. Since Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue are now “in conference”, those two open non-conference slots could theoretically be with anybody (as could the one open non-conference slot if ND was in the ACC because teams like Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, FL, and FSU are “in conference”).
If Notre Dame were to have an associate membership with the Big XII and the conference was willing to schedule three or four games a year in October or September with ND, than I suspect that’d be ideal for Irish and their desire to play a national schedule. Keep Stanford, USC, Navy, Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue on the schedule (if possible) along with the Big XII games and Notre Dame then has two or three slots available to schedule other programs (such as BYU, if it also remains independent and doesn’t go to the Big XII).
LikeLike
The 16-member, four-pod Big Ten setup listed here and rumored earlier this week via a Georgia Tech fan blog would give ND a national schedule within a conference. The 8-game proposal would enable it to preserve its Southern Cal rivalry (remember, the Big Ten could decree that only its 12 pre-expansion members would be part of the agreement, meaning USC could play other conference schools in the regular season). Perhaps the Big Ten isn’t all that enthused about a 16-team league, but if it’s the only way to secure Notre Dame and the financial bonanza it brings, you do it.
LikeLike
Yeah, for some strange reason, cutter went through a bunch of scenarios and ignored the one discussed in this thread.
As for the Pac10 agreement, I don’t think it has to be limited to the 12 pre-expansion members at all. If they stick to 12 Pac-B10 matchups (which would be logical if the Pac doesn’t expand), what you’d do is designate the USC-ND game as part of the series half the time, and the Stanford-ND game as part of the series half the time. That allows both schools to play other B10 teams in the setup. How would the other 11 matchups be split up? You could cycle the 15 other teams through (so the non-ND schools would play Pac teams 11/15 of the time). Or, you could have B10 schools that want to play in the Pac series less often opt to be in a separate group (up to 3). For instance, I can see Iowa (because they have the annual series with ISU & want 7 home games) not wanting to play Pac teams that often. GTech has the annual series with UGa. One more school may have a legitimate reason. However, it’s hard to see other schools having a good reason to opt out of more Pac games; the schools that alternate between 6 and 7 home games definitely have no reason to reject Pac games.
If only 1 school opts for less Pac games, then the other 14 schools play Pac schools 3/4th of the time while the school that opts for less plays the Pac half the time.
If 2 schools opt for less Pac games, then the other 13 schools play Pac schools 10/13th of the time while the schools that opt for less play the Pac half the time.
If 3 schools opt for less Pac games, then the other 12 schools play Pac schools 3/4th of the time while the schools that opt for less plays the Pac 2/3rd of the time.
If I was the B10, I’d only allow Iowa (and GTech, if they choose) to play the Pac less often as they’d have the legitimate excuse of having to play an annual OOC rivalry game. Maybe Maryland as well if they continue an annual series with UVa (though after leaving the ACC, that proposition seems a bit doubtful).
LikeLike
Actually that setup would look pretty much like a typical Notre Dame schedule prior to NBC taking over their scheduling. They mostly stuck to Chicago to Boston with USC and 3 indies-Georgia Tech, Miami and Air Force being common opponents.
Someone posted the number of times ND had played teams (I think this was prior to last year):
Navy-84
Purdue-82
USC-81
Michigan St.-74
Pitt-65
Army-50
NW-47
Michigan-38
Georgia Tech-34
Air Force-28
Stanford-25
Miami FL-24
BC-20
Penn St.-19
Nebraska-16
The top 15 includes 6 B1G teams and 4 others who potentially could be among the other 3 teams added (Pitt, BC, GT, Miami). The other 5 are the 3 military academies, USC and Stanford.
LikeLike
For vp19 & Richard:
I actually did look at your 16-team, four pod proposal and came up with basically the same conclusion vis-a-vis what Notre Dame envisions as a national schedule and what the Big Ten with Rutgers, Maryland and Georgia Tech as the other additions would provide ND.
Per your plan, the regulars on ND’s schedule would be Georgia Tech, Purdue, Maryland, Michigan State and Nebraska. Add in USC as the permanent Pac 12 rival or as a straightforward rivalry game along with Navy and that gives the Irish two open non-conference games with three others against essentially Midwest-based Big Ten teams.
If Notre Dame wanted to continue playing on the West Coast each year (which has been their recent scheduling practice), then they’re going to have to schedule a second Pac 12 team (which would be problematic with the Big Ten scheduling agreement in place) or play a program outside the Pac 12 (ex. San Diego State). Are either of those two options very likely? I think that might be a bit doubtful, which means that annual West Coast trip for Notre Dame goes out the window.
Notre Dame has played a number of present day ACC and Big East teams in their schedules, but with annual games with Navy, Maryland and Georgia Tech, that part is largely covered. But GA Tech is the only teams that’s really in the southeast and it means alternate years where the Yellow Jackets go to South Bend. If they wanted one game in that area or Florida per year, then they’ll have to use one of their non-conference slots to do it. The same extends to the northeast–if ND wanted a game against an opponent to play in the New York or New Jersey area and Rutgers isn’t on the schedule, then ND would have to use one of their non-conference slots to do that as well.
Of course, if Notre Dame wants to play west of the Mississippi (outside of the game with a confrence opponent, i.e, Nebraska and Iowa) at least once per year, they’ll have to coordinate with a Big XII school to play them in the years when they aren’t in Los Angeles to play USC. It’s a doable do (although it gets more difficult as more conferences play nine-game conference schedules), but it essentially means ND would only play one game in the western half of the country each year.
In summary, under your proposal, ND would likely play on the West Coast once every other year and (outside of Nebraska or Iowa) once per year west of the Mississippi River. I don’t think that’s the kind of national schedule Notre Dame envisions for itself.
But here’s the question–what exactly is a national schedule? Notre Dame plays at least six of its games in South Bend each year and with at least three games against Big Ten oppoents (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue), that means seven to eight games per year are physically located in northern Indiana or southern Michigan. That leaves perhaps three games that are out of area with at least one being on the West Coast (in recent years, either Stanford or USC) and in alternating years, one on the East Coast (Navy)
That means a national schedule for Notre Dame really means playing teams from various regions of the country. A handful from the Midwest, some from the northeast, two from the west, etc. If Notre Dame does join a 14- or 16-team conference with pods or divisions or with eight- or nine-conference games, then their ability to really do that is going to be limited.
If it’s the ACC, then most of the teams are located on the Atlantic Coast (including Navy) with one on the West Coast (USC) and one TBD.
If it’s the Big Ten (16) and we use your proposal, it’s eight games in conference and non-conference (from Nebraska to New Jersey with a one-team presence in the southeast plus Navy), one team in the West and two more TBD. That may be better than the ACC setup, but not as national as Notre Dame’s current setup.
In all likelihood, however, a sixteen-team Big Ten Conference would play nine-conference games. If it’s a divisional setup, then it’s seven games in the division, two against teams in the other division and three non-conference. If it’s a pod setup, then three within your pod and six against teams in the other three pods (and please note that I actually do like the pod setup over the divisions). If pods are selected, they’ll have to be organized to serve the most important rivalry and high interest games in the conference. Notre Dame would have to shift its scheduling priorities to embrace that reality along with its relationships with USC and Navy if it were to join the Big Ten and not vice versa.
Keep in mind that if Notre Dame were to join a conference, it would be done as a matter of last resort–not exactly a position of strength when it comes to negotiating with a major conference like the ACC or Big Ten that puts a high value on revenue sharing, unanimous decisions, etc. That’s not to say these conferences would give ND a take it or leave it scenario, but I don’t see them making major concessions to the Irish either.
Here’s the 16-team, nine-conference game pod setup for the Big Ten with Rutgers, Maryland, Notre Dame and Georgia Tech being added and keeping the most important traditional rivalries, etc. intact as much as possible. And yes, I don’t see Michigan-Minnesota as being an “important” traditional rivalry.
West Pod: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Mid-West Pod: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
Mid-East Pod: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State
East Pod: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Notre Dame Schedule Year 1
Michigan
at Ohio State
Michigan State
at Iowa
Nebraska
at Illinois
Indiana
at Rutgers
Georgia Tech
at USC (Pac 12 Game)
Navy (or other non-conference opponent)
One Non-Conference Game
Notre Dame Schedule Year 2
At Michigan
Ohio State
At Michigan State
Iowa
at Nebraska
Illinois
At Indiana
Rutgers
At Georgia Tech
USC
At Navy (or other non-conference opponent)
One Non-Conference Game
Notre Dame Schedule Year 3
Michigan
at Ohio State
Michigan State
at Minnesota
Wisconsin
at Northwestern
Purdue
at Maryland
Penn State
at USC
Navy (or other non-conference opponent)
One Non-Conference Game
Notre Dame Schedule Year 4
At Michigan
Ohio State
At Michigan State
Minnesota
at Wisconsin
Northwestern
at Purdue
Maryland
at Penn State
USC
at Navy (or other non-conference opponent)
One Non-Conference Game
If Notre Dame dropped the Navy series, that would give them more flexibility to expand their schedule in national terms. It wouldn’t be the first time in recent college football history that a sacred cow rivalry game has been put to pasture and I can’t imagine it’d be the last.
LikeLike
cutter:
1. ND could still play both USC and Stanford (and have 1 open slot left) with one of those 2 games being part of the B10-OPac series & the other outside of it.
2. I did the analysis before, and the only difference between ND’s current “national” schedule and being part of a 16-team B10 with 2 extra Eastern schools and an extra southern school be slightly fewer games in the NE and slightly more games in the Midwest. the games @Pitt now would be shifted a few hundred miles west. In fact, here’s a repost of what I posted above:
“From ND’s perspective, they can still keep the series with USC, Navy, & Stanford and still have one more game to play on the East Coast, Texas, or SE.
In the next 4 years, they will play outside South Bend in the following places:
Ireland: 1
Midwest: 7
East Coast/Northeast: 7
West: 5
South (including Texas): 1
In the B10, they would play a southern team once a year, an eastern team 1 & 2/3 times, and a Midwestern team 5 & 1/3rd times, on average. If they still play USC & Stanford annually and Navy on the East Coast, then say their remaining game against a western school a third of the time and an eastern school 2/3rds of the time, their distribution over 6 years would be
Midwest: 16
East Coast/Northeast: 10
West: 7
South: 3
If you apply the percentage of ND’s current schedule played in each region over 36 games, they would be
Midwest: 12.6
East Coast/Northeast: 12.6
West: 9
South (including Texas): 1.8
The biggest difference is a shift from East Coast games to Midwest games, and that difference is literally shifting 3 games @Pitt to games @tOSU, @IU, and @NU.”
3. You said “In all likelihood, however, a sixteen-team Big Ten Conference would play nine-conference games.”
Huh? Why? Actually, in all likelihood, there is absolutely no way the B10 will play 9 conference games and also play a series against the Pac. For one thing, Iowa would be absolutely against such as an arrangement, as, even if the Hawkeyes only play a Pac team half the time, there is no way they can play 9 conference games _and_ play ISU every year_ and_ have 7 home games every year _and_ play in the Pac series. More importantly, all of the schools that believe they need 7 home games every year (Michigan, OSU, PSU, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Illinois–note that that is half of the new B10 right there–as well as GTech (which wants to play UGa every year) as well as ND (which wants to play a national schedule), would not endorse a 9-game conference slate + the Pac series as they would virtually never be able to play any home-and-home series against powerhouses outside of the Pac. Furthermore, while Rutgers and Maryland may be happy in the B10, at the margin, they’s prefer playing an extra Eastern team over playing an extra Midwestern team as well. So that’s 10-12 schools out of 16 who would be opposed to a 9-game conference slate + playing the Pac series. So how exactly would a majority of B10 schools come to endorse a 9-game conference slate.
The B10 may not decide to expand to 16 schools, but if they do, the conference slate would still be kept at 8 games if the Pac series is maintained.
LikeLike
Richard,
The B10 may not decide to expand to 16 schools, but if they do, the conference slate would still be kept at 8 games if the Pac series is maintained.
Would you agree that if the B10 went to 16, then they are more likely to drop the P12 series and go to 9 B10 games than to stay at 8 plus the P12 series?
LikeLike
Brian:
Hard to say. They’d choose between one and the other, certainly. On the one hand, many/most of the original 10 in the B10 want to play each other often (because many in the fanbases want that).
On the other hand, ND likely wouldn’t join if they have to play 9 conference games (so the B10 wouldn’t expand to 16 anyway), plus I believe a lot of the conference & school leadership would prefer the Pac alliance in order to spread the B10 brand outside it’s footprint more and maybe to help politically as well. I reckon the new schools would, if they had a preference, prefer the Pac alliance as well.
We know that with 12 schools, the B10 chose to forgo a 9th conference game in favor of the Pac alliance. Personally, I’d much prefer keeping the Pac alliance.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is only going to join a conference if they don’t have any other choice, so I’m not sure the number of conference games is really that relevant.
LikeLike
BTW, in my proposal, Rutgers and Maryland are interchangeable in their slots. One of them would get to play ND every year; the other would get to play PSU and OSU every year.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-fitz-dont-limit-bowls-to-7win-teams-20120306,0,2143041.story
Pat Fitzgerald is against the 7 win requirement for bowls (I wonder why?), but it sounds like Delany is in favor and the idea had some decent support when first brought up. As Delany says, how can it be a reward for a season that gets a coach fired (UCLA, IL, etc)?
I hope they do up the requirement or at least stop counting I-AA victories towards the 6.
LikeLike
It has to be done. I get that Fitz needs to go to bowls as often as possible, but the 7 win requirement is an absolute must in my opinion.
Way too many teams that end the season in very mediocre fashion are ending up in the postseason, and the corresponding depressed ticket sales/traveling fan/TV audience is just not worth defending.
LikeLike
They won’t stop counting I-AA victories. They briefly had a rule that they only could be counted once in four years and changed that. Not that it was too hard to get the required wins, but it was driving up the cost of buy games. It gives too many $ and too much power to the MAC and Sun Belt schools for the AQ schools to be happy.
LikeLike
Probably not, but I thought it might be a compromise that could get more votes than going to 7.
LikeLike
Losses by FBS teams to FCS should count; wins should not.
LikeLike
They may require 7 victories, yet count 2 victories vs. Div I-AA (which will soon be made up of the MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, Ivy league, and a few more schools/leagues from current FCS moving up, with most of current FCS in Div I-AAA). However, the issue will be effectively mooted when NCAA Div I-A mandates that teams can not play in bowls before Christmas (in order to allow students associated with football–the players, cheerleaders, and band–to study for finals). The Presidents do care about the welfare of student-athletes; not enough to keep them from exploiting cheap labor to make money for the schools, mind you, but the lowest-tier bowls don’t actually make much money for the schools (if any, and many are actually money-losers), so that one is a slam-dunk decision.
Maybe Div I-AA will participate in pre-Christmas bowls.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/59780/usc-summit-takes-on-7-on-7-football
Here’s a little follow up on the 7 on 7 summit I mentioned the other day. At least they’re trying to be proactive on the issue instead of waiting for it to become AA hoops.
LikeLike
Things I wish I wrote:
Realignment is a haphazard, capitalist version of the promotion and relegation in European soccer
http://deadspin.com/5891652/homecoming-queen-by-default-temple-returns-to-the-big-east
LikeLike
From a link there, “Lewis Katz, a member of the Temple board of trustees and chairman of its athletics committee, said the Owls will receive between $7 million and $8 million annually as a member of the Big East.”
Seems to be what the Big East expects their per school payouts to be after their new TV deals are signed.
LikeLike
“Realignment is a haphazard, capitalist version of the promotion and relegation in European soccer, but this move is diagonal, unspeakably close to lateral. This is going from Serie B to Ligue 2.”
Serie B is better than Ligue 2.
In any case, the BE is still a big step up from the MAC. This is like going from the 3. Liga to the Russian Premier League.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post?id=31031
This isn’t really news, but it is straight from the horse’s mouth. The BE wants to get to 14 schools by 2015 (Navy will be #13 in 2015), and they want to add a western school (probably FB only) to get there. The negotiations start 9/1, so look for an addition this summer. The obvious short list is BYU and AF, both of which said no before (Navy joining might sway AF). Any other decent big market FB programs available? Would UNLV fit their model despite stinking at FB? Will ECU fans recover from apoplexy at being passed over again?
“It’s our intention to obviously have equal divisions of seven moving forward, and over the course of the time between now and our television negotiations, as we better position ourselves to attract a quality 14th partner in football, we’ll be looking to move forward in that direction,” Marinatto said. “We want to get to even divisions, and I think we’re looking specifically for a western partner to help us with that.”
With that said, why did the BE pay Nova to keep studying moving up from I-AA? Do they really want to get to 16 or are they expecting more losses soon?
LikeLike
Speculation was the money to Villanova was basically a territorial concession for Temple getting in. Marinatto has said 14 recently. Of course 13 + 1 western + 1 FCS team who was 1-10 last year =15. I’ve saw one report that a BE insider said Louisville was likely gone.
If the MWC/CUSA really get the $3 million they’re talking about, you wonder if Boise and SDSU would stay in the BE for around $4 million (Temple is saying $7-$8 for full membership).
LikeLike
Memphis had good bb and was a full member. I don’t see how UNLV could be added. It would have to be either Hawaii or Fresno. What’s left of this year’s MWC is pretty bad. Wyoming has no market. CSU, UNLV and UNM probably wouldn’t finish in the top half of the Big Sky. Air Force is pretty weak at most sports other than football.
LikeLike
As you say above, with the money potentially so similar, would any western school say yes? I can’t believe the BE wants HI, and Fresno hasn’t been great lately either. I only threw out UNLV for the city, not any redeeming qualities of the FB team. I could see the western FB only schools eventually bailing on the BE to be replaced by CUSA schools in the east.
LikeLike
I can see UNLV being added as a full member (in part to keep Boise in the fold) and SDSU bball being promoted up. $7-8M is a big jump from $3M, and SDSU certainly would like the extra $3-4M as well. Meanwhile, the BE would still be seen as a strong basketball league even after losing ‘Cuse & Pitt (and probably Louisville) and get a very good TV contract for its basketball.
I’ve posted this before, but here’s a 20-school “BE” (I’m assuming Louisville leaves) again:
West: SDSU, UNLV, AFA, Houston, SMU
MidWest: Marquette, ND, DePaul, Memphis, Cincy
Northeast: Providence, UConn, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Rutgers
Atlantic: Villanova, Temple, Georgetown, UCF, USF.
Teams would play other schools in their division twice a year for 8 games. Midwest-West & Atlantic-Northeast would play each other once for 5 games. Then they’d alternate playing the 2 divisions in the other conference (East and West) for another 5 games to get to 18. Cross-country roadtrips would be kept to a minimum (the West and East Coast schools would have to travel 5 times over 2 years, and the 5 away games could be knocked off in 2 trips). For instance, if it is the Northeast’s turn to play at the West schools, StJ, the Hall, and Rutgers could rotate between AFA, UNLV, and SDSU on Th-Sat-Mon while Providence and UConn switch between Houston and SMU on Fri-Sun one weekend. On another weekend, Providence-UConn play @ AFA-UNLV-SDSU Th-Sat-Mon (say SDSU gets the bye Th, AFA the bye Sat and UNLV the bye Mon) while StJ-SH-Rutgers visits Houston-SMU Th-Sat-Mon.
I see 10-11 tourney bids a year for this league.
LikeLike
BTW, the football divisions would be
West: Boise, SDSU, UNLV, AFA, Houston, SMU, Memphis
East: UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Navy, Cincy, USF, UCF
The BE West would actually be more compact than the MWC with Hawaii +CUSA, so from a travel perspective, there actually would be little reason for Boise, SDSU, or UNLV to leave this BE for an even weaker Mount USA.
LikeLike
I feel the Big East shouldn’t have admitted Memphis and Temple; at least not yet. Big East basketball would have been just fine if it shrunk a little. With the Texas schools, Boise, and SD State, they have the basis for a good western division. Right now we think Memphis will somewhat awkwardly be put in a division that goes all the way to California.
They should have gone after 2 of AFA, BYU, Hawaii, Fresno, UNLV, UTSA for football only. If the Western schools wanted to make their own conference of basketball and other sports, they would have the set up to do it. They could even include their own ‘non-football’ schools.
If the Big East loses Louisville in a few years, they could have had this sensible setup:
West: Boise,SDSU,Houston,SMU, AFA,Fresno
East: UConn,Rutgers,Navy,Cincy,USF,UCF
I think the schools out West would feel more like they belonged in this scenario.
Memphis would be the first school you call up if another school in the East departs. Or, if you wanted to cut down travel further, you could add Memphis in the East and another school in the West and cut cross-divisional travel.
LikeLike
The moves make sense from a monetary perspective. With Pitt, Syracuse, and WVU leaving, the BE knows that there no way they can make their football product much better than MountUSA, so they decided to shore up their bball to make sure that at least their bball product is one of the best in the country. If BYU and AFA rejects them, are any of Fresno, Hawaii, UNLV, or UTSA football a better TV product than Memphis or Temple basketball?
LikeLike
Thinking this over, if you need to give Boise full membership in order to keep Boise, then give Boise full membership. They’d take over AFA’s slot. Then you add another football-only school to fill Boise’s slot (likely Fresno; maybe Hawaii). Your basketball would not be weaker, your football would be about the same, and you’d keep for sure one of your football crown jewels.
LikeLike
Some things don’t make sense even if they make you more money. Without AQ, Boise can’t add that much value.
The differences between the BE and MWC/CUSA are two:
1) MWC/CUSA is doing it for survival. Money is secondary.
2) MWC/CUSA is basically going to be 2 separate conferences tied by a TV contract. There is going to be very little cross-country play. Its essentially an alliance to separate themselves from the bottom of FBS and make sure they get included in whatever follows.
LikeLike
The BE could also add UNM instead of AFA. Poor football, but another good bball program. Metro Albuquerque is slightly smaller than metro Memphis but bigger than metro Boise. The state of NM has about a many people as metro Orlando and more than metro Memphis.
LikeLike
If Boise does not join the BE how much lower will their yearly income be? IINM, Boise is currently the biggest national draw the conference has. Now, if Boise joins the “alliance”, how much would their fball income increase? The “alliance” numbers would not equal the BE but if they get close enough, and Boise gets a full conference share from the “alliance” versus a fball only share from the BE, does Boise prefer less travel and more regional competition in the “alliance”?
LikeLike
My point being that, as Richard said, Boise needs to be offered all-sports membership before adding any other western schools for all-sports.
About the addition of Memphis and Temple, I think this has to alot to do with stability. With these two, great bball schools, as members of the fball conference even if Louisville, or others, leave the conference the BE is not perceived as being on the verge of collapse again. Also, adding western schools shifts the balance of power. I bet the PTB in the BE would rather face reloading in the future with as many eastern schools as possible. The more western schools you add the more complicated future expansion becomes.
LikeLike
Joe:
Well, with more western schools, the BE becomes a truly national conference, Boise wouldn’t feel isolated, and thus would have little reason to leave.
As a mentioned, a BE West with Boise, SDSU, UNLV, Houston, SMU, Memphis, and AFA/Fresno would be comparable geographically to what’s left of the MWC + the Texas CUSA schools, meaning travel costs for Boise actually wouldn’t be much less for joining the inferior league.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7662282/jim-boeheim-says-syracuse-orange-reported-drug-tests-5-years-ago
For not knowing anything about it, suddenly Boeheim knows that Syracuse supposedly reported the possible drug policy violations 5 years ago. The NCAA still says they didn’t hear until 2010.
LikeLike
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320680077
And NW craps the bed when they have a chance to end a streak yet again. They failed to score in the final 4:06 of regulation and lost in OT.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/51826/joe-lunardis-latest-bracketology-update-15
It’s semi-official:
“Check back for another update later in the night, but here is Joe Lunardi’s projections as of 8:15 p.m. ET on Thursday.
LAST FOUR IN
Washington
Drexel
Texas
Seton Hall
FIRST FOUR OUT
Tennessee
Oregon
Northwestern
NC State”
And the B10 will only get 6 bids versus 10 for the BE probably. The price the B10 pays for having 3 top teams, I suppose.
It sounds like IN’s point guard is hurt pretty bad, too, which is a shame.
LikeLike
I’m hoping Texas beats Iowa St. to provide a little more breathing room. Likely only loss to non-tourney team was at Oklahoma St., but they lost to the 7 top teams they played (UNC,KU,MU,BU). NCSU and TN I believe are still alive in their tourney. UW just lost to Oregon St.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-tech/acc-ticket-once-toughest-1376685.html
ACC is having trouble with both regular season and tourney tickets. Swofford realizes the expansion of the tourney has hurt the regular season. Yet they just expanded to 68 to let in the 11th place team in the Big East. They are seriously talking about 96 or 128. These guys just can’t control themselves.
LikeLike
And Lucy has pulled away the (basket)ball from Charlie Brown yet again…(sob)…
LikeLike
That Northwestern-Minnesota game was like a microcosm of the season. So many extremely close games lost by poor execution.
If Northwestern was going to go, this was the year to do it. Probably the most talented team Northwestern’s had in this string of NIT runs, but just incapable of pulling off close victories against the good teams.
LikeLike
We don’t have a bench, so we inevitably fade in the waning minutes (I don’t think it is a coincidence that we’re 0-3 in OT games this year, and in the last 2, the opposing team pulled away in OT). It also doesn’t help that Carmody won’t or can’t draw up a good late-game scoring play. Result: We’re 1-6 in games that ended in regulation with the scores being within 2 points or less of each other.
LikeLike
We were also helped by the ref in our one close win (granted, the refs had bad non-calls on the other team in a few of our close losses). If just one of those close losses was a win (and we still beat PSU), we’d probably be dancing. So close.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7663807/governor-says-penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-right-fire-joe-paterno
PA’s governor spoke out today and said he wished JoePa had followed up and that the trustees were right to fire him. I’m not sure why he felt the need to talk about it now, but I’m guessing that won’t be a popular opinion in PA.
LikeLike
Corbett has taken a lot of heat for the entire Sandusky issue.
He was District Attorney when complaints were first made to the PA DA yet decided an investigation against State Troopers was more important (he assigned a single investigator to the Sandusky case). There is talk its because the Second Mile was a large campaign donor and he had his sites on the Governor seat, so he didn’t want to alienate some of his financial support.
During the PSU Board of Trustees vote to fire Paterno, Corbett had the final words. They didn’t specifically say “fire Paterno”, but in politician they did.
Also, word is Corbett and Spanier hated each other (due to yearly budget arguments) and so he pushed the Sandusky case in the DA’s office (when he was Governor, after he had “ignored it”) to help remove some of the power PSU had in the state.
Biggest thing…little known fact outside of PA, but the state tends to vote its governors in two-terms in a row (that’s the max) then switch parties for governor (if the previous was Rep, the next will be Dem, and vice versa). Corbett’s second term is coming due and he’s probably worried that a popular dead man’s tarnished reputation and a successul political campaign to paint him as “opportunistic” with the Sandusky trial could hurt his chances at re-election…as such, keep saying his side of the “truth” and hope it doesn’t hurt him in the long run.
LikeLike
We’ve been talking about this, and Penn State really is going to be back sooner than people expect.
Lemming had said earlier that he was hearing Penn State’s name pop up way more in recruiting circles in the past, and look at the start of their 2013 class with 4 top notch commits already.
The most impressive of course is Brenaman and the irony here is that Penn State hasn’t really grabbed the top (or arguably the top) recruit in the state in a while (they did have Schutt before the debacle but still).
On recruiting, it looks like the whole Sandusky affair is almost already behind them. On the public relations front of course ESPN will keep waving it along the front page for a year (or a few), but the actual football impact looks to just be the recruits they lost to Ohio State in the past year. If you had told me that three months ago, I would have not thought that possible. It is early in the cycle, but still, Penn State looks like they’ll be fine.
LikeLike
Granted, the bar was set rather low with the previous head coach essentially unable/unwilling to leave Happy Valley to recruit.
LikeLike
I meant way more than in the past of course.
Yeah Richard, that’s a fair point. Penn State has really been under potential for a while in terms of recruiting (yeah they’ve grabbed a top recruit or a few here or there, but nothing like what they should be able to do). There really is no reason why they aren’t pulling down classes like Michigan and Ohio State given the size of the Northeast region over which they’re the dominant power. If they lock down the top shelf in Pennsylvania and grab a lot of top recruits out of nearby East Coast states, that’s automatically a top 15 class. If they actually do put their name out there down South and out West, they’ll be able to augment that as well; something they didn’t do anywhere near as well in the past.
LikeLike
I’ve always said the older Paterno got the more he believed in stressing the “student” part of “student athlete” and I think it showed. On the football field where we won, but not to level of a tOSU (though in fairness we weren’t paying players either), but also in the academic side where PSU posted graduation rates thates that were beaten (in the B1G) only by Northwestern.
Maybe it was an old man’s understanding he’d already been to the top and didn’t need to be there anymore, especially with what it takes to get there these days. Maybe he just wanted to solidify that legacy of the “Grand Experiment”.
In the end what excites me most is while the players are top notch recruits they all still seem.to have that typical “PSU recruit” mentality.
LikeLike
OSU wasn’t paying players either.
LikeLike
Yep, that’s true. In academics, PSU has been at the very top of the state schools, with, in 2011, only UDub (84% graduation rate) and Rutgers (88%) being comparable to PSU (84%) amongst public AQ-schools. The B10, ACC and BE actually had several schools in the 70’s, but the drop elsewhere is dramatic. Highest public school in the Pac after UDub was Cal at 65%. Highest public school in the SEC was UGa at 68%. Highest public school in the B12 was Mizzou at 71%.
Football-wise, however (especially in recruiting), PSU has operated far below potential for a while now.
LikeLike
It should also be pointed out that many state schools have a low overall graduation rate due to their state mandate, but have a better FB graduation rate. That’s not as good as what the privates or PSU manage, but having a FB team rate of 60% isn’t too shabby if the overall number is 50% (numbers are made up to make the point). Several B10 schools fit that general picture.
LikeLike
“many state schools have a low overall graduation rate due to their state mandate, but have a better FB graduation rate…” What state mandates that State U admit students who possess neither the academic preparedness nor the motivation to be successful? What state mandates that State U admit each year more students than the school can adequately serve — in terms of courses, majors, support staff? What state mandates that State U admits students who cannot afford their education and then provides insufficient access to financial resources? I’ll take a different view: it is not a mandate for access but declining state financial support that encourages State U to admit students who will not graduate…. and no matter how you slice it, a 65% grad rate for fb and bb athletes is pathetic in light of the extraordinary academic support athletes receive at State U.
But don’t worry, any decade now, the impact of the cfb tv revenues will be felt by State U and graduation rates will rise.
LikeLike
@rich2
Until recently, Nebraska and LSU were open admission. If you had a high school degree you could get in. Most state schools aren’t as selective as most of the B1G and UC schools.
LikeLike
@bullet – Are you sure about Nebraska? I believe they have had more requirements than a just high school diploma for at least 15 years.
LikeLike
By recently, I’m talking 90s. I believe it changed sometime in the 90s.
LikeLike
rich2:
I know it doesn’t do anything for your elitist worldview, but studies have shown that a little college, even with no degree, has a positive impact on future earnings compared to no college education at all.
LikeLike
A lot of Notre Dame discussion on here, so I thought I’d mention some speculation on the Texas boards. “Jesus Shuttlesworth”, a former content provider on Recruitocosm and current paid contributor to Inside Texas, has access to a “Big Cigar” (supposedly a big UT donor) and an “Asset” (presumably a guy on the Longhorn coaching staff) who have given him very accurate info over the last couple years regarding recruiting, coaching movement, game plans, etc. The Big Cigar has repeatedly told Shuttlesworth that UT and Notre Dame’s long-term plan is to form their own superconference. UT’s strategy is to spend the next 6 years that they’re tied to the Big 12 (due to the granting of rights) to establish the LHN; then, they exit the Big 12 and start a new conference with Notre Dame composed of teams they both can live with and rules they can accept (anyone can have their own network, keep your own 3rd tier rights, scheduling favorable to ND, etc.).
Similar thoughts have been expressed on Orangebloods by a poster named Ice Man (very connected to the program through his jewelry business) and a poster named “Howard Cossell” (seems to know a lot, not sure what his connections are), and are more vaguely alluded to by Chip Brown.
My thinking has been that Notre Dame will be very conflicted if forced to join a conference; they don’t want to be equals and give up a lot of their rights to the B1G or ACC, but they don’t want to be in a midwestern, bad academics conference like the Big 12. Better to serve in Heaven or rule in Hell? Forming their own conference with Texas, with their rules and their chosen partners, solves all these issues…
LikeLike
Who would be interested in that sort of conference? I’m not dismissing the concept, merely wondering about the parameters of such a deal and who would be tempted to leave their current gigs for that league.
LikeLike
The Big Cigar didn’t go into those kind of details, but Ice Man and Howard Cossell (yes, I feel ridiculous referencing these names) have mentioned taking a few Big 12 members so that Texas has some regional partners, and then taking some east coast teams for Notre Dame (Pitt, Boston College, Rutgers, UCONN, Florida St., Miami, Maryland, Georgia Tech are some names that pop up).
LikeLike
Wow that would be a ton of travel for the non football sports. Not a lot of cultural similarities with those schools.
LikeLike
Who would be interested? The bottom of the B12 and BEast, and current non AQ’s.
LikeLike
Interesting. Any thoughts on which schools would join them. I just can’t see any major schools from the power conferences joining them.
LikeLike
Well, to continue speculating on speculation, how about this:
West – Texas, OU, BYU, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas, TCU, Louisville
East – Notre Dame, Pitt, Boston College, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Florida St., Miami, West Virginia
Kind of a strange mix of fairly strong and very poor academics, pretty decent basketball conference, powerhouse baseball conference, very strong football conference with the hope of regular Texas/OU vs. ND/Fla St./Miami conference championship games. Travel would be a killer for most sports, and a mixed bag culturally, as Kevin said.
LikeLike
The lower B12 schools and BE schools would join, but why would any ACC school give up the ACC to be dominated by Texas and ND?
LikeLike
Now, that I’ve slept on this, this really is the Big 12 conference minus Kstate, Iowa State, and Baylor, adding more from the ACC, as has been suggested by “the Dude”.
In place of K-state, Iowa State, and Baylor it adds more east coast teams for Notre Dame to play with. Pitt, BC, Rutgers, GTech, FSU, Miami and Notre Dame.
This sounds like spit balling to me.
LikeLike
Perhaps there is actually something brewing. Other times outlandish proposal/rumors have been floated from Austin it has been as a distraction.
LikeLike
A distraction, or as a response to someone else’s proposal. See: OU and OSU to the PAC ( that some felt might cause UT to come along).
LikeLike
I think there is some smoke to the Big 12 talking to some of the ACC schools..that makes sense. As does talking to Notre Dame (which even Boss Dodds has admitted to).
Talking and wishing, and “in a perfect world” ideas and goals are completely different from “real world realities”
I’m not sure many of the schools would be happy to be lackeys to UT and ND, in this set up. Few schools can really capitalize on 3rd tier rights individually which gives too much of an advantage to UT and ND. OU is one that can, and I don’t think they would really go along with this conference, as I think they like the idea of the PAC if they can’t be in a regional conference.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame’s objective is to have a national football schedule within the structure of a conference, this makes sense to some degree. Assuming ND would play seven teams within its own (East) Conference, then that would be mix of games with opponents up and down the Atlantic seaboard without joining the ACC.
The question then becomes how many conference games does this group play? If it’s eight and there’s a protected rivalry, then Texas-Notre Dame becomes an annual game. That leaves four more games for ND to schedule non-conference, which leaves for an annual trip out to California/West Coast (with USC on the schedule each year with perhaps another Pac 12 school).
If Navy is kept on ND’s schedule, then there’s just one more non-conference game to schedule. If USNA isn’t on the schedule, then that’s two more non-conference games for Notre Dame.
If there are nine conference games with one protected rival, then ND has only three non-conference games to schedule with one of them being USC. That leaves only two non-conference games to schedule (or one if the relationship with Navy is upheld).
What this does do is give Notre Dame an opportunity to play in or play against teams in the primary recruiting areas–California, Texas and Florida. It also gives them enough high profile games each year with FSU, Miami, Texas and USC on the schedule each year to satisfy the networks plus any strength of schedule issues for the post-season.
For Texas, it means playing football games against the better teams in the Big 12 plus an annual matchup with Notre Dame. If that means three or four non-conference games, then they have the flexibility to schedule up or down in terms of strength of schedule as they see fit. That’s not a bad scheduling deal for them either.
LikeLike
cutter: Why can’t it be 6 or 7 conference games? If ND and Texas are setting up this conference, I’d expect that they’d write the rules as well. It’s inconceivable that ND would help set up a conference, them allow the peons to dictate to them how many OOC games ND plays.
The bigger issue is getting FSU & the rest of the southern ACC to join. Other than the B12 captives, the BE schools, and maybe BC, it’s going to be awfully hard to convince any school to leave the stability of the ACC for this creature.
LikeLike
Texas doesn’t play well with others unless they dominate all aspects of the conference relationships. That’s a huge turnoff for schools looking for a true conference partnership. Therefore, I don’t see many teams joining a ND / Texas conference, despite the potential for a huge monetary payoff. A few schools like Clemson and FSU may “kick the tires” as part of their due diligence, and to quiet a small vocal group of die hard football alums. But in the end, they will decide not to join a ND / Texas conference.
LikeLike
Well, if you look at the schools they’re looking at, the goal is probably to grab the most valuable “obtainable” schools from the ACC (Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech) and combine that with the value schools in the Big 12 (Texas, OU, Texas Tech, OSU, Kansas) along with some others like BYU and Rutgers that have value but aren’t really tied down.
This is basically a quasi Big 12-ACC merger in a sense but with Texas/ND firmly in the driver’s seat.
That’s probably Texas’ final end play if it does have to leave the Big 12 because that makes the most sense.
Joining the Big Ten or ACC as a distant power with limited control probably isn’t their idea of a good outcome. If that’s the choice, they might just stay in the Big 12 for the long haul.
On the other hand, if they can join up with an Eastern (ACC composed) group with their own group of 5-6 from the Big 12, they’d probably consider that a lot more heavily; especially if it includes Notre Dame. The other thing is that they probably might want to leave out the core ACC out of the mix.
It’s a lot better outcome than joining the ACC which is heavily controlled by UNC and it’s core schools in NC/Va (excluding Va Tech, which isn’t an old blood member).
Now, whether they can pull off this kind of thing is doubtful, and that’s why the status quo is much more likely. But if Clemson and Florida State ever do decide to make a play over Tobacco Road; that might create an opening. Of course, it’s unlikely because of how much those schools value the academic brand (especially undergraduate-wise) of the ACC.
LikeLike
Not only that, but if FSU and Clemson don’t want Tobacco Road to influence their league, why would they choose domination by Texas and ND?
LikeLike
ACC members from Clemson on south live in a football-oriented environment, not the “hoops come first” culture of Tobacco Road. If the money — and more important, the stability — is there, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and Florida State might be interested in a conference with Texas, Notre Dame and presumably Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State as well. Still a longshot, however, given UT’s rep as an alpha dog to end all alpha dogs.
LikeLike
Yeah, stability is key, and I believe most university presidents are fairly conservative; they’re not going to put their schools in the situation KU is in (dependent on Texas allowing the B12 to exist) unless there is major upside. Plus, academic prestige matters to these folks, and associating with UNC, UVa, and Duke still has more academic cachet in that region than Texas, ND, and a bunch of peons outside their region. Finally, I don’t see being able to keep third-tier rights as being all that appealing; all 4 of the southern ACC schools (including FSU) are limited in how much money they can generate from third-tier rights. Third-tier rights actually would be much more valuable to UNC, but I don’t see them leaving the ACC.
LikeLike
The reasons why FSU might consider this:
1)Their fans want a football conference, not one that brings in Syracuse, BC, and Pitt. Getting the Irish, the Sooners, and the Longhorns to play them regularly would be a hit with fans.
2)They’re not particularly concerned if the LHN allows the Longhorns to recruit the top 25 players in Texas every year. FSU wants to recruit the best players in Florida, and this conference might give them a boost against UF.
That said, we’re still not sure if they would have even accepted an SEC offer (there were conflicting rumors while the SEC was at 13), so I agree with all of you that think this is more of a fantasy than reality right now.
LikeLike
Because some schools may possibly be “obtainable” by the B1G or the SEC does not equal them having a desire to join an Irish/longhorn version of the B12. OU has been a willing squire to one Lord. Would they choose to move down a rung?
LikeLike
That’s entirely fair. I’m just posting what I think Texas’ optimal outcome would be.
The chances of it happening are next to non-existent though. It’s hard to see why all those schools would group up and then “subjugate” themselves to Texas and ND as several of you guys point out…
And in a 14 team ACC, I feel like the NC/Va crowd probably has less overall control in a future sense, although right now Swofford is more or less in tune with what they want (given his own affiliations).
The thing is, those schools (especially UNC and Duke) do realize more or less that the world has changed and so they were more open to expansion this time around.
I’m with you guys though, it’s hard to see how the Texas-ND alliance finds the right group of schools to join them. They need a group of legit schools from some other region to legitimize the concept otherwise it’s just some Big 12 schools, ND, and some castoffs.
We’ve heard wild ideas like grabbing the California block of Pac-12 schools or the big schools in the Big Ten, etc.
It just doesn’t seem though like anyone is going to want to play by Texas/ND’s rules. The money may be amazing, but the loss of geography, regional relationships, and comfort zone are likely to make this a non-starter just about everywhere except Big East/castoff kind of schools.
LikeLike
Big Cigar is sometimes off the wall. I suspect some of those things come out when people are sitting around drinking a lot and smoking cigars and just blowing smoke.
This really just sounds like a variation of the Dude’s ACC raid. Big 12-2-1+1-1+1+ FSU, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Pitt. Throw WVU and ISU (or TCU) in with the 6 new schools.
For that matter, I think I suggested something similar as a remote possibility last fall when OU was talking to the Pac and UT was rumoured to be talking to the ACC.
I don’t think its anything more than a little brainstorming.
LikeLike
It all really hinges on FSU.
So’s here my take: We know ND will want at most 7 conference games. I’m pretty certain that OU won’t be able to shed OK St. and take off to the SEC or Pac (regard of how much people like Duff think or want it to be so), so the 4 TX and 2 OK schools will be in this conference, as Texas would want all its buddies around. ND would want to have 5 vassals in the eastern division as well, yet who would be available? I believe that they have a decent chance at BC, if being in the conference with ND or not means having an annual series with ND or virtually never playing ND. However,the rest of the northern part of the ACC would be virtually impossible to get. I’m positive that the NC-VA core of the ACC won’t join. Maryland may leave the ACC to join the B10, but likely not an unstable arrangement as ND’s vassal. I believe Syracuse and Pitt would stick with UNC-Duke-UVa because, even if the new league offers better football and more money, the core of the ACC will always have academic prestige, basketball, and stability (the ACC will always be around if UNC, Duke, and UVa stay, and I don’t think they’ll go anywhere).
That leaves the southern ACC. Clemson may go, but they don’t want to be a southeastern outlier. GTech would stay in the ACC unless the rest of the southern ACC leaves. Miami will try to follow FSU. That means it’s all on FSU. Stay with the ACC, and there’s academic prestige, stability, geographic coherence, and basketball. Go with ND & Texas and there’s more money and better football. However, there’s no geographic coherence or tradition or stability, and here’s the key thing: unlike Texas & ND, FSU (and GTech and Miami) won’t really be able to monetize their third-tier rights (Clemson would only be able to monetize a little), so being in a conference where they get to own third-tier rights doesn’t mean much to those schools. If FSU leaves, the whole 4-school southern part of the ACC will leave. I doubt they leave, though.
If the only ACC school ND can pull in is BC, how can they form a new conference? Even after adding UConn and Rutgers, it’d need 2 more schools. We know that ND turns up their nose at schools like WVU and Louisville. Would ND really want annual rivalries against Rutgers, UConn, and 2 of WVU/Louisville/USF/UCF?
Having a conference that is designed to benefit a school like Texas or ND sounds nice in theory, but in reality, would ND be able to get any schools they’d actually want to built annual rivalries with in to such a conference?
LikeLike
I doubt FSU is interested, but stability would not be their concern. Schools like Texas, Notre Dame and FSU don’t have to worry about that. As for the rest, if something like ND, FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson moved together it would create a stable home (at least as stable as a 16 team conference can be) and make the ACC instable.
LikeLike
bullet,
FSU isn’t Texas or ND. Just look at how much revenue FSU football brings in (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/) and compare with the other kings, or even Miami.
Yes, someone out there would want them if this new conference falls apart, but they’d certainly not want to move again if the landscape changes and this doesn’t work out in a decade.
As for the ACC, where exactly would the core of the ACC go (keeping in mind that Duke is tied to UNC, NCSU is tied to UNC, UVa is tied to UNC, and VTech seems to want to be in the company of UVa/UNC/Duke)? That’s what makes the ACC stable, because you know the core will be there.
LikeLike
ND no concerned about stability? What could be more stable than a century of independence? They will cling to that until it is overwhelmingly disadvantageous. I don’t expect they would opt for a piecemeal experimental conference if they have to join a conference. It will be the B1G, or possibly the ACC, precisely because of the core stability…if that time ever comes.
LikeLike
That “super-conference” would be the worst of all worlds for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They want a local/regional conference first, and if they can’t have that a stronger academic conference like the PAC or the B1G. If they can’t have those they want the best chance to win Football National Championships, and this put together conference won’t be better for that then the current Big 12.
I don’t see the advantage of this “super-conference” for anyone but Texas and Notre Dame, which is to say….bad for everyone else.
LikeLike
How long will DeLoss Dodds be the AD at Texas? In 6 years, he’ll be almost 80.
LikeLike
Yes, that sounds like the delusional drivel we’ve come to expect from UT.
Sounds plausible AND insane. I love it.
LikeLike
Does anyone here think the Redskins are making a smart move trading their 1st round picks in 2012, 2013 and 2014 plus their 2nd round pick in 2012 in order to move up from #6 to #2 and presumably take Robert Griffin III?
It seems like the Herschel Walker trade to me, but for an unproven player. Granted, the trade isn’t as extreme but Griffin has proven absolutely nothing in the NFL. I think this sets back the team another 5 years even if Griffin is good because it’s nearly impossible to replace all those 1st round picks in free agency.
As a reminder, this was the deal for Walker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Walker_trade
Minnesota Vikings received
RB Herschel Walker
Dallas’s 3rd round pick – 1990 (54) (Mike Jones)
San Diego’s 5th round pick – 1990 (116) (Reggie Thornton)
Dallas’s 10th round pick – 1990 (249) (Pat Newman)
Dallas’s 3rd round pick – 1991 (68) (Jake Reed)
Dallas Cowboys received
LB Jesse Solomon
LB David Howard
CB Issiac Holt
RB Darrin Nelson (traded to San Diego after he refused to report to Dallas)
DE Alex Stewart
Minnesota’s 1st round pick in 1990 (21) (traded this pick along with pick (81) for pick (17) from Pittsburgh to draft Emmitt Smith)
Minnesota’s 2nd round pick in 1990 (47) (Alexander Wright)
Minnesota’s 6th round pick in 1990 (158) (traded to New Orleans, who drafted James Williams)
Minnesota’s 1st round pick in 1991 (conditional) – (12) (Alvin Harper)
Minnesota’s 2nd round pick in 1991 (conditional) – (38) (Dixon Edwards)
Minnesota’s 2nd round pick in 1992 (conditional) – (37) (Darren Woodson)
Minnesota’s 3rd round pick in 1992 (conditional) – (71) (traded to New England, who drafted Kevin Turner)
Minnesota’s 1st round pick in 1993 (conditional) – (13) (traded to Philadelphia Eagles, and then to the Houston Oilers, who drafted Brad Hopkins)
LikeLike
The winner of the Washington-St. Louis trade? Easy. Los Angeles, which will get the Rams back (their new owner is SoCal-based and is trying to buy the Dodgers, which would enable him to build a football stadium next to Dodger Stadium) and should be able to build a competitive team with all the draft picks by the time of their return.
LikeLike
We’ve been hearing about the imminent move of an NFL team to LA practically since the Raiders left in 1995. 17 years later, it’s still all talk.
LikeLike
I think it’s almost certain that the Rams move if Kroenke wins the Dodgers. That’s the thinking here in StL as well.
LikeLike
I’m not saying it won’t happen. I have zero insight into it and I don’t really care either way. I’ve just heard this same story a bunch of times, whether it was the Chargers, the Jaguars, the Raiders or another team. I’ll wait until it is official.
LikeLike
On the other hand, the RGIII deal at least has a chance of being a success for the Skins as elite QB’s have such a disproportionate impact on wins in the current NFL game (the best QB’s contribute 3 or even 4, 5 times more wins than the best DE’s, best WR’s, best CB’s, etc., while RB’s are almost fungible). Just compare the Colts with and without an elite Manning the past 2 years.
Meanwhile, even in the ’90’s the impact of even an elite RB just wasn’t big enough to ever make that trade a good idea for the Vikes.
On balance, it probably wasn’t a good trade for Washington, but it’s a high-risk/high-reward trade that could turn out to be a very good trade for the ‘Skins (obviously could turn out to be very bad as well; all depends on how well RGIII can play NFL ball). Personally, I think he will be successful and will be at least above-average with a chance of being elite.
LikeLike
A franchise QB has a ton of value, true, but at best the draft is a crapshoot. History says there is at best a 50% chance Griffin becomes a long term starter, even less that he is the type of QB that would justify giving up those picks. I’d understand if a team did this for Luck, a guy who was talked about as the number one pick and maybe the best QB prospect in decades. Griffin had one great year (he was good before) in a pass happy league with no defense. That usually isn’t a harbinger of NFL greatness.
I suppose it’s better than finding another Haynesworth to waste $100M on, but the odds don’t seem good for this working out. I think they would be better off with a lesser QB and 2 more 1st round picks. At least they apparently have a ton of cap room so they can get some more free agents. I predict they stink again next year and would have wound up with a shot at a guy like Barkley from USC.
LikeLike
I really don’t think Luck and RG3 are that different as prospects. They both have the athleticism/physical tools & character/intelligence/desire/intangibles. The thing that makes projecting NFL QB’s look like a crapshoot is that it’s hard to know if a QB will learn to be able to read NFL defenses and develop the anticipation to be elite until 2-3 years of playing. Having the desire really helps. It’s why Tom Brady is where he is now (and why Peyton was so good for so long) & JaMarcus Russell is where he is now despite Brady (& Peyton Manning, for that matter) not being a physical specimen and Russell being so.
Another good thing about RG3’s athleticism is that even if he doesn’t cut it at QB (which I don’t believe will be the case), he’d still make a fine receiver. Definitely not a receiver worth what the Skins gave up for him, but the worst outcome of the trade (assuming no career-ending injury) would still not be “total bust”.
LikeLike
Mind you, I don’t think finding franchise QB’s is a total crapshoot. I believe the 2 biggest attributes a QB needs to be elite in the NFL is accuracy and the desire to improve. It’s what guys like Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Aaron Rodgers have. The reason it looks like a crapshoot is because teams draft high goof-offs with cannon arms like Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell, when detailed scouting would reveal that those guys didn’t have a chance of becoming elite QB’s.
LikeLike
BTW, this is why I thought Ryan Mallett wouldn’t amount to anything in the NFL back when he was a Razorback and being touted as a 1st round pick: he’d become wildly inaccurate and make all sorts of mistakes after the first time he got hit (looks like NFL teams have wizened up). Being mentally strong is such an important part of being a successful QB in today’s NFL . It’s also why I believe Kellen Moore will become an above-average NFL QB even though he looks like the waterboy in the huddle. He has great accuracy and already anticipates how a play would develop as well as veteran NFL QB’s.
LikeLike
OK, drafting QB’s is virtually a crapshoot:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/24/talent-evaluation-is-different-in-the-nfl-and-nba/ (great article, BTW)
However, throwing accuracy matters (a little). None of the stuff that NFL people look at in a QB (height, Wonderlic score, 40-yard dash time, whether or not he played in the top division of college football, other measurables) matter even a tiny bit.
LikeLike
I read an article a long time ago that tried to do something similar…breaking down QB’s by various means to find out the greatest indicators of success (for a QB) at the NFL level. The predictor in that analysis turned out to be simply number of starts.
Maybe it was just a QB that played a lot in college was either head shoulders better than his competition or the extra reps made him more “seasoned” by the time he was in the NFL, but in any case that’s the only really metric that seemed to correlate strongly.
LikeLike
http://footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/introducing-lewin-career-forecast-v20
Career projection system for QB’s drafted in the first three rounds based on college statistics. Not perfect, but pretty darn good.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, these guys like RG3:
http://footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2012/redskins-rams-strike-deal-no-2-pick
LikeLike
I’m really curious what this system says about Kellen Moore’s future. Scouts absolutely hate the guy, as he’s a short unathletic QB with a weak arm. Yet he anticipates and goes through progressions as quickly as any QB at any level right now. More importantly, he gets the ball to an open receiver. Can’t wait to see how he does in the NFL.
LikeLike
http://footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2012/lewin-career-forecast-2012
Projections for this year’s QB prospects. Luck has a projections nearly identical to Peyton Manning and RG III has the highest projection of the last 15 years.
Projection listed for Moore, though I requested one in the comments section.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to note that by their stat, Russell Wilson is by far the best QB to draft. They separate him from the list and give a bunch of reasons why their stat fails for him (he isn’t punished enough for his height, nobody else transferred to a much better offense, etc). Isn’t it just as likely that Wilson finally lived up to his potential when he switched to a more talented team?
Griffin surpasses Luck because he improved from his junior to senior year while Luck was about the same (he improved from So to Jr instead). They don’t factor in the surrounding talent for these two (Luck had Toby Gerhart his Jr year but not his Sr year, for example), but hold it against Wilson (he gained Montee Ball). That doesn’t make sense to me. If an elite RB is a factor, then Luck did really well to match his numbers with Gerhart after Gerhart left. How about Griffin benefiting from the emergence of a top WR? Luck only had 1 speed receiver (Owusu), and he was injured a lot.
I also noted that Ryan Tannehill is way down the list but the talk is he may well be the third QB taken, and by #4 Cleveland at that. The numbers say Kirk Cousins would be a better bet.
I think someone will get a steal with Wilson while Griffin won’t live up to his billing. I don’t think Griffin will flop, though.
LikeLike
@Brian
They separate Wilson because the system only applies to QB’s taken in the first three rounds and they do not project him to be taken that highly, but included him because it’s not out of the question he could be. (That’s why they did not run a projection for Moore)
LikeLike
For record here are Moore’s numbers based on their system variables:
GS: 53 (counted as 48 because of cap)
C%: 69.8
BMI-28.0: -1.3
sPER-jPER: -7.4
Binary Variable: Non-AQ
R/P: .0455
Rush Yards: -66 (0 for purpose of system)
LikeLike
Yeah, hard to see how Kellen Moore is so different from Andy Dalton (or, as someone else mentioned, Chad Pennington) other than the height and size. All are soft-tossers from small schools who succeed despite being unathletic noodle-arms because they can read, go through progressions, and release/anticipate so quickly.
Kellen Moore should do well in a West Coast offense.
LikeLike
Based Dalton was a much better athlete (rushed for 435 yards his senior year). I do think Moore deserves a short to earn a starting job. He’ll never be a star but league average isn’t out of the question.
LikeLike
frug,
They separate Wilson because the system only applies to QB’s taken in the first three rounds and they do not project him to be taken that highly, but included him because it’s not out of the question he could be. (That’s why they did not run a projection for Moore)
That’s one reason, but I don’t buy it. They should be able to project anyone, but say it only applies if they are drafted in the first 3 rounds. They don’t need to project who will be drafted that high. What if Wilson does go in the 3rd round? Suddenly he’s the best prospect ever. Anybody that projects in the top 5 should be included regardless of when the mock drafts say they will go.
And look at the analysis:
“I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the ridiculous projection that the Lewin Career Forecast spits out for Russell Wilson. Yes, that projection is even higher than the one for Robert Griffin. No, it doesn’t particularly mean that Wilson is a sleeper prospect. There are a few things going on here that the LCF is just not designed to account for.”
How does he know it’s ridiculous? It’s a projection of future success. Why is it right for Griffin but ridiculous for Wilson? Wilson had good numbers and learned a second offense in months. He had enough intangibles to be named captainbefore his only season at WI. Maybe their are factors for Luck and Griffin that need a second look, too.
“First and foremost, the change in Wilson’s passer rating between his junior and senior years is insane. Remember that earlier I noted that Griffin had a larger senior year passer rating increase than any quarterback in our data set? Well, Wilson’s senior year passer rating increase is 40 percent larger than Griffin’s.”
Maybe Griffin’s should be examined too if it’s the largest ever. It’s unfair to single out just one player if both are outliers. And yes, we all know the change in offense has a lot to do with the change in Wilson’s numbers. But none of us know how much was that. How much of Griffin’s (or any other QB) was the improvement of the players around him? Why is it that only Wilson should be punished for having an external factor?
“But does it matter when the quarterback is playing in a completely different offense for a completely different school in his last year of college eligibility? At Wisconsin, Wilson got to pick apart defenses that were concentrating on stopping Montee Ball. At North Carolina State, I doubt opponents were quaking in their boots at the thought of Mustafa Greene and Dean Haynes. It goes without saying that there isn’t another quarterback in the LCF data set who transferred between his junior and senior years.”
We don’t know if it matters. That’s the whole point. The writer assumes it is bad data without any basis. As I said before, why does it matter that Wilson gained Montee Ball but doesn’t matter that Luck lost Gerhart? The surrounding talent is always a factor in QB performance, but Wilson is the only one he holds it against.
“There’s also the issue of height, another data point where there’s nobody in our data set that can be compared to Wilson. At first, it seems strange that LCF doesn’t include a variable to discount short quarterbacks, but when you look at the data set that went into creating LCF the reasons are pretty clear. There’s no penalty for being 5-foot-11, like Wilson is, because there are no quarterbacks in the data set who are shorter than 6-foot-0. There’s no penalty for being only 6-foot-0 because the two quarterbacks who are 6-foot-0 are Drew Brees and Michael Vick.”
Why assume being an inch shorter is a problem if being 6’0″ is not a problem? Maybe height just doesn’t matter.
“Quarterbacks who are Wilson’s height simply don’t get drafted in the first three rounds of the draft, period. The FO master database only includes three quarterbacks who are below six feet tall: Seneca Wallace, Joe Hamilton, and Flutie. That’s a fourth-round pick, a seventh-round pick, and an 11th round pick from 25 years ago. Even if we go all the way back to 1991, the only quarterbacks taken in the first six rounds at 6-foot-0 or shorter were Vick, Brees, Wallace, Joe Germaine (fourth round, 1999), and Troy Smith (fifth round, 2007).”
Just because it is unprecedented doesn’t mean it’s a problem. Osweiler is an inch taller than any other QB and they don’t drop him from the list, they just mention the issue.
“Wilson too will probably be drafted on the third day of the draft, round four or later, which would render his absurdly high LCF moot.”
Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. It would seem to make more sense to me to list his projection with everyone else and have this sentence as part of the paragraph describing him.
I think the height-obsessed pro scouts will miss out by passing on Wilson. He was highly successful in two systems and two power conferences, including one offense he learned over the summer and played against all new defenses to him. He’s thrown over and around a huge O line and is highly mobile allowing him to find throwing lanes.
LikeLike
If the Lewin projection doesn’t work for all AQ-conference QBs (i.e. all QBs working at the same level of competition) then it needs to go back into the shop for work. This business of throwing out Russell Wilson’s off-the-chart number because he doesn’t project as a 3rd-round pick just tends to discredit the whole project.
Specifically, I’m quite skeptical of the Jr-to-Sr improvement metric. One of the riskiest picks a pro team can make is the “one-year-wonder” type of QB, such as Akili Smith, who would obviously show a large improvement. Far better for a QB to have had 2 or more years of sustained success. I’m OK if that sustained success came in, say, the sophomore and junior seasons, with a plateau in the senior year. For instance, Dan Marino’s senior year at Pitt was a huge disappointment, after an amazing junior season. I think he had a pretty decent career in the pros.
The statistics that strike me as most helpful in evaluating a collegian are completion percentage and interception rate, because accuracy — the most important attribute a QB can control for himself — tends to decline in the transition from college to pro ball.
LikeLike
From the comments section:
I can’t run a ton of guys who are going to be chosen in the lower rounds. You’re going to end up with a lot of people thinking those are “official FO projections” or some such thing. I almost didn’t even write about Wilson, but there is a chance he goes in the first three rounds and he’s a very interesting case.
I’ve followed the site for years (I’m “D” over there) and they have had problems with people misrepresenting things they written no matter how many times they stress what they are writing is unofficial (they had to stop publishing staff preseason predictions for the same reason).
Personally, I wish they would go back to the old way, but I understand why they have changed their policy (especially now that they are contributing to ESPN and a larger more casual audience)
LikeLike
frug,
I’ve followed the site for years (I’m “D” over there) and they have had problems with people misrepresenting things they written no matter how many times they stress what they are writing is unofficial (they had to stop publishing staff preseason predictions for the same reason).
Personally, I wish they would go back to the old way, but I understand why they have changed their policy (especially now that they are contributing to ESPN and a larger more casual audience)
I read his comment, and frankly it’s complete crap. They are “official” projections of their formula assuming those players are drafted in the first 3 rounds. If they don’t want to project a top 5 QB, then they should just wait until after the draft and project the guys drafted in the first 3 rounds. They are just guessing who will go in the first 3 rounds anyway. There is zero harm to them if they project every QB at the combine as if they were a top 3 rounds pick. Any data available on the internet will be abused by other people anyway. To use that as an excuse is childish.
LikeLike
The Lewin forecast studies have found that NFL scouts, for the most part, do a decent job at evaluating which QBs might succeed in the NFL, but have historically undervalued accuracy in college QBs and somewhat undervalued a few other characteristics. It was done by studying a large number of college QBs drafted over many years.
“Griffin surpasses Luck because he improved from his junior to senior year while Luck was about the same (he improved from So to Jr instead). They don’t factor in the surrounding talent for these two (Luck had Toby Gerhart his Jr year but not his Sr year, for example), but hold it against Wilson”
But in those large number of college QBs studied, just about every case will be like Luck, where some players leave or join the offense in between years. That’s an inherent characteristic of college football! The Wilson case, where every last offensive player changes, along with the coaching scheme and opposing defenses, will not be present in the data except in a few outliers.
It would be irresponsible to say that the formula is useful (not perfect!) with data that has certain characteristics and then say it must work outside that range. Newtonian physics works spectacularly well when you are observing objects at speeds that aren’t close to the speed of light. It breaks down completely when you are observing objects that are outside that range. That doesn’t mean that Newtonian physics is worthless; only that it is a tool that can only be used within certain limits.
The FO formula obviously isn’t anywhere near as precise (this is a vast understatement); it won’t work for a QB who’s experience is vastly different from nearly every other QB studied. You must always be aware of the limitations of the tools you use. This system won’t tell you if Wilson has a good chance of succeeding; it also won’t tell you if he has a good chance of failing. It’s based on a statistical analysis that doesn’t have enough cases like it to make an inference. You would need hundreds, and preferably thousands, of cases like Wilson to make a good study of his instance.
“That’s one reason, but I don’t buy it. They should be able to project anyone, but say it only applies if they are drafted in the first 3 rounds. They don’t need to project who will be drafted that high.”
You’re ignoring the results of their study completely, and then trying to use the study anyway. Their system doesn’t reject scouts’ assessments of college QBs; it looked for where those assessments could be improved. What they found is that QBs drafted after round 3 are almost never productive. In other words, the scouts do a very good job in weeding out players that have little chance of becoming good QBs. Yes, you and I can both name exceptions to that rule, but the large majority of cases conform to it. There have been many QBs drafted after round 3 that would have had high numbers in the formula, but they have almost universally not panned out.
The study shows that the value of QBs drafted after round 3 is almost never become quality starters and their formula is constructed with only data from the QBs in the first 3 rounds; you are ignoring the results of the study if you use it elsewhere.
“The writer assumes it is bad data without any basis.”
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse if you think this data point really corresponds to the vast majority of data they’ve studied.
“Why assume being an inch shorter is a problem if being 6’0″ is not a problem? Maybe height just doesn’t matter.”
Perhaps it doesn’t, but there have certainly been QBs brought into camps below that height; they have a success rate nearly 0. Can’t ignore that data.
“If the Lewin projection doesn’t work for all AQ-conference QBs (i.e. all QBs working at the same level of competition) then it needs to go back into the shop for work. This business of throwing out Russell Wilson’s off-the-chart number because he doesn’t project as a 3rd-round pick just tends to discredit the whole project. ”
This is rather foolish. It would be like a scientist throwing out Newtonian physics because it doesn’t work at all velocities. The study has added to our understanding of which QBs are more likely to succeed in the NFL. Not by a massive amount, but by a small amount. That knowledge is worthwhile.
“They are just guessing who will go in the first 3 rounds anyway”
You do know they are making a very educated guess; we don’t know precisely where everyone will go, but analysts generally have a good idea of the range the QBs will be selected.
It should be noted that the initial Lewin forecast has gotten less useful since it was first published on the internet; that is partly why they have revised it. One reason why it has gotten less useful is easy to see: NFL front offices absorbed the information (no, not every front office uses FO but some do, and the big points will get passed from 1 scout/coach to another) and started to place a bit more emphasis on collegiate starting experience and completion percentage (the key points in the original Lewin forecast). Over the last several years, this has lead to more QBs drafted in the first 3 rounds with high numbers in those categories who otherwise wouldn’t have been picked that high. The forecast got less accurate because of its own success.
This is another rule of science: you change that which you observe.
LikeLike
m (Ag),,
“Griffin surpasses Luck because he improved from his junior to senior year while Luck was about the same (he improved from So to Jr instead). They don’t factor in the surrounding talent for these two (Luck had Toby Gerhart his Jr year but not his Sr year, for example), but hold it against Wilson”
But in those large number of college QBs studied, just about every case will be like Luck, where some players leave or join the offense in between years. That’s an inherent characteristic of college football! The Wilson case, where every last offensive player changes, along with the coaching scheme and opposing defenses, will not be present in the data except in a few outliers.
So what? Lots of QBs have to deal with system changes during college and they still count. Lots of top teams bring in elite players for a QB’s senior year, be it from JUCO or recruiting or transfers, and those guys still count. What if a team replace 7 offensive starters? Does FO eliminate that QB, too? How many new people are OK?
The fact is that FO doesn’t know if this is a problem for their formula or not. They are making the mistake of assuming the formula doesn’t apply. You don’t get to preemptively eliminate data because it’s an outlier. They should apply the formula and then note that there are reasons why they are less confident in the projection for Wilson, not eliminate him out of hand.
It would be irresponsible to say that the formula is useful (not perfect!) with data that has certain characteristics and then say it must work outside that range.
No, a projection model is often used for slight extrapolations. Because Wilson is 5’11” is not a reason to exclude him, it’s a reason to mention that he’s outside the dataset the formula was derived from. They have no data to show that a lack of height is an important factor, as some of the top QBs in their database are 6’0″. That shouldn’t lead them to assume that being 5’11” is a problem. As for the change in systems and personnel, it’s not like they factor that in in any way for other people so they shouldn’t punish Wilson. Jason Campbell had a new OC every year but he counts. Many teams play elite freshmen RBs and WRs that help the QB a lot, and they count. Many teams get great players back from injury, and those QBs count. Until they factor that in for everyone, it’s unfair to do it for only Wilson.
The FO formula obviously isn’t anywhere near as precise (this is a vast understatement); it won’t work for a QB who’s experience is vastly different from nearly every other QB studied.
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. Nobody knows if it will work for Wilson. There is no basis for assuming it will fail. What if he turns out to be a great pro QB? Does he magically get to be included again?
You must always be aware of the limitations of the tools you use. This system won’t tell you if Wilson has a good chance of succeeding; it also won’t tell you if he has a good chance of failing. It’s based on a statistical analysis that doesn’t have enough cases like it to make an inference. You would need hundreds, and preferably thousands, of cases like Wilson to make a good study of his instance.
Bull. They don’t have anywhere near that number of similar cases for any other QB, and they are happy to project for them. They can’t have it both ways. You do need to know a tool’s limitations, but you shouldn’t assume what they are in advance. Every QB has a couple of unique factors that might impact the projection (surrounding talent, coaches, injuries, scheduling, anatomy, etc) but are ignored by FO.
“That’s one reason, but I don’t buy it. They should be able to project anyone, but say it only applies if they are drafted in the first 3 rounds. They don’t need to project who will be drafted that high.”
You’re ignoring the results of their study completely, and then trying to use the study anyway. Their system doesn’t reject scouts’ assessments of college QBs; it looked for where those assessments could be improved. What they found is that QBs drafted after round 3 are almost never productive. In other words, the scouts do a very good job in weeding out players that have little chance of becoming good QBs. Yes, you and I can both name exceptions to that rule, but the large majority of cases conform to it. There have been many QBs drafted after round 3 that would have had high numbers in the formula, but they have almost universally not panned out.
I’m not ignoring anything. They have a formula that projects future performance for top 3 round draft picks. There is zero reason they can’t apply that formula to anyone with the understanding that the projection is invalid if the QB isn’t drafted that high. They choose to guess who will go in those rounds instead, which adds a completely arbitrary factor to their analysis. What if a guy is projected as early 4th? Why arbitrarily choose whether to project him or not?
The study shows that the value of QBs drafted after round 3 is almost never become quality starters and their formula is constructed with only data from the QBs in the first 3 rounds; you are ignoring the results of the study if you use it elsewhere.
But I’m not proposing to use it elsewhere. I’m proposing to project everyone, knowing that the results only apply if the QB gets drafted high, or to wait until after the draft and project those who actually got drafted high.
“The writer assumes it is bad data without any basis.”
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse if you think this data point really corresponds to the vast majority of data they’ve studied.
It doesn’t matter if it corresponds. They have no objective reason to exclude the data point. They have plenty of outlier results in terms of performance versus projected performance, but they don’t eliminate those. Including Wilson may make their projections less confident, but that’s a fact of life when modelling data. Otherwise, they need to redefine the class their formula applies to so that Wilson is logically excluded.
“Why assume being an inch shorter is a problem if being 6’0″ is not a problem? Maybe height just doesn’t matter.”
Perhaps it doesn’t, but there have certainly been QBs brought into camps below that height; they have a success rate nearly 0. Can’t ignore that data.
Their own data says nobody that height got drafted early enough, so there is no data to ignore. How many QBs went in the first round at 6’0″ until recently? Does that mean Vick or Brees should be excluded? Their data shows 6′ tall QBs to be good performers. Logic would say that you shouldn’t then exclude someone for being 5’11”.
“If the Lewin projection doesn’t work for all AQ-conference QBs (i.e. all QBs working at the same level of competition) then it needs to go back into the shop for work. This business of throwing out Russell Wilson’s off-the-chart number because he doesn’t project as a 3rd-round pick just tends to discredit the whole project. ”
This is rather foolish. It would be like a scientist throwing out Newtonian physics because it doesn’t work at all velocities. The study has added to our understanding of which QBs are more likely to succeed in the NFL. Not by a massive amount, but by a small amount. That knowledge is worthwhile.
That’s apples and oranges. Wilson moved from an AQ team to another AQ team, so the total talent level is fairly similar. They include QBs that drop to I-AA for their last year, don’t they?
“They are just guessing who will go in the first 3 rounds anyway”
You do know they are making a very educated guess; we don’t know precisely where everyone will go, but analysts generally have a good idea of the range the QBs will be selected.
Some guesses are better than others. Many players projected in the mid rounds move up or down a round or two during the draft based on needs, missing picks, rumors, etc. A projected early 5th rounder could go in the late 3rd if the right team falls in love with him, or if he’s taken as part of a trade deal.
It should be noted that the initial Lewin forecast has gotten less useful since it was first published on the internet; that is partly why they have revised it. One reason why it has gotten less useful is easy to see: NFL front offices absorbed the information (no, not every front office uses FO but some do, and the big points will get passed from 1 scout/coach to another) and started to place a bit more emphasis on collegiate starting experience and completion percentage (the key points in the original Lewin forecast). Over the last several years, this has lead to more QBs drafted in the first 3 rounds with high numbers in those categories who otherwise wouldn’t have been picked that high. The forecast got less accurate because of its own success.
That’s a potential reason. It’s also possible that changes in CFB and the NFL have changed the value of different variables in determining future success. The prevalence of the spread in college has changed things. The changes in NFL rules to favor the offense has changed things. The new salary slots will change things. Even the improvement in high school coaching and experience through 7 on 7 tournaments will have an effect. What used to make a great NFL QB may no longer be the case now.
This is another rule of science: you change that which you observe.
Actually, that’s not true. A recent paper proved that you can measure something without disturbing it.
LikeLike
They should be able to project anyone, but say it only applies if they are drafted in the first 3 rounds. They don’t need to project who will be drafted that high.
Again they can project them goes expected to go lower and they used to do so. But people ignored their disclaimer and misrepresented their data. Branding is part of business and if people undermine what they are doing by misusing data it hurts their brand. It may be unfortunate but it is not childish.
Anyways, they didn’t ignore Wilson, they just asterisked him because he has several factors that are unprecedented in their data set (specifically his height and the fact he changed teams after long career at another school). Plus, if somebody like Moore does get drafted in the 3rd round they will run the numbers for him.
LikeLike
frug,
Again they can project them goes expected to go lower and they used to do so. But people ignored their disclaimer and misrepresented their data. Branding is part of business and if people undermine what they are doing by misusing data it hurts their brand. It may be unfortunate but it is not childish.
I didn’t say it was childish. And boo fricking hoo for their data being misused. Welcome to the internet, FO. I’m sure no other web site has ever had their material misused. If they don’t like it, the appropriate response is to either not release their projections until after the draft, or to not release them at all. Cherry picking data and players based on preconceived notions (isn’t one of the main points of their site to get past those kinds of notions and look at actual facts?) is bad policy and bad science. They could always call it something else or post it somewhere else if they’re such fraidy cats and haven’t heard that any publicity is good publicity.
Anyways, they didn’t ignore Wilson, they just asterisked him because he has several factors that are unprecedented in their data set (specifically his height and the fact he changed teams after long career at another school). Plus, if somebody like Moore does get drafted in the 3rd round they will run the numbers for him.
Right, moving him to the end of the story after a separate heading despite him deserving the top spot on the list is completely different from ignoring him. Separate but equal is always a good choice. Asterisking him would have been giving him the top spot on the list and then explaining their issues with him, not putting him on his own list.
As for Moore, if they can run him later they can run him now. Or they could run everyone later.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it was childish
Really?
Any data available on the internet will be abused by other people anyway. To use that as an excuse is childish.
LikeLike
frug,
Exactly. I didn’t say doing it was childish. I said using it as an excuse was childish. Those are two different things, and that’s all I meant.
LikeLike
The winner in all of this are the Rams/Fisher and Shanahan.
I don’t see how giving up the #6 overall, the #38 overall, and two first rounders in the next two years (which should both be around top 16 picks) is a “great” trade.
I get that you need a franchise qb, but you also need depth, and while the Redskins do have the cash to shell out on veterans; they’re going to be hard pressed for internally developed depth unless they really hit on their 2nd-3rd rounders.
On the other hand, the Rams are going to be stacked with this move; 3 picks in first 38 this year along with 2 firsts each of the next two years. That’s a lot of talent to be bringing in…
LikeLike
Brian, after the announcement today on cap penalties for Redskins/Cowboys, trading away those picks looks even more dubious in some sense…; now the Redskins have to deal with not having $36M in cap over the next two years along with not having first rounders in the next two years…
(And that doesn’t even get into whether they’ll be docked over the whole BountyGate episode).
The Redskins are getting RG3, but it looks like they won’t be able to build around him much for the next 2 years. That’s never a good thing with a young quarterback…
LikeLike
Remind me again why anyone bothers watching the NFL?
If I wanted to watch a rigged sport where the setup is changed on a whim despite no rules being broken & big muscled-bound men knock each other to the floor, I’d just tune to the WWE.
LikeLike
Sorry, should be “rigged cartel”.
LikeLike
Another great article by the same guy on what influences NBA people on draft day and what actually predicts success by a college player in the NBA:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/29/why-did-the-nba-miss-on-jeremy-lin/
LikeLike
I know this is (mostly) a college football blog, but here is a great quote:
“Listen to any coach talk about winning basketball. What will they talk about? Intensity and heart and all that good stuff, of course. And again according to their peers, Magic and Kobe were each off the charts in those terms. What next will coaches say? Good shot selection. Rebounding. Being unselfish and moving the ball. And we have good data for evaluating those things — rebounding, assists-to-turnovers, shooting percentage. And on those fronts, the two players are not comparable.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/kobe-vs-magic_b_1285458.html?ref=sports
LikeLike
Great site on basketball (NBA) statistical analysis: http://wagesofwins.com/
Some stuff still needs to be worked out on some metrics, but it’s a good source of information.
LikeLike
You know, after watching Carmelo Anthony and the Knicks for several games, it hit me that not only would you not think Anthony is a great player if you looked at advanced statistical analysis (which pegs him as a below average player; not Allen Iverson-level atrocious, but not a superstar), but you wouldn’t think ‘Melo was a great player if you simply watched him play and didn’t look at ANY stat. If you watch him play, you’d see that he can create his own shot and have a couple good-looking moves a game, but you can also see that when he’s determined to iso and put up a shot against his defender, he will do so even if the defender forces him in to a bad shot (and he puts up plenty of bad shots, most of which don’t fall). Also that he isn’t consistent at hitting open shots. Also that he doesn’t really contribute much in other facets of basketball. Really, you would think ‘Melo was a superstar only if your sole criteria for superstar-status is
1. High points total (shot selection and shooting percentage be damned)
2. Number of game-winning shots (shot selection and shooting percentage of game-ending shots be damned)
I feel that basketball is still in the dark ages; it’s like if the only way people judged the value of a baseball player was by looking solely at batting average. In that respect, basketball talent analysis (by the media, anyway) seems to be where baseball’s was 100 years ago (or maybe 120 years ago; 100 years ago, they did value steals in abseball; maybe too much so).
No one who actually watches basketball and pays no attention to the stats would think Carmelo Anthony is a better player than LeBron James or Dwayne Wade (who, BTW, the advanced stats always have at the very top of the best players in the NBA, with LeBron far ahead of everyone else), yet you actually have guys like Skip Bayless who think ‘Melo is better than LeBron:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623451-nba-power-rankings-carmelo-anthony-lebron-and-top-small-forward-from-each-team
LikeLike
And actually, BA is a better metric for evaluating baseball players than points total is for evaluating basketball players, as BA is at least a rate stats, so if a guy is wasteful/inefficient with his team’s scoring opportunities, it would show up there. Right now, the way casual fans (and media) evaluate basketball players would be akin to judges of baseball talent putting 90% of the worth of a player solely on his RBI total.
LikeLike
Nice ranking of best players (by Wins Produced) in modern era:
Mutombo & Shawn Marion better than Kobe & Nowitzski? In reality, you’d need scorers like Kobe & Nowitzski as well as rebounders/defenders/shot-blockers like Mutombo, but it’s not hard to believe that Mutombo was better at what he does well than Kobe is at what he does well (and thus would help you win more).
LikeLike
Best by position:
LikeLike
And the worst:
http://wagesofwins.com/2011/07/28/killing-their-team/
LikeLike
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/03/10/20120310bcs-playoff-system-pac-12-plan.html
Leaders of the Pac-12 Conference agreed in principle Saturday to try to end college football’s Bowl Championship Series, proposing its replacement with a playoff system that would allow only conference winners to play for college football’s national title.
LikeLike
Also:
The Pac-12 has a long-standing relationship with the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif. If the other power conferences are not receptive to its proposition to launch a playoff system, Scott said, postseason play could merely return to the old days in which its conference champion played the winner of the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl.
“The default we have is a bowl relationship that started the bowl system and has been around for 100 years,” Scott said. “If we can be a part of a system that goes beyond that, our conference is open to that. But our conference places the highest priority on the Rose Bowl tie-in.”
LikeLike
Is Scott implying Rose bowl as an annual semi, or bust? I kinda hope so because I don’t want conference runner-ups in the grandaddy of them all.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure he is just saying wants to guarantee that the Rose Bowl is PAC-B1G every year, and if he can’t get an acceptable deal he will just go back to the old system.
LikeLike
There isn’t a lot of incentive to give up the Rose Bowl (highest ratings of the BCS bowls every year) unless the new system is awfully attractive to the B10 & Pac 12. Pac 12 and B10 will have a good deal of influence on the new system.
LikeLike
If there is a four-team playoff with no tie-in to the bowl games and two of the participants are from the Big Ten and the Pac 12, then who goes to the Rose Bowl? Does the RB agree to take teams from other conferences or is the default position one where the next best teams from each conference play in Pasadena? The same questions go to one of the conferences providing a solitary participant–does the second best team from the Big Ten or Pac 12 then take the place of the team going to the playoff?
I think Scott has been one of the conference commissioners supporting automatic qualification for conference winners. In a four-team playoff scenario from last year using the BCS polls, that would have meant Oregon went into the playoff and Stanford to the Rose Bowl to play Wisconsin. However, if Wisconsin also went to the playoff, then the game would have been Stanford v. Michigan or Michigan State.
If the playoffs are incorporated into the bowls, is Scott saying that the Rose Bowl should be excluded from the playoff system in order to accomodate a Big Ten-Pac 12 matchup each year? If yes, then does that mean the winners of the two conferences could potentially go to other bowl games as part of a playoff system? Or would the Rose Bowl only be part of a playoff system if the Big Ten and Pac 12 champions are both in the four-team playoff, regardless of their actual seeding. For example, if USC was seeded #1 and Michigan #3, would they play one another even if the playoff is in a 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3 format?
If a playoff system is implement with or without the bowls and if the Rose Bowl only takes teams from the Big Ten and Pac 12 conferences, then there’s a very good possibility that the conference championship game loser or the next best team available other than the conference champion will get the nod to play in Pasadena.
Frankly, with 24 teams in the two conferences, even if the runners up go to the Rose Bowl while the conference champions get into a four-team playoff, the RB will still be a hell of a game.
LikeLike
I get the feeling the plus-one will be outside the bowl system and if the Big 10 and/or PAC champs are in the playoff then the conference runner ups will take their spot in the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
With 24 teams in the conferences, and conf champ being a requirement, it seems like the Rose Bowl could be a semifinal.
LikeLike
Rose Bowl couldn’t be a semifinal and still keep its tie ins with the Big 10 and PAC in a 4 team playoff since there is no guarantee that the PAC and Big 10 champs will both be top 4 conference champs.
LikeLike
You are missing the point. Could the B1G and the PAC put themselves in the position of always being included in the semi’s?
LikeLike
Erm, no. Not now, anyway.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Rose Bowl can be a semi-final because it would cause the BCS Championship Game to occur even later than the January 9th date from this year. The BCS would need 10 days to 2 weeks turnaround time for the final game to accomodate fans travel arrangements. School presidents are pushing to get it closer to Jan 1st.
I saw an article back in late December, when the B1G and Pac-12 scheduling alliance was announced, where Delany mentioned something about having an OOC game at the Rose Bowl between the B1G and Pac-12 to help bring the stadium and Rose Committee some additional revenue.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
anyway to get a separate thread for the NCAA tourney?
LikeLike
I second that request…
Sorry about the Illini?
Red
LikeLike
That was an awesome final and not just bc
State prevailed. Great game. Excited as hell for the tourney. Future looks bright for B10.
LikeLike
I missed the whole game, but I knew MSU would win.
I just have the feeling this year’s tourney will be a little disappointing. PU, WI and MI may live up to their seed but that’s it, IN’s lack of PG will hurt them, and OSU will choke. MSU may Izzo their way to the Final Four, but I think MO is a tough match up for them.
LikeLike
IN has an extremely difficult road this weekend. Purdue’s is tough too. MSU, OSU and UM should be sweet 16.
LikeLike
. . . or a thread for the NIT, for some of us.
LikeLike
Big East got 9 and the SEC got 4, not much room for your Tigers
LikeLike
@duffman – I’ll put one up today.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022212aab.html
Just a reminder to everyone that football is back. 5 B10 teams are already practicing (IN, PU, IL, NW and NE).
Details for those interested:
“LEGENDS DIVISION
Iowa – practice begins March 24, controlled scrimmage on April 14
Michigan – practice begins March 17, spring game on April 14
Michigan State – practice begins March 27, spring game on April 28
Minnesota – practice begins March 24, spring game on April 21
Nebraska – practice begins March 10, spring game on April 14
Northwestern – practice begins March 3, spring game on April 14
LEADERS DIVISION
Illinois – practice begins March 7, spring game on April 14
Indiana – practice begins March 3, spring game on April 14
Ohio State – practice begins March 28, spring game on April 21
Penn State – practice begins March 26, spring game on April 21
Purdue – practice begins March 7, spring game on April 14
Wisconsin – practice begins March 17, spring game on April 28”
LikeLike
It’s time for a little OOC schedule analysis. Based on a discussion above, plus a couple of blog posts elsewhere, this seems like a topic worth mentioning.
ESPN’s BE blog took a look at the OOC schedule for all the AQ leagues. Obviously the goal was to make the BE look good, but facts are facts.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/30903/more-on-nonconference-schedules
Total nonconference games against teams from AQ conferences
ACC: 19
Big East: 14
SEC: 14
Big Ten: 11
Pac-12: 9
Big 12: 6
There are several facts to note about this list:
1. Not every team has finished their schedule for 2012 yet, although AQ games are probably set.
2. The blogger did NOT count Notre Dame as an AQ school, hurting the B10 and P12. The B10 would also have 14 and the P12 11 if ND was counted. So, here’s a revised list:
Total AQ OOC games v2
ACC – 19
Big East – 14
Big Ten – 14
SEC – 14
Pac-12 – 11
Big 12 – 6
3. The conferences vary in size. Normalized numbers make more sense for comparison.
Total AQ OOC games per member
Big East – 1.75
ACC – 1.58
Big Ten – 1.17
SEC – 1.00
Pac-12 – 0.92
Big 12 – 0.60
4. Conferences vary in the number of conference games, too. A ratio of AQ to total OOC games seems appropriate to account for the differences.
Fraction of OOC games versus AQ
ACC – 0.395
Big East – 0.350
Pac-12 – 0.307
Big Ten – 0.293
SEC – 0.250
Big 12 – 0.200
To me, this is the proper list to use for the limited point the blogger was looking at.
5. The number of AQ OOC games is only a piece of the puzzle. Other important considerations are the number of I-AA games and the number of road/neutral site games. These other factors are major contributors to OOC SOS, too.
Some relevant data from presnapread.com (they haven’t hit all 6 leagues yet):
True road games:
SEC – 10 (5 AQ, 3 of those are rivalries) – 0.71 per member
B10 – 10 (8 AQ, 2 are rivalries) – 0.83 per member
Neutral site games:
SEC – 3 (AL/MI in Dallas, AU/Clemson & TN/NCSU in Atlanta)
B10 – 2 (AL/MI in Dallas, IA/NIU in Chicago)
Weak non-AQs:
SEC – 9 Sun Belt – 0.64 per member
B10 – 12 MAC (2 on the road) – 1.00 per member
I-AAs:
SEC – 14 (1.00 per member)
B10 – 8 (0.67 per member)
Worst weekend:
SEC – 11/17 7 I-AAs, 3 conference games (AR @ MSU, MS @ LSU, TN @ VU)
B10 – 9/1 3 I-AAs, 3 MAC, 2 AQs, Boise
So basically the B10 and SEC play their favorite weak conference and I-AAs about the same amount in total, with the SEC playing more I-AAs and the B10 more MACs. There’s no real bragging rights there, except the B10 does play 2 of those games on the road.
I think the neutral site games are a wash too. The SEC plays 1 more, but all will have a home crowd edge. IA is playing a MAC, so that negates the local edge there. I give MI the most credit based on distance traveled and the crowd edge.
The B10 has the edge in road games, especially in playing AQ home and homes other than annual rivals.
In total I’d say the B10 has the tougher slate, but not by a ton. What the B10 does have is a lack of a terrible weekend in November. That’s a huge plus to me. The tradeoff is that every September B10 weekend has a few top games and a few weak ones as the I-AAs and MACs are spread over the month.
As I said, they haven’t covered the other 4 conferences yet so I could only compare these two. Based on the AQ data from ESPN, though, I’m guessing a similar ranking will appear.
6. I think the most important thing is to not take the OOC schedule out of context. I think the SOS for the whole year is what really matters. The SEC explains playing cupcakes as a balance to their conference SOS, for example, so I think you should look at all 12 games to see what’s true.
Average AQ games per member
Pac-12 – 9.92
Big 12 – 9.60
ACC – 9.58
Big Ten – 9.17
SEC – 9.00
Big East – 8.75
This paints a very different picture of the season, so it’s clear why the BE blogger didn’t do this. It will be interesting to track this number in the future. The ACC is about to go to 9 conference games, but they’ll probably drop a lot of AQ OOC games, too. Still, I expect their average to rise slightly since at least 3 teams are locked into AQ rivalry games. Even if it stays constant, it’s a solid number. The BE should change the most as they move to 14? teams and at least 8 conference games (probably 9). The B10 and P12 will start their series in 2017 (supposedly), so expect a small uptick for both of them as well. The SEC may bring up the rear for a while unless they also go to 9 conference games.
LikeLike
Brian,
Seems like this backs up what I have said about the B12 all along. I still think scheduling at the very top, and filling in the bottom is tougher than just scheduling a bunch of average teams even if the numbers are similar for both scheduling styles. I think the best football schools are going (and I am putting UL and UC in the B12) so the quality will drop, but the upside is we will see if a Boise State goes from 0-1 loss per year to 2-3 losses per year.
LikeLike
duffman,
Seems like this backs up what I have said about the B12 all along.
I’d say it’s 50-50. Yes, the B12 on average schedules an easier OOC slate than the other power conferences. I don’t think I’ve ever argued that point. The difference is that I look at the final set of numbers (total AQ games per team) where the B12 is second, and significantly ahead of the B10, SEC and BE, and say that the B12 has a tough schedule overall and you don’t.
B12 – 9.60, SEC – 9.00
But let’s take the math a step farther to talk about conference champs, since I know you like to focus on the top.
SEC – 10.00, B12 – 9.60
At first blush, that’s good for you. However, we both know that UT and OU win more than their fair share of B12 titles, and they lead the B12 in scheduling AQs OOC. OU plays at least 9 in the next 8 seasons, and played 1 last year (I’m just looking at when they had a 9 game B12 schedule). UT has 14 planned for the next 10 seasons. In other words, the B12 champ is likely to play 10+ AQs.
That’s why I argue that you are focused on the bottom of the schedule, because that’s the main difference (2 cupcakes versus 3). The B12 champ also can’t miss any good teams in conference while the SEC champ usually misses 1-2 of the top 5.
So all in all, I think the numbers support me. We agree that the B12 on average schedules a weak OOC slate, we just disagree on what that means in the big picture.
I still think scheduling at the very top, and filling in the bottom is tougher than just scheduling a bunch of average teams even if the numbers are similar for both scheduling styles.
This is an age old argument. I tend to agree with you, but I don’t agree that the top of the B12 is significantly weaker than the top of most team’s schedules. I’ll revise my position if KSU and other start winning the B12 all the time.
I think the best football schools are going (and I am putting UL and UC in the B12) so the quality will drop, but the upside is we will see if a Boise State goes from 0-1 loss per year to 2-3 losses per year.
I’d say UT and OU are the best FB schools, but I agree that UL and UC don’t make up for NE.
LikeLike
Congrat to all the Boilermakers on this board, as well as your baseball team. Purdue is #27 in this week’s Collegiate Baseball Top 30, and #24 in the Baseball America Top 25.
Also, Michigan and Notre Dame were in Baton Rouge this weekend for a three-team round-robin. Michigan went 1-3 with their win over Notre Dame, and played very hard in the 6-4 LSU victory that I attended. The Wolverines’ catcher’s helmet was styled after their winged football helmet, which (I thought) was a nice touch. Also of note, Notre Dame defeated Michigan 2-0 in a game that only lasted 1 hour 40 minutes. A few Michigan fans were in attendance and the those that I spoke with enjoyed themselves.
LikeLike
IIRC, Michigan’s hockey helmets also mimic the Wolverine football look.
LikeLike
A lot of helmets and gear associated with University of Michigan athletics mimic the winged football helmets.
Even the jet plane.
LikeLike
I was surprised to see that the swim team hasn’t done it to their skull caps. They still use the block M last I saw.
LikeLike
The irony here is that those helmets were first used at Princeton, then adopted by Michigan when Crisler moved there. (Princeton resumed using such helmets some years ago, though I’m not sure it’s been extended to its hockey teams.)
LikeLike
Frank – the LSU Rivals site just posted the following list of names as potential candidates for your Fightin’ Illini. He’s a good reporter, but was probably just passing along the list from the Illinois Rivals site.
Duke assistant coach Jeff Capel
Duke assistant coach Chris Collins
Alabama head coach Anthony Grant
South Florida head coach Stan Heath
Former Illinois and NBA player Eddie Johnson
Wichita State head coach Gregg Marshall
Kansas State head coach Frank Martin
Oregon State head coach Craig Robinson
Washington head coach Lorenzo Romar
VCU head coach Shaka Smart
Butler head coach Brad Stevens
Former New Mexico State head coach Reggie Theus
Marquette head coach Buzz Williams
You have to think that the First Brother-in-law Craig Robinson has a shot in Illinois.
LikeLike
For some reason, people keep forgetting that Marquette is a top 20 school in basketball with top 20 bball revenue (more than UCLA brings in, for instance). I’m pretty certain Buzz Williams is already in the top 20 in college basketball coaching salary as well. Why would he make a lateral move?
LikeLike
That was a surprise to me too. But Marquette really doesn’t get the national attention for the caliber of their program. They seem to be second fiddle in Wisconsin behind the Badgers.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/unc-gets-postseason-ban-scholarship-reduction-from-ncaa/
UNC gets sanctioned harsher than the Buckeyes but lighter than the Trojans.
One year postseason ban
15 scholorships lost over 3 years.
$50,000 fine
3 years probation
Former assistant coach John Blake gets 3 year show cause penalty
LikeLike
Doesn’t seem like a lot (when you compare what UNC did to what USC did/didn’t do). Is it because they were more contrite than Mike Garrett?
LikeLike
Part of it. Also, USC had simultaneous major violations in MBB and minor violations in women’s tennis.
But, yeah, Mike Garret deserves a lot of the blame. He totally botched USC’s handling of the whole situation.
LikeLike
frug,
I think was deeper than that and extended to WBB and VB and x??x but they dropped those or settled them early. I remember reading it at first and thinking who cheats at whatever minor sport the NCAA did not press the issue on. It is why I thought they would get harsher penalties because it seemed like a clear “loss of institutional control across the board. With SMU is seemed like it was just football, but multiple times.
LikeLike
What To Do With Notre Dame?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/17750857/notre-dame-the-sticking-point-in-which-teams-get-bcs-playoff-berths
LikeLike
There are a handful of options for Notre Dame (& Brigham Young) and the four-team playoff setup that’s being discussed right now.
If the powers that be want to accomodate conference champions only, they can recognize ND as a one-team conference and if they’re rated ahead of at least one conference champion, then they’re in the playoff.
They could also opt to give the top three conference champions autobids and allow one at large spot for the major independents (ND and BYU) or a non-conference champion rated higher than at least one of the conference champions. This would allow a conference to have two representatives in the playoff.
If conference champions don’t get autobids and the top four in the ratings are used, then it’s a moot point.
I suspect the least likely option is for the the powers that be to tell Notre Dame they need to join a conference in order to get in the playoff. The choice is up to ND–become part of a 16-team ACC, a 14/16-team Big Ten or get some sort of membership setup with the Big XII. I don’t know if the latter would work since Texas AD DeLoss Dodds seems to be the only person who has talked about it (and is good friends with ND AD Jack Swarbrick), but I suppose it’s as good an option as any other.
They’ll work something out for Notre Dame and Brigham Young. In the end, if ND or BYU goes undefeated or perhaps has a 11-1 record, then they’ll be considered for a playoff berth. Recent history shows that hasn’t happened very often, so this could very well be much ado about nothing.
LikeLike
Been hearing lot’s of rumors lately that BYU is in intense negotiations to join the Big-12 with Louisville. That would leave Notre Dame and Army as the only independents. Time to join a conference or else be satisfied with just the bowl games and not the final four.
LikeLike
Why should Notre Dame receive special treatment?
Why would any of the major conferences disenfranchise themselves and remove a potential payout to placate a has been?
LikeLike
Why have they been doing it for the entire BCS? Because it’s good business, whether you like it or not.
LikeLike
And that business model seems to be on it’s death bed. There seems to be a very good chance that AQ conferences, and likely the BCS outside of the plus-one, are dead. Once there is a reasonable playoff in place I don’t care if the other bowls go back to the good (bad) old days. They are just exhibition games. I prefer to see the best matchup in all games but if the cost of getting a playoff started is going back in time, so be it.
LikeLike
I wonder the same thing. ND is living off of a distant history and the good will of old buddies. As more fresh faces like Larry Scott, with no ties to the old days or the old buddies, step in ND’s days of preferential treatment are numbered.
LikeLike
Larry Scott is a businessman, though. He knows that ND still has tremendous value, and he’ll respect that. Maybe when the baby boomers die off ND will lose their hold on America, but until then they are golden. People born in the 50s and 60s and 70s and 80s saw some of the great years of ND when they were kids, and that permanently forms an impression of the team. ND also dominated media coverage back then so that everybody was exposed to them a lot.
Only young CFB fans missed great ND years, basically those maybe 25-30 and younger. If a coach doesn’t turn ND around soon that will grow to be a large chunk of CFB fans, but a few good years under Kelly or his replacement would reset the clock.
LikeLike
@Brian – I agree. I’ve said this before: the conference commissioners are VERY pragmatic toward Notre Dame compared to fans. The ND games against USC and Stanford are vital to the Pac-12 TV package – they can guarantee a high profile prime time ND game every Thanksgiving weekend, which virtually any other conference would kill for. Just remember what happened when ND *lost* to USC in 2005 (the Reggie Bush push game). Charlie Weis got a massive book deal and an interview on 60 Minutes where he was hailed as a genius. It was as if though 1988 was yesterday and all of those terrible years in between were erased… and ND didn’t even win that USC game and got beaten thoroughly by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl! That doesn’t happen *anywhere* else no matter how high-profile of a program it might be – not at Alabama, Ohio State or USC. So, that’s a relatively recent example of why ND is still special compared to everyone else. Maybe they won’t be special in another generation, but I doubt it. They still have an extremely strong hold on a very large portion of college football fans (who tend to be older, anyway). All it takes is one good season and all you’ll hear about on ESPN and every other national media outlet is “Waking up the Echoes”. It happened when Ty Willingham put together a long winning streak (instant Sports Illustrated cover), it happened when Charlie Weis went to 2 BCS bowls, and it will happen again sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
Conference realignment was impacted by Notre Dame. Part of the reason Arkansas stayed in the SWC for 2 full years after announcing they were going to the SEC was that they had a TV football game with Notre Dame. The SWC was anxious to accomodate them.
LikeLike
Does the whole Notre Dame/Pac 12 paradigm change if the conference goes to sixteen members with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma? I suspect the answer is yes, because at that point, it becomes intensely easy for the P12 to put together a very compelling Thanksgiving matchup among the teams in the conference? You can have Texas-USC or Oklahoma-Stanford as strong replacements for the ND/USC or ND/Stanford games in that Thanksgiving Day time frame.
I always wonder about the assumption that Notre Dame has tremendous value vis-a-vis college football. Exactly how does that translate? We don’t see it in the ratings when ND has a couple of losses by mid-season and they’re playing Boston College or Air Force–there’s numbers to back up that assertion. Schools might sell more tickets when they host ND at a higher price, but there are a number of programs that can do that. The football deals these conferences are putting together are long-term and for lots of money–does playing Notre Dame a couple of times per year make that much of a difference to the bottom line?
I was a freshman at Michigan in 1978 when the UM/ND series was renewed after 35 years. Over the years, that game has done well ratings wise in large part because it’s pretty early in the season (so the stakes are high) and the two opponents are name programs. But as a UM fan who has seen the Wolverines connected to the hip with the Irish all thru the years, I’d happily like to see a change and let some other program get a chance to play them. Give me someone else up on the food chain for a home-and-home series in early September–Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, USC, LSU, Georgia, FSU, Florida, Miami, etc. Perhaps familiarity has bred contempt or a desire for change on my part, but I’d like to see the UM-ND series be scaled back.
That’s not to say that Notre Dame doesn’t have a New York Yankees quality to them. I agree that there’s always high interest in the program leading up to the season, but that tends to take a nose dive if the season is so-so unless they play another high-level program. If ND is successful, they’re probably the #1 team in terms of people jumping on their bandwagon, getting publicity, etc.
The problem is that we haven’t really seen that in a couple of decades now. Is there any reason to think ND can really turn things around in order to be a consistent national title contender? How about just remaining part of the national conversation past mid-October on a regular basis?
I really don’t have a problem carving out a niche in a four-team playoff for Notre Dame if it remains the sole major independent. If they go 12-0, I imagine they’d be one of the top four teams in the country and I suspect there’d be little problem with them getting into the playoff unless their strength of schedule was poor or the winning margins were narrow or there were four 13-0 conference champions were in competition against them, etc. That said, if a conference champion with 11 or 12 wins and a stronger SOS, etc., is pushed out of a playoff by Notre Dame, then there’ll be some real screaming.
With an eight-team playoff, there’s no real Notre Dame problem. You could have four or five conference champions getting automatic bids with three or four at large teams. A 12-0 or 11-1 Notre Dame team almost invariably gets into a playoff with very little squawking. While we probably won’t see that adopted for the 2014 season, I can certainly see that happening in the future beyond it.
LikeLike
@Frank
Actually, if Larry Scott thinks he can push ND into the Big 10 it would be a boon for him. Scott is on record as saying he believes that further consolidation and centralization are inevitable and getting ND in the Big 10 would maximize the number of games PAC schools get against the Irish.
LikeLike
Frank,
Why in the world are you are talking about what the media gets excited about? The media is not representative of the general population. I find it SO frustrating to see what the media obsesses over. They can bloviate Sunday to Friday, on poorly rated shows, but on Saturday we get the games. And regardless of what you and others keep repeating, ND is not an extraordinary driver of ratings. What are NBC’s, or the other networks, overall ratings for ND games compared to other kings? Or princes even? They are not special anymore.
Frank the Tank says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:27 am
Just remember what happened when ND *lost* to USC in 2005 (the Reggie Bush push game). Charlie Weis got a massive book deal and an interview on 60 Minutes where he was hailed as a genius. It was as if though 1988 was yesterday and all of those terrible years in between were erased… and ND didn’t even win that USC game and got beaten thoroughly by Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl! That doesn’t happen *anywhere* else no matter how high-profile of a program it might be – not at Alabama, Ohio State or USC. So, that’s a relatively recent example of why ND is still special compared to everyone else.
LikeLike
@joe4psu – What the media gets excited about matters because (1) they’re the ones paying for the TV contracts and (2) what they get excited about has a strong correlation with TV ratings, which in turn impacts those TV contracts that they’re paying for.
Even putting aside the hype factor, Notre Dame received TV ratings on par with or better than the SEC game of the week on CBS throughout 2005 and 2006 for less than 20% of the cost. NBC can easily live with ND’s down years because when they’re on an upswing, that contract is literally the best bargain in the sports TV rights universe.
At the same time, believe me when I tell you that the Big Ten would rather let Notre Dame into a playoff 1000 times over ever letting the likes of Boise State into a playoff. In a way, the fact that ND has been down almost helps them. The TV networks will pay a premium to have ND included in a playoff system (maybe it won’t be a huge amount, but it will definitely be *something*) and the Irish may rarely take a spot. In contrast, the Big East might not garner any type of premium from the TV networks beyond what the 5 power conferences might have received in a playoff just amongst themselves, yet there’s a fairly good chance that the Big East champ is going to take one of those playoff spots on a regular basis.
The point is that ND is a red herring for a lot of fans. So many people are hoping to prove that they’re “irrelevant” that they’re actually proving how relevant they still are. Every single conference will take Notre Dame as a football member immediately while the school can singlehandedly stop further Big Ten and ACC expansion, have effective control over the Big East despite not even playing football for them, and have the Big 12 on call as a backup non-football home if the Big East ever collapses. Does ND “deserve” anything as a result of a couple of decades of poor football play on the field? Maybe not, but if we’ve learned anything here, relevance in college sports only has a specious connection to whether one actually deserves it. I would argue that ND having the ability to alter the expansion plans of 4 of the 6 AQ conferences directly all by itself makes it relevant to the nth degree no matter how badly they play.
As I’ve pointed out before, every single provision that on its face looks like it might negatively impact ND, whether it’s the Pac-12 non-conference scheduling rules or the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership, quickly gets clarified to have an ND exception. ND is still a net contributor financially, so when every conference besides the 5 power conferences is a net taker, those 5 power conferences will very much give leeway to ND. They’re simply not getting shut out. It’s not happening.
LikeLike
So if ND will never get shut out why would they ever need a conference? Kind of a catch 22.
LikeLike
@Frank
The PAC wouldn’t take ND. No parochial schools period.
As for whether or not they are a contributor, I just don’t think so anymore. The fact that they are entitled to a full share of the BCS payout despite making no contributions meaning they are leaching money away from the other AQ schools (TV networks are not going to change their payout just because ND isn’t automatically entitled to a bid if they finish in the top 8).
And that gets to the larger point that people keep overlooking, they note they TV networks will pay a premium for the chance to get ND, but that means the conferences have to give Notre Dame a cut of the profits. Back when Notre Dame was a perennial contender it made sense for the networks to shell out extra cash, but years of under performance and drastic ratings drops means the networks aren’t going to continue to shell out millions of dollars extra for the chance to broadcast ND once a decade. At that point it will make no sense whatsoever for the conferences to continue to give ND a share.
LikeLike
bullet,
That was what, 15 or 20 years ago? The point is, ND is not THAT ND anymore.
bullet says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:42 am
Conference realignment was impacted by Notre Dame. Part of the reason Arkansas stayed in the SWC for 2 full years after announcing they were going to the SEC was that they had a TV football game with Notre Dame. The SWC was anxious to accomodate them.
LikeLike
Oh and sorry for the double post, but I have to address this
Every single conference will take Notre Dame as a football member immediately
No they would not. The ACC, Big 10 and Big XII would never agree to that. ACC reinterated earlier this year that their bylaws prohibit partial membership, the Big 10 bans it as well and the Big XII won’t do anything that could set a precedent for Texas (and for that matter Oklahoma) to go indy in football.
LikeLike
@frug – To clarify, I meant taking ND as an all-sports member. It was more to distinguish that there are only a couple of leagues that will take ND as a non-football member (the Big East and Big 12).
LikeLike
joe4psu,
Why in the world are you are talking about what the media gets excited about? The media is not representative of the general population. I find it SO frustrating to see what the media obsesses over. They can bloviate Sunday to Friday, on poorly rated shows, but on Saturday we get the games. And regardless of what you and others keep repeating, ND is not an extraordinary driver of ratings. What are NBC’s, or the other networks, overall ratings for ND games compared to other kings? Or princes even? They are not special anymore.
I’ve used data for every bowl game from the 2002-2010 seasons to analyze the impact of each team on ratings and attendance.
ND increased a bowl’s ratings by 33% on average (6 bowls). I’m sure there are some outside factors at play (when the games were played, opponents, TV competition, etc), but ND drives ratings.
LikeLike
frug,
As for whether or not they are a contributor, I just don’t think so anymore. The fact that they are entitled to a full share of the BCS payout despite making no contributions meaning they are leaching money away from the other AQ schools (TV networks are not going to change their payout just because ND isn’t automatically entitled to a bid if they finish in the top 8).
ND doesn’t get a full share in the current BCS. They get something like $1.3M every year, but are capped at $6M or something even if they do go to a BCS game. I didn’t look up the exact numbers, but it pales in comparison to the $22M or so an AQ conference gets.
LikeLike
I know that, but that still means they are leaching money away from the other conferences (Army and Navy only get $100,000). Would the TV networks really have cut their payouts by $1.7 million dollars because ND wasn’t guaranteed a BCS bid if they finish in the top 8? (No)
Plus, if the amount of money people are talking about for a playoff exist then the amount will only increase.
LikeLike
@frug – You’d obviously be VERY surprised. Yes, the TV networks would absolutely insist upon a material haircut if Notre Dame isn’t involved just like they would insist upon a haircut from the Major League Baseball contract if the Cubs were structurally excluded from the MLB postseason. It doesn’t matter if the Cubs haven’t won a World Series in over a century – they have legions of fans and during that once per decade or so postseason run that they have, the TV ratings are monstrous. That alone is enough to fuel the desire for more Cubs baseball (and you’ll see it again this year with ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball choices despite how horrible the team is) and the same applies to Notre Dame football.
I’ll reiterate once again that Jim Delany and Larry Scott kept Jack Swarbrick fully apprised of all of the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership discussions while keeping it secret from the rest of the world. That should be evidence enough that, at the very least, the Big Ten and Pac-12 have no desire to shut Notre Dame out. Including Notre Dame is worth more than not including Notre Dame – the TV networks, bowls and the conferences that ND works with the most keep showing that over and over and over again. I don’t know how this could be clearer – the fact that the Irish have been generally subpar on the field for the last 20 years means absolutely nothing just like the Cubs not winning the World Series for a century means nothing to the ESPN and Fox MLB schedulers.
I can’t believe that we’re debating the notion that the MAC champion might be able to get into a 4-team playoff but Notre Dame won’t ever have a chance. Seriously think about that how that statement would sound to someone at ESPN, Fox, NBC or CBS whose job depends upon spending money correctly. No TV network that’s going to be paying literally billions of dollars for a new college football playoff is accepting that setup – it’s a 100% non-starter.
LikeLike
Frank,
I believe that often the media is trying to influence what we watch as much as they are reporting based on ratings. Take the incessant NYY v Bosox chatter and the excessive SEC coverage. IT DRIVES ME NUTS! And I know I’m not alone. You say that they are covered because that’s what people want, that’s what gets the ratings. Bull. The reporting arms of networks, (*SPN and others) are being used to create the climate for a product. I’m not saying that these stories aren’t the top stories but that the amount of coverage is WAY out of whack.
If the news media did what was logical then our news reporting/opinion (they seem more and more one and the same) would be center right. Instead, the networks have continued feeding us from the center left to left perspective. Why on earth would they do this? My opinion is that they want to influence, not report. Ratings be damned. Not quite the same situation as sports media but it shows that what media (business) does is not always simply go with the ratings (or what would appear to be the best business model). Heck, look at what college football has done for years.
Whether the B1G would prefer ND to Boise is irrelevant. The worm has turned. First TPTB were came up with the cockamamie BCS MNCG and now are being forced toward a playoff. School and conference administrators, and bowl reps can no longer feed at the trough without us little people finding out what they are up to. Cruises? Strippers? Come on! And too often people look at the world as what has always been and struggle with what can’t change rather than concentrate on what has to be done to make changes. How many times was it said that A&M could not leave the B12? Gone! How many time was it said that Delany, and the B1G, would never support a playoff? They support a playoff! Guys like Scott will eat the dinosaurs lunch if they don’t adjust to the new world and they know it. We may get a screwed up playoff format for now but this is only a first step. And why are we even talking about ND in a 4 team playoff? They haven’t shown for some time that they are going to earn their way in. We should be discussing how they are going be placated in the new bowl scenario.
————-
Brian,
ND gets the benefit of better matchups than they earn. They are always scheduled to bowls above what they earn on the field and get to say “see we did that” about the ratings. Well, I don’t see any clothes. If ND were put in bowls that they earned their ratings would not be nearly so high, and would not APPEAR to show that they are the cause of the better ratings. I understand that it is impossible to prove one way or the other because we can’t show ND in the other situation. But think about it. If any school is scheduled against opponents of a higher quality (on the field and as a tv draw) then they are going to benefit.
LikeLike
@Frank
I can’t believe you are seriously debating the possibility that Notre Dame would hold on to independence if it meant getting boxed out of the national title chase in light of the fact that have already stated they would join a conference in that situation.
And you keep bringing up how great the NBC deal was for 2 years and ignore the fact that Dick Ebersol, who was the mastermind behind the NBC-ND deal and the schools biggest backer at the network, was just fired in large part because the deal was no longer making money. In fact things have gotten so bad that Comcast just ordered NBC to start moving Irish games to a cable channel most Americans don’t even know exist.
And your comparison to the Cubs is just plain bizarre. The issue would be whether or not the 29 other teams would find it financially advantageous to carve out special rules for the Cubs if the Cubs decided they no longer wanted to a member of the NL or the AL but instead wanted to be a conference of one.
LikeLike
@frug – Oh, I’m not arguing that ND would hold onto independence if they get boxed out of the national title race. If that were to happen, then that’s the one thing that would get them to join a conference. What I’m arguing is that they’re not going to get boxed out of the national title race in the first place because of the TV networks and the fact that the 5 power conferences have shown over and over again that they work with Notre Dame much more hospitably than they do with the non-AQ conferences.
LikeLike
It’s not so much that the Big 5 prefer working with ND over the non-AQ’s, it’s that it had always been financially beneficially to do so. The only question is how much longer that will continue to be true. Maybe Kelly turns the Irish around and the other conferences will continue to deal with them, or maybe they continue to decline and decide they are subsidizing ND. Hell, maybe Delaney decides now is the time to pull a power play insist on a conference champs only rule with no exceptions and gamble that the Irish would rather be the Big 10’s 14th team (and reap the benefits of West Coast exposure they would get from the PAC scheduling agreement) than the ACC 16th.
On the topic of dealing wit the non-AQ’s that is becoming inevitable anyways. By the time the current BCS contracts expire there will be 124 teams in D1-A, only 62 of which will be in the Big 5. If their goal is to keep control of the post season they will have to start dealing with the non-AQs or expand. (Yes keeping ND in the fold would give them a majority but that assumes no other schools move up and Georgia State, Ap. St. and ‘Nova have already expressed interest in doing so).
LikeLike
joe4psu,
I believe that often the media is trying to influence what we watch as much as they are reporting based on ratings. Take the incessant NYY v Bosox chatter and the excessive SEC coverage. IT DRIVES ME NUTS! And I know I’m not alone. You say that they are covered because that’s what people want, that’s what gets the ratings. Bull. The reporting arms of networks, (*SPN and others) are being used to create the climate for a product. I’m not saying that these stories aren’t the top stories but that the amount of coverage is WAY out of whack.
Here’s the problem – they really do draw higher ratings even though they annoy the hell out of regular viewers. Most viewers don’t watch all the time, though, so they don’t sense the overload. ESPN’s MLB ratings consistently show that the NYY and BRS always draw the best audience by a wide margin. There is some chicken and egg effect, since decades of national broadcasts focused on them made them the most popular teams nationally, but it isn’t current ESPN programming creating the problem.
The SEC hype from ESPN is extreme, but has a factual basis. The main problem to me is that ESPN has such an insular culture that certain opinions just get reinforced in house until they all seem to think the same way. Let’s wait until some other teams start winning the NC and see how quickly ESPN talking heads throw the SEC under the bus.
[news media comment]
In the name of all that is holy, don’t bring in politics. That can only end badly.
————-
ND gets the benefit of better matchups than they earn. They are always scheduled to bowls above what they earn on the field and get to say “see we did that” about the ratings.
Sure ND gets bumped up to better bowls, but they outperform the standard for those bowls in ratings. The better the bowl, the harder it is to improve on the average, yet ND averages a 33% bump. ND had 2 BCS bowls in those 6, and still made a huge increase. If people didn’t care, ND couldn’t draw such big ratings. Nobody said ND earned these games or their following, but the numbers are facts.
Well, I don’t see any clothes. If ND were put in bowls that they earned their ratings would not be nearly so high, and would not APPEAR to show that they are the cause of the better ratings.
That makes no mathematical sense. Of course better bowls pull better ratings, but I’m comparing the same bowls with and without ND. The ND/OSU Fiesta Bowl got 48% better ratings than normal for the Fiesta, and as an OSU guy I can tell you it wasn’t just because OSU was in it. Their Gator Bowl was 61% above average. The Hawaii Bowl was up 32%. There’s one common factor to those increases.
I understand that it is impossible to prove one way or the other because we can’t show ND in the other situation. But think about it. If any school is scheduled against opponents of a higher quality (on the field and as a tv draw) then they are going to benefit.
I’d actually expect the opposite. When a bowl gets a lesser team than normal, or the game is bad, the ratings usually drop.
LikeLike
ESPN is a business and hard nosed about it. They sued CUSA when they switched to Fox. They promote the schools that are their properties. They have historically ignored the Big 12 and Pac 12 which originally went with Fox in the 90s. They way they didn’t even discuss Oklahoma St. was ridiculous. Seriously, they had the BCS show and didn’t even discuss whether Oklahoma St. should get in ahead of Alabama. They did mention Stanford. And they talked forever about Alabama.
The BCS gets sullied by having ESPN so closely tied to it when ESPN has such significant conflicts of interest and such influence.
LikeLike
joe4psu:
“Instead, the networks have continued feeding us from the center left to left perspective.”
Huh?!? What the heck are you talking about? You do realize that Fox News (which isn’t center-left or center-right but straight out right-wing; with the sound turned off, do a count of the items that they show on their scroll on the bottom that are positive to D, positive to R, negative to D, and negative to R some time) has by far the most views of any of the news networks, don’t you?
LikeLike
Richard,
The post had nothing to do with politics. It was about business. And exactly as you say, FNC has created a ratings and revenue monster of a news channel by catering to the center-right and right. The point being, that the other networks, even knowing that, refuse to change. Pointing out that businesses do not always make logical, reasonable decisions.
Huh?!? What the heck are you talking about? You do realize that Fox News (which isn’t center-left or center-right but straight out right-wing; with the sound turned off, do a count of the items that they show on their scroll on the bottom that are positive to D, positive to R, negative to D, and negative to R some time) has by far the most views of any of the news networks, don’t you?
LikeLike
It’s not about special treatment. None of the other conferences are going to want to set off more realignment dominoes by forcing Notre Dame somewhere. They’ll either go to the Big Ten leading to the Big Ten also taking at least one more school (probably from the ACC this time) or they’ll go to the ACC forcing the ACC to take another (probably from the Big East). The Big Ten might also make another run at Texas if that happens. The SEC, PAC-12, and Big 12 would all likely lose games against the Irish and lose out in relative power to the conference that gained the Irish. None of them want that, thus no one is going to force Notre Dame somewhere.
The PAC-12 who is the biggest one for conference champs (at least publicly) is probably the one who wants the Irish in a conference the least. They would stand almost no chance of gaining Notre Dame, but would almost certainly lose the Notre Dame-Stanford game and might have to accept Notre Dame-USC moving up in years its normally in LA.
Thinking it through more, my guess on the actual rule is this, “The top 4 teams will selected for the playoffs. Teams that are members of a conference, but not champions of their conference, will be excluded.” That will let Notre Dame/BYU/Army in if they are ahead of one conference champ.
LikeLike
Edit: If we end up with a problem down the road of BYU staying independent and having an easier schedule (it won’t happen with Notre Dame given their traditional schools they play), they’d add a rule about strength of schedule for independents to get in. I don’t think it will be necessary though.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 is for conference champs for selfish reasons. They would be the biggest beneficiary. They would knock out SEC and Big 12 wildcards.
The Pac 12 does have a legitimate concern in that eastern media don’t see the Pac 12 teams and they do get historically underrated. The Atlanta paper doesn’t even get some of the late central time zone baseball game scores, let alone west coast. In football, they never even put in the score of the Holiday Bowl (Texas vs. Cal in San Diego), even in the late score box the 2nd day after. Those late games can finish after 1 am eastern time.
I can’t imagine the SEC and Big 12 accepting conference champs only. There may be a requirement that 2 or 3 be conference champs out of 4. With 8 teams, you would definitely have wildcards.
The rest should not do a special deal for Notre Dame for access. Right now they have it and Notre Dame can use it as a tool showing they are special. And it is meaningless, since Notre Dame doesn’t need automatic access. The bowls WILL pick them if qualified. Simply allow at least 1 wildcard and set the same criteria for everyone.
The real way they could eventually force Notre Dame into a conference would be if they gave them a non-AQ share of the bowl money. But that’s not going to happen and really can’t be justified. The Big 10 can’t say it built and adds value to the bowl system and Notre Dame doesn’t. It can say that with regard to the Sun Belt.
LikeLike
Although a “at large” team in a 4 team playoff will allow for Notre Dame, in most years it will be filled with a second SEC school. In 2011, this would have knocked the B1G and ACC out of the 4 team playoff, but in most years two of the champions from the PAC, B12, and ACC will be left out. Why would these conferences agree to any rule that knocks out their conference champion in most years (and notice I discounted the BE as not in the discussion). Therefore, any rule that allows a Notre Dame exception will need to be narrow (must be independent, be ranked in the top two, etc.) to exclude giving half the slots of a national football playoff to the SEC.
LikeLike
@Mack
Someone did an analysis a week or so ago. The Big 10 was basically break-even. The Big 12 and the SEC were the conferences that lost teams. The ACC and Pac benefitted.
In the BCS era, the Big 12 champ has been in the top 4 except for 2010 (but TCU was), 2006, 2003 (when OU was upset in championship game but was still top 4 in BCS), 2002 and 1998 (when KSU was upset by A&M in ccg but was still top 4). Only in 1999 (UNL) was one of those teams not still in the Big 12. So in 1998 and 2003 the ccg loser would have made it using simply the top 4. In addition, Texas in 2004 and 2008 and Nebraska in 2001 were non-champs in the top 4. Also, TCU was top 4 while in the MWC in 2009. Selecting only conference champs would likely be detrimental to the Big 12.
LikeLike
Eric-
Which conferences would lose out if Notre Dame joined the Big Ten or the ACC? If ND went to the ACC, the likely 16th team would come out of the Big East–probably UConn. If the Irish went to the B10, the program that has been in Delany’s cross hairs has been Rutgers–also from the Big East.
If Notre Dame went to the ACC, what do you think the possibility is that Florida State or Clemson is going to jump to the Big XII (a scenario mentioned in the link below). I would say very little and also add that ND moving to the ACC would actually provide more stability than not to the major conferences.
I could see less stability if ND joined the Big Ten, but only if that conference opted to go from 12 to 16 instead of 12 to 14. If it’s fourteen teams, then Notre Dame and Rutgers become the 13th and 14th members, leaving the Big East to look for another team out of the same cast of characters they looked at before (perhaps Villanova finally joins the BE for football). If it gets to 16 and the ACC gets poached a couple teams, then yes, I could see the possibility of some instability as that conference goes from 16 back down to 14. If that causes FSU and Clemson to skedaddle to the constantly challenged Big XII, then yes, we could see some more realignment hijinks in play again.
Also keep in mind a few things about the Pac 12. Yes, they do have a clause in their schedule allowing USC and Stanford to play Notre Dame in October and November. But the conference has also prohibited neutral site games and has a very restrictive protocol that dissuades the other ten teams in the conference to play non-conference games in the last two months of the season (they basically require all the Pac 12 ADs to agreee to it). Finally, of course, the Pac 12 has a nine-game schedule and is going to start playing B10 teams on an annual basis starting in 2017. That doesn’t sound like a conference that’s willing to go beyond having USC and Stanford play Notre Dame (with Stanford not even being a regular opponent beyond 2019) on any sort of regular basis.
As far as the Big Ten and Texas, I suspect that ship has sailed. While UT would be a great get, it doesn’t appear that the Longhorns would provide any sort of cultural fit with the Big Ten. Things might change over time when Dodds leaves his post in Austin, but I rather doubt it at this point. Also keep in mind that the Big Ten has done pretty well without Notre Dame to date and if the Irish went to the ACC, I suspect they’ll continue to do quite well in the future as well.
LikeLike
I agree. First, what has ND done to build the brand equity of College Football? For example, Missouri, Washington State, Oklahoma State and Virginia deserve to receive significantly more money than ND from new contracts because they belong to a Conference, ND does not and Conferences made College Football. Second, CFB is not run by educators, it is a business, baby, and should exploit any cartel-like arrangement to the greatest possible advantage (just don’t tell Congress). Third, I think the conferences should team with the TV networks to specifically exclude ND from joining a conference. Make them pay for their arrogance, humiliate them. Make them pay … 100 million or even a gadzillion dollars .. for the right to join a conference that has access to the championship — and if they don’t pay — then they don’t have access. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
LikeLike
I couldn’t disagree more with what they bring to the table. People watch Notre Dame vs. random team far more they watch Missouri/Oklahoma State/Virginia vs. random team. They also the unique ability to bring a fairly national average to games that would otherwise be much more regional.
LikeLike
Pretty sure rich being sarcastic (IIRC he is an ND fan). That said, I don’t think they should get special access. If it conference champs only (and I think it should be) then the Irish can either join a conference or be content with never again playing for the title.
LikeLike
If Delany can find a way to ease ND into the Big Ten (this rumored 16-member setup might have something to do with appeasing the Irish), Texas finds its options severely diminished. Does it remain lord of the Big 12, a conference that will have less importance? Does it join the SEC, for which it has little love for academically (especially now that A&M has beaten it to the punch)? Does it join the ACC, which has no football brand to speak of? Or does it shrug its shoulders and head for the Pac with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State? For Scott, getting Texas into the Pac would more than compensate for losing some access to ND.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind is that the Big XII schools are bound to each other for at least the next 6 years unless their are sufficient votes to dissolve the conference (and given how few of the teams are guaranteed to find a home outside the Big XII that’s not going to happen)
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7675856/butler-bulldogs-interested-joining-atlantic-10-sources-say
The dominos of conference realignment have finally fallen outside of the realm of football altogether.
Who’d have guessed this scenario?
Nebraska & Colorado leave Big 12 –> Sense of B12 instability –> Texas A&M and soon after Missouri leave Big 12 for SEC, immediately –> West Virginia leaves Big East for Big 12, immediately –> Big East invites a whole mess of teams, none of whom can join immediately –> Temple leaves MAC Football immediately and A-10 eventually –> Butler (potentially) joins A-10
LikeLike
I might add that I think this would be a solid move for Butler. There’s so little exposure in the Horizon League, especially anywhere outside the Great Lakes states, that Butler could easily disappear from the limelight in a hurry–just like Loyola Marymount did after their strong teams in the late 80’s/early 90’s. Without having at least a recognizable conference in which to sustain itself during down years, Butler’s ability to rebuild itself after a few bad seasons would be overwhelming. The A-10 provides a platform that, short of a split by the Big East basketball schools (which isn’t going to happen), is as strong a league as it will ever have the chance to join.
There could be some drawbacks, of course, which the Indianapolis Star highlighted. To summarize, there’s reason to doubt the A-10 would provide some overwhelming financial windfall. I mean, it’s the Atlantic 10 Conference, not the Atlantic Coast Conference or the BIG 10 Conference. Butler’s athletic department isn’t rolling in cash like its in-state Big Ten neighbors’ are, so the increased travel would be a big deal compared to the very geographically compact Horizon League. The A-10 would also lessen Butler’s direct exposure to Chicago and Milwaukee, where a lot of recruits and alumni live.
Thoughts on the idea of Butler-to-the-Atlantic 10? Would it be a good move by Butler? Would Butler be the best expansion candidate for the A-10?
LikeLike
Well, Dayton, Xavier and St. Louis aren’t too far away, and Duquesne is about the same as YSU.. What they lose in Chicago and Milwaukee thy might gain in St. Louis and Cincinnati. They also will have all that east coast access.
The A10 would be better for their basketball, but I think staying in the Horizon is better for the school.
LikeLike
And I was hoping the Big 12 would add 2 and Atlantic 10 lose 3 more and leave the B1G alone in the mathematically challenged.
The problem is that many Atlantic 10 schools have tiny gyms. Basically there’s the midwest schools-SL, Dayton, Xavier, the southern schools Richmond and Charlotte, UMass and a bunch of schools that draw noone, some of whom have been really bad at basketball (Fordham, Duquesne, St. Bonaventure)
Charlotte and UMass may well be leaving because of football. Richmond would then have to think of it. There has been speculation St. Louis might try to go back to the Missouri Valley.
I think Butler would be better off trying to get in the Missouri Valley. The only advantage I see in the Atlantic 10 is that it would put them in a better position to be part of an A10 block joining the BE bb schools in the case of a BE bb/fb split.
LikeLike
Yep, Xavier, Creighton (which has higher attendance than the average of any conference), St. Louis, Butler, and Dayton would make the nucleus of a fine Midwestern conference (Great Midwest 2?) They could join with the Catholic BE schools if that league ever splits up.
Adding Butler may actually lead to a split of the A10, as the 4 of the 14 A10 schools with the highest attendance would all be west of PA. Then you’d get your wish, Bullet, of a 10 team A10 (at least until UMass leaves, though they could add from the Colonial or maybe Metro Atlantic at that point). Maybe the A10 and Colonial would merge if the A10 loses UMass and the western schools.
LikeLike
I’ve got to say, the whole seeding process for the tournament is screwy to me. One of the primary rules is to spread conference teams so they meet as late as possible. Why? It makes no sense. They are making geographic pods to help draw fans, but they force conference teams to different regions. Those are competing goals, and the logic baffles me. A conference rematch is better in the early rounds than later in terms of drawing local fans and TV interest.
I’d make things much simpler for the committee. All they have to do is rank the teams from 1 to 68. Then let each team choose their own spot in descending order. Let schools choose geography versus match-up versus conference rematch. Maybe a team prefers a lower seed in a different region to what the NCAA would give them. Anyway, it would eliminate any complaining and could lead to some interesting results.
How many eastern schools would take a lower seed in the East or South or Midwest rather than a higher seed out West? Would teams avoid the 8/9 seeds based on the math? Would anyone have the guts to take a 16 seed with the hope of being the first to ever beat a #1?
LikeLike
LSU-Alabama football is the argument against that. Its supposed to be a national tournament and isn’t fair to the higher seeded teams to have to play someone early who they have already beaten.
LSU and Alabama basketball are part of the reason they do that. Back in the 80s, the SEC always got under-rated in basketball. Kentucky had to play and beat Alabama for the 4th time in the regional. After that they had to play an LSU team they had already beaten 3 times, but lost a close one and LSU went to the final 4.
LikeLike
Football and MBB aren’t the same. Basketball teams commonly play multiple times per year. If a #1 is supposed to play a #4, why make the #4s travel all over the country when they could have stayed local? I’d much rather see a team play a conference game early than in the final four or championship.
LikeLike
As I said, its not fair to the higher seed (or the conference).
However, I agree they make teams travel way too much. They ought to juggle the seeds a little to enable the teams to play closer to home. Do their 1 to 68 seeding, look at the sites and then start moving teams around. There’s virtually no difference to a team being a 4 or 5. 6 may be preferable to being a 5. 6 and 7 aren’t a lot different. 8 and 9 aren’t different. And of course, seeeding is not a science. They regularly over-rate or under-rate teams, sometimes even obvious to the casual observer before the tourney starts.
LikeLike
And the idea is that there is no rematch as teams will get knocked off. Conference teams playing each other are pretty unusual now. Except for the Big East, its not possible to play a conference member until the elite 8.
LikeLike
bullet,
You say it’s not fair but I don’t buy it. The problem in CFB is that we really don’t have enough games to know how good various team are, so playing a conference team again in a sport that can turn on one play is unfair to everybody. In hoops they have to play an equivalent team anyway, and they regularly play conference teams 2 or 3 times per year. It’s not the same, and the fairness argument doesn’t carry over. In a tournament with limited time to prepare, playing a team you’ve already scouted is a bonus. Increasing attendance and maybe ratings by playing local teams is great for the NCAA.
LikeLike
“In a tournament with limited time to prepare, playing a team you’ve already scouted is a bonus.”
It would be a “bonus” to both teams playing, and my suspicion is that it is more of a bonus for the weaker team.
LikeLike
There’s no clear reason it would help the weaker team more as they don’t have time to install much new stuff. The better team can just as easily look at what they did wrong and fix it.
LikeLike
Well, the weaker team could also look at what they did wrong and fix it. However, if the stronger team beat the weaker team before, simple human psychology tells you that the weaker team would be more motivated to fix their problems while the stronger team has a greater chance of becoming complacent (especially when we’re talking about college kids).
Regardless, it wouldn’t be an advantage.
LikeLike
Tell the coaches with limited time that already having scouted a team isn’t a bonus. They’d much rather face a known opponent than an unknown on two days notice.
LikeLike
I’m saying it wouldn’t be an advantage to play a conference team again rather than a new team because _both_ sides would already have scouted each other before in the first case and _both_ sides wouldn’t have scouted each other before in the second case. How exactly would it be an advantage to play conference teams, then?
LikeLike
It’s an advantage to know the other team if you are the better team. Unknown teams can surprise you. You know the O and D of a conference opponent as well as all the personnel. That’s an advantage. Plus, you are less likely to take a conference opponent lightly (esp. in comparison to a mid major).
LikeLike
“It’s an advantage to know the other team if you are the better team.”
I don’t agree with you, but regardless, even if what you said is true, by definition, half the teams in a set of matchups are better teams, and half are worse teams, so overall, there’s no reason for coaches on average to prefer conference matchups.
“Unknown teams can surprise you. You know the O and D of a conference opponent as well as all the personnel. That’s an advantage.”
However, that also means you can surprise unknown teams and can’t surprise known teams. That’s a disadvantage. Overall, that still isn’t an argument for more conference matchups.
“Plus, you are less likely to take a conference opponent lightly (esp. in comparison to a mid major).”
First off, the vast majority of schools after the first round aren’t midmajors. Secondly, a team that takes its opponent lightly is at a disadvantage, but the team that is taken lightly is at an advantage, so overall, there’s still no reason for coaches to favor more conference matchups than there are now.
As for limiting conference matchups, I can think of a very big rationale (for fairness reasons): right now, the amount of payout each conference gets is dependent on how many wins its teams get. If you try to avoid having conference teams playing each other, you get a distribution of payouts that better matches what the teams can acheive. As an example, if the 4 best teams in the country are all in the same conference, but they were all in the same regional, the payout that that conference gets is limited (as only 1 Final Four participant would be from that conference), but if they were in 4 different regionals, all 4 could make the Final Four and that conference would get the payout that it deserves.
LikeLike
At least 11 teams are interested in joining the CUSA-MWC Alliance. Not really surprising I guess. The WAC seems to be on its deathbed and those not already there seem to want nothing to do with the Sun Belt.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/17751380/wac-schools-others-interested-in-new-c-usamwc-league
“The schools that have been in contact with either league are: Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Texas State, Texas-San Antonio and Utah State from the WAC; Florida Atlantic, Florida International and North Texas from the Sun Belt; and Charlotte from the Atlantic 10.”
LikeLike
Karl Benson wants to swipe UTSA from the WAC into the Sun Belt. He also wants Charlotte. Fat chance on either one.
Charlotte wants “Mount USA” or bust.
UTSA would probably prefer the Big East.
—
Of the 7 football schools left in the WAC, the only one that has any TV value is UTSA. San Jose State is completely invisible in its TV market. Ditto Texas State. Ditto Utah State. The others are in small TV markets.
LikeLike
B1G Baseball update
4-2 Nebraska (Kansas St, Nebraska-Kearney, Cal [2-2])
3-0 Purdue (Murray St.)
3-1 Illinois (Oregon, UConn, Oregon St [L], and West Virginia); Michigan St (Baylor, Xavier, Seaton Hall, Pitt [L])
2-2 Minnesota (Hamline, Stony Brook [1-1], Kansas [L] ); Ohio St (Marist, Coastal Carolina [0-2], Toledo)
1-2 Iowa (Georgetown, Illinois St., E Illinos [W]); Northwestern (UIC)
1-3 Michigan (LSU, Notre Dame [1-1])
1-4 Indiana (Lousiville, Indiana St, CS-Northridge [1-2])
1-5 Penn St. (Samford, Miss St., UAB [1-2])
Purdue keeps winning, Nebraska splits an entertaining series with Cal, Illinois with a nice week, Minnesota beats something call Hamline, and Michigan challenges themselves against LSU
LikeLike
http://www.eerinsider.com/2012-articles/march/update-on-big-12-expansion.html
The Dude at WV has another posting up. Not any really new info, if you think he’s really has contacts. Big 12 is talking to FSU and Clemson and waiting on them. Clemson and FSU is waiting to see who the new commissioner will be.
The interesting part of the post was in his notes section:
Quote:
The Louisville Cardinals are a slam-dunk sure thing future member of the Big 12. The same can almost be said for BYU. But the Big 12 will wait for Clemson, FSU and a few other ACC schools to decide before extending a formal invitation to Louisville and BYU.
The Big 12 has both Louisville and BYU’s applications for membership in-house.
END QUOTE
I’m not sure why the Big 12 would wait to announce BYU and Louisville if they have their applications and they are for sure slam dunk new members, so this part doesn’t add up to me. Also my understanding that formal applications was a legal formality once a deal has been done verbally, so not sure why the Big 12 would have BYU’s if they aren’t a for-sure-slam-dunk.
Also for those looking at timing, I’ve read a lot and here’s what looks to be the best timing for the Big12 Conference:
May-ish: New Commissioner announced
June-ish but before the end of the current fiscal year of June 30th: announce at least 2 new members. (that is if the Big 12 expands, and I’m not sure they are in any hurry to do so, as they love the round-robin play and the true champion of football and basketball)
LikeLike
BYU / Louisville might be a slam dunk if you assume there is no way Clemson or FSU is leaving the ACC which is a fairly good assumption. Do not see B12 moving from 10 to 14, or inviting either Louisville or BYU in the unlikely event they get Clemson and FSU.
LikeLike
I see no advantages to Clemson and especially none to Florida State to join the Big 12. Travel weary and expensive for all sports. Very good geography in the ACC. Traditional rivals and big gates in the ACC. TV money about the same. The appearance of much more stability and fair equity in the ACC.
What is the Big 12 selling that could even get a polite no from these universities? Much less a sincere ‘What do you have”?
LikeLike
Dangers of a Megabooster.
Oklahoma State’s unique fundraiser was expected to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to fund school sports, based on the idea of purchasing $10 million life insurance policies on about two dozen boosters with the university as a beneficiary.
Instead, the so-called “Gift of a Lifetime” program created on the advice of top booster T. Boone Pickens has ended with Oklahoma State having spent $33 million with nothing to show for it.
[snip]
The insurance company and brokers argued that the plan fell apart because Oklahoma State rushed into it without first arranging financing to pay for the premiums.
Attorneys produced a paper trail from Holder’s emails with him writing once that if it wasn’t done soon as Pickens wanted, “I will be in a cave with Bin Laden.”
[snip]
Solis ruled that the brokers had not misled Oklahoma State, and instead the university “chose to proceed despite warnings from its advisers regarding mortality rates and statistical sampling error and warnings from the Brokers concerning the absence of long term financing.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7678962/oklahoma-state-cowboys-lose-bid-regain-33m-fundraiser
LikeLike
http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/Baylor_To_Announce_Lead_Gift_For_New_On-Campus_Stadium_142489485.html?ref=485
Baylor announced Tuesday that Temple businessman Drayton McLane, Jr. and his wife Elizabeth have made the largest capital donation in university history for construction of a new on-campus football stadium.
If fundraising goes as hoped, the stadium could be completed in time for the first home game in 2014.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/News/2012/Big-12-ESPN.aspx
The Big 12 is on the verge of a blockbuster TV contract that will put its media revenue among the top tier of college conferences, despite losing several marquee programs in the last two years.
The Big 12 and ESPN are nearing an extension that will earn the conference — combined with its Fox TV contract — $2.5 billion over the next 13 years, according to industry sources. The ESPN extension would run through 2025 and sync up with Fox’s deal.
By network, the Big 12 stands to make $1.3 billion from ESPN and $1.2 billion from Fox over the life of the two deals. ESPN’s old contract with the Big 12 ran through 2016, but the two sides are close on a nine-year extension that will increase the conference’s average revenue from its current $150 million a year to nearly $200 million annually. Each Big 12 school will make roughly $5 million more a year in the new contract over the old deal.
“We have an existing agreement with the Big 12 that has four years remaining,” said Mike Soltys, ESPN vice president of communications. “We are in regular conversations with all our partners about future opportunities. There’s nothing beyond that.”
The Big 12’s potential revenue windfall comes on the heels of mass upheaval for the conference, which has lost Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC, while adding Texas Christian from the Mountain West and West Virginia from the Big East to stay at 10 teams. Additionally, the new media revenue could effectively end any discussion of the Big 12 expanding back to 12 teams, not the news that the University of Louisville wanted to hear. The Cardinals had been positioned as a strong candidate to join the Big 12 if it expanded.
Under the new terms, each Big 12 school will average just under $20 million a year. Schools in the Pac-12, which also partnered with ESPN and Fox to generate its record $3 billion deal over 12 years, will average nearly $21 million per school.
It remains to be seen how the Big 12’s new contract will affect the ongoing negotiations between ESPN and two other league partners, the SEC and the ACC. Both conferences expanded to 14 schools, which makes them eligible to negotiate new terms.
Good for the Big 12…
LikeLike
Still less than the Big Ten with its below market ABC/ESPN deal. Interesting that the Big 12 decided to extend their deal with ESPN vs. taking it out to bid closer to the contract expiration date.
LikeLike
I’m guessing they are trying to get a new deal before the bubble for college sports bubbles burst. This also ensures they won’t have to compete with the Big 10 whose rights expire around the same time.
LikeLike
This kind of does make it look like they won’t expand if this is true. Louisville is a nice program but I don’t know if they grow the pie out more than 20 million per team. Same with BYU.
LikeLike
How many games per year are being spoken for? Will the LHN/Sooner networks have any marketable games? Are ESPN and Fox protecting investments in those networks? And lastly how much will the ISU, KSU, etc networks be worth?
LikeLike
The contract numbers I’ve seen on the B1G are $1.0 billion over 10 years ABC and $2.8 billion over 25 years for BTN. That comes to $17.7 million a year per team for all 3 tiers. Now they have the profit sharing on the BTN that adds to that (and I’ve heard all kinds of figures as to what they are getting on that). It looks like:
Pac 12 $20.8 million + Pac 12 networks
Big 12 $20 million estimate per article + individual Tier III
B1G $17.7 million + BTN profit
SEC $17.1 million + individual Tier III (maybe small bump for MU/A&M)
ACC $12.9 million all included (with a bump of $1 to $2 million/school for SU and Pitt)
BE $3.1 million with estimates of $7-$8 million on new deal
LikeLike
bullet, the B1G conference distribution was already $22.6M in 2010-11, though that includes additional sources such as NCAA distributions.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/article_d924c1e4-ffb5-5889-83e9-3dd0c31ed301.html
LikeLike
Those other items can be substantial. The Big 12 was projecting A&M would get over $20 million (with unequal revenue sharing) when the contract was $15 million. The average was around $10 million with their old $8 million TV contracts. You’ve got to figure the B1G generates at least $2 million a year in those other items as well.
LikeLike
Between the University of Michigan FY 2012 budget and chart accompanying the article on Illinois’ television revenue sources (http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illlni/article_6f757914-17cd-53df-8f62-586b8d968470.html), you can see the television revenue growth from the Big Ten Network in comparison to ABC/ESPN/CBS from 2007 thru 2012.
Below is the year, BTN Revenue/Revenue from other networks/Total Television Revenue. For any projections, assume ther other network revenue goes up approximately 0.3M per year through the end of the contract. (see
2007-08 6.1 / 7.7 / 13.8
2008-09 6.4 / 8.0 / 14.4
2009-10 6.5 / 8.4 / 14.9
2010-11 7.9 / 8.7 / 16.6
2011-12 8.6 / 9.0 / 17.6
If revenues go up around 1.0M per year (0.7M from BTN, 0.3M from other sources), then the total amount for television revenue per Big Ten school should be over $20M by FY 2015 (ends in June 2015). The main driver is the Big Ten Network–there was a $1.4M increase between FY 2010 and FY 2011 and a $0.7M increase in the following year. If that revenue source continues to increase by that amount, then the BTN will be providing more television revenue to the conference than ABC/ESPN and CBS.
That growth should also make the Big Ten’s television revenue roughly comparable to the Pac 12 and Big 12’s recent deals, however the new contracts with ABC/ESPN, CBS or any other network that wins the future Big Ten rights should far outstrip those amounts when they kick in during FY 2016.
LikeLike
Big 10 just added a CCG that is worth $22 million a year as well
LikeLike
The $17.7 for the Big Ten is based on the average of the deals plus the $1 billion is based on 11 teams and same with the $2.8 billion. The conference is in the back half of the ABC/ESPN deal so the numbers are skewed a little low.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Michigan makes their budget public.For 2009-20010 they reported $14.887 million for tv, estimated 16.625 million for 2010-11, and project $17.557 for 2011-2012 http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf
LikeLike
The SEC network will make a ton.
LikeLike
It will if and when they create it. I have a feeling that the reason we haven’t heard anything about the renegotiations between *SPN and the SEC since their expansion is that they are working out the details of the new SEC Network. I know I read somewhere that the SEC had an option to create a network written into their last contract but I can’t remember the language. It may have been as simple as pro-rating the games subtracted from *SPN. It will be interesting to see how the SEC goes about it. Will they take the B1G approach and partner with a network for approx 50% ownership or will they take the Pac-12 approach and basically take all the risk and get all the reward? I suppose they could follow the LHN path and take none of the risk and get a large ownership %. Any other options?
Regardless, they certainly will make a ton of money.
LikeLike
. . .if it comes about. One big hurdle is that the big fishes in the SEC already get $6M or more for their third tier rights each. Doubtlessly they’d be able to make more than that with an SEC Network, but each school would have to pay to buy their partners out of their current contracts, and that negotiation may be a hassle.
LikeLike
Wanted to clarify the SEC Network info. Apparently what I remembered was from an article, or articles, written after the SEC reached agreement with CBS but before their agreement with *SPN.
CBS, SEC sign record 15-year deal – Tony Barnhart, ajc.com
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/stories/2008/08/14/sec_landmark_tv_contract_cbs.html
I believe that the *SPN contract does preclude the SEC from creating their own network. Here are a couple of articles discussing it.
De facto TV network will push SEC even further ahead of competitors
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/07/24/sec-espn/index.html
ESPN pays $2.25B for SEC rights – Michael Smith & John Ourand, SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/08/20080825/This-Weeks-News/ESPN-Pays-$225B-For-SEC-Rights.aspx
LikeLike
Kevin,
Depends on how you do the math…
On average over the life of the contract, this would actually put the Big XII ahead of where the Big Ten is right now. I show based on the miracle that is the public Michigan AD budget, UM projected $16.625 for 10-11 and $17.6 million estimated for 11-12 for tv revenue. $2.5 billion over 13 years for 10 schools is an average of $19.2 million over the life of the contract. Obviously that will start at about a 70% discount.
So yeah, based purely on the fact a significant chunk of the Big Ten’s revenue is near the end of a contract and the Big XII’s is near the beginning, the Big XII will still be behind. But on average contract values, the Big XII will be ahead albeit very temporarily.
LikeLike
Average contract values don’t pay the rent. It’d still be the case that in any given year, the average B10 school will bring in more TV revenue than the average B12 school.
LikeLike
Solid deal for the Big XII and should be good enough to hold it together.
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/#!/chuckcarltondmn
“Sources indicate Big 12 schools are likely to grant TV rights to the conference for the life of the new ESPN and Fox deals.”
“Also told that ESPN extension will not preclude future expansion, if Big 12 decides to move in that direction.”
LikeLike
The more I think about this the more I think Larry Scott might a make a last ditch effort to grab some Big XII schools before this summer. Despite popular belief (including something I posted earlier in this thread!) the six year grant of rights has NOT yet gone into effect since it requires all 10 schools to sign off on the deal and TCU and WVU have yet to do so.
Scott has made clear he believes that the PAC needs to continue expanding and if he can’t raid the Big XII he is screwed, since his next best options are New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV and Boise St. (remember BYU isn’t an option).
I think it is unlikely that the PAC will do this, but it’s certainly a possibility.
LikeLike
As interesting as it would be to see the Pac grab the B12 schools, the word that they may be extending the period of the (yet unsigned) grant of rights to the length of the Fox and *SPN contracts seems to make that less and less likely. The Pac is just stuck when it comes to expansion. The thing is, since the B1G and the Pac reached their scheduling agreement it doesn’t sound like either conference is worried about expanding. The conventional wisdom (or was that unthinking blather) was that 16 school conferences were inevitable, maybe the B1G and the Pac feel like 24 is the new 12 instead. This way neither has to change their makeup any further, they will just become one.
People have been laughing about the BE spreading themselves across the country and the conference that has no name doing the same but maybe they’re just ahead of the curve. Imagine a conference spreading from the east coast, well PA, to the west coast, bordered by the Atlantic (via Philly) and the Pacific, and stretching from Canada to Mexico. The Big-Pac or Pac of Ten, a 24 pack of prestigious schools. PSU would never get that eastern partner and the B1G would be foregoing NYC and the south but given the two conferences familiarity and compassion for (obsession with) the Rose Bowl it makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
British Columbia and Simon Fraser will be options for the PAC in the distant future.
Simon Fraser is about 15-20 years away from being ready (winless in Division II football for 2 straight seasons.)
British Columbia’s AD believes that boosters can help buy their way in right away. The UBC administration has made it clear to the NCAA: UBC will not spend one minute in Division II.
LikeLike
Adding the Canadian schools still wouldn’t solve the problem that they can’t break into the central time zone and are stuck with one premier football program and one premier basketball program.
The PAC may really come to regret not taking Larry Scott’s advice and grabbing the Oklahoma schools when they had the chance.
LikeLike
“The UBC administration has made it clear to the NCAA: UBC will not spend one minute in Division II.”
That’s nice, but UBC will have to draw more than 4-figures in attendance for it’s fiercest rivalry football games to be taken seriously by any power conference as a candidate. Maybe by “distant future”, you meant “half a century”, perhaps?
LikeLike
Penn State Might Go Private.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/penn_state_trustees_look_to_co.html
LikeLike
I understand why they would do this (the new gov.’s plan would drop PSU’s funding to something like 5%) but if they are interested in repairing the school’s image doing this right before they are forced to comply with open records laws is not the way to go.
LikeLike
Not wanting to disclose anything seems to be their modus operandi. They clearly need to clean house on that board of trustees. Seems like their actions are motivated strongly by not being sued and not being personally embarrassed.
LikeLike
@Frug looks like no PAC raid.
Neinas wants to celebrate the success of the Big 12, which recently executed the six-year grant of rights to make it official: The Big 12’s 10 current members are in place through the league’s next TV negotiations for the first-tier media rights.
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45976/big-12-preparing-a-league-wide-facelift
LikeLike
Nevermind then.
LikeLike
Would somebody care to explain the B12 deal?
You lose 4 big state schools, 1 of which is a brand (Nebraska)
You lose your CCG (maybe 20 million per year)
You lose MO, NE, CO, and 1/3 TX from your footprint
You lose 4 AAU schools
You lose Weiberg, fire Beebe, and Neias steps down
You have only 2 large stadiums, while at least half of the B1G and SEC have 75K +
You have 1 MCBB brand in the North, and none in the South
You have limited upside in baseball, and less in WCBB
You add a small private school in your existing footprint
You add a poor public school in a tiny state
Even after the additions you have 1 real football game in your inventory
Even after the additions you have a few “watchable” football games in your inventory
Even after the additions you have a net loss of roughly ~ 24 Million viewers
But mostly you have TT vs KSU and ISU vs KU college football games
.
How is that supposed to be worth 1-2 Billion over the next decade?
a) Bernie Madoff type deal, as in ponzi galore, and time to short Disney stock
b) Drug deal, as in the only way it makes sense is if you are heavily medicated
c) Harry Potter is real and he is about work for the B12 front office
d) All bow to Hypno Toad!
e) Other, please specify so I can understand the economic principle at work here?
LikeLike
duffman,
Would somebody care to explain the B12 deal?
What a shock. You’re badmouthing the B12 again. Why can’t you accept the judgement of experts that the B12 is worth more than you think it is? TV execs aren’t in this to lose hundreds of millions of dollars just to spite you.
You lose 4 big state schools, 1 of which is a brand (Nebraska)
You lose your CCG (maybe 20 million per year)
You lose MO, NE, CO, and 1/3 TX from your footprint
You lose 4 AAU schools
You lose Weiberg, fire Beebe, and Neias steps down
You have only 2 large stadiums, while at least half of the B1G and SEC have 75K +
You have 1 MCBB brand in the North, and none in the South
You have limited upside in baseball, and less in WCBB
1. You overvalue big state schools, and undervalue live CFB in general as a TV property.
2. They never made that much for their CCG, and the CCG money was grandfathered into their old deal when they lost teams because the deal was so undervalued.
3. You don’t know what their TV footprint will be. It never exactly matches the “official” footprint. They certainly won’t lose any part of TX, and NE is tiny and offset by WV. The TV footprint only factors in for regional broadcasts, which means 3:30 on Saturday against the ACC, B10 and P12, so they may well keep MO anyway.
4. TV doesn’t care about AAU status. You’re just grasping at straws for ways to badmouth the B12.
5. TV doesn’t care about about who the commissioner is. You’re just grasping at straws for ways to badmouth the B12.
6. TV doesn’t care about stadium size. You’re just grasping at straws for ways to badmouth the B12.
7. TV doesn’t care about MBB for a FB contract. You’re just grasping at straws for ways to badmouth the B12.
8. TV doesn’t care about baseball or WCB for a FB contract. You’re just grasping at straws for ways to badmouth the B12 now.
You add a small private school in your existing footprint
You add a poor public school in a tiny state
Would you say the same about the B10 adding ND? That’s a small private school in the footprint, too.
Why would ESPN care about the academics? How hypocritical can you be as you bemoan the loss of the state of NE but complain about adding the tiny state of WV?
Even after the additions you have 1 real football game in your inventory
Even after the additions you have a few “watchable” football games in your inventory
Even after the additions you have a net loss of roughly ~ 24 Million viewers
But mostly you have TT vs KSU and ISU vs KU college football games
1. Before the losses, they really only had 3 “real” football games in the inventory every year (CCG, OU/UT and either OU/NE or UT/NE).
2. They didn’t lose many watchable games.
3. You have no idea what will happen to their number of viewers. I trust ESPN to have a better
estimate of that than you do, no offense.
4. As opposed to the TT/KSU and ISU/KU games they had before, you mean? Or was CO suddenly a power and we all forgot about it (last won 10 in 2001)? TAMU (1998)? MO (2010, 2007-8, 1960)?
How is that supposed to be worth 1-2 Billion over the next decade?
a) Bernie Madoff type deal, as in ponzi galore, and time to short Disney stock
b) Drug deal, as in the only way it makes sense is if you are heavily medicated
c) Harry Potter is real and he is about work for the B12 front office
d) All bow to Hypno Toad!
e) Other, please specify so I can understand the economic principle at work here?
e. You don’t understand the economics of CFB on TV at all. Sports are rapidly becoming the only “must see” live TV, and thus are a gold mine for advertising. ESPN makes huge monthly fees from carriers, so they don’t need great ratings to make money on sports which fill their hours and provide substance for their top studio shows. CFB draws a wealthier audience, making it more attractive. CFB has proven to be worth a lot more than anyone thought until recently. Networks are still raking in profit on these deals, so the prices keep rising until their profit margin falls in line with other programming.
LikeLike
Sorry Brian, but if you think the Big 12 lost nothing by losing Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Missouri and replacing them with TCU and WVU, you’re seriously deluding yourself. The Big 12 lost at least 25% of their star power, population/fanbase, and premium inventory.
If they got themselves a good deal, good for them. But it’s rather surprising given how much they lost.
LikeLike
At no point did I say they didn’t lose anything. The TV deal would have been even bigger if it was the old B12. That doesn’t mean this was a bad deal, or that duffman wasn’t greatly exaggerating the impact of certain factors while ignoring others.
LikeLike
The Pac 12’s deal is similarly crazy if you look at their ratings, but at least they have big markets out there.
This makes me think the SEC and Big Ten are severely undervalued at the moment.
LikeLike
That’s the problem. People label these deals crazy without considering what the actual value of CFB programming is. The market is still catching up to the actual value of CFB, so deals will continue to grow. Look for the B10 deal to top this significantly.
LikeLike
brian,
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/January/NCAA+football+attendance+reaches+new+heights+again
from this link
Although overall attendance was up, the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision saw a decline from its record numbers of 2010 .
This article from the NCAA says the overall numbers were up, but it was due to growth in the FCS schools, not the FBS schools. FBS totals were down 395,391 and FCS totals were up 375,259 which helped massage the numbers a bit. Granted this represented a drop of just over 1%, but it was a drop not a rise. On the flip side, the FCS which you lament on here quite often, rose almost 6% ! Even though this years numbers reflected the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, it did include TAMU (in the #10 spot in the country at 87,183 per game average) in the B12 total, and Missouri at 62,095. So here are your gains and losses for B12 schools :
-610,283 total : -87,183 avg = TAMU : 7 @ home, in the SEC in 2013
-596,871 total : -85,267 avg = Nebraska : 7 @ home, in the B1G in 2012
+395,726 total : +56,532 avg = West Virginia : 7 @ home, in the B12 in 2013
-372,571 total : -62,095 avg = Missouri : 6 @ home, in the SEC in 2013
-251,777 total : -50,355 avg = Colorado : 5 @ home, in the B1G in 2012
+202,115 total : +33,686 avg = TCU : 6 @ home, in the B12 in 2013
Even dropping the Nebraska and Colorado numbers, the B12 lost 982,852 live fans and picked up 597,841 live fans. 982,852 – 597,841 = 385,011 live fans lost by the B12. If the B12 was in the #3 spot with an average of 63,265 fans, and TAMU’s 87,183 / MU’s 62,095 are replaced by WVU’s 56,532 / TCU’s 33,686, it would stand to reason that the B12 averages would have a steep drop at the end of the 2012 season. To further illustrate the point, the B12 drew 4,175,464 fans for the #3 spot in the NCAA behind the B1G and SEC (both over 6 million fans) last season. If you deduct the 385,011 from that 4,175,464 you get 3,790,453. If the ACC had 4,266,723 last year, and the PAC had 3,970,939, then next year the B12 would fall from the #3 spot to the #5 spot!
This is before Pitt and Syracuse make the jump to the ACC and adds 368,022 for Pitt, and 283,528 for Syracuse to the ACC numbers. That will add another 651,550 to the ACC’s numbers which will cement it in the #3 spot. Viewed another way, if the B12 added 2 more schools just to get back to 12, both schools would have to add roughly 1,000,000 fans in the stands. Adding Louisville & BYU only adds about 700,000. You can say this does not matter, but if the live viewing is not reinforced, how will you create long term fans for the B12 going forward?
LikeLike
The Big 12’s TV rights increase doesn’t mean that it’s more valuable today than it was when it had Nebraska et. al. There are several factors in play:
(1) TV rights fees across the board skyrocketed in the past year – It’s a bull market right now if you’re a seller of sports for TV, so the Big 12 increases are heavily tied to the upward movement of the market overall as opposed to an increase in its inherent value. So, the proper evaluation is what the Big 12 would have gotten today if it still had Nebraska et. al instead of comparing it to the old Big 12 deal signed in the mid-2000s. Using the old Big 12 deal as a baseline is like trying to compare the box office grosses from 1970s movies to those released today. The media does it for whatever reason, but it’s completely misleading since they’re ignoring the fact that a movie ticket costs several times as much today as it did back then. The market changed so quickly for TV sports rights in the past several months that even the ACC deal signed in early 2011 seems outdated.
(2) One Texas is worth more than multiple high level schools – From the first time that I wrote about conference realignment, I pointed to Texas as opposed to Notre Dame as being the single most valuable school in the country. That’s more true than ever and the new Big 12 TV contract reflects that. We can talk all day about markets, but the TV networks pay an extra premium for delivering the very biggest ones. In this case, Texas delivers the single biggest market of them all with their entire home state and the fans are pretty rabid, to boot. They might not be quite as rabid as Alabama fans, but they’re certainly a large step up from USC fans (the other large market power). Texas alone brings a massive amount to the table and when you add in another king in Oklahoma, you’re going to get a valuable slate of games just with those two schools.
(3) Attendance and TV values are correlated, but one isn’t the direct root cause for the other – Iowa has fantastic attendance, but it would be a gross misnomer to say that they’re more valuable for TV purposes than low attendance Miami.
(4) TV value is driven by marquee names – There’s a group of about 12 to 15 schools that disproportionately drive TV ratings in college football and the Big 12 has 2 of them that are at the upper end of that list in UT and OU.
Think of a conference as an NBA roster. Obviously, what you would love to have is several marquee stars and a bench of role players that still bring some value. Remember the 1990s Bulls dynasty in that regard. The Big Ten and SEC have that in college sports terms. However, that’s not possible for everyone, so most teams either have a choice between either having a star with weak depth or no star with a lot of depth. An NBA GM almost always will want to take the former situation – the way to win in the NBA is with cornerstone players and you pay disproportionately for their services. Similarly, TV networks would rather pay for a couple of marquee names with a bunch of scrubs (and to be clear, the rest of the Big 12 is much better than a bunch of scrubs) than lower wattage teams in a conference with a lot of depth (like the Big East).
LikeLike
Missouri will certainly help the SEC in basketball ratings, an area where it’s usually Kentucky and Vanderbilt, sometimes Florida and Tennessee, then everyone else — even when a school such as Miss State or Alabama has a good season or two.
LikeLike
Frank,
Thanks for the points. What I was really trying for was the “what if” of boom and bust. Everybody said the sky is the limit for housing back a decade ago, and values got very out of whack to the economic reality. I guess I am wondering if the same is happening right now in college football? Looking at your points, I might see both sides.
(1) TV rights fees across the board skyrocketed in the past year – It’s a bull market right now if you’re a seller of sports for TV, so the Big 12 increases are heavily tied to the upward movement of the market overall as opposed to an increase in its inherent value .
Using the housing market, the B1G and SEC have the most stable neighborhoods and can weather the downturn. UT looks like the overdeveloped house in a neighborhood converting from single family to lower income rental. My question is not so much if values are rising, but if they are stable going forward?
(2) One Texas is worth more than multiple high level schools – From the first time that I wrote about conference realignment, I pointed to Texas as opposed to Notre Dame as being the single most valuable school in the country .
I think this is true if UT remains the monopoly in Texas. Notre Dame is national with pockets of support across the entire country. Texas is local to regional, and their strength is based on their ability to monopolize markets in their area. In our early discussions I had TAMU going to the PAC, but the discussion here was PAC or B1G. The general thought on here back then was either was fine as long as TAMU did not go to the SEC, yet this very thing happened. In all this discussion since I have been astounded by just how rabid and loyal TAMU fans are, and it is multi generational. Like it or not, TAMU has grown, and their numbers are competitive. (see continuation discussion below in the post below)
(3) Attendance and TV values are correlated, but one isn’t the direct root cause for the other – Iowa has fantastic attendance, but it would be a gross misnomer to say that they’re more valuable for TV purposes than low attendance Miami .
I agree, but Hawkeye fans may have enough inelastic demand to drive better carriage rates in the state of Iowa. Miami has competition from pro teams, UF, FSU, and a host of directional schools. Miami is still basking in the glow of 5 MNC’s, but if they continue to go around 6-6 every year, they will lose ground over time to other Florida schools. It is why I went back and forth on your Miami to the B1G posts in the past. How valuable is Iowa on basic cable 12 months of the year vs Miami on PPV only during football season?
(4) TV value is driven by marquee names – There’s a group of about 12 to 15 schools that disproportionately drive TV ratings in college football and the Big 12 has 2 of them that are at the upper end of that list in UT and OU .
LikeLike
@ Frank,
I agree, and this gets back to my basic question of the value of monopolies ?
.
Michigan and Michigan are in the same state and the same conference, so Michigan (the state) is a monopoly for the B1G. Even if Michigan is down in football, MSU can still carry value for the B1G, and MSU can certainly carry basketball value for the B1G. If a quick glance at wik is correct, MSU is actually producing more living alumni at this period in time. While Michigan vs ND may get more national attention, MSU has the longer series. In the end tho, the B1G has 100% (a monopoly) of the state of Michigan at the AQ level (which is a near a monopoly of D I college football as a whole) which means 100% of ~ 75% of the market. This has been the case for UT via the B12, but as of July 1, 2011 this will no longer be the case.
If Michigan State left the B1G for the B12 tomorrow it would end the B1G monopoly in the state of Michigan. Even if MSU got 20% of the state it means competition, and smaller values long term for Michigan (the school) and the B1G. If I remove 4 tires from a car, I have impaired the value of that car until I replace them? Now look at Texas and TAMU with Texas being the car, and TAMU being the tires (actually they may be big enough to be more than just the tires, but not the whole car yet) :
.
UT = DKR @ 100 K, but Kyle is still in the Top 10 in attendance in FBS D I
UT ~ 50K students, but TAMU is now equal (equal living alumni going forward)
UT MCBB was never stellar, and TAMU was worse, but the gap is narrowing
UT WCBB was better, but TAMU seems to have passed them by
UT baseball is excellent, but TAMU has been catching up
What I am getting at it what if UT can not retain a monopoly of the franchise that is the state of Texas? The crystal ball going forward is not so clear. Consider the following :
Baylor and Oklahoma State had an excellent year, but can they sustain them?
Texas vs Oklahoma had no competition, but suppose TAMU vs UAF grows?
Look at the schedules for next year between the 2 big schools in Texas
UT vs Oklahoma = franchise game
UT vs West Virginia = nationally marketable game
UT vs oSu + BU (without Heisman QB’s) / TCU / KSU = unknown value
UT vs TT / OM / ISU / KU / Wyoming / New Mexico = questionable value
TAMU vs Arkansas = potential franchise game
TAMU vs UF / USC / LSU / AU / UAT = nationally marketable games
TAMU vs MSU / MU / La Tech = unknown value
TAMU vs OM / SMU / SHSU = questionable value
now overlay non football Tier 3 issues
MCBB attendance leaders Top 25
B12 = #9 Kansas, #21 Texas
SEC = #1 Kentucky, #5 Tennessee, #18 Vanderbilt
WCBB attendance leaders Top 25
B12 = #3 Iowa State #6 Baylor #8 Texas Tech #10 Oklahoma #24 Kansas State
SEC = #1 Tennessee #12 TAMU #14 Kentucky #20 LSU #23 Vanderbilt
baseball attendance leaders Top 10
B12 = #3 Texas
SEC = #1 LSU #2 Arkansas #4 USC #5 Ole Miss #6 Miss St #9 TAMU
The issue is, the B12 no longer has a monopoly in the state of Texas (monopolies are more valuable because they are monopolies) and more importantly the only rival in sheer size to Texas dominance is no longer is under B12 control. Even if the SEC only gets 20% of the state of Texas, that means the B12 in Texas is worth 80% of what it used to be . While I still think UT is valuable, I am just not sure if it is worth such a high multiplier if they can not deliver the monopoly franchise?
.
.
.
Underlying all this is brian thinking I am just “badmouthing” the B12 which is not the true picture. I may be painting the negative points, but it is more based on what might affect the future if no one is asking the questions. The only 2 conferences that are safe in my book are the B1G and SEC because they are :
#1 Big
#2 Deep
#3 Fully diversified
The PAC is blessed with a geographic “moat” that lets them own the west free from competition at the AQ level, and limited in future rivals at the non AQ level. After that it is a dog eat dog world and the B12 has done more to destroy themselves than they have to strengthen themselves. The scrapper in all this is the ACC, as they had the worst to work with when Oklahoma and Georgia sued the NCAA, but they have made the most from their humble beginnings.
LikeLike
@duffman – Interesting thoughts, but monopolies in and of themselves aren’t what drive TV value. The Detroit Tigers aren’t more valuable than the New York Yankees just because the Tigers have a monopoly. The size of the market itself obviously matters and that’s where the power of Texas comes in. I’ve never been concerned about monopolies as much as the ability for a school to deliver its home market consistently. The SEC itself doesn’t have monopolies in several states, including the ones that are home to its largest markets (Florida and Georgia), yet that hasn’t impacted its value.
The state of Texas has 3 times as many people as Michigan and the gap is growing. Just as having the largest share of the New York market makes the Yankees the most valuable team in baseball (as opposed to the Tigers), having the largest share of the Texas market means that the Big 12 doesn’t have much to worry about on that front. I’m sure that the SEC will gain traction in the Texas market with A&M, but it will be Mets-like traction at best compared to UT’s Yankees-like traction.
UT alone matters and putting OU on top of them means that the Big 12 has significant value in the marketplace even if everyone else in the conference fails to bring anything to the table. To the extent basketball enters the discussion (and it really doesn’t), Kansas is a top national brand, as well. A TV network is more than happy to show just those marquee programs every week. That’s why a school like Notre Dame still gets its own TV contract – if anything, the less “riff raff”, the better.
Do I think that the Big 12 can poach from the ACC? Absolutely not. However, that doesn’t mean that the Big 12 can’t get paid extremely well or even more than the ACC. It can’t be emphasized enough that Texas is the single most valuable school in college sports and only Notre Dame is in the discussion of being close. That’s a situation that isn’t changing anytime soon even with A&M going to the SEC. Even “only” 80% market share in the state of Texas or even 50% market share still means that UT delivers the single largest set of eyeballs of any school in the nation all by itself.
LikeLike
How’s that LHN thing working out?
LikeLike
duffman,
Your link comes up as a blank page for me, so I can only work from what you quoted. Just FYI.
This article from the NCAA says the overall numbers were up, but it was due to growth in the FCS schools, not the FBS schools. FBS totals were down 395,391 and FCS totals were up 375,259 which helped massage the numbers a bit. Granted this represented a drop of just over 1%, but it was a drop not a rise.
60,000 of that was due to TCU having a smaller capacity for 1 year as they undergo expansion. They sat 44k in 2010, 34k in 2011 and will be at 53k in 2012. Cal had to play at a baseball stadium, so their average dropped to 38k from a previous 58k. So from just two teams I can explain a drop of 180k due to construction. PSU was down 20k (scandal). TN was down 5k per game but played 1 more game at home, so that’s up to 35k lost (bad team). FL was down 10k (bad team). So that’s about 250k of your 395k from 5 teams with reasonable explanations. What was your point?
On the flip side, the FCS which you lament on here quite often, rose almost 6% !
Good for them. I lament them because their level of play is less than that of I-A and I don’t think AQs should play them.
Even though this years numbers reflected the loss of Nebraska and Colorado, it did include TAMU (in the #10 spot in the country at 87,183 per game average) in the B12 total, and Missouri at 62,095. So here are your gains and losses for B12 schools :
-610,283 total : -87,183 avg = TAMU : 7 @ home, in the SEC in 2013
-596,871 total : -85,267 avg = Nebraska : 7 @ home, in the B1G in 2012
+395,726 total : +56,532 avg = West Virginia : 7 @ home, in the B12 in 2013
-372,571 total : -62,095 avg = Missouri : 6 @ home, in the SEC in 2013
-251,777 total : -50,355 avg = Colorado : 5 @ home, in the B1G in 2012
+202,115 total : +33,686 avg = TCU : 6 @ home, in the B12 in 2013
As I’ve explained before, TCU was down due to construction and will be over 50k next season. WV will also likely improve with better teams coming in, so they should get near 60k. In other words, they will basically balance MO and CO.
As for the dropping total, so what? You seem to think it’s a big deal but nobody else does. The current members aren’t losing attendance and they’re getting a bump in TV money. Nobody else in the B12 gained anything from TAMU’s and NE’s ticket sales.
Even dropping the Nebraska and Colorado numbers, the B12 lost 982,852 live fans and picked up 597,841 live fans. 982,852 – 597,841 = 385,011 live fans lost by the B12. If the B12 was in the #3 spot with an average of 63,265 fans, and TAMU’s 87,183 / MU’s 62,095 are replaced by WVU’s 56,532 / TCU’s 33,686, it would stand to reason that the B12 averages would have a steep drop at the end of the 2012 season. To further illustrate the point, the B12 drew 4,175,464 fans for the #3 spot in the NCAA behind the B1G and SEC (both over 6 million fans) last season. If you deduct the 385,011 from that 4,175,464 you get 3,790,453. If the ACC had 4,266,723 last year, and the PAC had 3,970,939, then next year the B12 would fall from the #3 spot to the #5 spot!
1. I’ve explained multiple times that you are counting TCU’s numbers wrong.
2. Who cares where the conference ranks in average or total attendance? Is there some prize for that I’m not aware of?
3. While you bemoan the losses, the B12 may gain in terms of MBB distributions by losing 2 bad hoops teams (NE, CO) and only adding one (TCU). Adding UL and UC would help them out here, as well as getting them CCG money again. Even BYU has done decently in hoops.
You can say this does not matter, but if the live viewing is not reinforced, how will you create long term fans for the B12 going forward?
This does not matter. Most fans never attend a game in their lives due to cost and availability, especially after graduation. TV and alumni create new long term fans. A 50″ plasma at home often gives a better view and avoids the costs and hassle of attending while letting you switch to other games.
LikeLike
“An NBA GM almost always will want to take the former situation – the way to win in the NBA is with cornerstone players and you pay disproportionately for their services.”
Just make sure that when you trade half your team for a cornerstone player, you actually get a cornerstone player rather than a dude who just takes lots of shots (and contributes to winning only as much as an average player) like Carmelo Anthony.
LikeLike
As for whether college football is overvalued right now, note that the Angels recently signed a TV deal that will pay them $3B over 20 years while the Lakers signed a deal that pays them $5B over 25 years. In other words, one NBA team (in a large market, but with a far smaller footprint than any AQ conference) will bring in roughly as much TV revenue as the top college conferences will for their 10-14 schools.
LikeLike
@Frank,
I agree that part of NYC > all of Detroit but both are “pro” towns and that gets back to size matters. We are on the same page there but where I am trying to segregate is on basic carriage in Texas vs a premium site which is how the LHN has gone. I think TAMU fans and UT fans in Dallas would both pick the Cowboys over their respective college teams. If the LHN was basically free, I think their numbers advantage would work, but it is not. For every UT fan in Dallas requesting the LHN, you may have an equal TAMU fan calling and saying NO! If we have learned one thing on this blog, it is that carriers fight tooth and nail to not pay out more than they have to . I still think this was the genius of Delany getting Nebraska for what is a much smaller population BUT a highly inelastic demand (monopolistic environment) .
I understand your point about Florida and Georgia, but would argue that Alabama and Tennessee were the SEC’s version of Nebraska. Smaller states, but with much higher viewing percentages, and more inelastic demand. Kentucky is like that in basketball, and unlike IU, does not have to share with the Colts, Bears, Purdue, and Notre Dame equivalent in their home state. Texas (the state) is more like California or New York in that there are just more distractions, and a more fragmented population. Lets face it history helps, but winning is the long term solution. If I have to pay for UT games, but I now get free TAMU games, over time that may erode quicker than people think. It is a big reason I am not a fan of PPV because you are harvesting viewers now at the expense of a future generation of viewers.
Maybe I am older, but the connection of being at a live game makes the long term addict emerge as we age. Without this early bridge, a less loyal fan will switch to another team, or tune all the way out and follow another sport. The fact that the B1G and SEC can fill their venues speaks volumes to the long term connections of their fans. Not to wax all nostalgic but going to a game with your dad can not be replicated in your living room watching it on TV. Sure the picture and sound may be great, but more senses are engaged when the event is live. The ritual and rites of passage carry a much deeper bond than being in the routine of the living room. A game with dad was a big deal and the seeds were sown then and passed to another generation. No game on TV can replicate that environment.
We agree about the B12 not poaching the ACC. Can they get a deal around what the ACC does? I believe this is a yes as well. Texas is a big state and growing, and having a fertile recruiting ground helps as well. Where I may differ with you is Notre Dame, as they are the only really national team. The difference between the two has less to do with relative value of the base population, and rests entirely on the success of the team. If UT and ND had swapped success over this past decade their is no doubt in my mind that Notre Dame would be more valuable. No matter how big Texas is, you will have more Catholics than Texans. In addition as you pointed out to me on more than one occasion they are the “hate” team like Duke in basketball, and that is just as valuable as pro Notre Dame fans.
I am not saying TAMU will overpower UT just because they are in the SEC. They still have to win and draw fans that are attracted to winners. Given the history this is no easy task, but both Georgia and South Carolina have shown that it is possible for the underdog to switch places with the alpha dog. In long term thinking I think there are multiple outcomes, and not just one carved in stone :
a) UT continues to control the state of Texas
b) TAMU makes it and balances the power
c) TAMU blossoms in the SEC and overtakes UT
d) Tastes shift and football falls from favor or similar unseen outcome occurs
LikeLike
duffman,
Several points based on your most recent posts:
I say you’re badmouthing the B12 because you pull out issues that even you know aren’t important and treat them like major points and you ignore all countervailing facts. The fate of the B12 is not in any way dependent on WCB or baseball, but you bring them up as if they matter in this discussion. You harp on attendance (while intentional undervaluing TCU), but only the total for the conference or the average as if those are in any way meaningful stats.
—
Why do you treat CFB fans as binary? The B12 won’t lose many fans in TX, they’ll just also watch TAMU in the SEC. They already probably watched some SEC games, so they’ll trade the weak B12 games for the weak SEC games if they are TAMU fans. Most CFB fans watch multiple teams in multiple conferences.
—
TX versus Catholics is closer than you may think. If you count all self-declared Catholics, it’s about 3:1 right now. If you only count those who are active (i.e. not Christmas and Easter Catholics), that gets cut in half to 3:2. Considering Catholicism is strongest in the northeast and hispanic communities, two groups that are weak CFB fans, the number of CFB fans is probably near equal.
LikeLike
What all of these contracts have shown is that market size doesn’t really matter.
The Big East has more markets than anyone, and the smallest AQ contract.
Texas is the biggest team in Houston, but normally had about 5,000 empty seats when they played Rice in Reliant Stadium. Houston is a pro sports market.
Colorado and Missouri have markets, but noone cares. They are pro sports markets. I think the Presidents were surprised, but they were basically told CU was a drain on the TV contract. I saw one guy who said he was a TV analyst who said Missouri was a “pathetic” draw, behind Texas, OU, Texas Tech, A&M, and Kansas in football. And they were sometimes behind Oklahoma St. and Iowa St. Kansas was picked over a better Missouri team for the Orange Bowl for a reason, not just because they wanted to pick on Missouri.
Also these contracts are based on a “what have you done for me lately” mentality. CU and A&M have been bad for several years. Nebraska wasn’t Nebraska. TV isn’t paying for potential. The Big 12 has clearly been the 2nd best football conference over the last decade. And almost none of that strength came from CU or A&M and little from Nebraska. MIssouri’s done well, but apparently not many people care (unless you compare them to Baylor and KSU).
OU, Texas and TCU have been among the top few teams nationally over the last decade. WVU has been very good. And WVU is like the SEC schools in that they have great penetration in their market. Competitively, the Big 12 (at least for the immediate future) is stronger than it was before. That’s even more true in basketball. WVU is a comparable replacement for Missouri and CU, UNL and A&M had the 3 historically weakest bb programs in the conference.
Now what all this means when the contracts renew in 2025 may be a different story. But for now, the Big 12 is doing just fine.
LikeLike
Whoever your TV friend was, he was wrong. Missouri’s TV ratings are quite strong. Near the top of the Big 12. You Texas guys are so full of it sometimes.
Maybe your info is several years old. Missouri was certainly struggling in the 90s and early 2000s. No doubt their ratings were poor when they were only winning 4 or 5 games per year.
LikeLike
The last numbers I saw for Missouri weren’t great.
LikeLike
Feel free to do your own research. I’m not sure I understand this guy’s methodology, but he somehow crunched the numbers and found Mizzou’s TV ratings to rank 11th in the nation:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2010/5/10/1466334/which-schools-are-most-attractive
Not only that, but I was looking through some of the highest rated games of each of the last few seasons. The highest rated game of 2007 for the entire country was Missouri vs Kansas. Missouri was in some of the other highest rated games as well. Missouri games against Texas and Oklahoma were among the most highly rated games of the season in ’08, ’09, and ’10 as well with several others performing strongly.
I have little doubt Missouri’s ratings were poor pre-2005, but Missouri has been to bowl games 8 out of the last 9 seasons and is one of only 6 teams to win 8 or more games for the last 6 straight seasons. Their ratings are much higher than they used to be. Missouri is the only BCS school in a state of over 6 million people. They have a lot of fans at the moment.
LikeLike
Nostradamus, it’s no surprise that Missouri’s 2009 numbers were down. That was arguably Missouri’s worst season in the last 7 years. They ended up losing to Navy 35-13 in the Texas bowl that year.
LikeLike
@Andy
They have a lot of fans at the moment.
it’s no surprise that Missouri’s 2009 numbers were down. That was arguably Missouri’s worst season in the last 7 years
That’s Missouri’s problem right there. As long as they are a top 15 team, their fans care. When they’re not, they don’t.
LikeLike
Andy,
One of the problems is this is a fairly difficult subject to research as other than bowl ratings (and I’m really not sure I would be using bowl ratings as a proxy) it is hard to go back and find ratings for most individual games let alone a season for particular schools.
As for 2009 ratings being “down” we don’t actually know that without seeing ratings for other years. I’d say an 8-5 season is a fairly approximate average of Missouri under Pinkel though, infact they just had another 8-5 season this past year. 8/5 is a .615 winning percentage. MU’s average winning percentage is .601 under Pinkel. Even if we want to look at the great run over the last 5 years, the average was about 9.5 wins. 2009’s ratings were likely lower than the two 10 win seasons and certainly lower than 2007, but like I said we don’t know that 2009 isn’t an accurate approximation for MU.
LikeLike
“The highest rated game of 2007 for the entire country was Missouri vs Kansas.”
A 1 vs 2 game in the last week of the season will tend to do that. a 6.1/11 million is impressive, but that is one game. I’m also not convinced that I could’ve taken a Texas A&M vs. Texas game in the same situation an Ohio State vs. Michigan game pick any rivalry game that weekend and put a spot in the conference championship game/potentially BCS title game on the line and would’ve gotten the same result.
As for the Tomahawk link. It is an interesting methodology, but I think it can lead to some flawed conclusions. The first is we have no evidence that bowl viewership is actually correlated to regular season viewership. Some of the commenter also hit on other issues below the article. It doesn’t control for the opponents. Say you draw Notre Dame in a bowl, yeah your viewership numbers are higher, but that is more than likely do to Notre Dame not you.
For example on the subject of Missouri. In 2010 they played in the Insight Bowl against a natural border-rival Iowa. It drew a respectable 2.24 (not far off of the 2000 MU average). The other 3 years in the time period were Minnesota-Iowa State a .83, Kansas-Minnesota 1.20, and Oklahoma State-Indiana 0.40. In this methodology Missouri gets rewarded tremendously for that.
The Texas Bowl is pretty much the same story. You get a game where people tuned into see Navy beat Missouri. It drew a 2.47, Baylor-Illinois actually outdrew it with a 3.08 the following year. However in the previous two years before MU played in it you had a terrible Rice-Western Michigan match-up 0.30, and a TCU-Houston match-up drawing 0.30. This game also switched to ESPN at some point from the NFL network. It may have been the year Missouri played in it, which would be a huge skew.
It also doesn’t account for who played in the bowl game the other three years that factor into the average. They noted one of their bowl games was the only game on television the day they played it. In other years it was moved to a weekend with other bowl games or in time slots less likely to be viewed. And the sample size is incredibly small. You are looking at 4 games to draw conclusions for 4+ years of ratings data.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that MU’s ratings are up and down. Mizzou won 10 games on ’08 and ’10, and 12 games in ’07. I don’t know what Missouri’s overall ratings are over the last several years, but as you said, Missouri has averaged 9.5 wins per season over the last 5 seasons. ’09 was the worst season in that stretch, with several deflating losses. I do know that some of Missouri’s games in the last few years have been among the highest rated of any school in the country. Mizzou vs Kansas in ’07 was the highest rated game in the country that year. Their games against Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas in ’07, ’08, and ’10 have all had very high ratings among the top of any games those years.
Missouri’s attendance and TV ratings against good draws in the Big 12 has been outstanding over the last 5 years, but it’s probably fair to say that when Mizzou is playing uninspiring competition or is losing, then their TV ratings aren’t as high as the elite programs. But when Mizzou is good and they’re playing name teams, their ratings are as good as anyone outside of the big powers like Texas, Ohio State, etc. Missouri hasn’t been winning long enough to build up the steady fan base that is going to tune in in large numbers to watch them play Kansas State. This has also hurt their attendance averages. If you look at Mizzou’s attendance in games against name opponents, the games usually sell out. But bring in a lesser opponent and there are 10,000 empty seats.
This is part of the reason the move to the SEC will benefit Missouri. In the SEC they will have a much higher percentage of games against top draws. Mizzou’s schedule next year includes games against Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Arizona State, Syracuse, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt. Of those 10 games, only the last two or three on that list should draw as low as games vs the typical Big 12 team. In Missouri, Kansas is a draw only because of the rivalry, and KSU, ISU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are not draws. Colorado and Nebraska were decent draws but they aren’t on the schedule anymore.
So to say Missouri’s TV ratings are poor oversimplifies the point. Missouri has demonstrated a high potential for great TV ratings given a good schedule and a reasonable amount of success. This seems to be where they are headed.
LikeLike
I predict that Mizzou’s TV ratings will be up in 2012 thanks to games with GA, FL, AL, and TN. However, ratings against KY, UCF, Vanderbilt, and Syracuse will better reflect Mizzou’s drawing power
LikeLike
Mack, that’s silly. There are different kinds of drawing power. Some teams draw well no matter who they play (Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan). Some teams don’t ever draw well and drag down the numbers of the teams they play against (Iowa State, Indiana, Oregon State). And then there teams like Missouri that draw well against good competition and not so well against mediocre competition. One way to measure this is to look at the top teams and see their ratings for all of their games, and see which ones rated the highest. For the Kings of the Big 12, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, their games against Missouri were consistently among the highest of the season for them over the last few years.
LikeLike
Based on the tomahawknation data, the SEC should have added Central Michigan.
LikeLike
Texas is ‘that’ valuable, as is like Brian said; CFB and less-so CBB programming. Which is why ESPN paid so much for just 1 OOC game a season. IMO they are The King even when in a room full of other kings; Alabama, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida State, Miami, Nebraska, Georgia & Oklahoma.
LikeLike
wmwolverines,
If UT was a stock would it be over valued, fairly priced, or under valued? They have 4 MNC’s but look at the years they won them.
1963 – Tulane and Georgia Tech were still in the SEC
1969 – South Carolina was still in the ACC
1970 – Arizona and Arizona State were IND schools
2005 – Only the B12 and SEC had established CCG’s
3 were in the Darrell Royal era, and now he is pushing 90. 1 is in the Mack Brown era and he is in his 60’s. That means there was about a quarter of a century between the 2 coaches where UT football was not so valuable. Nobody can predict the future, but the past indicates that UT is fully capable of having a long drought. Also, through this entire time they had a virtual monopoly over the state of Texas. In 2009 the longhorns did not lose a football game in their fall campaign, and they were in the second best conference in the country in terms of BCS metrics. That december they were probably at peak value, and then the B1G announced it was exploring adding a team or teams to its 11 member conference. If we are to believe what is out there, this is when they were in negotiation for the LHN.
Since then :
They lost to Alabama / SEC in the BCS MNC game
They went to no bowl in 2011, and the Holiday Bowl in 2012
They went 13-12 in the past 2 years – needing the Cal win to break .500
Muschamp – Browns’ heir – has moved on to Florida
Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU, and Missouri have left the conference
They lost a CCG while the B1G and PAC have added one
They made a failed attempt to jump to the PAC
The big issue is the LHN, as Tier 3 is really about non football values. If you think ESPN was paying 15 Million a year for the Rice game, I may think you are not looking at the real issue. I really think ESPN was using UT to get into the Texas High School football market, which in football crazy Texas actually makes sense. So far that has not gone according to plan. In addition look at the other sources of Tier 3 revenue :
MCBB : UT has never won a banner, or any B12 south team for that matter
WCBB : UT won a banner back in 1986, but outside a FF in 2003, not much
baseball : 6 CWS – 1949, 1950, 1975, 1983, 2002, and 2005 – solid history*
* rivalry with TAMU (365 games) probably now TCU (279) or Baylor (337)
other : Excellent in S&D and respectable in VB, but does that sell on TV?
While I am willing to admit UT is a valuable franchise, are they worth paying a premium if their future is less certain? The LHN has fizzled as UT has not done well in football, been shut down on high school football, and has not established winners in non football Tier 3 revenue streams. I know folks say the sky is the limit, but NBC said the same when they overspent for the Notre Dame long term contract. The problem with 1 trick ponies is what do you do when they are down? Going forward UT will have to share the state with the SEC via TAMU, and their old monopoly has been broken up along with their biggest overall rival. How valuable would Duke be if they were no longer playing UNC in any sport?
LikeLike
Texas was #1 ranked in 1977 and unbeaten and #2 behind Nebraska in 1983 before losing Cotton Bowls. That was under Fred Akers who went something like 86-31 over 11 years and probably kept Lou Holtz from winning a couple of MNCs at Arkansas. David McWilliams who was an awful coach still had a 10-2 season where Texas was top 5 before the bowl. John Mackovic won 3 conference titles, including the first Big 12 title. Texas was #2 in win % in the last decade. And before Darrell Royal, there was Dana Bible. Texas was #3 in all-time winning % after the 2009 season (they may have slipped a little the last couple of years as #3-#6 are tightly bunched).
In men’s basketball they have been to a final 4 and have become the biggest competitive rival to Kansas over the last decade (MU is (was) a different type of rivalry). And Oklahoma St. does have a title although it was way back in the 40s.
UT’s value is not dervied from A&M. When I was in school, A&M was probably the 4th biggest rivalry behind OU, Arkansas and Houston. When UT fans talk about the most enthused crowds in Austin, there are 3 candidate games-one vs. Houston, one vs. Tech and one vs. A&M where Ricky Williams broke the all-time rushing record. Its about who’s competitive at the time.
LikeLike
bullet,
DKR recruited EC, so I might give that 77 season to DKR 😉 83′ would have been Nebraska’s but not saying that was not a good UT team. I was at that game and believe if Nebraska and Miami played it 10 times I would give Nebraska the edge but I can say it was a gutsy call not to settle with a tie.
OU and Arkansas were rivals derived mainly from football but I got the impression TAMU was more across all sports. Dana Bible was interesting in that he was at TAMU, Nebraska, and UT. I do agree that things wax and wane against schools over time as the best long term rivals run about 50 / 50. If one side wins too much it takes away some of the balance needed to get the general fans worked up. On the flip side the roles can reverse as with Georgia Tech. When the Yellow Jackets were in the SEC early on they were the strong one, and now it has gone the other way. Same with Clemson and South Carolina, which is why I leave the door open for TAMU.
When I think of MCBB I think of KU and oSu and the Big 8 more than any Texas schools in the SWC. Sure Phi Slamma Jamma had a run for a few years, but they would have been the One and Dones of today. I think they got to the final game, but could not win it all. To me SWC basketball was Arkansas, and they went to the SEC. I still wonder if things would have been different for Eddie if that plane had not gone down. I had him picked to beat Georgia Tech and win it all in 2004 which would have given oSu 3 banners and tied them with UNC and Duke at the time.
LikeLike
duffman,
Your B12 hatred is almost comical to me at this point, but this part was over the top:
If UT was a stock would it be over valued, fairly priced, or under valued? They have 4 MNC’s but look at the years they won them.
1963 – Tulane and Georgia Tech were still in the SEC
1969 – South Carolina was still in the ACC
1970 – Arizona and Arizona State were IND schools
2005 – Only the B12 and SEC had established CCG’s
You’re really going to diminish a NC won in 2005 as too long ago and too much has changed? You do realize that means only the SEC has won a meaningful NC, right? UT’s titles aren’t too different from OSU’s most recent ones (…, 1968, 1970, 2002), so apparently OSU doesn’t have much value either. Nor do MI, PSU, NE, ND, USC, OU, or anyone other than AL, LSU and UF.
LikeLike
Brian,
UT is winning but the B12 is not! Before this last realignment I would put the B12 as the conference most likely to topple the SEC. They were the goose that laid the golden eggs. That is not hatred, but a deep respect for what was accomplished by the creation of the B12 in the first place! What I lament is what has happened in the past few years to crumble what once was a real contender. You act like adding WVU (even with 10K more seats) and TCU (even with 50K seats) will be equal to TAMU and MU. There is already talk of 100 K seats in a new or renovated Kyle, and they will be able to fill it because the SEC teams travel well. If you can see WVU adding 10K seats is it unreasonable to think that MU will as well and get to 80K?
I said it before, and I will say it again, that only the B1G and SEC seem to support big stadiums across their member schools. Do you really see 10K – 20K TCU fans driving to WVU or that many WVU fans descending on TCU? The bigger point that you seem to not want to accept is that UT was 80K about a decade ago, and just got to the 100K mark. Ohio State was at 80K in 1960, and hit 100K about when UT was hitting 80K. Ohio is a smaller state, but they had a bigger fanbase much earlier. Michigan hit 100K in the 1950’s and is sitting at 110,000K now. Happy Valley started off small, but made up for it by hitting the 80K mark in the 1980’s before getting to the current capacity of 107K. Now that Nebraska is in the B1G it will already be approaching 90K shortly, and it would not surprise me if they got to 100K within a decade after this expansion is done. HINT! These are all B1G schools, and not one of them are in the SEC!
This has nothing to do with B12 hatred, and has everything to do with the strong possibility that the following B12 schools will not hit 80K to 100K seats in my remaining lifetime :
Kansas = near zero
Kansas State = near zero
Iowa State = near zero
Oklahoma State = low probability to get to 80K
West Virginia = low probability to get to 80K
Texas Tech = low probability to get to 80K
Baylor = zero
TCU = zero
Is this hard for you to grasp?
LikeLike
duffman,
UT is winning but the B12 is not!
Bullcrap!
First, the B12 wins when UT wins. The other teams get to ride UT’s coattails to a big TV deal. Second, the last I checked OU is doing just fine too. The second tier is doing OK for the B12 as well. You just can’t see it through your blinding hatred.
Before this last realignment I would put the B12 as the conference most likely to topple the SEC. They were the goose that laid the golden eggs. That is not hatred, but a deep respect for what was accomplished by the creation of the B12 in the first place! What I lament is what has happened in the past few years to crumble what once was a real contender.
And yet the B10 got paid a lot more. It’s almost like on field performance isn’t the main factor. Neither is attendance, or WCB, or any other BS issue you’ve brought up while trashing the B12 non-stop since September. The B12 was a great conference, but it’s still a really good one despite your protests.
You act like adding WVU (even with 10K more seats) and TCU (even with 50K seats) will be equal to TAMU and MU. There is already talk of 100 K seats in a new or renovated Kyle, and they will be able to fill it because the SEC teams travel well. If you can see WVU adding 10K seats is it unreasonable to think that MU will as well and get to 80K?
I didn’t mention WV adding seats, just filling the ones they have. I suppose they might expand if the B12 works out well for them, though. All I’ve done is show that you’re cherry picking attendance data to make the B12 look worse than it is. And I never, ever said they could replace the attendance from NE and TAMU. That’d be an issue if it actually mattered at all, but it doesn’t. They don’t get free cookies for having a higher average attendance than the P12 and ACC. The attendance at NE and CO and MO and TAMU never put a penny in the pockets of any of the other schools. Will UT and OU lose attendance becuse of the changes? No. As a result, will they lose any ticket sales money? No. So why in the hell would they care? The schools are getting more TV money than ever before (it might have been even more with NE), and they won’t lose money from other sources.
I said it before, and I will say it again, that only the B1G and SEC seem to support big stadiums across their member schools.
And I’ll say this again: So what? You have never connected that statement to any actual importance. Only some of the teams in even those conferences have big stadiums (NW, IN, etc). The top teams in other conferences have them as well (USC, UT, etc). As TV money grows, the value of attendance keeps getting smaller anyway. UT’s ability to compete is not impacted by the size of Baylor’s stadium, just like AL isn’t held back by Vandy.
Do you really see 10K – 20K TCU fans driving to WVU or that many WVU fans descending on TCU?
Why would they bother? The visiting team usually gets 5k tickets or so, and for many games those get turned back to the host to sell or get sold online. What does it matter? I see a full house of home fans going to those games, not that attendance matters anyway.
The bigger point that you seem to not want to accept
Back the heck up. Only you seem to think attendance is any kind of point, let alone a bigger one.
is that UT was 80K about a decade ago, and just got to the 100K mark. Ohio State was at 80K in 1960, and hit 100K about when UT was hitting 80K. Ohio is a smaller state, but they had a bigger fanbase much earlier. Michigan hit 100K in the 1950′s and is sitting at 110,000K now. Happy Valley started off small, but made up for it by hitting the 80K mark in the 1980′s before getting to the current capacity of 107K. Now that Nebraska is in the B1G it will already be approaching 90K shortly, and it would not surprise me if they got to 100K within a decade after this expansion is done. HINT! These are all B1G schools, and not one of them are in the SEC!
How have I not accepted this? Stadium capacities are facts. When have I ever denied the sizes of these stadiums?
And do you really think NE’s expansion was dependent on joining the B10? It was officially approved in 10/2010, long before NE joined the B10. It had been in the works for a long time before that, as all such projects are. NE last expanded in 2004, so they’ve been slow to grow. Since they are going from 81k to 87k this time, I highly doubt they get to 100k in another decade. This one is planned to cost $65M, and I doubt they want to spend another $100M+ that soon. Also remember, they limited the expansion this time to preserve their sell out streak. I don’t think they can guarantee another 13k fans for a cupcake that soon.
This has nothing to do with B12 hatred,
Do you even believe that? You’re throwing out crap like the loss in WCB and you honestly think this is an objective assessment of the B12’s future?
and has everything to do with the strong possibility that the following B12 schools will not hit 80K to 100K seats in my remaining lifetime :
Kansas = near zero
Kansas State = near zero
Iowa State = near zero
Oklahoma State = low probability to get to 80K
West Virginia = low probability to get to 80K
Texas Tech = low probability to get to 80K
Baylor = zero
TCU = zero
So what? Why does it matter if they get to 80k? Will they get bonus prizes? NW, IN, MN, IL and PU won’t ever get there either, but I don’t see the B10 falling apart because of it.
Is this hard for you to grasp?
What I can’t grasp is your obsession with attendance. You haven’t given a single reason why any of this matters. You just seem to assume that it does and that the rest of us agree with you about that.
LikeLike
brian,
What I can’t grasp is your obsession with attendance. You haven’t given a single reason why any of this matters. You just seem to assume that it does and that the rest of us agree with you about that .
Can you agree that primary football revenue comes from 3 basic sources?
a) media money
b) game day money
c) donor money
If you can, please assign a % value to each
thanks
LikeLike
duffman,
Can you agree that primary football revenue comes from 3 basic sources?
a) media money
b) game day money
c) donor money
If you can, please assign a % value to each
You might have to add student fees to that, and there’s no possible way to assign percentages as it is varies wildly from school to school.
Can you agree that the attendance at a school has no impact on the game day money for any other school?
Can you agree that the average attendance for a conference is a meaningless statistic since nobody gets paid based on it?
LikeLike
Brian,
Can you agree that the attendance at a school has no impact on the game day money for any other school ?
Point A The value of strong base numbers for attendance and donations
School A has 50K students
School B has 10K students
a) ignore mortality rates for ease of calculation
b) ignore few year lag to “balance” classes (not all matriculate in same year)
c) consider that each student will have a force multiplier effect over time
(alumni will have kids they indoctrinate, and friends / family they convert over time)
who will produce more living alumni in 25 years?
25 x 50 = 1.25 Million former students
25 x 10 = 0.25 Million former students
school A produces 1 million more former students than B in 25 years
who will produce more living alumni in 50 years?
50 x 50 = 2.50 Million former students
50 x 10 = 0.50 Million former students
school A produces 2 million more former students than B in 50 years
TAMU + MU = ~83K annual enrollment
WVU + TCU = ~38K annual enrollment (TCU has 9K students)
Net annual loss of students for B12 = ~45K students
2011 Loss => CU (30K) + UNL (25K) = ~55K students
People who actually attend an institution probably create the base for media values. While college sports attract non students from a state, they have less effect or the NFL would be less profitable than college football, which is clearly not the case. Absence of NFL teams helps schools like Nebraska and Alabama, while the presence of NFL teams probably hurt the college football teams in their sphere of influence.
.
Can you agree that the average attendance for a conference is a meaningless statistic since nobody gets paid based on it ?
Point B
School A sells 100,000 seats per home game
School B sells 050,000 seats per home game
for simplicity, set the following constants for both schools
a) both play 7 home games
b) each seat translates to 100 dollars (tickets, parking, concessions, other)
100,000 x 100 = 10,000,000 in game day revenue for A
050,000 x 100 = 05,000,000 in game day revenue for B
10 Million x 7 home games = 70 million in football revenue for A
50 Million x 7 home games = 35 million in football revenue for B
70 M > 35 M
.
Tell me again how nobody gets paid by attendance numbers? I see a direct correlation to stadium size and “brand” status! This not only translates to on site revenue imbalances, but to increased media demand based on raw size! If you have 2.5 million students, and only 100K seats in a stadium, I am guessing a vast majority will have to watch it on TV.
10 long term college football “brands” and corresponding stadium size
B1G => Michigan, ~110,000
B1G => Penn State, ~107,000
SEC => Tennessee, ~102,000
B1G => Ohio State, ~102,000
SEC => Alabama, ~102,000
B12 => Texas, ~102,000
PAC => Southern Cal, ~94,000
B1G => Nebraska, ~81,000 (expanding to 87K)
B12 => Oklahoma, ~82,000
IND => Notre Dame, ~81,000
10 potential long term college football “brands” and corresponding stadium size
SEC => LSU, ~93,000 (expanding to 100K)
PAC => UCLA, ~94,000 (capacity already exists)
SEC => Georgia, ~93,000
SEC => Florida, ~89,000
SEC => Auburn, ~87,000
SEC => TAMU, ~83,000 (Top 10 crowds in past few years 87K – 90K)
ACC => Florida State, ~82,000
B1G => Wisconsin, ~80,000
ACC => Clemson, ~80,000
ACC => Miami, ~75,000
B12 current / potential teams (excluding UT & OU) as a 12 member conference
(for comparison all remaining B1G and SEC schools are listed as well
SEC => South Carolina, ~80K
B1G => Michigan State, ~75K
SEC => Arkansas, ~72K (wik lists 80K expansion with temp bleachers? )
B1G => Iowa, ~71K
SEC => Missouri, ~71K
SEC => Kentucky, ~68K
IND => BYU, ~64K (actual contraction past few years)
B1G => Purdue, ~63K
B1G => Illinois, ~61K
SEC => Mississippi, ~61K
SEC => Mississippi State, ~55K (6K expansion completion in 2012-2013? )
B12 => West Virginia, ~60K (LSU w College GameDay drew 62K)
B12 => Texas Tech, ~60K (just finished expansion to 60K)
B12 => Oklahoma State, ~60K (expanded to 60K in 2009)
B12 => Iowa State, ~55K (currently undergoing renovation, no new seats)
BigE => Louisville, 55K (finished expansion in 2010)
B1G => Indiana, ~53K
BigE => Rutgers, ~52K (finished expansion in 2009)
B12 => Kansas State, ~52K (says 50K and 52K, used higher number)
B1G => Minnesota, ~51K (with 80K expansion plan built in)
B12 => Kansas, ~50K (found no mention of expansion)
B12 => TCU, ~50K (expanded to 50K for 2012)
B12 => Baylor, ~50K (since 1956 TAMU/UAF/AU = 14 of 20 top crowds)
B1G => Northwestern, ~47K
SEC => Vanderbilt, ~40K
BigE => Cincinnati, ~35K (15K expansion discussed)
.
Current capacity for B12 schools (UT & OU excluded) = 437K MAX (actual usage is below this number) so, 437 / 8 schools = ~55K average (rounded up) , so even with WVU and TCU (with their increased numbers) they are well below UT (102K) + OU (82K) and their average of 92K. Subtracting the 8 (WVU + TT + OSU + ISU + KSU + KU + TCU + BU) from the 2 (UT + OU) means 37K average differential! Sure Oklahoma State has T Boone $$, Oregon has Nike $$, and Arkansas has Wal Mart $$ but can their legions of loyal fans compare to hordes of Michigan or Ohio State fans?
LikeLike
duffman,
I said:
“Can you agree that the attendance at a school has no impact on the game day money for any other school?”
Yours seems like an incredibly long response to a simple question.
Point A The value of strong base numbers for attendance and donations
School A has 50K students
School B has 10K students
a) ignore mortality rates for ease of calculation
b) ignore few year lag to “balance” classes (not all matriculate in same year)
c) consider that each student will have a force multiplier effect over time
(alumni will have kids they indoctrinate, and friends / family they convert over time)
who will produce more living alumni in 25 years?
25 x 50 = 1.25 Million former students
25 x 10 = 0.25 Million former students
school A produces 1 million more former students than B in 25 years
who will produce more living alumni in 50 years?
50 x 50 = 2.50 Million former students
50 x 10 = 0.50 Million former students
school A produces 2 million more former students than B in 50 years
TAMU + MU = ~83K annual enrollment
WVU + TCU = ~38K annual enrollment (TCU has 9K students)
Net annual loss of students for B12 = ~45K students
2011 Loss => CU (30K) + UNL (25K) = ~55K students
So now your arguing the value of school size? That’s a completely different topic, and still not proven to be important. ND has about 8400 undergrads but they seem to be fine after decades of competing with large state schools. Duke basketball has thrived despite only having 6500 undergrads.
People who actually attend an institution probably create the base for media values.
That’s a huge assumption on your part. Do you have any facts to back that up? OSU has a huge fan base, and it’s much larger than the total number of alumni. Lots of local people who never went to college root for schools. Where did all these Duke hoops fans come from? What about all the “subway alumni” of ND? I don’t accept your assumption unless you can prove it.
While college sports attract non students from a state, they have less effect or the NFL would be less profitable than college football, which is clearly not the case. Absence of NFL teams helps schools like Nebraska and Alabama, while the presence of NFL teams probably hurt the college football teams in their sphere of influence.
I don’t follow this logic at all. The NFL is a business, CFB isn’t (in that sense). The NFL gets more fans that aren’t college educated, but they also get a ton of carryover fans who also root for college teams. CFB doesn’t get that in return, so the NFL does better. I don’t see OSU suffering too much for having 2 NFL teams in state and 4 total within a 3 hour drive. MI and ND have also done OK near NFL teams.
me again:
“Can you agree that the average attendance for a conference is a meaningless statistic since nobody gets paid based on it?”
And again you have a long response to a simple question.
School A sells 100,000 seats per home game
School B sells 050,000 seats per home game
for simplicity, set the following constants for both schools
a) both play 7 home games
b) each seat translates to 100 dollars (tickets, parking, concessions, other)
100,000 x 100 = 10,000,000 in game day revenue for A
050,000 x 100 = 05,000,000 in game day revenue for B
10 Million x 7 home games = 70 million in football revenue for A
50 Million x 7 home games = 35 million in football revenue for B
70 M > 35 M
Assuming you meant 5M there, the math is correct. However, it has nothing to do with my question. My question was if B started to sell 70,000 tickets instead of 50,000, would A’s game day revenue change?
Tell me again how nobody gets paid by attendance numbers?
You are suffering major reading comprehension problems here. I said A doesn’t get paid based on the attendance at B and C and D.
I see a direct correlation to stadium size and “brand” status!
I don’t see it.
Biggest stadiums in order:
#1-10 MI, PSU, TN, OSU, AL, TX, USC, GA, LSU, UCLA
#15 OU
#16 NE
#17 ND
Is TN the #3 brand? No.
Is ND #17? No.
Is UCLA top 10? No.
Is OR outside the top 50? No.
Therefore, it’s not a direct correlation. Is there a trend? Yes, but a rough correlation does not equal causation. I’d say brand size has often driven stadium capacity, but many places have run into various constraints (cost, space, etc) or experienced changes in fortune that mean the supply and demand are out of whack.
This not only translates to on site revenue imbalances, but to increased media demand based on raw size! If you have 2.5 million students, and only 100K seats in a stadium, I am guessing a vast majority will have to watch it on TV.
Right, look at UCLA pulling massive TV viewership and massive ticket sales money. Oh, wait, they were #31 in attendance last year despite having a top 10 stadium and nobody watched them on TV.
And again, all of this has nothing to do with my question.
I also noticed that you skipped teams that didn’t fit your preconceived notion, like OR.
Sure Oklahoma State has T Boone $$, Oregon has Nike $$, and Arkansas has Wal Mart $$ but can their legions of loyal fans compare to hordes of Michigan or Ohio State fans?
Who cares? Earlier you said it was about money, and now you’re saying even if they have money the attendance is still a big issue. I think OkSU, OR and AR are doing just fine while the legion of TAMU fans hasn’t exactly translated into much on field success lately.
LikeLike
Brian,
lets try again….
“Can you agree that the attendance at a school has no impact on the game day money for any other school?”
By your logic, if Notre Dame plays Idaho (11K students) their contract with NBC will be as valuable as a game against Michigan State (48K students) right? Football is not about playing with yourself, but about playing with someone else. Top tier media values are based on top tier opponents. Sure a Duke or Miami can exist, but only if they are winning. A school like Baylor, who had a fantastic season, has a covering over a huge section of seats they can not sell, even when they are winning. When they show blimp shots of huge stadiums with no empty seats it means there is high value demand. Happy Valley was packed when Alabama came to town and there was demand in both states which bumps up TV numbers.
As commented in the previous post, Baylor’s top games in attendance since the 1950’s involved 3 schools (Arkansas when they were in the SWC, TAMU, and UT) so if attendance did not matter why did the other 9 schools in the B12 (even when UNL and CU were members) not bother to show up when they came to beat Baylor? Texas Tech is close, yet they did not show up in the Top 20. Since it went back to the 1950’s when TCU was a member of the SWC, why did they not show up on the list? Could it possibly be, that the fans of the opposing school affects the numbers? Big schools can make a difference when they show up at an opponents stadium. UT and TAMU are big schools while TCU and TT were smaller so even adding them did not move the needle up for the folks at Baylor. If all these schools in the B12 were so valuable, why are all but 2 of them below 60K in seating?
Could it possibly be that fewer students means less demand? UNC plays in a 22K arena and Duke plays in an 8K one. Surely Duke is stupid for not building a bigger arena for all that pent up Duke demand? The reason they do not is because they are the remora to UNC’s shark. UNC is a big state school with lots of students and living alumni compared to Duke. To say that schools outside of the primary have no economic effect on the primary is plain dumb. By that line of thinking Ohio State playing Michigan = Ohio State playing Northwestern in stadium and TV demand! Really? In the last round of realignment the B1G / PAC / SEC added FIVE state flagship schools and ZERO private schools. Why do you think that is? Could it be that big state schools produce more living alumni over time?
Again, big stadiums generally indicate big demand by fans of of those schools. I have a feeling schools do not spend millions and millions of dollars on empty seats. They build them because they feel they can fill them based on supply and demand. You are correct that Notre Dame is a smaller school, but they still have an 80K + stadium. Part of it is Notre Dame football, and part of it is playing other schools with really big stadiums like Michigan and Michigan State.
.
People who actually attend an institution probably create the base for media values .
NOTE, the use of the word base !
That’s a huge assumption on your part. Do you have any facts to back that up? OSU has a huge fan base, and it’s much larger than the total number of alumni. Lots of local people who never went to college root for schools. Where did all these Duke hoops fans come from? What about all the “subway alumni” of ND? I don’t accept your assumption unless you can prove it .
a) Base means a starting point, not an all encompassing total
b) I still argue Duke has no fans, just opposing fans wanting to watch them lose
c) There are lots of catholics, and like Duke, others wanting to see them lose
d) I cant prove why women like me, but I accept that they seem to. Instinct maybe?
I don’t follow this logic at all. The NFL is a business, CFB isn’t (in that sense). The NFL gets more fans that aren’t college educated, but they also get a ton of carryover fans who also root for college teams. CFB doesn’t get that in return, so the NFL does better. I don’t see OSU suffering too much for having 2 NFL teams in state and 4 total within a 3 hour drive. MI and ND have also done OK near NFL teams .
Ha Ha, you can’t really believe that CFB is not a business! Again go back to the concept of the base fan. NFL = working man roots vs CFB = white collar folks. Sure there is overlap, but historically CFB meant students first, and athletes second. Pro football meant athletes first, and maybe real education for a few. D III is probably still students first, but how many multi billion dollar media deals are the D III schools operating under right now?
My question was if B started to sell 70,000 tickets instead of 50,000, would A’s game day revenue change ?
Say B was Baylor, how do they sell 70,000 tickets if they only have 50,000 capacity? Again, Baylor had a fantastic season and RG III, yet they still could not sell out their stadium. Even doing as well as they were, they still needed a big state schools to sell their demand. Look at this past season.
vs #14 TCU = 43,753 ( ~6,000 below capacity)
vs FCS SFA = 43,090 ( ~7,000 below capacity)
vs NR Rice = 40,008 ( ~10,000 below capacity)
vs B12 ISU = 35,625 ( ~14,000 below capacity)
vs B12 MU = 40,194 ( ~10,000 below capacity)
vs B12 OU = 40,281 ( ~10,000 below capacity)
vs B12 TT = 51,615 ( played in Dallas at neutral stadium)
vs B12 UT = 46,543 ( ~3,000 below capacity)
Baylor has a top year and they sell well below capacity including games against top ranked TCU and OU. Their best attended games were against TT and UT who were not as successful as the 2 ranked games that drew fewer crowds. Is it just possible that who they played affected their numbers more than not? Can you even conceive Ohio State being in the Top 25 all season and drawing such low attendance numbers? I am fairly sure that if the TT and TU fans had not shown up and bought tickets, the numbers would be even more embarrassing for the folks in Waco. Indiana had a terrible year and still averaged more fans at their games than Baylor!
You are suffering major reading comprehension problems here. I said A doesn’t get paid based on the attendance at B and C and D .
lets say :
A = Indiana
B = Ohio State
C = Michigan
D = Penn State
I would say that the pay A gets is greatly influenced by B, C, and D
Biggest stadiums in order:
#1-10 MI, PSU, TN, OSU, AL, TX, USC, GA, LSU, UCLA
#15 OU
#16 NE
#17 ND
Is TN the #3 brand? No. but they are historically in the Top 10
Is ND #17? No. but they are historically in the Top 10
Is UCLA top 10? No. probably the Top 50, and the stadium is not their own
Is OR outside the top 50? No. historically they are not a top team
Picking narrow bands to prove your point, really? Who is grasping now? Of those 4 schools only Tennessee has a BCS MNC trophy. Oregon has been up for a couple of years, so they have a ways to go before “brand” status is conferred. UCLA at least has a MNC from 1954, and about 30 bowl appearances. Notre Dame has been down, but they still averaged ~81K per game last season. Are you splitting hairs so fine that you really believe what you typed
Right, look at UCLA pulling massive TV viewership and massive ticket sales money. Oh, wait, they were #31 in attendance last year despite having a top 10 stadium and nobody watched them on TV . As stated earlier, they are the outlier in that the stadium was not built for them, but they use it, much like Miami uses the Dolphins stadium .
I also noticed that you skipped teams that didn’t fit your preconceived notion, like OR .
I specifically addressed schools like Oregon. They average about what Oklahoma State does, but neither are long term “brands” yet. 24K student population, 54K (official) stadium, and not loads of football history. Where they rank in 1-3 years does not make them a “brand” like U$C, I think I am not the only one who can make this simple observation.
Earlier you said it was about money, and now you’re saying even if they have money the attendance is still a big issue. I think OkSU, OR and AR are doing just fine while the legion of TAMU fans hasn’t exactly translated into much on field success lately .
It is a buch of moving parts, and all add up to make a bigger picture. Arkansas has a NC in football and basketball, something neither Oregon or oSu have been able to do. None of them have the PUF or the population of Texas. Again, maybe it is because you are young, but you keep thinking in small windows. If TAMU is down, and they are still selling 85K seats per game that means they have a pretty loyal group of fans. Looking at it another way, it takes Baylor 2 home games to equal the number TAMU folks that attend 1 home game in College Station.
LikeLike
I think it’s a fairly simple breakdown:
For a school individually, game day revenue is more important than TV revenue.
For conference decisions, TV revenue is more important than game day revenue.
Once again, there’s a correlation between game day attendance and TV value, but it doesn’t hold in all circumstances. USC, Miami football and Duke basketball are much more important for the TV networks than a whole slew of schools that have higher attendance than them. Public schools have a natural advantage just in terms of sheer alumni, but if you were to ask any TV executive which schools they’d want playing in a national championship game in each of football and basketball over any other, they’d choose two private schools (Notre Dame and Duke, respectively).
So, Brian and duffman are both right.
LikeLike
duffman,
lets try again….
Frankly, why bother? You seem to keep dancing around my questions (intentionally or not, I’m not sure) and not explaining why your points about attendance are important. You clearly think it’s a huge deal, I clearly think it isn’t.
But for old time’s sake:
“Can you agree that the attendance at a school has no impact on the game day money for any other school?”
By your logic, if Notre Dame plays Idaho (11K students) their contract with NBC will be as valuable as a game against Michigan State (48K students) right?
No. My logic is that if MI hosts Idaho it doesn’t affect MSU’s game day revenue. And if MI sells out that game, it doesn’t affect MI’s revenue either.
As for ND’s deal, NBC knows they get either MI or USC every year. They don’t care that much about the rest because they know ND will play several decent teams including another 1-3 princes/kings. The ND fan base, and a decent number of CFB fans just looking to watch a game, will tune in regardless of opponent.
Football is not about playing with yourself, but about playing with someone else. Top tier media values are based on top tier opponents.
I think you’re off a little on that. The deal’s are based on the king/king games, and how many king versus anybody games they get. The rest is TV time filler. You make it sound more like a linear scale and I think that’s wrong.
Could it possibly be that fewer students means less demand? UNC plays in a 22K arena and Duke plays in an 8K one. Surely Duke is stupid for not building a bigger arena for all that pent up Duke demand? The reason they do not is because they are the remora to UNC’s shark. UNC is a big state school with lots of students and living alumni compared to Duke.
So the size of UNC and their arena must explain why they make so much more money from MBB than Duke. Oh, wait, Duke grosses about $28.9M to UNC’s $19.7M (2010-2011 numbers from Dosh). That’s either a really big remora or a really small shark.
To say that schools outside of the primary have no economic effect on the primary is plain dumb.
It’s a good thing I didn’t say that, then.
In the last round of realignment the B1G / PAC / SEC added FIVE state flagship schools and ZERO private schools. Why do you think that is? Could it be that big state schools produce more living alumni over time?
1. Because ND didn’t want to join a conference. They would have been by far the top choice for the B10 and even SEC. Even the P12 would have considered them strongly despite their avoidance of religious schools and geographic distance.
2. There are a lot more AQ state schools than private schools. The AQ conferences that lost schools only had Baylor and Syracuse, and SU did move (just not to B10, SEC or P12). The only private independent is ND.
3. Most of the private schools are happy where they are (Stanford, USC, NW, Vandy, Duke, WF, BC, Miami, etc).
4. I noticed that you conveniently left out the ACC from your list, since they did take Syracuse. You also skipped the B12, which added TCU. That’s 2 of the 4 teams those conferences added.
Again, big stadiums generally indicate big demand by fans of of those schools. I have a feeling schools do not spend millions and millions of dollars on empty seats. They build them because they feel they can fill them based on supply and demand.
And many stadiums are old, or were built for other purposes, and thus not necessarily accurate indicators of current demand.
You are correct that Notre Dame is a smaller school
I’m amazed you’ll even grant me that much at this point.
but they still have an 80K + stadium. Part of it is Notre Dame football, and part of it is playing other schools with really big stadiums like Michigan and Michigan State.
Is it really the size of their stadiums, or the fact that they are really close to ND? ND also famously plays teams with smaller stadiums like Navy, Army, AF, etc.
Earlier, you said:
“People who actually attend an institution probably create the base for media values.”
I responded:
“That’s a huge assumption on your part. Do you have any facts to back that up? OSU has a huge fan base, and it’s much larger than the total number of alumni. Lots of local people who never went to college root for schools. Where did all these Duke hoops fans come from? What about all the “subway alumni” of ND? I don’t accept your assumption unless you can prove it .”
a) Base means a starting point, not an all encompassing total
b) I still argue Duke has no fans, just opposing fans wanting to watch them lose
c) There are lots of catholics, and like Duke, others wanting to see them lose
d) I cant prove why women like me, but I accept that they seem to. Instinct maybe?
a. To me, base indicates the underlying foundation for everything else and implies that it is the vast majority. If that’s not how you meant it, then we just disagree on the connotations of the word.
b. Feel free to continue to be wrong, but it makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously. The TV ratings clearly show you’re being stubborn and refusing to admit the truth, or else the little nobody schools magically have huge fan bases but TV ignores them except when they play Duke.
c. Sure there are negative fans. But they only watch games against good teams or once the team they hate is losing. They don’t explain people watching the whole game against weaker teams with no real chance at pulling the upset.
d. Instinct or delusion, the rest of us have no way of knowing. I fail to see what it has to do with anything here, though.
Ha Ha, you can’t really believe that CFB is not a business!
In the sense that it isn’t run by one person and isn’t designed to maximize revenue at all cost, no it isn’t. How much money has CFB left on the table by not having a playoff over the years? By not lengthening the season? By not having blackout rules? By not charging even more for tickets?
Again go back to the concept of the base fan. NFL = working man roots vs CFB = white collar folks. Sure there is overlap, but historically CFB meant students first, and athletes second. Pro football meant athletes first, and maybe real education for a few.
It isn’t that simple. There is a ton of regionality to it. Or do you think all those SEC fans are white collar? Go to any of the auto plants near Detroit and see how many people wear MI gear in the fall. Your rule of thumb applies better if you force someone to choose their top sport, but even then the NFL would lose out on blue collar workers in places like AL.
Me:
“My question was if B started to sell 70,000 tickets instead of 50,000, would A’s game day revenue change ?”
Say B was Baylor, how do they sell 70,000 tickets if they only have 50,000 capacity? Again, Baylor had a fantastic season and RG III, yet they still could not sell out their stadium. Even doing as well as they were, they still needed a big state schools to sell their demand. Look at this past season.
No. I won’t look at this past season because it has nothing to do with the question. You are doing everything possible to avoid answering the question because you know that the answer will support my position. It’s a simple question, and the fact that you’re talking around the question like a politician speaks volumes.
me again:
“You are suffering major reading comprehension problems here. I said A doesn’t get paid based on the attendance at B and C and D .”
lets say :
A = Indiana
B = Ohio State
C = Michigan
D = Penn State
I would say that the pay A gets is greatly influenced by B, C, and D
For TV money, of course they do. But that wasn’t what we were discussing, was it? Does Indiana’s game day revenue increase when MI plays ND versus when they play CMU? Does OSU playing 1 or 2 MACs impact ticket sales at IN? How much of a bump was the PSU/AL game for IN’s ticket sales?
You keep trying to change the subject, which proves you know I’m right.
me, with you interjecting some notes:
“Biggest stadiums in order:
#1-10 MI, PSU, TN, OSU, AL, TX, USC, GA, LSU, UCLA
#15 OU
#16 NE
#17 ND
Is TN the #3 brand? No. but they are historically in the Top 10
Is ND #17? No. but they are historically in the Top 10
Is UCLA top 10? No. probably the Top 50, and the stadium is not their own
Is OR outside the top 50? No. historically they are not a top team”
So you agree that stadium size doesn’t really match current status for a variety of reasons. That pretty much negates your direct correlation, then. TN’s matches what they used to be. ND’s has been undersized for a long time. UCLA’s is based on outside factors. OR’s hasn’t caught up to the recent success. In other words, you agree with me.
Picking narrow bands to prove your point, really?
I used the top 10 and picked 20% of them out, and found 3 more that deserve to be in the top 10 by brand. I didn’t go farther down the list and pick any debatable schools, but I could have. That doesn’t seem too narrow to me.
Of those 4 schools only Tennessee has a BCS MNC trophy.
I didn’t realize we’re restricted to TN, FSU, OU, Miami, OSU, LSU, USC, TX, FL, AL and AU. It seems a bit odd to think schools like ND, MI and PSU are irrelevant to the discussion since we’ve been talking about them, and it eliminates 4 of the 10 biggest stadiums.
Stadium bigger than brand:
#3 TN, AU
Brand bigger than the stadium:
OU, Miami, TX
Oregon has been up for a couple of years, so they have a ways to go before “brand” status is conferred.
By you, maybe, but the public (driven by Nike) has already made them a brand.
Arkansas has a NC in football and basketball, something neither Oregon or oSu have been able to do. None of them have the PUF or the population of Texas.
And how much help has the PUF been to TAMU, exactly? How many titles do they have lately (national or conference)?
Again, maybe it is because you are young, but you keep thinking in small windows.
Younger than you doesn’t necessarily mean young, unfortunately for me. I’m usually the one being accused of being the old conservative curmudgeon on here.
LikeLike
College Football and Basketball are following the lead of pro sports (the NFL had its record regular season game over 50 years ago)… that is to sell fewer low revenue bleacher seats and more high cost club seats and luxury boxes. Some schools with much lower total attendance sell a larger percentage of high priced seats. So attendance numbers, especially when boosted by very large student attendance at very low prices (ECU) do not equate to the percent revenue difference gained from the home game, and it is that revenue which is really the key measure.
LikeLike
It’s true that, economically, the price of the house is what’s important (not the size of the house). But atmosphere and emotion are far more important to college sport than they are to pro sport (since the skill levels are obviously lower). The 100,000-plus crowd at Michigan is a very powerful experience. It is infinitely more exciting to be part of a crowd at a full Palestra (capacity 9208) — and, I imagine, a full Cameron — than it is to be part of the same crowd at the Wells Fargo Center or Time Warner Cable Arena. So I don’t think “Big Five conference” schools are very likely to downsize their campus venues and add massive amounts of luxury seating.
LikeLike
I was not suggesting that all the bleachers will be torn out. Just that colleges such as Tennessee have had renovations that reduced capacity since the luxury boxes and club levels take up more space, and that this trend is continuing. Schools will only rip out bleacher seats to the extent they can sell high priced seats. Luxury seat sales are as important to the gate as raw stadium seating capacity.
LikeLike
The only schools downsizing are the ones with ancient stadiums that they can’t fill up-Cal, Stanford and Baylor. And Baylor’s new stadium is only down 5k seats with provisions to expand by 10k. Just off the top of my head, at least 8 of the 12 SEC schools and 7 of the 10 current Big 12 schools and 4 of the 12 ACC schools have expanded in the last 10-15 years. Usually the only downsizing is to meet ADA and fire safety requirements.
I don’t think the colleges are following the pro baseball/football model at all. And with most schools I know of, the regular seats are virtually all priced the same. You just have to donate more to get the better seats. And you have to lease the suites and donate a whole lot, but there really aren’t a lot of those compared to pro stadiums.
The suites are really for entertaining. Most are pretty far removed from the action. That really fits pro sports better than colleges.
LikeLike
bullet,
One random data point. When Iowa had stadium renovations in 2005-6, Kinnick lost about 300 total seats in ripping out ~2000 bleachers and adding ~1700 club/box seats as part of a total press box reconstruction.
LikeLike
The Big 12 TV Deal with a grant of rights through 2025.
Winners:
Texas: Big 12 deal + LHN = more media money than anyone else. Even if the PAC, SEC and B1G double their payouts, Texas stays competitive.
Everyone in the Big 12 not named Texas and Oklahoma: They no longer have to worry about being regulated to the Big East (for a while) and they get paid in the same ballpark of the top schools for the foreseeable future.
Rutgers and UConn: become the leading candidates to be Notre Dame’s partner should they ever join a conference.
TBD:
Oklahoma: the Oklahoma network will keep them ahead of the Big 12 but can it keep them competitive with the payouts from the networks of the B1G, PAC, and (rumored) SEC.
Losers:
Kansas: Officially out (longshot anyway) of the running for the second team into B1G should Notre Dame ever join.
SEC and PAC: Quality of expansion candidates gets mediocre in a hurry.
Me: I couldn’t figure out a way to work “Irish American Mexican standoff” to describe the ACC, Big 12, and B1G’s waiting on Notre Dame into this post.
LikeLike
The Big Ten would take Maryland over Connecticut (non-AAU), which might relegate the Huskies to the ACC.
LikeLike
Maryland is a better option than Rutgers and UConn, but I don’t know if they’ll leave the ACC. I should have included the ACC teams with out little brothers as winners as well.
LikeLike
Might want to add the ACC to the list of losers. Not only are they back to being the lowest paid conference but with the grant of rights they are now the SEC’s and Big 10’s only options for future expansion (except for Rutgers and ND).
LikeLike
As a close follower of the Pac12, I don’t get the sense that there is much desire in the fanbase to expand further, except for maybe Canada. The Texas / Oklahoma thing didn’t work out. TWICE. So the Pac12 isn’t a “loser” (or a winner) with the Big 12 contract. Pac12 got its coin already. We’re fine, really. Thanks for asking.
LikeLike
I really don’t think there is any appetite at all for Canadian universities to join the NCAA. Simon Fraser has been an outlier on this issue. UBC — which, if it wanted to make the investment, would be a good fit for the Pac-12 — has kicked the tires but delayed taking a decision on NCAA D2.
While Canadians watch March Madness and Ontarians enjoy the occasional college football game, say Michigan-Ohio State, For a UBC or a University of Toronto, D2 would likely be viewed as a way station to higher levels. But if they explore the investments necessary to competing at, say, the AQ level, I think they will not bite.
LikeLike
I’m just going off of Larry Scott’s statements about there being more consolidation. The PAC’s best option for expansion until 2025 went from Texas to UNLV, San Diego St, or New Mexico. The PAC lost options. Are they fine right now, yes. Are they better off with Texas and Oklahoma free to come at any time? Yes.
LikeLike
Texas much like ND, their performance on the field doesn’t dictate their ‘king’ status. Texas though has been very relevant nationally, playing in its share of BCS bowls and in NT games. Texas’ enormous, rabid fanbase in a huge state is what makes them such a superpower and is why the Big XII can get anywhere close to $20mil/year for its tier 1 & tier 2 tv rights.
LikeLike
I thought this was an interesting article that ties in the original discussion that Frank presented in this thread in regards to the tv ratings of the conferences, and the discussion of the impending Big 12 tv contract, and their effects on the future of the SEC’s tv revenue: http://mrsec.com/2012/03/the-sec-is-about-to-get-even-richer/
LikeLike
From what we think we know his analysis is nearly completely wrong.
LikeLike
Non-SEC fans can feel free to make a hobby of coming up with reasons for why the SEC won’t increase their revenue much, but I wouldn’t bet on it if I were you. For one thing, it defies common sense. The SEC’s ratings are 50% larger than the other conferences. Their population footprint is currently the highest of any conference. Their success on the field is highest among conferences. Attendance at games is the highest. Fan support and interest is extremely high. And yet some of you are saying that the SEC will be making less money per school than the 4th or 5th best conferences by those metrics? Highly, highly doubtful, no matter what you think you know about those TV contracts.
A little tidbit of info that is likely relevant to this conversation. When Missouri’s Board of Curators was debating whether or not to join the SEC, they had documentation about the financial implications of the move. This documentation was leaked to the media by a disgruntled curator. The numbers presumably came from either the SEC or from Missouri’s legal experts after examining the SEC’s contracts. Their estimate was that SEC schools would make $28M each. That’s $9M more per year per school than the Big 12’s new deal. It wasn’t ever revealed if those estimates included an SEC network, but it most likely did.
I think this is probably the best estimate any of us can go by at this point because this came from decision makers who actually know the language of the contracts and have trying to realistically estimate future revenue for budgetary purposes. It may end up being wrong. maybe too high, maybe too low. But it’s an informed opinion, rather than the wishful thinking of fans of rival conferences based on partial knowledge of contracts they’ve never read.
LikeLike
@Andy – I certainly don’t doubt that the SEC in an open market would receive the highest amount per school of any conference. The only question that I have is the ability of the SEC to start its own network. I guess it’s possible that ESPN would be monumentally stupid enough to give an out to the SEC on this issue, but I have a hard time believing that’s the case. The explicit objective of ESPN when signing up the SEC to its then-large deal was to specifically make sure that the SEC didn’t start its own network like the Big Ten. I’d love to see if I’m wrong about my feeling here, but at the very least, this wasn’t something that someone forgot to address in the contract.
LikeLike
My best guess is because ESPN owns a lot of the SEC’s content, you’ll see them take a significant percentage of the profits from the SEC Network. But the SEC Network will be so profitable that even after giving a high percentage to ESPN, member schools will still make at least as much or more than the Big Ten schools make from the BTN. This is because there will be a high demand for the network in SEC states and they will be able to charge more per subscriber than the BTN charges. By working with ESPN, the SEC will be able to put high balue content on that network and drive subscriptions.
LikeLike
@Andy, logically though if you are Slive why do you do that? Like I said right below to greg, that is nearly the equivalent of taking out a payday loan or a cash advance. If the SEC did that, and I agree they’d need to do something like that right now, then you are leaving a heck of a lot of money on the table down the road to make a little more right now. If the SEC waits until 2024, they can tell CBS, ESPN, Fox, etc you are bidding on 40 games we are holding the rest back for our own network.
LikeLike
Wait until 2024? That’s 12 years away. Slive will likely be dead by then. Not likely they’re going to wait with a sub-par deal for 12 years hoping that maybe they’ll hit the jackpot in the middle of the next decade.
LikeLike
The Big Ten Network deal was rumored to be $2.8 billion over 25 years for the conference (Frank has pointed out in past blogs that there is reason to believe this may be on the low side).
For the sake of this let’s say the SEC network is worth a total of $15 billion over 25 years. No math behind that just making up a number to have one. You can have half of that starting next year if you sign a deal with ESPN and give them the other half. That is about $300 million to the conference annually or $21.4 million per school. Or you could wait 12 years and have 100% for the conference. That is $600 million a year or about $42.9 million per school annually. There certainly is a time-value of money issue starting 12 years earlier. That said, you are leaving $7.5 billion on the table or nearly $536 million per school.
“Who know’s what the landscape is going to look like in 2024?”
Well if you are talking about launching a cable network you are pretty confident things are going to be relatively unchanged or change in such away that the network can keep up with it.
LikeLike
Frank, you siad in many more ways than one how it was just not logical that A&M would be in the SEC. Texas politics would prevent A&M’s move to the SEC. University of Texa would roadblock A&M’s move to the SEC. Now you just cannot see how the SEC can have their own network. It was fun for this fellow to see you salting the crow of your A&M staments. Ould you like another bottle of salt?
LikeLike
They don’t need to tear up the existing contract. They just need to work out a way to start up an SEC network and get it enough content to be successful. They get an extra 24 games from the two new teams. Maybe they star playing a 9th conference game to get more inventory. Then there’s basketball, baseball, and the olympic sports. As long as there’s an SEC network up and running, the SEC will be the most lucrative conference in America. If ESPN is promised a healthy share of those profits, they’ll be more than cooperative.
LikeLike
that comment was meant for Nostradamous, I’ll try to get it in the right spot. This thread is getting way too cluttered.
LikeLike
Andy:
I posted before, but the big schools in the SEC are already selling off their third-tier rights for $6M+ each. That doesn’t mean an SEC Network isn’t doable, but they would have to buy back those third tier rights from partners. More importantly, that means there less incentive for the power schools in the SEC to start an SEC Network; yes, they’d most likely make more, but they wouldn’t realize as much benefit from an SEC Network as, say, a Mizzou.
LikeLike
Andy,
I fully understand your position on the issue. I do think if the SEC wants to get paid immediately from this they go to a 9th conference game. That gives you something legitimate to go back to ESPN and CBS with and say give us more money because in essence you would’ve just upped your conference inventory by 31.25% and conference games make tv networks happy.
I don’t get 24 extra games out of the two new teams though. I get 16. 8 total additional non-conference games and 8 additional conference games (12 teams X 8 conference games= 96/ 2 (as a conference game by default contains 2 teams from the conference)= 48. Now it goes 14 X 8/2=56. Check my math though, I’m tired and it may be off. That difference is significant if we are talking about this being the only available immediate inventory for a network. Like I’ve said though, I’m not convinced that that inventory is available though without dealing with ESPN. Obviously you’re suggesting dealing with ESPN though.
LikeLike
@Frank – What I can’t figure is why would the SEC risk upsetting the apple cart that was the state of college football (a state that seemed to be very much in the SEC’s favor), and risk all out conference realignment by taking aTm first, and then Mizzou. That was a very risky move. I just can’t see him nor the SEC presidents taking that risk unless they were assured that the payoff would be well worth the risk.
Also, Slive has done absolutely nothing about putting an end to the articles that keep being printed about the supposed upcoming SEC Network. Slive is risking making himself look pretty foolish by allowing these media outlets to build up false hope in the SEC fanbase if he has a pretty good idea that a lucrative SEC Network is not possible. Plus his constant talk of “look ins sure wouldn’t be helping that cause any. Slive just strikes me as too smart of a guy to put himself in that position.
I guess we will all know within the next few years whether or not the SEC will be able to cash in on the expansion or not.
LikeLike
Bamatab:
“What I can’t figure is why would the SEC risk upsetting the apple cart that was the state of college football (a state that seemed to be very much in the SEC’s favor), and risk all out conference realignment by taking aTm first, and then Mizzou. That was a very risky move.”
Likely because the SEC presidents plan for the SEC to be around generations from now? For conferences like the B10 and SEC, expansion is a 50-to-100-year horizon decision, not a 5-year horizon decision. If I was an SEC president, I would have voted to take in TAMU even if the Aggies didn’t earn any extra money for the SEC for the next 20 years.
LikeLike
The SEC should add NASCAR. They’d be on every tv in the footprint and then some.
LikeLike
I don’t think that is the issue at all Andy. Yes this is a Big Ten blog, but nothing would help Jim Delaney and the Big Ten more than for Slive to go out and carve a massive new deal with ESPN and CBS right now. Many people looking at the matter though don’t believe that is possible though given the way the SEC’s contracts with their media partners are likely structured. Everything you say in your first paragraph is true. The problem is it doesn’t address the fact that the SEC’s rights aren’t on the open market right now. Under the most likely best case scenario they get to negotiate fair-market-value for the addition of Missouri and Texas A&M and only the addition. Not the fact the Pac-12 signed a huge deal. Simply what is the value that adding A&M and Missouri adds to the existing contract.
LikeLike
Nostradamus, I don’t doubt that the SEC will make less than they could have made had they not sold so many of their rights already. This is a fair point. But this only means that ESPN will get a larger cut of the money they’re about to make. An SEC network would be tremendously profitable. Even if ESPN takes a large percentage of the profits, SEC schools will still see a very large increase in revenue per school. They will still make significantly more than the Big 12 and probably the Big Ten too.
LikeLike
This isn’t a race to see who makes more though. It is about doing what is in the best interest of the individual conferences. So yeah the SEC could start a network right now when ESPN has the leverage. Say they give ESPN 50% ownership like the Big Ten did with Fox (that could be generous to the SEC given the situation here). They would make more than the Big Ten and the Pac-12 on this, no doubt about it. Or they could keep their current deal for the next 12 years still having one of the most lucrative deals in college sports. Then they could create a network and have 100% ownership in 2024. That is my pay day loan comment. Yes you can get more cash now, but they don’t necessarily need it. If they want 12 years then they’d get the jackpot payday you are talking about.
LikeLike
Maybe if we were talking about waiting 4 or 5 years you’d have a point. But 12 years is so far off in the horizon that it would be a huge risk to wait that long. We’re talking about maybe $10M per school x 14 schools for 12 years. That’s $1.68 Billion you’re talking about leaving on the table in the hopes that they’d make more in 2024. I’m sorry but there’s just no way they would ever turn down that money. Who know’s what the landscape is going to look like in 2024? The whole situation could be completely different by then. They’re going to take as much as they can get now and worry about 2024 in 2024.
LikeLike
Even with your math there you say the league is leaving $1.68 billion on the table right now. I’d say they are sacrificing at least $1.68 billion by acting now.
LikeLike
The SEC has to think about the future too. If they want to keep one of their most valuable assets (the SEC) they’ll need to keep them happy with the partnership. ESPN’s worst nightmare is for the SEC to sit unhappily for 12 years waiting to leave the deal and then go off in 2024 on their own, leaving ESPN entirely. Both parties will come to a mutually beneficial agreement on this.
LikeLike
It goes both ways though Andy. One of your arguments above was that Slive won’t be with us in 12 years. I doubt many of ESPN’s senior leadership team will be there in 12 years. They got paid and evaluated based on what they do right now. If they keep an undervalued SEC for 12 years that is bonus worthy material. We don’t know what the contracts say, but assume the contract doesn’t say if you add two teams we tear up our existing agreement. I think that much is a pretty fair assumption. If that is the case, it is hard to see what the SEC could possibly be angry about when they get more money for adding A&M and Missouri. Like I said if ESPN comes back in 2024 and offers more than anyone else the SEC will take it regardless of what does or doesn’t happen right now. If they don’t they are being financially irresponsible.
LikeLike
They don’t need to tear up the existing contract. They just need to work out a way to start up an SEC network and get it enough content to be successful. They get an extra 24 games from the two new teams. Maybe they star playing a 9th conference game to get more inventory. Then there’s basketball, baseball, and the olympic sports. As long as there’s an SEC network up and running, the SEC will be the most lucrative conference in America. If ESPN is promised a healthy share of those profits, they’ll be more than cooperative.
LikeLike
The SEC has outplayed their contracts. The SEC’s football ratings are higher than every other conference. The SEC has added two schools in big states with decent athletic programs. Is ESPN going to play hardball with the SEC, while giving out monopoly money to other conferences with less inventory, and lower ratings?
I doubt that ESPN will want to keep the SEC unhappy for the next dozen years.
LikeLike
Here are the details of the SEC contract with ESPN.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/132060/unprecedented-espn-agreement.aspx
LikeLike
Here’s a FAQ on the SEC TV deals.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/134288/sec-television-faq.aspx
While I haven’t read the SEC TV contracts, I can tell you that the ESPN is not selling off the rights to every game in every sport. LSU’s 3rd tier agreement with COX allows for telecasts of multiple non-conference basketball games, non-conference and conference baseball games, softball, volleyball, and gymnastics.
LikeLike
Alan,
I don’t think anyone is contending given what has happened since the SEC signed their then record deal that the SEC is currently undervalued. The issue is can/does/should the SEC have any recourse given the situation. Lets turn this around and say the ESPN had specific ratings targets in mind and the SEC didn’t hit them. Would you be ok with ESPN coming back mid-contract and essentially taking money from LSU?
As it stands, ESPN and CBS are the ones bearing all of the financial risk in this exchange. I don’t see ESPN or CBS refusing to open the checkbook because the SEC added two teams as playing hardball, and if they did it is borderline fiduciary irresponsibility towards Disney and Viacom’s shareholders.
“while giving out monopoly money to other conferences with less inventory, and lower ratings? ”
That is what we call timing. Slive choose to sign a long-term deal with ESPN at a then record price. Just because other conferences have had the opportunity to negotiate deals since then doesn’t mean Slive should be able to come back to the table.
“I doubt that ESPN will want to keep the SEC unhappy for the next dozen years.”
I’m not sure what keeping them unhappy is. If ESPN fulfills their obligations in the contract, the SEC really has no reason to be upset. If ESPN offers the SEC more money than anyone else in 2024 the SEC is still going to pick ESPN again.
LikeLike
If your basis for more money is that the conference added two teams, then the additional revenue should be what those two teams bring to the networks. If CBS feels or the SEC can demonstrate that A&M vs. Alabama will increase CBS’s average ratings of if Missouri vs. Georgia increases the average ESPN ratings, then great you’ve created value. If more people are going to tune in from Texas or Missouri for the Iron Bowl on CBS, then great you’ve created some value. The SEC deserves to be compensated for the value of the additions created if their contracts provide remedy. I have a hard time understanding the argument though that somehow by adding A&M and Missouri that the SEC should be able to or even can go back and dictate their new terms in the middle of existing contracts.
LikeLike
Nostradamos, the SEC’s base contracts with ESPN and CBS likely won’t go up in any tremendous way. They’ll likely go up somewhat because of the increased population footprint of the league with the new additions. The game changer is going to be the SEC network. This will likely add at least 30% to their existing revenue and perhaps more than that.
LikeLike
Andy,
But it’s an informed opinion, rather than the wishful thinking of fans of rival conferences based on partial knowledge of contracts they’ve never read.
Yes, because there couldn’t possibly be an wishful thinking from the SEC fans, right?
LikeLike
Brian, what I was citing was leaked internal documents about what SEC officials are estimating their revenue in the near future to be. These are informed estimates.
Examples of wishful thinking are what Clay Travis is pushing on OKTC, with $1B per year from the SEC Network, and what some of you on here are pushing, with the SEC somehow a prisoner to their ESPN contract and somehow locked in at 4th or 5th place among conferences in terms of TV dollars. Both of those are wildly unrealistic predictions, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Not sure how you draw to the conclusion that the prisoner argument is wishful thinking when there is quite a bit of evidence be it the ACC, Big Ten, Conference-USA ESPN contract, ESPN’s public statements that says what you deem the prisoner argument is the more likely scenario.
Let’s be clear here though. No one is saying the SEC is going to be locked into 4th or 5th place. If they get any kind of boost at all right now (and they will) that puts them back into the 1st or 2nd for right range for right now.
LikeLike
I’ve already said what I think will happen. I think because of their contract situation, the SEC will need to pay a higher % of their revenue to ESPN to get the content they need for the new SEC network. But because of the strong position they’re currently in, even while giving up a significant percentage, they will still make more money than any other conference. They could have made even more money if the contracts were different, that’s true. But then again, if the SEC hadn’t gotten such a favorable media deal in the past they might not be in the position they’re in now.
Where so many of you are off is when you think that somehow the SEC can’t or won’t create an SEC network. I’m telling you now that the only way they don’t create an SEC network is if ESPN pays them a lot more money than they already are to persuade them not to.
The ACC and CUSA could not create their own networks. They wouldn’t be successful. Those are not analogous situations. The SEC has the most potential for a profitable network of any conference.
LikeLike
“I’m telling you now that the only way they don’t create an SEC network is if ESPN pays them a lot more money than they already are to persuade them not to.”
How do you create a network when you may not have any games to show on it? Given the way the ESPN deal went down, I’d but an 85 to 90% chance that the contract is structured in a way that the 16 additional games A&M and Missouri provide the conference belong to ESPN. Assume that is the case for a moment. Then you are left with 12 football games assuming that the someone like Florida can back out (or that they want to back out for that matter) from their Sun Sports deal or LSU with TigerVision, etc.
LikeLike
Nostradamos, you’re so far off base at this point that it’s impossible to even have a conversation with you. Feel free to keep believing what you’re believing, but it’s no where near reality.
LikeLike
Andy,
Brian, what I was citing was leaked internal documents about what SEC officials are estimating their revenue in the near future to be. These are informed estimates.
Examples of wishful thinking are what Clay Travis is pushing on OKTC, with $1B per year from the SEC Network, and what some of you on here are pushing, with the SEC somehow a prisoner to their ESPN contract and somehow locked in at 4th or 5th place among conferences in terms of TV dollars. Both of those are wildly unrealistic predictions, in my opinion.
This whole thread of comments started with a link to Mr. SEC. That makes talking about non-SEC fans doing wishful thinking seem a little one sided.
Unless you know what went into those estimates and how optimistic the assumptions behind it were (freedom to change the contract, prospects for SEC network, etc), they might as well be wild ass guesses. Then you throw up strawmen like the SEC being locked in 5th place, which nobody has ever claimed will happen, and wonder why we think you’re being less than objective. Everybody has said the SEC will get some bump. The only real discussion is about how much of a bump, and none of us really know since we haven’t seen the contracts. We get that you’re all giddy to move to the SEC, but the fanboy attitude on this issue makes it hard to take your arguments seriously.
LikeLike
I never said I was objective, but you certainly aren’t. The talk on here of the SEC not being able to start up an SEC network is ridiculous. It doesn’t square with reality at all.
When I refer to the leaked numbers from the Missouri Curators document, that’s not me guessing, that’s me referencing actual evidence from people in the know. When you or Nostradamus say something like “I just can’t see how they could create an SEC network without any content”, that’s fanboy wishful thinking without any evidence at all.
I’m not throwing out wild guesses and crazy numbers like Mr. SEC or Clay Travis. My guess is very modest. I say they will successfully create an SEC network (Slive says it is one of his top priorities to do this), and it will make a modestly large amount of money. If you think this is crazy fanboy talk then you haven’t read much from the SEC fanboys.
LikeLike
As for my 4th or 5th place comment, right now the SEC is in 4th place. Nostradamas says in several posts in this thread that 1) the SEC can’t or shouldn’t create it’s own network, and 2) the SEC won’t see much of a bump in revenue at all from expansion. Thus they would remain in 4th place or worse.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how you draw that conclusion. The SEC is in second right now in television revenue distributed behind the Big Ten. The Pac-12 is 3rd by a wide margin over anyone else. If the SEC gets any bump at all from CBS and ESPN and no one here is saying they wont, they cement their position in the top 3 even firmer. They’d likely be locked into the top 2 spots for the remainder of their contract.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 is currently ahead of the SEC based on last year’s numbers and the Big 12’s new deal just put them ahead of the SEC based on last year’s numbers.
The SEC should see a bump with their renegotiated deal, but likely not enough to get above 2nd or 3rd place. But once they get the SEC network going they should climb to first.
LikeLike
“The Pac 12 is currently ahead of the SEC based on last year’s numbers and the Big 12′s new deal just put them ahead of the SEC based on last year’s numbers.”
————————————————
The oft quoted numbers for conference contracts like $1 billion/10 years Big Ten ABC/ESPN deal, the $2.7 billion over 12 year Pac-12 deal, the $2.25/15 year billion ESPN SEC deal are averages over the life of the contract. The Big Ten isn’t getting a $100 million check each year.
So for 2012-2013 (this coming season) I show about $18.1 for the Big Ten, about $13.75 million for the SEC*, and $13.125** million for the Pac-12. I show about $12.69 million for the Big XII under the new Fox deal and current ABC/ESPN deal. It isn’t clear based on the language out of the reports there when the extension would begin. If the new deal began immediately I’d have them at $13.6 million per year. I fully expect the bump the SEC gets to push them comfortably ahead of the Pac-12 and Big XII.
*SEC’s numbers are based on the 12 team conference and don’t include any additional revenue for revisions pertaining to the addition of A&M and Mizzou
** For the new ESPN/FOX deal only. Doesn’t include any potential revenue from Pac-12 Network.
LikeLike
And this all sounds reasonable. But there will be an SEC network, and that will increase the SEC’s income considerably.
LikeLike
Andy,
I never said I was objective, but you certainly aren’t.
If you paid attention, you would notice that I haven’t said anything on this topic other than calling you out for the one sided critique of wishful thinking. I’ve taken no stance on what the SEC will make or whether they’ll start a network. How, then, am I not objective about this?
The talk on here of the SEC not being able to start up an SEC network is ridiculous. It doesn’t square with reality at all.
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. Until and unless the SEC does start said network, talk saying they can’t isn’t ridiculous unless you have a copy of a contract proving they have the right to start one. Your version of reality is based on assumptions and leaked info that you haven’t provided.
When I refer to the leaked numbers from the Missouri Curators document, that’s not me guessing, that’s me referencing actual evidence from people in the know.
Is it? I must have missed the links you provided to these documents that would provide context for the numbers.
When you or Nostradamus say something like “I just can’t see how they could create an SEC network without any content”, that’s fanboy wishful thinking without any evidence at all.
Feel free to show me where I said that on here. I’ll wait.
I’m not throwing out wild guesses and crazy numbers like Mr. SEC or Clay Travis. My guess is very modest.
In your opinion, it’s modest. Apparently some others don’t agree.
I say they will successfully create an SEC network (Slive says it is one of his top priorities to do this), and it will make a modestly large amount of money. If you think this is crazy fanboy talk then you haven’t read much from the SEC fanboys.
And others have said they aren’t sure the contracts allow it. That doesn’t sound crazy either. Everyone has seemed to agree that if the network is formed it will make a lot of money.
As for my 4th or 5th place comment, right now the SEC is in 4th place.
That depends how you work the numbers, but OK.
Nostradamas says in several posts in this thread that 1) the SEC can’t or shouldn’t create it’s own network, and 2) the SEC won’t see much of a bump in revenue at all from expansion. Thus they would remain in 4th place or worse.
I think you’re drawing a conclusion and assigning it to him, here. A “small” bump could easily move them up the pecking order several places since they aren’t all that far behind. He may be using terms like small (I don’t know how exactly he described said bump) to differentiate a few million from the wild guesses of going to $40M that have been so popular. Has he defined the size bump he expects, or are you giving it a value for him?
As for point one, anything that starts with “shouldn’t” seems like an opinion and thus not objectionable to me. He explained his reasoning. You’re welcome to disagree, but it doesn’t make him crazy. As for “can’t,” can you provide a copy of the contracts that spell out whether or not they can start a network? If not, it’s speculation on both sides.
LikeLike
So many wasted words, Brian. Go ahead and dismiss me, but I’m right.
LikeLike
Andy,
So many wasted words, Brian. Go ahead and dismiss me, but I’m right.
No, you’re not. Not about the only part I discussed. I never mentioned whether the SEC would start a network or how much it might make. I also never mentioned how much of a bump the SEC would get from ESPN and/or CBS. You said I was not objective on this issue and you are still dead wrong about that.
As I suspected, the others have also said things different than what you claim they have said. Most of this thread seems to be you making up what you think people might say and then arguing against it.
You like to call others ridiculous and whatnot, but offer no actual facts to prove them wrong. When it’s just a matter of opinion, yours isn’t any better than theirs.
LikeLike
@Andy. I’m not sure how that $28 million number checks out either. I’m estimating about $14.4 million for the SEC in 2012-2013 per team from television revenue pre-expansion. So be default with the $28 million talk, we are implicitly saying that by adding two upper-middle of the road ratings wise Big XII teams we’ve doubled the SEC’s value. Or in mathematical terms, A&M and Missouri combined add $163.2 million in economic value to the networks annually. Or the add $1.96 billion in value over the remaining 12 years of the SEC contracts. Or A&M and Missouri are worth 81.6% of the new deal a 10 team Big XII is on the verge of finalizing…
LikeLike
The only precedent to the SEC look-in is the ACC, and they received a small bump on a greatly underpaid deal. I would imagine the SEC gets a similar bump, or starts an SEC network.
LikeLike
I’d see there is precedent with the Big Ten as well. We know they likely got some additional money for the addition of Nebraska and we know for certain that ESPN conceded the 2:30 ABC exclusive window. As you said we also know that the ACC looks likey they’ll get $1-3 million more per team for adding Pitt and Syracuse. Both cases show the existing members were made whole and their might be a slight immediate financial benefit. A windfall however it is not.
As for the SEC network talk, I’m not convinced they can do it right now. ESPN overpaid the SEC to keep them from starting a network. I have faith in ESPN that they foresaw the possibility of the SEC expanding and by default will control the additional inventory CBS doesn’t pick up from Texas A&M and Missouri. I suppose the SEC could cut some sort of a deal right now with ESPN to launch a network.
I’m not sure that is in their best long-term interest though. I’d equate it to getting a payday loan. Yeah ESPN will pay you right now, but it is more on ESPN’s terms than those of the conference. There is a reason Delany and Scott did it to coincide with new media deals. It allowed them to pick and choose what to hold back for the network.
LikeLike
I don’t know about a “look-in” as a standard without cause but apparently conference changes of 2 or more schools allow either party to request renegotiation of the contract. If terms cannot be reached it goes to arbitration. According to the article below this is standard language in such contracts. If by “look-in” you mean this type of renegotiation then the B12 was the first case. The B12 contract was almost immediately altered when Nebraska and Colorado left. In that case Fox and *SPN decided, most likely because the contract was so drastically undervalued, to honor all terms for the ten remaining schools that were in place for the original twelve schools. Including paying for a CCG that no longer existed. The B1G only expanded by 1 school so even if, as the article states, this is standard contract language neither side had the option to trigger renegotiation.
I expect the SEC will get much more than the 1-2 million dollar per year “bump” per school that the ACC got. Adding A&M and Mizzou surely will generate much more revenue for the SEC than Pitt and Syracuse will for the ACC. Although, IIRC the SEC has language in their contract that allows them to create a network at anytime. It isn’t an either or proposition. They can trigger renegotiation AND start their own network. Obviously, if they do create the network then they may get less money from *SPN and/or CBS even with the expansion. The point is this is not some unknown scenario. Whether the SEC has “look-ins” not associated with realignment doesn’t matter in this case because they HAVE expanded.
Expanding ACC will reopen ESPN deal – Michael Smith & John Ourand, SportsBusiness Daily
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx
The ACC’s contract with ESPN, which is valued at $155 million a year, contains a standard line called a “composition clause” that allows either the conference or ESPN to reopen the deal if membership increases or decreases by at least two schools. The conference or the network can act on that clause any time the conference’s membership changes by at least two schools.
LikeLike
Arbitration is an assumption. The only publicly available contract (C-USA’s ESPN deal) had no arbitration. It said ESPN had to negotiate in good-faith. With no arbitration, good-faith is whatever ESPN deems good-faith to be. Is it possible the SEC contract has arbitration? Of course, but we don’t know.
The Big XII situation is a bit different. Contraction harms a network. Historically these contracts have been set up to protect the networks more than the conferences. I also don’t buy the you have to have expand by 2 teams thing you are implying. ESPN and the Big Ten did renegotiate their contract. Fox and the Big Ten did renegotiate their deal. The contractual language likely only refers to expansion not by a specific amount.
“Look-in” is a term being used by Slive, Delany used it, etc. It appears to be the technical term for going back to the deal for expansion.
LikeLike
I think we will all know soon enough (within the next year or two). I just don’t see Slive making the statements he has, and allowing the rumors of an impending SEC Network to continue to be printed in the media, unless he was very confident that it will happen.
LikeLike
Maybe I have put too much faith in the reporters at SportsBusiness Daily. I generally am very suspect of reporters but my ignorance in this area may have caused me to be too willing to believe what was reported.
LikeLike
An ESPN official defined Look-in as, “we get together and figure out if we can do anything better.”
Things they could clearly do better, they aren’t interested in: a 9 game SEC schedule, better TH night games.
LikeLike
It will be interesting how Thursday might games will be perceived from this point forward now that the NFL will have a full season of games on that night. Thursday night had turned into a quality time slot that a number of big-time programs were willing to play in, but with the direct NFL competition, the attractiveness goes down considerably.
LikeLike
Frank,
Are those games still on the NFL network, or are they on something most people actually get?
LikeLike
Despite all the recent moves, I think the Big 12, if they were negotiating at the same time as the PAC-12 and with similar skilled negotiators (none of which are true), would be worth around the same or a little more.
PAC-12 might have more markets, but they have less influence across the country. Rather than focusing on what the Big 12 has lost, let’s focus on what they have.
1. Texas and Oklahoma are 1/5 of the conference. Compared to USC only being 1/12 of the PAC-12. These are superpowers who can deliver at least decent ratings even when terrible. That’s not insignificant to TV companies.
2. TCU and West Virginia have succeed in what might as well be lower divisions, but have gained national name recognition through that. Long term, they are definitely less valuable than A&M and Missouri, but for the next few years, on a national scale as opposed to a local one, they might be worth more. At the same time, teams like Oklahoma State and Texas Tech have been good enough to draw some viewers.
All in all, I’d call the middle tiers and semi-elite teams a wash. The PAC-12 has better markets, but over the next 5-6 years (a decent chunk of the next contract), I’m not convinced many more people will be watching the PAC-12 bunch than the Big 12 bunch and the Big 12 only has to divide things 10 ways. Long term might be different again, but we aren’t talking permanent contracts.
3. basketball
Big 12 still probably is going to be equal to the PAC-12 at least.
The PAC-12 is the more desirable conference in a lot of ways and that’s why it was the one doing the raiding. At the end of the day though, for the next contract cycle, I just don’t see how them dividing what they have 12 ways is all that different the Big 12, 10 ways. In fact, I think there might be more TV value per team in the Big 12.
Note: I do think we have reached/are near the peak in contracts and will see a major fall off. That could effect the Big 12 and I think will effect the Big Ten badly.
LikeLike
Eric,
I think you are right about UT and OU, just not sure in an equal revenue world, the networks will throw (cash x eight) to the other 8 teams. 20 million x 8 teams = 160,000,000 per year! I can see a back door play where the spend maybe 10 million a year in Tier 3 to land OU, then pair Sooner TV and LHN. 10 million extra to 1 team is much cheaper than 160 million to 8!
My gut feeling is both TCU and WVU will have some value as you suggest for the first few years, but I think with an extra loss or 2, TCU will fade. I do not expect WVU to dominate UT or OU long term, and they do not have the cache of former member Nebraska, but I can see them carving out a niche as the number 2 – 4 team every season. I think looking back tho the folks know the price was to high for the PAC deal, and they will scale back before everybody in the AQ wants more money.
Note: I do think we have reached/are near the peak in contracts and will see a major fall off. That could effect the Big 12 and I think will effect the Big Ten badly .
Not sure about the long term, but I tend to agree with this. I think it will hurt the B12 more tho because they have more bottom teams, and the B1G has more middle and upper teams to keep viewers. It also helps that they have fans in large numbers, which is why I keep pointing out stadium size in the B12, and how much smaller it is to the B1G.
LikeLike
Eric:
I’ll repost what I put up above:
“As for whether college football is overvalued right now, note that the Angels recently signed a TV deal that will pay them $3B over 20 years while the Lakers signed a deal that pays them $5B over 25 years. In other words, one NBA team (in a large market, but with a far smaller footprint than any AQ conference) will bring in roughly as much TV revenue as the top college conferences will for their 10-14 schools.”
LikeLike
The latest is that ESPN has just told the Big 12 that BYU has to become a Big 12 Conference member as apart of this deal but thye do not want Notre dame at all and that Louisville is a member too. So it looks like expansion of the big 12 is not over yet because of this morning TEXAS & OU were talking to and ironing out a contract for BYU to become apart of the BIG12, and also there will be one for Louisville & Cincinnatti to in order to ensure that Kansas does not take the big 10 up on its recent membership offer.
Douglas Abel
LikeLike
Huh?
Kansas has/had a B10 offer? You mean BE maybe?
LikeLike
Louisville Cincinnati, I presume you mean. I can’t imagine the B12 would expand by 3 schools.
LikeLike
Louisville _or_ Cincinnati, I presume you mean. I can’t imagine the B12 would expand by 3 schools.
LikeLike
If ESPN doesn’t want Notre Dame in the Big 12, it may mean that the folks in Bristol are indeed trying to sway ND into that 16-member Big Ten setup for 2016 that was hinted at a Georgia Tech fan board a few weeks back.(The Big 12 and ND is an iffy match to begin with.) I could also see ESPN telling the Big 12 it needs both Brigham Young and Louisville to close the deal. (I don’t see Cincinnati as a factor.)
However, any credibility from Doug is undone by “reporting” Kansas has received a membership offer from the Big Ten. It has nothing to offer the conference (Nebraska football > Kansas basketball), has the KSU political factor to boot, and unlike Rutgers, Maryland and Georgia Tech, KU can’t be used as a tool to give Notre Dame a football schedule that extends beyond the Big Ten’s traditional Midwest base.
LikeLike
Actually, if ESPN is trying to keep ND from the B12, I reckon the simpler explanation is that it doesn’t want a concentration of market power (which would mean it wouldn’t want ND in the B10 either; really, if you think about it, why _would_ ESPN want ND in the B10, unless the B10 agrees to a long-term deal with ESPN at somewhat favorable terms).
LikeLike
Though I agree that the idea that the B10 would extend an offer to KU is hilarious (who is/are the other school(s)?)
LikeLike
The idea of inviting schools to placate Notre Dame is ludicrous.
LikeLike
If you don’t want to use the word “placate”, then no one has to use it, but adding ND with Rutgers, Maryland, and Rutgers would likely be a win-win-win (or win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win 🙂 ) for all sides involved.
LikeLike
Sorry, win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win. 🙂
LikeLike
I assume you meant “ND with Rutgers, Maryland and Georgia Tech” — unless you have this weird plan to boost Rutgers-Camden (or Rutgers-Newark, which may still play Division I men’s volleyball) into not only a Division I program, but a Big Ten caliber program. If you thought lifting one of those Canadian colleges to D1 was tough…
LikeLike
Haha, yes, ND with Rutgers, Maryland and Georgia Tech.
Nah, actually, ND with Rutgers, Rutgers, and Rutgers. 🙂
LikeLike
Another thing, when it comes to TV draws, a TV network insider (posting on an FSU board) once said that there are 4 kings that are more attractive to TV execs than the other kings: ND, Texas, USC, Michigan (with tOSU being 5th), in large part because they can draw in casual neutral fans the best.
Of those 4, USC has just a little smaller home territory as Texas (SoCal has almost as many people as TX), but Cali folks just don’t care too strongly about college sports, so outside of SC alums, support for the Trojans isn’t as deep as for the ‘Horns.
Wolverines have as much or more fervor for UM as the Burnt Orange, but MI has less than half the population of TX.
That leaves ND, which is probably the only school that has a bigger fan base than Texas.
I use to think that in their next TV deal, the Irish would get at least the average that the Pac is being payed for their football games (roughly $5M/game, or $30M+ a year). I now believe that ND will get paid about $50M/year for their home games starting in the middle of the decade.
LikeLike
That might be true if ND’s rating weren’t cratering.
LikeLike
How much do the Pac and B12 draw for their football games on TV? Hey! There’s a presentation on the top of this page that lists that!
B12: 2.3M viewers average
P12: 2.1M viewers average
In 2010 (I can’t find the 2011 numbers), college football games on NBC (all featuring a 7-5 ND team, with over half the TV schedule against such ratings draws as Western Michigan, Tulsa, Navy, Purdue, and Utah) averaged 3.1M viewers:
So explain once again how come ND won’t get paid at least as much per game as the Pac will?
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/12/ratings-acc-championship-game-notre-dame-on-nbc-mls-cup/
Average viewers for 201 is 2.57 million, or about a 20% drop from 2010 (which itself saw a sharp drop from 2009). Maybe Kelly gets them turned around, but if he doesn’t here is how your ND pitch will sound:
“Hey boss you know that school who affords us absolutely no scheduling flexibility and has TV ratings so bad that the last place TV network in America has had to start putting its games on a cable channel most people don’t know exists and is now drawing less than half the viewers they did just a few years ago and whose under performance played a key part in getting said TV network’s sports czar of 2 decades fired?”
“Why do you ask”
“Because I think it would be a really good idea to give them $50 million a year”
[Boss glares]
LikeLike
*shrug*
I doubt ND viewership will drop by 20% a year forever, and as they still draw more per game than the Pac, they’ll still get paid more per game than the Pac. Factor in the fact that they will renegotiate a few years down the road, and I’m comfortable with my $50M average target for ND.
LikeLike
You’re also forgetting that the PAC TV contract is not football only. It also includes 68 MBB games, the MBB tournament, the CCG (which is valued at $14 million on its own), 5 WBB games (including the tournament championship) and 10 Olympic sporting events.
LikeLike
frug:
Actually, I didn’t forget that. The Pac will receive on average $250M a year for 44 football games + the other stuff. I assumed Pac bball is worth $30M. $220M/44 games = $5M/game.
Here is the money the B10 and BE receive from their basketball-only contracts:
$23 million/year – Big East (ESPN) – 60 games
9 – Big East (CBS) – 9 games
20 – B1G (CBS) – 24 games
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=561184
This includes their conference tournament games as well.
Considering how putrid Pac basketball is (this year, UDub was the first ever Power6 regular season conference champ to not deserve an NCAA tournament bid), I reckon the value of Pac bball games is closer to those BE games shown on ESPN rather than the average, but let’s use the average: $52M/93 games = $559K/game. Let’s say the WBB and Olympic sports games are worth as much as MBB (even though they probably aren’t). That’s 83 games, worth $46M total. Pac football title game is worth $14M for a total of $60M. That leaves $190M for football. $190M/44 = $4.32M per game. OK, my figures were a little off (mostly because I forgot to count the football title game). Still, if ND gets just what the Pac gets for Arizona vs. Utah, over 6.5 home games, that’s $28M. A premium of 25% on the Pac (in the worst of time, ND ratings seem to be higher than Pac ratings by that much) gets you $35M. A premium of 50% (not unreasonable because a good ND would double average Pac ratings) gets you $42M. Add in that this contract will be negotiated several years down the road, and $40M-$50M is not unreasonable.
LikeLike
I believe the PAC FB championship game was bid on and awarded separately from the ESPN/Fox primary deal.
LikeLike
On the topic of largest fanbases here is Nate Silver estimations of the teams with the most fans
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., ND and Texas (in that order) are the top 5 though PSU, ND and UT are all pretty close.
(I will admit though this isn’t necessarily the same thing as drawing power, but I thought it was worth posting)
LikeLike
frug:
Yeah, that was posted up in comments on one of Frank’s earlier posts. If you look at the details, the methodology is a bit iffy (see what support he shows for FSU, or GTech vs. UGa, for example). It’s probably good for ballpark estimates of rank (though with some outliers that don’t correspond to reality), but I wouldn’t use it as an absolute rank order.
LikeLike
Nate also reported that Duke had a bigger football fan base than N.C. State, something that hasn’t been true in half a century (at least).
LikeLike
It’s also really subject to the recency effect (Auburn scores out high because it had just won the national title was drawing interest it hadn’t seen in years)
LikeLike
$50mil for the Irish? Have you seen their ratings lately, they barely get better ratings than a middling B10 team.
LikeLike
Have you seen what the Pac is being paid on average for each football game? Yours isn’t an argument that ND won’t get $40M-$50M per year on average over the lifetime of their next TV contract, but that the B10 will get at least $40M per school a year on average in TV money easily over the lifetime of their next TV contract.
LikeLike
Mind you, I still think the B10 is on track to pull in an average of (conservatively) roughly $40M/school in total TV revenue over the lifetime of their new tier 1 TV contract starting mid-decade.
With the PTN up and running by that point, the Pac may be around there as well by 2016.
Note that with the B12 tier 1 rights off the table, the B10 tier 1 rights will be the only major college TV rights up for bidding over the next decade. Whoever doesn’t get the B10 tier 1 rights won’t have a chance at any more college sports for a long while.
LikeLike
If you want to call what the Big East has turned into a major conference, they still need to get a new deal pretty quick. Their existing deal expires in 2012-2013. Your point stands though the college market is clearing for the Big Ten though.
LikeLike
The BCS deal does expire prior to the Big Ten negotiations in 2014. Notre Dame’s NBC deal expires in 2015. Other than that it is pretty smooth sailing. The NFL renewed their deals recently taking them off the market. NASCAR is in the middle of negotiations for deals that expire in 2014. The NBA deals go through 2015-2016. Then you have some more minor stuff like the Kentucky Derby deal expiring in 2015. Both U.S. Opens, etc.
LikeLike
So it looks like the NBA & B10 will be the only major sports properties that hit the market in mid-decade (MLB will have to negotiate a new deal before 2013 as well), after which you’re likely in the next decade before any major properties likely open up. (Stuff like golf & tennis tournaments, Triple Crown races, and ND football just don’t provide enough inventory to be considered major.)
$40M total TV revenue per school should be easy. Could be more.
LikeLike
Michigan vs Notre Dame under the lights again.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120315/SPORTS0201/203150513/Under-Lights-Part-2-U-M-Notre-Dame-night-game?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
LikeLike
Oliver Luck
http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/WVUSports/201203150244
“Absolutely, we had to make the move, in our minds, because we wanted to have those same opportunities,” Luck said, “but football and basketball are different.
“In basketball, we could be in the Atlantic 10 still and make the (NCAA) tournament, still have the same record and kind of success we have had, because the avenue to play (at the NCAA Tournament-level) is different.
“In football, it’s clearly becoming the select few, a list of the top 65 to 70 Division I programs, and we had to make sure we remained part of that group. If we had stayed where we were, I don’t think we’d have continued to have those BCS opportunities.”
Financially, the big five conferences and ND are separating themselves even more from the pack. I’m very interested to see if the Big East will keep pace or will those 63 teams (12+12+10+14+14+1) separate themselves and make what we used to call “a BCS conference team” even more exclusive.
I wonder if the “seven fathers of the BCS” will become the “six fathers of the playoff system.” Can the big five and ND afford to regulate the Big East to second tier status? How can the Big East keep a seat at the table and the Alliance not get one? Is there a fundamental difference between the quality at the top of the Alliance and Big East? I don’t see a significant difference between Boise St, Louisville, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, and SDSU compared to Hawaii, Fresno St, Air Force, Nevada, East Carolina, and So Miss.
LikeLike
Mike,
thanks for the link
I still think there is even further segregation :
B1G / SEC = 26
PAC / ACC = 26
ND / BYU / B12 = 12 – with only 4 of 12 moving up, and the others move down
That is 64 max, and if UT / OU / ND / ?? jump, the B12 falls back into the lower class
The problem is for any small school to gain, and maintain, critical mass seems less an less likely in the modern world of the huge gaps created by the big getting bigger.
LikeLike
Larry Scott has said he ultimately sees the top level of college football consisting of a most 72 teams, resulting from either another division split or a breakaway from the NCAA.
For the time being, it is in the interest of the “haves” to make sure they have at least 63 members in their “club” since that will ensure they remain the numerical majority when it comes time to make important decisions like the post-season (By 2014 their will be 124 total teams at the D-1A level). They are ok for the time being (assuming the “haves” is defined as the Big 5 + ND), but if any more teams move up (and several are considering it) there will need to be further expansion by the major conferences or concessions made to the Big East (if it survives).
LikeLike
duffman,
I still think there is even further segregation :
B1G / SEC = 26
PAC / ACC = 26
ND / BYU / B12 = 12 – with only 4 of 12 moving up, and the others move down
That is 64 max, and if UT / OU / ND / ?? jump, the B12 falls back into the lower class
Imagine my surprise to see you say something negative about the B12’s future. Pray tell, do you see UT, OU or both getting to escape sans a little brother in that scenario?
The problem is for any small school to gain, and maintain, critical mass seems less an less likely in the modern world of the huge gaps created by the big getting bigger.
Boise went from WAC to MWC to BE. If they sustain success there, they could go B12 (for FB only, probably). If they are successful there, they may have time to build their academics to a point where the P12 would take them eventually. Nothing prevents other schools from climbing the ladder. At each step, they get a money bump to compete against their peers. Boise managed to do fine in BCS bowls with a tiny budget.
LikeLike
If you believe that the academics of OU and OSU kept them from the PAC but think Boise has a chance, I’ve got a bridge for sale…
LikeLike
Not now, of course not. Who knows what Boise is in 20-50 years, though. Or maybe the P12 will have a different perspective on athletics. There could be FB only members by then. I only said the P12 because of geography and it being seen as more stable than the B12.
The point is that Boise has climbed from I-AA (1978-1995) to the Big West (1996-2000) to the WAC (2001-2010) to the MWC (2011-2012) to the BE (2013-?), and the B12 isn’t completely unrealistic in the future if they continue to succeed. On the field, Boise will be the equal of a P12 team soon (if they aren’t already).
If Boise can go from I-AA to AQ in under 20 years, other small schools can climb the ranks. Boise isn’t a huge school (17k undergrads), isn’t in a prime recruiting state and was a JC until 1968. Other small schools won’t have all that baggage. If a school is committed and makes the right hires, they can climb the ranks.
LikeLike
Climbing the academic ranks is much harder (and requires much more money) than climbing the athletic ranks, and as we’ve seen, it’s not all that easy in football anyway.
LikeLike
Alliance Update
A source told me yesterday that the Alliance has ruled out expanding to 24 teams, and will focus on either 18, 20 or 22. It’s widely assumed that UTEP will be switched from C-USA to the Mountain West group, which makes sense as there are far more viable candidates on the eastern side of the country. With one football-only member in Hawaii, the Alliance will very likely add another in the C-USA division to balance out the league.
Say the Alliance decides to go big at 22. UTEP slides over from C-USA, Utah State and San Jose State are plucked from the WAC, and there’s your Mountain West division comprising 10 full members, plus Hawaii in football only.
That would require four additions on the C-USA side, including one in football only. This is strictly educated guesswork, but I continue to believe that North Texas (based in a key Texas market), Louisiana Tech (strong competitive success) and Florida International (good market, based in the Eastern time zone) will be the top three choices.
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2012/03/your-daily-re-alignment-speculation/
LikeLike
I’d say their best option is to go with 18 or 20 teams. In order to hold a CCG they need a round robin in each division, so anything over 20 teams requires a 10+ game conference schedule barring a change in the NCAA rules or a waiver.
LikeLike
I think the idea is four divisions. Either way, 22 schools makes no sense. With 18 or 20 you can have 2 divisions playing round robin. With 20 or 24 schools you can have four division of 5 or 6 schools. Now, if this guy is mistaken and they intend to have 22 all sport schools and 2 fball only schools for a total of 24 then I can see it. 22 schools just makes no sense to me at all.
LikeLike
I agree. I’d think the logical place to start is at 18 and see how it goes. That gets you 8 conference games (all division games, no crossover) plus 4 OOC games (1 I-AA, 1 for sale, 2 home and homes probably). If they go to 20, you need 9 division games and have the 4/5 problem.
MWC remnants (8)
AF, CSU, NM, UNLV, WY, FSU, NV, HI
CUSA remnants (8)
UAB, ECU, Marshall, USM, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, UTEP
Candidates are:
WAC – NMSU, SJSU, USU, LT, ID, UTSA, TX St
Best bets – LT (in footprint), SJSU (CA), UTSA (TX), TX St (TX), NMSU (rivalry)
SB – S AL, WKU, ArSU, ULL, FIU, MTSU, NT, ULM, FAU, Troy
Best bets – ULL (in footprint), ULM (in footprint), FIU (FL), FAU (FL), NT (TX)
If AF stays:
West
AF, CSU, NM, UNLV, WY, FSU, NV, HI, UTEP
East
UAB, ECU, Marshall, USM, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LT, NT
If AF goes BE:
West
CSU, NM, UNLV, WY, FSU, NV, HI, UTEP, SJSU
East
UAB, ECU, Marshall, USM, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LT, NT
LikeLike
With current NCAA rules, anything pass 18 is very problematic. Current NCAA rules allow for a CCG only if you have round robin play in divisions (which is almost certainly meaning 2 divisions) and has no clause for semi-finals.
That means several things.
1. Four divisions need to technically be 2 in all likelihood. That means you need round robin with half the conference. So if you have 18 teams, that means 8 games to play everyone else in your official NCAA division. If you have 20 teams, that means 9 games.
2. If you want this semi-final game (and in a sense have 4 divisions), it actually decreases your possibilities. Since there is no room in current NCAA rules for a semi-final game, that means it has to be carved out at the end of the regular season with each team leaving an open date that can be scheduled last minute (although they could rotate it so they know if they’ll be home or away). This means that if you have an 18 team conference, with 9 in the official divisions, you’ll have to leave 9 games for conference play instead of 8 and with 20 teams, you’d need to leave 10 instead of 9.
The way around this in current NCAA rules might be if they squeeze around the playing everyone in division requirement. Maybe the rule says that everyone in a division has to play each other for a CCG, but doesn’t specify that only 2 divisions can exist. Since only a CCG is allowed exempt, this would have been the intention, but it’s possible it’s not spelled out exactly like that.
LikeLike
They’ve said they would need a change in the rules for 24. Its clear they can’t do more than 20 now and that depends on Air Force being willing to play 9 conference games.
LikeLike
10+ game conference schedule isn’t an issue, the aren’t like the top SEC, B10 schools and profit tremendously from home dates.
LikeLike
Well it’s a big deal for Air Force since they already have to play Army and Navy every year (though I guess the conference could let the Falcons play at Hawaii every year so they could get an extra game)
LikeLike
No, they have the opposite problem. They need to sell at least 1 game per year. With 10 conference games, that mean 6 road games accounted for. So their last game has to be a weak I-AA since any other non-AQ would require a home and home. That may cut their revenue total too close. There other choice is 5 home games every other year, and that’s not good.
LikeLike
Brian:
Not all Mount USA schools have to sell a game. Granted, many do, but I don’t see why 10 conference games would not be acceptable to members other than AFA. The only guarantee games these schools are paying for now anyway are FCS schools, so there would be no difference there. The only difference between 8, 9, or 10 conference games is whether they’d want more conference HaH’s or OOC HaH’s. OK, schools may want to play some HaH’s, so 9 conference games may be the max.
LikeLike
This doesn’t have much to do with anything but I posted it on the other thread and thought it was pretty interesting:
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1818
Is you school a football school, basketball school, both or (if your a Wildcats or Hurricane fan) neither.
LikeLike
I should add this obviously an imperfect matrix since it relies on the attendance% with no adjustment for stadium or arena size, but it mostly passes the eyeball test.
LikeLike
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/3/14/2866216/adjusted-turnover-margin
A look at turnovers and adjusted turnover ratio for the stat guys around here. As always, luck is important in turnovers and rarely consistent. MI had the most luck, worth +3.97 points per game while TAMU had the worst luck at -4.28. Consider that TAMU lost 4 games by 4 or fewer points, and you see the potential impact here. MI had 2 wins by 4 or less.
In the comments, our very own cfn-ms has a link to an article he wrote about fumble luck, too.
LikeLike
M didn’t have many close games; VT, Ohio, Iowa, MSU & ND… They won 3 of the 5…
M could’ve easily lost the ND & VT games but probably should’ve beaten Iowa and had arguably their worst game of the season vs the Spartans. M outplayed Ohio by a decent margin but if OSU has one more big play, Ohio could’ve won that game.
LikeLike
Last year at one point late in their 5-7 season Texas had forced 1 less fumble than the year before, but had recovered only half as many. Things just weren’t bouncing their way. Texas ended up something like 116th in turnover margin and lost 7 games despite outgaining their opponent in 9 of the 12 games.
LikeLike
http://www.southbendtribune.com/sports/collegesports/notredame/sbt-notre-dame-football-freshman-shepard-leaves-irish-20120315,0,2306206.story
Bad news for the Irish. ND early enrollee Tee Shepard was expected to compete for one of the two vacant starting CB jobs, but he’s dropped out of school. According to the beta writer, ND was already struggling for quality depth there.
LikeLike
It passed the test until I saw where Kentucky was.
LikeLike
Recent post from Louisville board.
ESPN will pay the Big XII $20MM per team per year for 10 schools, $24MM ptpy for 12 with BYU and Louisville, $28MM for 14 with Clemson and Florida State, and $32MM for 16 with Miami and Notre Dame. That’s a lot of money!
LikeLike
ugh.
LikeLike
If they can add ND, Miami, FSU and Clemson, why would they ever add UL and BYU? What about GT or VT? Pitt to partner with WV? No B10 or SEC schools being rumored?
LikeLike
What name does Chip Brown use when posting on the Louisville boards?
LikeLike
I can see a per-school bump for adding FSU (and Clemson), Miami, or (especially) ND, but an extra $88M for adding BYU & Louisville? Sorry, that’s too far in to fantasyland.
Oh, and he’d have us believe that Clemson and FSU are worth $98M. If Miami is worth something close to them as well, ESPN would essentially have gutted it’s own favorable below-market ACC deal so that it could pay more to get the same schools. Someone should tell this guy that his fantasies have a better chance of being believed if they actually make logical sense.
LikeLike
I haven’t read the original info from the message board but he post says what *SPN will pay in a given scenario, not that *SPN is behind the B12’s exploration of expansion options. Considering the current, or just concluded, negotiations between *SPN and the B12 it seems likely that they covered all scenarios.
That’s an odd escalation explanation, it just adds $4M per school for each two schools added. I don’t know that which order they come in matters. Although, adding $4M per school if BYU and UL are #’s 11 and 12 makes more sense when you consider that their addition would mean a CCG. For the CCG I’d guess you would start at $20M or $25M (minimum considering the market) and then add nine conference games. The post says *SPN would pay this, I’d guess that Fox would be footing a big part of the bill as well.
LikeLike
Even if the championship game is worth $25M, that values BYU & Louisville at $63M. Considering that ESPN was willing to pay BYU $8M for their games as an independent, that valuation seems highly, highly unlikely.
As for what ESPN is willing to pay, remember that ESPN does not want to incent the B12 (or any conference) to take the best teams from the ACC (with whom they have a very favorable TV deal). So why would they tell the B12 how much extra can be gained from taking the crown jewels of the ACC? It’s like telling a kidnapper: “I don’t want you to kidnap my daughter, but if you do kidnap her, this is the ransom I will pay”.
In short, that post has too many holes to consider it as anything but pure fantasy.
LikeLike
The original post is definitely thin. Consider this though, what if this isn’t info from *SPN but industry analysts projections? I don’t know how these things work but what would *SPN tell the B12 if they asked about the given scenarios? Would the B12 actually approach *SPN, or any other network for that matter, or would they be strictly dealing with analysts projections until a change had actually been made. This sort of confuses me. Did the ACC actually talk to *SPN about expanding before offering Pitt and SU?
LikeLike
Even if these are supposedly analysts’ projections, the amount that Louisville and BYU would add is too ludicrously high to be believable. Plus, I doubt real analysts would assign almost the same amount of value to Louisville+BYU & FSU+Clemson & ND+Miami.
Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is that this is some Louisville fanboy fantasy.
LikeLike
Getting to $28 million is hard to see, but FSU and Miami would add a lot of value. If there really is that type of money, it would be hard for FSU/Clemson/Miami to turn down. That would be $28 million + 3rd tier rights vs. $14-$15 million total in the ACC. If its just $20 million, I’m not sure that would be enough to get them to jump. I suspect FSU has already told the SEC it wasn’t interested with similar $ figures (If its between Missouri and FSU, who would pick Missouri, even if you already had UF?).
It wouldn’t be in ESPN’s interest to pay more for the ACC schools, but Fox would be the one getting most of the content on the Big 12’s second tier. And for ESPN, they are trying to lock down the 1st tier without bid by renewing early, so they definitely have some incentive to cooperate.
The source really isn’t from Louisville. I’ve seen similar things several places. The idea is that the championship game is worth $25 million, which raises everyone’s payout by $2 million, and that BYU and Louisville are worth the average $20 million. I’m a little skeptical of that, but I would think the conference would at least break even with those 2. I suspect some of this is different scenarios getting mixed together. BYU doesn’t make sense if you are adding FSU, Clemson and Miami.
LikeLike
Florida State, Miami and Clemson would have far more value in the context of Texas and Oklahoma than they do in the context of Virginia Tech and N.C. State.
LikeLike
It’s really hard to see FSU turning down the SEC (where they would have had more valued added playing UF, UGa, ‘Bama, LSU, etc. than OU + Texas + peons) and joining the B12.
Really hard to believe the SEC would have rejected FSU for Mizzou either.
As for third-tier rights, keep in mind that they’re just not that valuable for Miami or even FSU (somewhat valuable for Clemson, but they’re in a small state, so I’m skeptical they could monetize a lot out of it).
LikeLike
There has been no indication that the SEC is interested in FSU or Clemson. Most rumors are the opposite. The fact that they are in the existing footprint is a BIG strike against them. So if either is considering switching conferences where do you think they would look?
LikeLike
If the SEC decided to take Mizzou when FSU was available simply because FSU was in the footprint and Mizzou isn’t, then (no offense to Mizzou, but) the SEC are idiots.
LikeLike
Richard,
The SEC is already very well set in their contracts with national broadcasters, where FSU would help, but they do not have a conference network. Could the SEC see that as an issue? Without being idiots? What would FSU have added to the SEC financially? Apparently you think that the amount of money *SPN and CBS would add to their contracts for FSU would FAR exceed the the money Mizzou would generate from those contracts and a conference network. I think the conference could have a different opinion without being idiots.
LikeLike
@joe
The Big 10 (which already has a conference network) chose Nebraska over Mizzou despite the fact that Missouri has 3 million more people than Nebraska. Even setting aside the national TV contract, by FSU a hypothetical SEC network could charge higher carriage and ad rates since FSU would increase demand in the current footprint even if it did not expand it. FSU would also have the advantage of increasing ticket demand more than Missouri
(That’s the same reasons the Big 10 took Nebraska over Mizzou, Syracuse or Rutgers)
LikeLike
Make that 4 million more people.
LikeLike
frug,
Expansion gave the B1G a CCG, so that made Nebraska much more attractive in spite of the reasons you site. They are from a small state but have a rabid fan base that reaches into neighboring states and markets. Remember, when Mizzou was discussed as a B1G addition it was pointed out that the BTN already had penetration into Missouri so their economic influence wasn’t as great as the simple state population figures may make them appear.
LikeLike
“Expansion gave the B1G a CCG”
That isn’t a reason to favor Nebraska over Mizzou, as either would have given the B10 a CCG.
As for national TV contracts, those would favor a school like FSU more (than Mizzou), compared to having your own network.
LikeLike
@joe
The SEC already has some penetration in Missouri as well. Arkansas borders it to the South and Tennessee and Kentucky to the East.
And FSU (like Nebraska) has a rabid fanbase outside the state.
LikeLike
The B10’s one dominant sport just wrapped up another great season.
PSU won the wrestling NC again (won in 2011 also).
2. MN, 3. IA, 5. OSU, 7. IL, 9. NW, 11. MI, 22. NE
That’s 6 straight titles for the B10, 14 of 18, and 28 of 38.
Individual titles:
IA – 125
OSU – 133
MI – 141
PSU – 149, 165, 174
MN – Heavyweight
Cornell won all the others (157, 184, 197).
LikeLike
Has anyone read anything more about the CUSA/MWC alliance pushing for the NCAA to allow conference semi-final games? Depending on how that conversation goes; that decision by the NCAA could have an impact on the way the B1G and Pac 12 interact in the future. I wrote a little bit about it here: http://short-sideoption.blogspot.com/ but IF the CUSA/MWC alliance does push to amend this rule, do you think Delany and Scott support it? That conversation would be interesting.
LikeLike
I’ve heard that they will talk about it, but not that they’ve started to press the issue yet. I don’t think it would pass in their desired form. Instead, I think it will force them to make the last week a flex week that contains the semis, so they essentially have an 11 game regular season with everyone getting a postseason game.
EX. Assume 24 teams just because
Teams play 5 in division, 3 from a partner pod and 3 OOC games. In the last week of the season, the following games are played (assumes A and C were partners):
A1/B1, A2/B2, A3/B3, A4/B4, A5/B5, A6/B6
C1/D1, C2/D2, C3/D3, C4/D4, C5/D5, C6/D6
The home pods rotate each year, but for this case we’ll say they are A and C. On CCG day, the winners of the semis play. The last week brings in teams they wouldn’t otherwise play, and avoids any rematches. It also provides context for the semis.
I also think they will put in a minimum size to apply this rule, probably 20. If they don’t limit it, the big boys will jump on it. The SEC will quickly move to 7 SEC games (6 in division, 1 locked rival or rotating), 4 OOC games and the flex week. That week would be E1/W2, E2/W1, E3/W3, E4/W4, E5/W5, E6/W6 and E7/W7. That way if one division is tougher it can fill the CCG for a rematch. That means the CCG will lose interest, but the semis will make it a net gain.
LikeLike
It clearly doesn’t comply with the intent of the rules. You have to have 12 for a championship game as its hard to do a round robin. If you only have 5 in a division, the two 5 team divisions could play a round robin. And if you have 24, the two 12 team halves aren’t playing everyone in their half, so it would seem they couldn’t have a championship game even if they could work out a semi-final where all 24 teams play a game where the opponent was not determined until the week before-1st A group vs. 1st B group, 2nd A group vs. 2nd B group, 1st C group vs. 1st D group, etc. I think it was the Tulane President said it would take a change in the rules and they weren’t going to 24 right away even if that was a long term goal.
LikeLike
There’s no doubt the rules would have to change. I was just guessing how they would change. I don’t see 2 weeks of conference playoffs after the regular season being an option.
LikeLike
I don’t see the remainder of the presidents approving such an arrangement.
LikeLike
Well, flex scheduling is already OK by the rules. All they’d be approving is a change in who qualifies for a CCG. If they put in a high minimum number of teams, that will prevent others from doing it for no good reason. They’ve made special rules before. The key is that 20 is about the threshold for the current system to work. I don’t see the president’s forcing 22 teams to play 10 conference games.
With divisions (temporary or fixed)
20 – 9 division games
22 – 10 division games
24 – 11 division games
26 – 12 division games
Beyond 26 it is impossible to stage a CCG with divisions and the current rules.
With pods
20 – 4 in pod, 4 out of pod, 1 flex game
22 – 4 or 5 in pod, 3 or 4 out of pod, 1 flex game
24 – 5 in pod, 4 out of pod, 1 flex game
26 – 5 or 6 in pod, 2 or 3 out of pod, 1 flex game
Works up to 52 teams, not that anything that big is a conference.
I could see them letting a MWC/CUSA blend of 20+ do pods and flex scheduling for semis instead of 9 division games. I could see them requiring at least 8 fixed conference games as a requirement, though.
LikeLike
I don’t see why they would do something that benefits one conference and encourages coast-to-coast mega-conferences.
LikeLike
Because it doesn’t hurt anybody, it doesn’t extend the season, and it won’t be seen as a large enough incentive to make huge conferences.
Who else wants to be that big? None of the power conferences want it. Even the BE has standards high enough to prevent it. That doesn’t leave much. A MAC/SB merger? Why bother when there’s no money to be had?
LikeLike
It wouldn’t have to result in coast to coast mega conferences. Look at the Pac 12/B1G scheduling agreement. It’s not hard for me to envision sometime in the future that this relationship turns into a pseudo-24 (or more) team conference with the current conference championship games used as Semis and the Rose Bowl used as the ‘conference’ Championship game. The Pac 12 and Big Ten schools have both expressed concern about upholding the tradition of the Rose Bowl; this would accomplish that. Look at the east coast; is it impossible to imagine the same scheduling/pseudo-conference agreement could eventually exist between the ACC/SEC using the Sugar Bowl as their ‘conference’ Championship game? I admit this all sounds a bit tin foil hattish, but if you would have told me 2 years ago that West Virginia would be in the Big 12 and San Diego St would be in the Big East I would have disregarded your opinion as well as your knowledge of College Football. Also keep in mind the NCAA has over looked the ‘play everyone in your own division rule’ before; look at the 13 team MAC for the past 9 years. I don’t think it would be too far past the NCAA to let the rules slide a little this time for the MWC/CUSA alliance. Why would the major conferences allow this? For one, this would diminish the number of non-AQ teams able to make a case for a playoff bid. Make them play and thus eliminate each other from the discussion. Secondly, (and like I mentioned above this is very tin foil hattish) for the opportunity at the possible arrangement I mentioned above. I don’t think the AQ conferences would see the NCAA allowing Semis for the MWC/CUSA as a green light to make 24 team conferences themselves; instead I think they would use this as an opportunity to play an extra game (the Rose Bowl/Sugar Bowl). Even as I type this it sounds farfetched, but then again San Diego St will be playing for the Big East title in 2013.
LikeLike
Your tin foil hat plan is why I said they would have to make the semis part of the regular season. The Rose Bowl (or any other major bowl) won’t move to early December to become a CCG.
LikeLike
If the SBC, WAC and MAC are smart they’ll support it. The AQ conferences control the purse strings in so many ways but this is a way for the other conferences to make themselves some extra money and maybe get a little more attention.
LikeLike
Problem is, it would give the power conferences an incentive to expand. Remember, the only reason conferences started to move to 12 members was in order to get CCGs.
LikeLike
To clarify, I think the risk is that the power conferences would state that a conference only needs 16 members to hold a semifinal. If they were to apply it to 20+ only then it is unlikely to increase expansion at the power conference level (though it could be the first step towards Larry Scott’s goal of one giant 64-72 team football conference).
LikeLike
frug,
That’s why I stressed having a high minimum. The other conferences aren’t going to grow to 20+ I don’t think. I suppose they could, with each division now becoming a pod, but I don’t think the power conferences are desperate enough for money to do it. There’s a ton of history and pride attached to the current conferences.
Big Pacific Conference
Big 10 Division
East – OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IL, IN
West – MI, NE, MSU, IA, NW, MN
Pac-12 Division
North – UW, WSU, OR, OrSU, SU, Cal
South – USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, CO, UT
B10 teams play 5 in pod, 1 locked rival and 2 from the other B10 pod, then a flex-scheduled game. P12 teams play 5 in pod, 4 from the other P12 pod, then a flex game. The winners of the semis meet in the CCG. On paper, that’s both groups playing essentially the same schedules they have now, but with a flex-scheduled conference game.
But think about it. The only way to avoid rematches in the semis would be to pair pods from opposite divisions (B10 E vs P12 N, for example). That would lead to cross country travel on Thanksgiving weekend for half the teams, and mean the CCG could pair 2 B10 teams, 2 P12 teams or 1 of each. Where do you play a CCG? What happens to the Rose Bowl? Do all the teams, especially OSU/MI, want to move year end rivalries to a week earlier? Will B10 fans travel to LA for a CCG and then come back for the Rose Bowl? Do all 24 teams want to give up the history of their conferences to form a new one?
The B10 and P12 have the closest ties of any 2 conferences, but does that seem likely? Would it work for SEC/ACC?
This system wouldn’t work well for CUSA/MWC, let alone 2 power conferences.
LikeLike
These conferences cannot win at the game as it is played. That is why it is the goal of all schools to get into one of the AQ conferences. They have to figure they are getting left behind eventually so why not do what is in THEIR interest today.
LikeLike
A 16-member minimum for a semifinal might enable Larry Scott to make one last-ditch effort to lure Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State to the Pac. Adding a semifinal to the equation would amplify ESPN/Fox money. It would also strengthen the bargaining positions of the Big Ten, ACC and SEC, while relegating the lesser Big 12 and Big East members (following expansion to 16 by the other three conferences) to what was left.
LikeLike
@vp19
The problem is, the 6 year grant of rights appears to have already gone into effect and they are about to extend it until 2025.
In other words, in order to grab 4 Big XII schools he will need to find a home for at least 2 he doesn’t take, since he will need the Big XII to dissolve.
LikeLike
http://www.790thezone.com/instantreplay/Episodes.aspx?PID=2445
An interesting interview about feasibility studies with Russell Wright (his company did the App State study is now doing the GA State one). He explains what goes into it, trickle down effects, and more.
LikeLike
The lack of winter this year is really starting to cause problems. MI had their tornadoes, other places have had bad things too.
Atlanta set a new pollen count record today. The standard scale says “Very High” is >1500 for tree pollen (the main issue in Atlanta). The old record was 6013. Today is at 8164 (36% increase). Every inanimate object is coated in light green like a dusting of snow. Even parking lots look green, and there’s no real chance of rain until Saturday. We may literally be shoveling pollen by then. It looks like a Japanese subway around here with so many people wearing face masks.
LikeLike
I couldn’t see out my rear car window this morning. It was green. ST. Patty’s Day was Saturday. Or does that mean the Irish will join Georgia Tech in the ACC soon?
LikeLike
I’ve been using my wipers without spraying just like you do for dry snow.
LikeLike
Blame global warming. I do definitely want the guys who disparage the theory to put their money where their mouth is and buy a house in the Keys or an atoll in the south Pacific. Then at least we’d know they aren’t cynical opportunists carrying water for the oil companies.
LikeLike
Well the last 3 winters have been pretty cold.
LikeLike
Not this past one, at least not here.
LikeLike
I was referring to the 3 before it. This immediate past winter in Atlanta was like a Houston winter. Pretty comfortable.
LikeLike
The northerner in me has a hard time viewing any Atlanta winter as cold. I spent too long developing a different baseline.
LikeLike
http://blogs.ajc.com/recruiting/2012/03/16/tennessee-denies-package-deal-with-coach-and-5-star-wr-cordarrelle-patterson/?cxntfid=blogs_recruiting
TN is denying that they made a package deal to get a top recruit. They picked up a 5 star JUCO WR, and now one of his coaches joined the football staff at TN days later. The blog points out several other pack age deals in TN and UGA history and actually supports the idea. I think this is the sort of thing the NCAA should be preventing.
LikeLike
Hard to police. Its not unusual for a HS coach to join a staff. If its a family member, that’s something that can be stopped.
LikeLike
This was a JUCO coach who got an intern job at TN. I think they could say no coach or family member can follow a recruit to a school for a year. That leaves all the other schools to hire these people if they are qualified. You can’t stop the other way, where the person gets hired and the recruit follows them unless it’s family.
LikeLike
I’m not even sure this _should_ be policed. Maybe it’s because I’m pretty cynical about recruitment, but these days, I say the more free market it is, the better. Really, the only reason these shenanigans go on is because players can’t be paid to play for colleges (well, legally, anyway), so other people profit from the valuable asset that they can offer the schools (their talent). If the players get market value for their talent, this all goes away. Plus, even if you put in a rule saying that schools can’t hire the coach of a recruit (which is actually a bit unfair to those coaches who develop talent), they could still get their wife, children, parents, etc. hired by the school.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/17904063/mike-slive-sec-expansion-has-strengthened-us-in-tv-negotiations
“Hey, you saw that very nice bump the Big 12 got in its post-expansion TV contract? We’re going to make it look like the 47 cents in your Camry’s ashtray.”
Queue Nostradamus, Brian and others with their long winded assertions that the SEC is hamstrung and in a weak negotiating position on TV dollars.
LikeLike
That would be a great point if I had ever actually said that, Andy. Too bad I for you I didn’t. Try actually reading a comment instead of making up what you think it said.
Nice hoops performance by the way. Congrats on having the second most tourney appearances without a final four (25), trailing BYU by 1.
As for your quote, that was the blogger putting words into Slive’s mouth, not Slive speaking. Forgive me for not giving Jerry Hinnen much credence.
What Slive actually said:
“We have started discussions with both our television partners. We feel adding Texas A&M and Missouri has strengthened us in lots of ways, but it certainly strengthened us in television.”
As for the SEC network, even the blogger doesn’t say it’s a foregone conclusion:
“Of course, as dazzling as the SEC’s TV numbers are likely to be in the short-term, the billion-dollar long-term question still has to be answered: will these re-negotiations end in the SEC’s own television network? The Big 12’s new deal is a vast improvement, but it now runs through the 2025 season without any substantial increase in scheduled revenue; the Big Ten’s and Pac-12’s may leave it in the dust if their networks grow as expected. (Pac-12 sources have told CBSSports.com’s Dennis Dodd their network will allow the league to distribute $30 million per school in the network’s first year of operation.) Though the SEC will always rank among the nation’s wealthiest leagues, being the wealthiest into 2020 and beyond might require its own devoted network to match the Big Ten’s and Pac-12’s increasing revenues.”
That’s your grand support for your position? He asks if the SEC will form a network, and later says the SEC might need one to match the B10 and P12. He points out that the P12 will get $30M for the P12. Will the SEC get bumped that high in this renegotiation? Nobody knows.
LikeLike
I think what Andy was referring to is some of statements and/or implications (although I’m not saying that you said or implied it) made that the only plausible bump in tv money would be a token amount to either makeup for the additional teams so that the rest of the teams don’t lose any money, or just enough to get them back up to the B1G/Pac12’s current level. But that isn’t what this article implies. And keep in mind who is publishing this article…CBSSports.
I think the fact that CBSSports is allowing one of their reporters to say “With Slive expressing this kind of confidence, there’s not really any lingering doubt any more: the SEC is going to announce a revamped television deal in the near future that’s going to give the league the financial means to buy out, say, most medium-sized European countries. (We’re just saying, if Slive is formally named “The Most Gentlemanly Vice-King of Norway, in absentia” during a visit to Oslo this summer, don’t act surprised.)”, then they probably are well aware of the new tv deal (especially since they are one of the tv partners). And by the words and phrases like this one that Hinnen uses, I would assume that they know that it will be a pretty big increase and would surpass the current money that the B1G/Pac12 tv deals are making (although like the writer said, if the B1G/Pac 12 deals continue to grow as expected, that won’t last for very long).
Now like you said, the one portion that they admit to not know is the part about the SEC Network. But that is the one part that they wouldn’t know about since that would have nothing to do with their current deal with the SEC. Only ESPN and the SEC will be negotiating on that issue. But Slive has hinted very hard about that as well in recent months, so until proven different, I’ll assume that he feels very confident about that as well.
LikeLike
Bamatab,
I think what Andy was referring to is some of statements and/or implications (although I’m not saying that you said or implied it) made that the only plausible bump in tv money would be a token amount to either makeup for the additional teams so that the rest of the teams don’t lose any money, or just enough to get them back up to the B1G/Pac12′s current level. But that isn’t what this article implies. And keep in mind who is publishing this article…CBSSports.
I’ve never really defended what anyone else said on the topic. My whole argument is that he keeps accusing me of having said it and I didn’t. I really don’t like to have words put in my mouth when I said nothing on the topic.
As for the bump, keeping everyone level will cost $34M. Each $1M in bump is $14M total, so a $3M bump means a total of $76M per year. I don’t consider that a token amount for companies to give up. Having read the original article plus the blog, that 1 line from Slive is all he said on the topic. I don’t see how you can read into that an estimated size of a bump from TV, large or small.
I think the fact that CBSSports is allowing one of their reporters to say “With Slive expressing this kind of confidence, there’s not really any lingering doubt any more: the SEC is going to announce a revamped television deal in the near future that’s going to give the league the financial means to buy out, say, most medium-sized European countries. (We’re just saying, if Slive is formally named “The Most Gentlemanly Vice-King of Norway, in absentia” during a visit to Oslo this summer, don’t act surprised.)”, then they probably are well aware of the new tv deal (especially since they are one of the tv partners). And by the words and phrases like this one that Hinnen uses, I would assume that they know that it will be a pretty big increase and would surpass the current money that the B1G/Pac12 tv deals are making (although like the writer said, if the B1G/Pac 12 deals continue to grow as expected, that won’t last for very long).
He’s just a blogger for CBS. I’ve never heard of him before, so I give him the same credence I would any other blogger. Does he have some great track record of reporting that I’m unaware of? I wouldn’t infer that he has any inside knowledge from CBS or that CBS would monitor him to that degree.
Now like you said, the one portion that they admit to not know is the part about the SEC Network. But that is the one part that they wouldn’t know about since that would have nothing to do with their current deal with the SEC. Only ESPN and the SEC will be negotiating on that issue. But Slive has hinted very hard about that as well in recent months, so until proven different, I’ll assume that he feels very confident about that as well.
Other articles may well have evidence of that, but this one clearly doesn’t. I believe we’ll know when the new deals are announced, and until then it’s all guesswork. Slive could be faking confidence just to gain leverage as easily as he could have knowledge that he’ll easily get a network. We have no way of knowing.
LikeLike
I don’t think that the SEC is hamstrung, as I believe that they’ll get a nice pay bump.
Could ESPN create its own SEC-dedicated network and pay the SEC a larger rights fee to do so, similar to how ESPN pays a rights fee to Texas but ultimately owns the Longhorn Network? I could absolutely see that happening (although a significant driver for the original SEC/ESPN deal was to use SEC games to build up the distribution of ESPNU, so that can’t be compromised too much in the process). That’s a win-win situation in theory for both ESPN and the SEC.
However, I fail to see why ESPN is just going to give back content to the SEC that ESPN owns for the next decade-plus so that the SEC can own a network (whether partially or wholly). That’s dramatically different and frankly, ESPN can’t possibly be that stupid to do that to allow the SEC to create an instant sports network competitor in the Southeast that ESPN itself doesn’t own when it has no contractual obligation to do that. What I think a lot of the hyperbolic SEC bloggers fail to qualify is that, at the end of the day, ESPN still has more leverage here.
I just got through reading “Those Guys Have All of the Fun” about the history of ESPN (which is really a fascinating book for anyone interested in the business of sports) and there are 2 things that are clear about how ESPN operates: (1) they are absolutely 100% willing to piss off ALL of their partners in ruthless rights negotiations (even the NFL, which is the one property that ESPN unequivocally can’t afford to lose because their subscriber fees are partially tied to having those games) and (2) ESPN is NOT stupid. There’s no such thing at ESPN as “keeping the SEC happy” or “keeping the Big Ten happy” or even “keeping the NFL happy”. They are out to *win* negotiations and the suggestions that I’ve seen that ESPN would be worried about the SEC not wanting to deal with them in the 2020s if ESPN doesn’t pay a huge increase now would be laughable to anyone that has read this book. Sometimes ESPN’s negotiation tactics have backfired, as the Big Ten went off and started its own network and ESPN/ABC could have ended up keeping both Sunday Night Football and Monday Night Football for less than what they’re now paying for Monday Night Football alone if they hadn’t played hardball, but more times than not, they end up being right. The point is that they’re not afraid whatsoever to be brutal in contract negotiations even with guys like Roger Goodell and David Stern. There’s a reason why they’re the single most profitable media and entertainment entity in the country by a massive margin – they didn’t get there by just giving away the store.
So, that’s just to say that ESPN and the SEC may find it mutually beneficial that ESPN starts up an SEC Network that Disney will own in exchange for a large pay increase to the SEC that would be the largest deal in college sports. However, ESPN isn’t going to give back to the SEC what it already owns for the next decade – that’s massive leverage that I don’t think a lot of people quite appreciate. In essence, I think the SEC could get the money, but I doubt they’ll get any equity.
LikeLike
@Frank – That is a very plausible outcome if the current tv deal gives ESPN the rights to the new content that the additions of aTm & Mizzou bring to the league. If I had to guess, I would think that ESPN does have the rights to that new content, but I’m not exactly sure how their current deal reads on that. It could also be possible that ESPN would own a portion of the SEC Network and the SEC would own the other portion (similar to the B1G/Fox deal). But I think a SEC Network in inevitable, whether ESPN holds the majority of the rights (or all of them), or not. I also think that the SEC will reap a huge financial reward based on that Network, regardless of who owns the rights to it. But again, no one knows for sure yet how that will all go down (including ESPN & the SEC).
It does seem that you have changed your stance a bit since the time aTm was rumored to be trying to get into the SEC. I believe back then you thought that the SEC wouldn’t get a big tv revenue boost from adding new teams until their current deal ran out. Are you now conceding the fact that the SEC will be getting a big bump in tv revenue due to expansion?
LikeLike
I think this is part of the problem right here. I see people using terms like big, small and nice when referring to the money bump but they don’t really define these terms. Then everyone construes those words to mean different things, leading to misunderstandings.
Please say what you mean in actual numbers, like $1-3M or $5-7M or $40M. I think this may avoid a lot of unnecessary arguments because people may generally agree but be using different terms for the same thing.
LikeLike
Frank – see the link below. At the bottom of the FAQs, there is a chart that lists the number of windows per network, per sport for the SEC.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/134288/sec-television-faq.aspx
I’ll have to order that book. I do agree that ESPN won’t do anything that’s not in its best interest, and I haven’t read the SEC contract with ESPN. But ESPN has adjusted and extended other contracts with the NFL in the past, and as recently as last year. With CFB being the #2 TV sport, and the SEC being the highest rated conference, a strong argument could be made that the SEC football package is the second most valuable asset ESPN has.
LikeLike
So why would they give away that profit? I think that’s the point everyone not SEC related is making. ESPN paid them a fixed amount and ESPN gets the risk. A contract isn’t-heads I win, tails you lose. ESPN paid an amount and took the downside and upside.
The SEC will have to give them something to get significantly more money. And I think the money is with ESPN, not CBS. The SEC already gets national distribution and gets pretty good ratings in Texas with CBS. They aren’t going to get extra time slots just because they have more teams. And as I said above, a 9th conference game or flexibility on scheduling (ie TH nights) are things that could add value that the SEC doesn’t seem particularly interested in for various reasons.
I don’t see ESPN giving away money. It will take something being done with the extra inventory. And I know A&M has been doing work on their own network, so they aren’t assuming this SEC network is a certainty. The numbers would have to be really good to get UK, UF, LSU, Alabama, etc. to give up their ability to do their own deal. Many SEC schools are already doing pretty well with Tier III on their own. Slive has made that point himself, saying the talk about the TV contracts didn’t tell the whole story, and that the SEC did much better than their $17.1 million Tier I and II deal indicated.
LikeLike
ESPN is giving the ACC, which is clearly under-valued, $40-$54 million for Pitt and Syracuse who offer similar market size, better basketball and slightly weaker football for all 3 tiers. If the SEC got $54 million for the top two tiers, that would only be an additional $1.5 million per school. To get to $20 million/school, they would need $91 million extra per year.
I don’t believe what ABC gave the B1G for UNL was disclosed (maybe someone here heard something?), but it was believed to be relatively small, other than the $22 million for the ccg.
ESPN even sued CUSA after they signed with Fox saying they should have been able to match the Fox offer. That was CUSA(!) and ESPN is basically full-they don’t have extra space. That’s one of the reasons they are sharing the Pac 12 with Fox.
The precedent is that ESPN is not going to give the SEC a lot of extra money for Tier II.
LikeLike
But regardless of where the extra money comes from (whether it’s tier I, II, or III), CBS seems to believe that the SEC about to get a significant amount of extra money according to the article. Personally I think that they will get pay increases from all three tiers based on the statement in the article that quote Slive as saying “”We have started discussions with both our television partners. We feel adding Texas A&M and Missouri has strengthened us in lots of ways, but it certainly strengthened us in television.” It sounds like they are admitting that they are included in the talks.
I have yet to see an actual copy of the current deal between ESPN & the SEC, so I have no idea how it is written or what “loopholes” there may be. But I know that Slive is a lawyer (and judge) by trade. And he seems to be pretty good at finding and exploiting loopholes (see the Cam Newton ordeal). And keep in mind that he was the one that negotiated the current tv deal with ESPN, so he knows exactly how it reads.
Now I’m not saying that there are loopholes in the current agreement, because I don’t know. But I do know that Slive has been acting pretty confident that the SEC will be able to significantly increase their tv revenue. And he has yet to do anything that would make me believe that he doesn’t know exactly what is going on or what the reality of the situation is. He strikes me as a very shrewed man and very good at what he does. And I can’t see a man like that giving people false hope or leading people on if he wasn’t confident in what the endgame will be.
LikeLike
I agree 100% Bamatab.
LikeLike
@Bamatab,
What is significantly increase to you though? The SEC is slated to get $13.75 million per school this year pre-additions for a total of $165 million from CBS and ESPN. If you add $30 million each for Missouri and Texas A&M that brings the pot up to $225 million for 14 teams or a 36.4% increase in the middle of the contract by expanding by 16.7%.
I’d call that a significant increase.
LikeLike
Slive is putting up a negotiating position. It is meaningless.
This writer isn’t really saying anything either. This article would be even more meaningless than Slive’s comments except for the fact that it is on CBSsports. But that still doesn’t mean the writer knows anything about the negotiations.
Tier III is a lot easier to put together when noone is making much as with the Pac 10 and Big 10 when they started their deals. Texas was only making $300k before the ESPN deal (although there was $3.75 million of their $15 million paid to the company with their licensing rights). The SEC schools have done a good job monetizing their 3rd tier rights. That makes any sort of network more complicated legally, logistically and politically.
LikeLike
I’ve only seen two sources other than SEC homers talk specifically about this. ESPN didn’t mention any numbers but said it was a look-in to see what they could do better (a direct contrast to the many homers who talk about re-negotiating). One other source guessed $2 million a year. That was a while back and I don’t remember who it was (media analyst, sportswriter?).
The Big 10 and ACC estimates for expansion make that $2 million look reasonable. $1 to $3 million per school wouldn’t surprise me. There’s no reason to believe ESPN will give away money to give the SEC a 50% bump to $25 million over the life of the contract like some of the homers suggest. If they do, their negotiators should be fired.
Maybe the SEC can get a lot of money out of a network, but that remains to be seen. And for Florida making at least $8 million a year already, $10 million isn’t a huge bump. Then again, the question is what exactly is in that $8 million? How much is media rights? Another question is how long it would take to get to $10 million. I don’t believe the Big 10 is at $10 million/school yet and they’ve been working on it a while. I don’t see how the SEC gets to the $40 million in TV rights numbers some Missouri fans were throwing around on their board. Not before 2025.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – Actually the current tv contracts for the SEC is $205 million per year or $17.1 mil per team as of 2011. http://collegesportsinfo.com/2011/10/03/2011-television-revenue-by-conference/
I think the $17.1 mil per team would stay relatively the same regardless of much negotiation with the addition of aTm & Mizzou (the token raise that some have suggested). A significant increase to me would be a lot more than that. If I had to guess, I’m think that the raise will be in the $22-$25 mil per team range. If the SEC can negotiate its way into a true SEC Network and keep the majority of the rights, then I think $30-$35 mil per team or more is a pretty good ballpark.
LikeLike
@Bamatab,
That is the average over the life of the contract. Under the existing deal, I don’t show the SEC hitting the more than $17 million until 2017-2018 at which point they’ll start exceeding the average $17.1 million for the remainder of the deal. I’m comparing what they actually are getting paid right now, which like I said I have at about $13.75 million per team for this coming year.
If we are talking about getting to $24 million per team in just television revenue… Then you are implying that Missouri and A&M add $171 million a year ($85.5 million each). When even in that monster Pac-12 deal each team is only valued at about $21 million, yeah I have a hard time justifying the $24 million per team SEC number (with the implication that Missouri and A&M are each worth $86 million to ESPN and CBS).
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – I’m not saying that aTm & Mizzou alone are worth that amount of money. I’m saying the conference as a whole (including the new additions) is worth that amount. The SEC is currently very undervalued with the current tv deals in comparision to what the other conferences are making (I think we can all agree to that). I’m saying that it is my belief that the new negotiations will gain the SEC what they are truely worth (or close to it) in comparision to the other conferences. I think that Slive truely believes that the expansion has opened up the opportunity for him to renegotiate the contracts for the conference as a whole, and he plans to get fair market value.
LikeLike
Bamatab,
I fully agree the SEC is undervalued now. When you say they’ll get fair value, what measuring stick are you using? All the power conference deals currently ongoing? Just the new P12 deal? What the B10 is expected to get in a few years? Something else?
That’s part of the problem. The value has been constantly changing, and the SEC is in a long term deal. Are you saying ESPN will basically start from scratch and pay what they would if the SEC was on the market? That seems odd, since the SEC is in a contract and there are no other bidders. Why would a network keep paying more and more, knowing that just raises the bar for the next round of negotiations (with the B10, for example)?
It’s completely different if you’re saying they’ll get a combination of smaller bumps. I see all of these as reasonable:
1. 34.2M to keep everyone at the current payout (or whatever the actual number is)
2. 1-2 M more total to reflect the increase in value of games since they have more to choose from
3. 1-2 M increase to reflect the changing marketplace
4. 1-4 M more if ESPN gets to broadcast more games (depends on what and how many)
5. A lot more if ESPN forms a true SEC network taking all the tier III rights
So basically, that’s $18-21M total per team for basically the same package, maybe $19-25M if ESPN gets more content, and as much as $35M if ESPN gets a full SEC network. It depends how many more slots ESPN really has to fill for the network, really.
Those are broad ranges and pure guesstimates, of course, but all of that seems plausible to me. What bothers many people is it sounds like SEC people expect $40M for the same basic package, and that seems unrealistic.
LikeLike
Brian, I haven’t seen anyone on here or even among the homerest of SEC homers suggest that the SEC would get $40M per year for the same standard package. Anyone talking about large increases is saying they would come from the creation of an SEC network.
LikeLike
@Bamatab,
That is the issue at hand though. The ACC and Big Ten both added teams. Both contracts got re-evaluated based on the additions not based on market conditions for the entire league.
Do I think the SEC is undervalued? Of course. Like you said, I think everyone agrees on that point. The problem for me at least is that the SEC is in the middle of a contract. The conferences you are comparing the SEC to have negotiated new contracts. Adding two teams doesn’t justify the entire SEC contracts getting reworked.
If that is the case what is to stop the Big Ten or Pac-12 from going back and getting their contracts reworked after the SEC does? Then what is to stop Slive from going back to the table again? it just logically does not make sense. If you subscribe to that line of thought, you are left with believing Slive has a clause in the SEC contracts that no one else had. I’ll admit that is possible, but I don’t think it is likely.
LikeLike
@Alan,
The NFL contracts were coming up for expiration and the league extended their deals with all of their partners through 2022. ESPN already has the SEC locked up for longer than that by a year or two. I agree that the SEC contract is one of the more valuable ones for ESPN. It is also even more valuable right now considered how undervalued it is. That doesn’t mean it is ESPN’s best interest to give that value away.
LikeLike
@Frank,
That last part is why if I was the SEC I’d just wait 12 years. Scott is about to launch a network with no apparent equity being given up. If you are the SEC yes you could get a nice check from ESPN right now, but like you said they’d control all or nearly all of the equity in the network. Wait until your existing deals expire and then launch a network when it is on your terms.
LikeLike
So many wasted words, Brian. You can bluster all you want but I’m still right.
Others on here have repeatedly claimed what Bamatab just described: that the SEC will only gain a token increase, and will likely be behind the Big Ten and Pac 12 in revenue over the next decade or more.
You have repeatedly been supportive of these posts, and repeatedly been openly hostile to any suggestions to the contrary, as you were just now.
LikeLike
^^ This should have been posted beneath Brian’s flame-filled post above.
LikeLike
You are all wrong all the time on this. I didn’t support anybody else, period. I called you out for your hypocritical comment about wishful thinking as my first comment on the topic, and since then you have continuously falsely alleged comments I’ve made.
The more you erroneously spew, the more it makes me agree with everyone else though.
LikeLike
You’ve been repeatedly hostile and skeptical of the idea of the SEC making any significant gains in TV revenue. That’s a fact and you don’t have to look far up this thread to see it.
You’re a strange guy. Not sure what you’re trying to achieve by denying this.
LikeLike
Andy,
You’ve been repeatedly hostile and skeptical of the idea of the SEC making any significant gains in TV revenue. That’s a fact and you don’t have to look far up this thread to see it.
You’re a strange guy. Not sure what you’re trying to achieve by denying this.
No, it’s not a fact. What I’m trying to do is establish the truth. Maybe others said those things, but I didn’t. The proof is right up the page.
My 1st comment on this subject in it’s entirety:
Andy,
But it’s an informed opinion, rather than the wishful thinking of fans of rival conferences based on partial knowledge of contracts they’ve never read.
Yes, because there couldn’t possibly be an wishful thinking from the SEC fans, right?
___
Your reply in it’s entirety:
Brian, what I was citing was leaked internal documents about what SEC officials are estimating their revenue in the near future to be. These are informed estimates.
Examples of wishful thinking are what Clay Travis is pushing on OKTC, with $1B per year from the SEC Network, and what some of you on here are pushing, with the SEC somehow a prisoner to their ESPN contract and somehow locked in at 4th or 5th place among conferences in terms of TV dollars. Both of those are wildly unrealistic predictions, in my opinion.
___
Here you already accusing me of “pushing” certain things. Clearly that is untrue.
My 2nd comment on this subject in its entirety:
Andy,
Brian, what I was citing was leaked internal documents about what SEC officials are estimating their revenue in the near future to be. These are informed estimates.
Examples of wishful thinking are what Clay Travis is pushing on OKTC, with $1B per year from the SEC Network, and what some of you on here are pushing, with the SEC somehow a prisoner to their ESPN contract and somehow locked in at 4th or 5th place among conferences in terms of TV dollars. Both of those are wildly unrealistic predictions, in my opinion.
This whole thread of comments started with a link to Mr. SEC. That makes talking about non-SEC fans doing wishful thinking seem a little one sided.
Unless you know what went into those estimates and how optimistic the assumptions behind it were (freedom to change the contract, prospects for SEC network, etc), they might as well be wild ass guesses. Then you throw up strawmen like the SEC being locked in 5th place, which nobody has ever claimed will happen, and wonder why we think you’re being less than objective. Everybody has said the SEC will get some bump. The only real discussion is about how much of a bump, and none of us really know since we haven’t seen the contracts. We get that you’re all giddy to move to the SEC, but the fanboy attitude on this issue makes it hard to take your arguments seriously.
___
Your reply in it’s entirety:
I never said I was objective, but you certainly aren’t. The talk on here of the SEC not being able to start up an SEC network is ridiculous. It doesn’t square with reality at all.
When I refer to the leaked numbers from the Missouri Curators document, that’s not me guessing, that’s me referencing actual evidence from people in the know. When you or Nostradamus say something like “I just can’t see how they could create an SEC network without any content”, that’s fanboy wishful thinking without any evidence at all.
I’m not throwing out wild guesses and crazy numbers like Mr. SEC or Clay Travis. My guess is very modest. I say they will successfully create an SEC network (Slive says it is one of his top priorities to do this), and it will make a modestly large amount of money. If you think this is crazy fanboy talk then you haven’t read much from the SEC fanboys.
___
Here you say I’m not objective, but I’ve said nothing other than that the SEC will get a bump and how large it is is up for debate. That seems both reasonable and objective to me. You then accuse me of saying the SEC can’t start a network, which is clearly a false accusation.
I gave specific numbers in a recent comment that I consider reasonable estimates of what may happen. They could easily be off since I’m no TV expert, but I ballparked them on other recent events and facts in evidence like TV numbers. I believe my range got as high as $35M per year per team. How is that me being “skeptical of the idea of the SEC making any significant gains in TV revenue?” Does more than doubling not count as significant to you?
LikeLike
@Andy,
I still assert the SEC is in a relatively weak negotiating position. They are in the middle of a long-term contract. This isn’t Larry Scott with a blank slate of games to negotiate with. This in all likelihood isn’t even the Big XII signing an extension a couple of years early (I doubt Slive wants to that at this point). This is ACC-esque.
The SEC is negotiating with the ESPN over price for content ESPN likely own regardless. And as Frank points out, ESPN is not known for kindness in negotiating. That doesn’t mean the SEC isn’t going to walk out of this making more than they walked in with. But to suggest that the SEC is in anything but a relatively weak negotiating position is disingenuous.
LikeLike
Nostradamus, I could maybe buy that if a Missouri curator hadn’t leaked internal documents estimating $29M per year in TV money from the SEC.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/10/10/Mizzou.SEC.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a10&eref=sihp
This info likely came either directly from the SEC, or from MU’s team of lawyers looking at the TV contracts with the SEC.
I would also maybe buy what you’re saying if Slive hadn’t spent the last 6 months making statements about large increases in TV money being a primary motive for expansion, if he didn’t speak favorably about the idea of an SEC Network and say that it was a priority to look into making that happen, and if he weren’t optimistically talking about the SEC’s strong negotiating position with TV contracts. But he is doing these things. I don’t think he’d be calling so much attention to himself on this unless he was very confident things would go well. And he’s a shrewd lawyer/judge, so he should have a pretty good idea of where this is likely headed.
Let’s not forget that the SEC added around 20M people (and that’s if you assume that a large chunk of Texas would still not be considered part of the SEC footprint even with the addtion of A&M). And that they are currently very much undervalued when compared to their Neilson ratings and other leagues.
So no, I don’t buy what you’re saying at all.
Also, the fact that you think it would be a good idea for the SEC to leave billions on the table for 12 years in the hopes of getting some kind of better deal in 2024 doesn’t speak well for your ability to comprehend this situation.
LikeLike
From your article:
The report suggests Missouri could earn $17.16 million in Big 12 TV money in fiscal year 2012, compared to $19.25 million from an SEC deal.
It also envisions a far bigger “per member share potential” should a larger SEC – with millions of more eyeballs in Texas and the Midwest – renegotiate its top-tier TV rights — up to $12 million more per year.
Note the words “suggests,” “potential” and “up to” in those sentences.
I still haven’t seen a link to the actual document in question, so it’s hard to judge it.
LikeLike
It certainly shows what they think they can get. It’s an open question as to how much they’ll actually get.
LikeLike
Why is it that when I say it’s an open question you accuse me of being anti-SEC, but then you say it and it’s OK? I am anti-SEC on many issues, but not on their ability to make money on CFB.
LikeLike
Also, let’s not forget how the SEC sees themselves. Right now they see themselves as the elite, premier conference. There is no way they are going to settle for second place in anything, especially when it comes to football and money. They’re not going to sit on a sub par deal and hold off on an SEC Network for 12 years while the Big Ten and Pac 12 are making more than them. It would be completely out of character for them to do this.
LikeLike
Andy, its called hubris. That’s what you are having trouble comprehending. If you had lived in SEC territory, you might understand it better. Slive also talked about how he could get to 16 teams in 15 minutes. He couldn’t even get Missouri in 15 minutes. Those 16 were the 12 CUSA schools, WVU, UL, USF and A&M. So he’s quite capable of making himself look bad.
What you also don’t understand is that the SEC is not leaving billions on the table. Many are already getting significant money from Tier III. And I suspect some of those deals would have to be bought out.
LikeLike
15 minutes was a figure of speech.
You don’t think the SEC could have gotten West Virginia, Louisville, Clemson, among others without any trouble? Plenty of schools would love to join the SEC. They settled on two.
Setting up an SEC network and selling subscriptions throughout Florida, Missouri, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, etc would make quite a bit more than the little tier 3 packages they have here and there. If you’re arguing that an SEC Network wouldn’t make much money, then you’re one of a select few.
LikeLike
The SEC thought the ACC schools would come begging. Noone from the ACC was the least bit interested except maybe Clemson. And they didn’t do anything for the SEC. Missouri took forever to make up their mind.
I think the value of these Tier III networks may well be at its peak. People are showing resistance to cable price increases. A lot of people are using alternatives. There are alternative technologies out there. The alternatives may not be as good, but kids are using ipods and not concerned about the sound quality you can get from a good pair of speakers. The same may be true on cable.
NFL and BTN had a lot of trouble initially getting carriage. LHN is having trouble in Texas. Pac 12 had all the cable operators lined up before they did the deal. They’ve got a little different operating model. With all the existing deals, it might not be possible and certainly would be more difficult to do the same deal. It remains to be seen how profitable the Pac 12 operation will actually be.
LikeLike
If an SEC network fails to make money, it will be for the kinds of broad factors you’re describing, and those same factors will hit the LHN, the BTN, and the Pac 12 network as well. If anything, an SEC network should be more resistant to these problems because of the high level of enthusiasm among SEC fans.
LikeLike
This Alabama article is from June, but has a good discussion of the SEC TV situation/rights and network possibilities/difficulties. Talks to ESPN and school officials along with a few quotes from Slive.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/sec_turns_to_own_tv_sports_net.html
LikeLike
Long run yes, but the LHN has a fixed price contract. The risk is with ESPN. The BTN has carriage agreements and is fine for as long as those agreements last (although there could be some dropoff in subscribers). Not sure about the Pac 12 network. I haven’t seen any detailed discussion, but my guess is they are relying more on benefitting from advertising and less from carriage rates (why else would all those cable providers line up so readily for a 100% Pac 12 owned network?). So to the extent people drop cable it hurts their ability to sell advertising. For a startup network (like ESPN’s issues with LHN), customers price resistance hurts new entrants most of all.
LikeLike
Andy,
Setting up an SEC network and selling subscriptions throughout Florida, Missouri, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, etc would make quite a bit more than the little tier 3 packages they have here and there.
Schools like UF already make $10M per year off of their “little tier 3 packages.” The question is whether an SEC-wide network could guarantee a higher number, or else why would the big boys risk it?
LikeLike
Florida is the only school making that kind of money. There will be all kinds of pressure for them to play ball on this. The SEC isn’t the Big 12 and Florida isn’t the King of the Conference like Texas.
LikeLike
@Andy
Pre- ESPN/Texas deal this is the list that i’ve seen pieced together based off of various press-releases announcing deals for 3rd tier broadcast/advertising deals.
1. Georgia = $92.8 million for 8 years with ISP Sports = $11.6 million a year
2. Ohio State = $110 million for 10 years with IMG College = $11 million a year
3. Florida = $100 million for 10 years with IMG College, Sun Sports = $10 million a year
4. Alabama = $85.0 million for 9 years with ISP/Learfield = $9.44 million a year
5. Texas = $94 million for 10 years with IMG College = $9.4 million a year
6. Nebraska = $112.5 million for 13 years with IMG College = $8.65 million a year
7. Tennessee = $83.4 million for 10 years with IMG College = $8.34 million a year
8. Connecticut = $80 million for 10 years with IMG College = $8 million
9. Kentucky = $80 million for 10 years with IMG College = $8 million
10. North Carolina = $97.5 million for 13 years with Learfield Sports = $7.5 million a year
11. LSU = $74.5 million for 10 years with CBS Collegiate Sports Properties = $7.45 million a year
12. Arkansas = $73 million for 10 years with ISP Sports = $7.3 million a year
13. Michigan = $86 million for 12 years with IMG College = $7.16 million a year
14. Arizona = $80.4 million for 12 years with IMG College = $6.7 million a year
15. Oklahoma = $75 million for 10 years with Learfield Sports = $6.33
The fact that over half of the old SEC is in the top 15 schools in the country on this list Augusts their 3rd tier deals are doing quite well. The fact that Georgia is ahead of Florida also suggests tat Florida isn’t the only one getting that kind of deal. It is possible that the schools will sign over some 3rd tier rights like the Big Ten and Pac-12 did with their conference networks, but I wouldn’t count it as a given.
LikeLike
From what I understand, those schools don’t actually own the rights to that content. They are granted those rights by the SEC, and the SEC can take it back if that is a policy that is voted for by SEC members.
What those numbers indicate to me is that there is plenty of valuable 3rd tier SEC content out there for an SEC network to grab up.
If it looks like an SEC network is definitely going to make less than 7-8M per year per school over the long run then perhaps it wouldn’t get a majority support. But if it looked like there was a profit to be had, then why wouldn’t SEC schools vote in favor of this?
LikeLike
“From what I understand, those schools don’t actually own the rights to that content. They are granted those rights by the SEC, and the SEC can take it back if that is a policy that is voted for by SEC members.”
Proof please. From what I understand, the SEC schools never did a grant of rights to the conference like the B10 & Pac have (and B12 has for 6, now maybe more, years). If your contacts within the Mizzou administration are so good, doubtlessly you would have heard of such a thing if Mizzou was required to grant its TV rights to the SEC.
LikeLike
In fact, the SEC has no exit fees or waiting period, so I really doubt they’ve done a grant-of-rights:
http://opendispatch.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=9246449
You know, Andy, you could be so much more credible if you actually either
1. Offered proof for what you “understand”
2. Don’t state something as probably true just because you want it to be true when there’s no evidence that that something is true.
LikeLike
Andy Staple (someone a bit more authoritative) stating that the SEC has no exit fee:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/11/06/missouri-sec-expansion/index.html
You can search on the interwebs for people stating the SEC schools don’t grant rights to the SEC either.
LikeLike
@Richard – a few posts ago I posted a link that the SEC has a $50 membership fee a year.
LikeLike
Richard, this is the way it was explained to me. I don’t have a handy encyclopedia of all things SEC to cite on everything that comes up. If what I’m saying isn’t the case so be it, but the person I heard it from believed this to be true. Feel free to look into it and prove me wrong. You haven’t provided any more evidence that I’m wrong than I have that I’m right.
LikeLike
Mike, membership fees for the SEC may be $50/yr, and there may be no exit fees, but as long as you’re in the SEC you have to follow SEC policies, whether you’re there voluntarily or compelled to be there by threat of penalty fees.
LikeLike
Richard, Grant of Rights is only an issue if a school were to leave the SEC for another conference. As long as schools stay in the SEC they have to abide by SEC policies.
Haven’t been able to find any sources for or against what I said above about third-tier rights. I have seen quotes along the lines of “the SEC currently allows schools to retain third tier rights”, as well as multiple articles suggesting that will likely no longer be the case once the SEC network is created.
The entire motivation behind adding Missouri and Texas A&M was to chase TV dollars. There is absolutely no reason to think they won’t do this as aggressively as possible. Creating an SEC network is the talk of the SEC right now, and I’ve yet to see a single SEC source that is against it. And yet for some reason I see lots of Big 12 and Big Ten fans poo-pooing the idea.
LikeLike
@Andy – I don’t recall saying they didn’t. I was pointing out that the SEC has the opposite of exit fees.
LikeLike
Andy, the SEC is clearly exploring it. But I don’t see any SEC figures in authority (excluding maybe Missouri) saying, “We HAVE to do this.” They’re looking at it as they should, but that doesn’t mean it will make sense for enough of the schools to do it.
I haven’t seen any FSU or Clemson figures in authority saying they are against joining the Big 12. That doesn’t mean they are going to do it.
LikeLike
They’ll do it if it will make money, they won’t if it won’t. Most everybody I’ve seen thinks it will make money.
LikeLike
Andy:
“Richard, Grant of Rights is only an issue if a school were to leave the SEC for another conference”
If the schools didn’t grant rights to the conference, the conference doesn’t own third-tier rights; the schools do.
LikeLike
B1G Baseball Update
Team week [overall] (Opponents)
Nebraska 4-1 [14-7] (So. Dakota St. La Tech [3-1])
Michigan St 3-0 [10-7] (Cincinatti)
Illinos 3-1 [10-7] (So Illnois, No Illinois [2-1])
Ohio St. 2-1 [10-7] (Austin Peay)
Indiana 2-3 [6-13] (San Diego [1-1], Loyola Marymount [1-2]
Iowa 2-2 [6-10] (Bucknell [W], Long Island, Jacksonville St [w], Army)
Purdue 2-2 [14-3] (Wichita St)
Michigan 2-2 [9-11] (Costal Carolina, UAB [W], UConn [W])
Minnesota 2-3 [8-11] (Kansas St, Cal Poly [2-1])
Northwestern 2-3 [6-11] (Eastern Illinois [W], Navy, Bucknell, Long Island [W], Jacksonville St.)
Penn St 0-3 [3-14] (East Carolina)
Purdue looks like the best team in the B1G right now. Indiana gets a win over San Diego (non Tony Gwinn version)
LikeLike
Saw an article copied on another board (with a link that didn’t work) that had a chart of the various TV contracts (not Dosh’s chart)
Big 10 contracts
ABC $1.0 billion/ 10 years
BTN $2.8 million/ 25 years
CBS-additional basketball $72 million/6 years
Chart didn’t list the Big 10 ccg.
For the B10 ccg, I found 3 sources-1 estimated $20-$25 million, another said $25 million and a 3rd said $145 million over 6 years from Fox ($24 million).
Putting that together-$100 million + $112 million + 12 million + $24 million=$248 million
Divided 12 ways is $20.667 million.
Fox and ESPN are also apparently looking to share Big 12 rights like they do with the Pac 12.
LikeLike
@bullet – Is this it (at the bottom)?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/03/19/Media/Big-12.aspx
LikeLike
that’s it.
LikeLike
The $20.7 million might be low as we don’t know if the ABC and BTN deals were adjusted pro-rata for the add of Nebraska. I am thinking they were adjusted but that’s just a wild ass guess on my part.
LikeLike
Matt Sarz’s take on SEC renegotiation
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2012/03/renegotiations-and-scheduling.html
LikeLike
Who is this guy?
“One fallacy, in my opinion, is that the SEC gained new TV markets. In my opinion, they didn’t.”
Okay….
LikeLike
Think this is a more a comment that SEC gets a lot of air time in TX and MO now, not that the ratings for these broadcasts will not increase. Even the third tier SEC network is in St. Louis and 6 TX markets. The largest TX/MO markets not carrying the SEC network are Kansas City, El Paso, and Austin.
LikeLike
Read his justification for why they didn’t gain television markets. When the majority of your contract is on CBS or ESPN you aren’t adding television markets or population bases. Your games are already on television in every household with a basic cable package in the entire country.
“One fallacy, in my opinion, is that the SEC gained new TV markets. In my opinion, they didn’t, at least with the top tier games ”
Nothing he said there is wrong. And the fallacy he refers to is accurate if you believe what the SEC is negotiating right now is the value Missouri and A&M add not a re-do of the entire SEC contract.
LikeLike
Interesting Twitter feed from Michigan State AD.
Mark Hollis @MSUAD
Spartans football will play at Oregon in 2014 and in Spartan Stadium in 2015. Replaces WVU due to their transition to Big 12.
LikeLike
West Virginia opted out of contract.
LikeLike
Follow-up Tweet from Michigan State AD.
Mark Hollis @MSUAD
In upcoming years Spartans will host Oregon, Notre Dame, Alabama, Boise State, Miami (Fla). Celebrate the State games for Michigan economy.
LikeLike
Michigan’s AD said they are interested in scheduling some Pac-12 games prior to 2017, but nothing planned yet. They have a few openings to fill.
I heard the Colorado AD say on the radio a few weeks ago that they are interested in scheduling B1G teams in the next few years. They would like to play in the Chicago area and further east. Still working on it.
LikeLike
Well if he is serious about not playing any more OOC road games besides ND then that could be tough. (Of course that was going to change when the scheduling agreement went into effect but its not clear if the PAC would be the exception or if they were rescinding the policy)
LikeLike
Where did he say that? I imagine that MSU will have 7 home games a year. I can’t see them ever having 8 home games a year (with a 12 game schedule). That means 1 OOC away game a year when the Pac series starts (in a 12 game schedule). Right now, MSU could take a 2-year break from the ND series from 2018-2019, but in 2020-2021, there’s no way MSU can fit in HaH’s with ND AND Boise AND a Pac team AND have 7 home games each year. The Boise series could be moved back to 2024-2025 (or MSU could go 4 years without playing ND, but I doubt that would be acceptable to anyone). The only other alternative is playing a 6-5-1 where the Pac games are neutral site (and pay as much as a home game) in 2020-2021. That, at least, would make the revenues work.
LikeLike
I was talking about Michigan, not MSU.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/07/michigan-wolverines-dave-brandon-football-road-games-/1
I don’t believe we can or should go on the road for nonconference games when we can put 113,000 people in our stadium,” he said Monday at the Eagle Eye Golf Club before a golf match with Michigan State AD Mark Hollis. “It’s, financially, the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for our fans, in terms of their ticket packages. And we’re going to alternate with Notre Dame, so we’re going to have one game on the road every other year. So the rest of those games, I would like to have at Michigan Stadium.
LikeLike
Oh, OK.
He’ll have to play Pac schools, and I really doubt all of them will agree to just visit Michigan Stadium with no return game. Maybe WSU, Utah, a cash-strapped Colorado, and possibly Ore.St. That’s about it. Neutral site games with Pac powers the rest of the time? I doubt it. More likely, he means no road games for UM (except @ND) until 2017.
LikeLike
Yeah, this article was written months before the PAC-B1G scheduling alliance when the conference was committed to a 9 game schedule. That said, they are going to have to face PAC teams on the road. The PAC just banned schools from playing one-off neutral site games and are cracking down on schools like Colorado and WSU for selling home games.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t you suspect that part of the B1G/PAC agreement would include media/money arrangements? I doubt they want to hurt their respective individual teams simply to say “we (the conferences) play each other.” In fact that would seem the opposite of the intent.
LikeLike
Expect a packaging of the Pac 12 Network – BTN to cable providers and the like. Both the Pac 12 Network and BTN would love to get their network on the other leagues footprint.
LikeLike
@wmtiger, This is along the lines of what I was thinking. I’m suprised the SEC/ACC haven’t already looked into a similar media/scheduling agreement. I wrote briefly on it here: http://short-sideoption.blogspot.com/ It seems to make sense given all the cross-conference rivalries they currently share.
LikeLike
I don’t see much benefit for an SEC-ACC agreement (especially on the SEC side). There is so much geographic overlap and proximity between the conferences that it wouldn’t really increase the exposure. Plus they don’t have the same level of tradition that the PAC and B1G have.
LikeLike
@frug, I can see your point. I was thinking along the lines of the SEC may be wanting some exposure in the Northeast, but that still would be an incredibly one-sidded deal. Also something I just thought of, yes both those conferences share many rivalries; but a Pac12/BigTen type agreement would mean those school would possibly have to rotate off their rival. I can’t see Clemson/SC or FSU/UF or UGA/GT liking that idea.
LikeLike
OrderRestored – The SEC and ACC already play 3 annual in-state rivalry games to end the season, and match teams in the Chick-Fil-A Kick-Off Classic (2 games this season) and the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. That’s probably enough.
While I wouldn’t mind my Tigers playing BC, Maryland, GA Tech, Pitt, or Miami (all MLB towns) in September, I wouldn’t want them to be forced to play at Duke or Wake’s tiny stadiums due to an ACC/SEC round robin agreement.
Since I began college, I’ve seen LSU play UNC, VA Tech, GA Tech, Florida State, Miami, and Clemson. LSU has a home-and-home with NC State later this decade.
LikeLike
UM Athletic Director David Brandon’s comments came in July 2011–prior to the Big 10/Pac 12 scheduling arrangement. If he still feels he needs to schedule as many home games as possible by having alternating seasons of seven and eight games in Ann Arbor, then the Notre Dame series is essentially going to be replaced by a Pac 12 team each year starting in 2017.
If Brandon feels the athletic department is best served by having only seven home games on an annual basis, then the Notre Dame series can continue provided it’s coordinated with the scheduling of the future Pac 12 opponent. Notre Dame plays in Ann Arbor during odd numbered seasons, so Michigan would have to be on the road against a Pac 12 team during those years, then switch in the even numbered years.
One other thing has to happen though in order to keep the UM-ND series going. Right now, Michigan is playing Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State all at home or all on the road through 2014. Unless the Big Ten changes the schedule so that the UN-L and OSU games are split into one home/one away, Brandon could be compelled to pull to alter or cancel the series with ND. Notre Dame likes having USC at home and Michigan on the road and vice versa, so the Irish may not be too flexible in the matter. That means the UM-ND series could come to a crashing halt sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
I imagine Michigan will play ND 4 out of 6 years when the Pac series commences.
As for the USC/ND/Michigan home games, I can’t see why they can’t switch the ordering of the home games.
LikeLike
Michigan State has cut back with Notre Dame to 4 of 6, I believe through 2025. Wouldn’t be surprised to see Michigan eventually take the other 2 of 6. This would allow Michigan to schedule more high profile games like the Alabama game at Gerry World this September. The AD has said he wants more games on the national stage.
LikeLike
I’d imagine Michigan would want to play ND more often than that. 4 out of 6 allows every Michigan player (who’s there 4 years) to play ND at least once at home and once away.
The Pac series should get Michigan plenty of high-profile games (I’m assuming they’ll be matched up with USC, UCLA, & Washington more than WSU, Utah, and Oregon St.).
It’s not as if Michigan really looks to play other top brand teams besides ND much anyway. Since going to a 12-game schedule, Michigan has played another team in a top-5 conference only twice (and only 1 really counts): Vandy visited for a guarantee game in 2006 while Oregon visited in 2007 (Utah visited in 2008, but they were a MWC team then).
LikeLike
AD says Michigan is looking to play more name brand teams in the future. It’s a planned change in scheduling philosophy. They have several open dates on their schedule starting in 2014 that I believe will be used for high profile games. Also, a trip to South Bend isn’t all that great for recruiting since Michigan already plays at Northwestern every other year, and will periodically play at Purdue, Indiana and Illinois. They have that area of the country pretty well covered.
LikeLike
Pat:
They’ll be able to schedule plenty of brand-name non-ND teams even if they play ND 4 times in 6 years. Even if the Pac only sets Michigan up with a brand name team half the time (granted, I’m counting Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and UDub along with USC & UCLA as “brand name teams”), they could play a brand name school when they don’t play ND, with is a third of the time. That’s 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6th of the time, or 10 out of 12 years.
LikeLike
Richard – I disagree with the sentiment that Michigan will play Notre Dame as often as you suggest. The reason why UM’s played so few major non-conference teams along with ND comes down to profit maximization. Having alternating seasons with seven and eight home games means more ticket revenue for the athletic department plus it helps keep the luxury boxes and premium seating filled (the luxury boxes all sold out in under two years).
If Brandon feels that having alternating seasons of seven and eight home games per year is best for the athletic department, then he’ll go that route and substitute a Pac 12 team for the slot with Notre Dame. When the two teams took a break in 2000/2001, UM played at UCLA and then at Washington. There’s no reason to think he won’t go that route again starting 2017 when the Big Ten/Pac 12 agreement kicks in.
Michigan also doesn’t really need to have Notre Dame on the schedule each year or even four out of six years. There’s very little drop off in attendance from opponent to opponent for these games. As long as UM can charge a premium ticket price for Oregon or USC or Stanford or whoever will be on the schedule, then there’s not going to be a major revenue hit there. The television contracts will be in place, so that revenue is pretty much fixed regardless of the opponent.
The Athletic Department isn’t exactly hurting for money right now either. Per the Department of Education database, UM had over $122M in revenue with $96M of expenses in the 2010-11 timeframe. With the new television contracts coming on line in four years or so along with growth in the Big Ten Network, Michigan should have plenty of money to complete its facilties building and modernization projects while maintaining the existing teams and programs already in place.
LikeLike
M vs ND is a huge boon for both schools; both want to play each other very often, maybe not every year but more than every other year. Its a high profile game (in the 80’s and much of the 90’s it was bigger than The Game) nationally that is always nationally televised and I believe was #2 in ratings this year behind only Alabama-LSU…
LikeLike
I agree with the sentiments of Richard and wmtiger. In fact, I’d go even further and wager that the ND-Michigan series will end up being about the exact same setup as now with them playing annually except for taking a 2-year break once per decade or so. It’s a critical series for both teams and for their respective TV rights holders. As wmtiger noted, last year’s ND-Michigan game was the highest rated regular season game of the year besides Alabama-LSU (and note that the ND-Michigan game was actually on ESPN cable as opposed to over-the-air). I’ve always been curious as to why so many people seem to think that the ND-Michigan series is expendable. Sure, the ADs of ND and Michigan will always have open-ended intimations in the media that the series might stop until they have a contract signed, but I don’t buy that rhetoric at all. IMHO, it’s about as close as you can get to being a locked-in non-conference game even if some other non-conference series (like ND-Purdue) have been in place for longer periods of time. There’s true vitriol in the ND-Michigan series, and that’s a great thing whether you’re a fan or it’s for business.
LikeLike
FTT:
I’d take that wager about the Michigan-Notre Dame series and say that the current arrangement won’t last out the decade.
If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten, then it’s a moot point. If it’s the ACC and they have a nine-game conference schedule, then I don’t see the Irish locked into having USC, Navy and Michigan as their three non-conference games. If ND were to join the Big XII as some sort of quasi-member, the relationship might continue, but we’d have to see what sort of agreement the two sides would make on when games are to be scheduled, etc. If a couple of those games are in September, then that might well affect the UM-ND series.
With conference realignment, a four-team playoff on the horizon and the possibility of the major schools breaking from Division 1-A into a division of 80 or fewer programs, all sort of reasons outside of finances or putting together competitive schedules could give Notre Dame reason enough to join a conference.
But let’s assume Notre Dame stays independent through all this and the Big Ten goes thru with its agreement to play Pac 12 teams on an annual basis. That leaves Michigan with a decision regarding how many home games it wants to play and whether or not David Brandon (and the conference and the networks) think it’s okay for UM to take a potential “step down” and substitute a home-and-home series with a Pac 12 team for the Notre Dame game. Michigan and Notre Dame take a break in 2018/19–what we learn about what UM plans to do those two seasons could potentially give us an answer. If Michigan replaces ND with a high-end program (Texas, Alabama, etc.) those two years, then that means UM will likely stick with Notre Dame going forward. If not, then you can see Michigan’s future scheduling strategy going forward.
What would a “step down” mean? Potentially lower ratings for an early season game, but is that enough reason to lose the revenue from one home game every two years or to make the overall schedule more difficult than necessary in a post-BCS world? Michigan’s attendance won’t take much of a hit if the past is any indication. so that’s a non-issue. The television contracts that will be signed in 2015 will be unaltered, so there’s no real financial concerns involved here either.
Finally, there’s the conference scheduling issue for the Big Ten. Brandon’s on record as saying he doesn’t want to play Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State all at home or all away (this year’s home games are Air Force, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan State, Northwestern and Iowa with Alabama being played in Dallas–not the most exciting line up out there). Outside of the problems dealing with schedule strength, he also has to look at keeping the home games interesting–especially for the folks who own the luxury boxes (which is another reason why he would be very interested in maximizing the number of home games at Michgian Stadium) that were 100% occupied going into last season. As I said earlier, unless that conference schedule problem is fixed, Brandon could take matters into his own hands and give ND AD Jack Swarbrick his four year notice that the series is going to be cancelled. The Big Ten is going to have to publish it 2015/6 conference schedules sooner rather than later–when they do, we might have a better indication of what Michigan plans to do as well.
I’m not discounting external factors here–the Big Ten might want Michigan to keep ND on the schedule as part of the ongoing efforts to woo ND into the B10, for example. But my educated guess on this is that things will come to a head on that issue and others long before the decade is up.
LikeLike
2012
home – MSU, IA, NW, IL
road – ND, OSU, NE, MN, PU
2013
home – ND, OSU, NE, MN, IN
road – MSU, IA, NW, PSU
2014
home – MSU, IA, NW, PSU
road – ND, OSU, NE, MN, IN
The B10 gave MI this split in division – NE/MN versus MSU/IA/NW. That seems reasonable, but it requires pairing OSU with the group of 2. That, of course, makes 2 kings or no kings among the 6 fixed opponents. It does split the rivalries, though. The real problem is ND also being tied to OSU and NE.
What fix do you propose? Move ND, NE or OSU? When the P12 series starts, will that change your thinking as it adds another important OOC game?
1. Move ND
To move the ND game, ND has to agree obviously. It also means the P12 probably has to agree since USC and Stanford would probably have to change as well. That’s a lot of moving parts, but all 3 groups get along.
2. Move NE
On the bright side, this series is still young so a switch isn’t that bad. Do you also swap MN, or do you change the groupings of 2 and 3 division foes? Swapping everybody is a lot of changes that have to propagate through the schedule.
3. Move OSU
It’s always nasty when you mess with The Game. Both schools will want the back to back home games, and OSU’s future OOC schedule is set knowing when MI is at home. As with the NE game, swapping OSU means a lot of changes for everybody.
The best plan would be for MI to swap the ND game. For that to happen, ND/USC and ND/Stanford would have to switch, too, to keep ND happy (unless ND also wants changes to MSU). The final change is that the USC/Stanford game has to switch to keep their balance of home and road games. It shouldn’t be all that hard for the four schools to get together and fix the problem. At most, the other schools may demand a minor sacrifice from MI for the favor.
LikeLike
Brian:
It seems to me that switching UNL is easiest. Substitute NU in UNL’s spot (and vice versa), then switch the NU-UNL series around, and viola, you’re finished.
In fact, I’m not sure why the B10 didn’t do this in the beginning. Seems that, like the B10 logo designers, the B10 schedule makers didn’t think things through.
Even if they don’t do that, though, in even years, UM gets MSU at home. You’d think that rivalry would mean something to Michigan fans.
LikeLike
Richard,
It seems to me that switching UNL is easiest. Substitute NU in UNL’s spot (and vice versa), then switch the NU-UNL series around, and viola, you’re finished.
That could work. MI spreads out the kings, so they’re happy. NW trades one king for another, so they don’t mind (I assume). How about NE?
NE’s current 2013 schedule:
home – IA, MSU, NW
road – MI, MN, PSU
NE’s current 2014 schedule:
home – MI, MN, PSU
road – IA, MSU, NW
Does NE want MI, IA and MSU all in the same year versus PSU in the other, or do they prefer MI and PSU one year and IA/MSU in the other? I assume they’d really prefer MI/IA and PSU/MSU, but would prefer the status quo to your change.
In fact, I’m not sure why the B10 didn’t do this in the beginning. Seems that, like the B10 logo designers, the B10 schedule makers didn’t think things through.
I’m guessing it’s hard to spread out the kings and rivalries for everyone in one schedule. On top of that, certain schools want you to factor in OOC games. Adding the P12 games will only make it harder.
Even if they don’t do that, though, in even years, UM gets MSU at home. You’d think that rivalry would mean something to Michigan fans.
It means more than they’d like to admit, but it’s still 3 kings (ND, NE, OSU) versus their secondary rival (MSU). I can see the problem with that, even if they get a second elite OOC game or PSU to pair with MSU. They also get 3 division games at home when they get MSU, which is an advantage for the tiebreaker, but I assume since it’s the middle 3 teams (by reputation) that they don’t see that as much of a positive..
LikeLike
After some thought, I came up with this set of groupings that might work pretty well for everybody:
IA – NE, MSU, PU / MI, NW, MN, ISU
MI – OSU, MSU, IA / ND, NE, NW, MN
MN – MI, IA, NW / WI, NE, MSU
MSU – ND, NE, NW, MN / MI, IA, IN
NE – MI, NW, MN / PSU, MSU, IA
NW – MI, IL, IA / NE, MSU, MN
IL – PSU, WI, IN / NW, OSU, PU
IN – OSU, WI, MSU / PSU, PU, IL
OSU – PSU, IL, PU / MI, WI, IN
PSU – NE, WI, IN / OSU, PU, IL
PU – ND, PSU, IL, IN / OSU, WI, IA
WI – MN, OSU, PU / PSU, IL, IN
They aren’t perfect, but reasonably balanced in as many ways as I could. I tried to split games against kings, games against MI and MSU or IN and PU, games against rivals, balance SOS, balance geography, etc.
LikeLike
Its not hard to apply common sense to schedules. But they often don’t (and I’m not just talking about the B1G). They should have set up OSU/PSU, OSU/UM, UNL/UM and UNL/PSU to all be opposite so each gets 1 at home and 1 away. The B1G also repeatedly had teams skip 2 of the big 3 (UM, PSU and OSU) the same season during the 11 team era. I believe NW had two of their championships and Purdue had theirs skipping two of the 3. A really mediocre Purdue team only needed an upset of PSU in a different year to get a share of the title as they skipped UM and OSU.
LikeLike
bullet,
I agree many conferences seem to struggle with logical scheduling. Just making my list took a lot longer than I expected, though, and I only looked at the locked opponents. Add in the timing of scheduling as another layer, and scheduling really is a hard thing to do well.
The 11 team B10 did have teams miss OSU and MI at the same time seemingly too often, but I’m not sure how avoidable that actually was with all the locked rivalries. I haven’t checked the math. They like to treat teams equally for scheduling purposes it seems, and that may have been the consequence.
LikeLike
“Does NE want MI, IA and MSU all in the same year versus PSU in the other, or do they prefer MI and PSU one year and IA/MSU in the other? I assume they’d really prefer MI/IA and PSU/MSU, but would prefer the status quo to your change.”
I can’t see why they’d care. You’re never going to have perfect balance, and compared to their current schedule (of both kings on one side), I think the change is for the better.
LikeLike
“NE – MI, NW, MN / PSU, MSU, IA”
Just wanted to note that your schedule for UNL is the same as mine except with PSU with Iowa and MSU instead of Michigan.
Either are better than their current one.
LikeLike
“Its not hard to apply common sense to schedules. But they often don’t (and I’m not just talking about the B1G). They should have set up OSU/PSU, OSU/UM, UNL/UM and UNL/PSU to all be opposite so each gets 1 at home and 1 away.”
I totally agree with this. You could have done this and still given every school at least one king at home every year (as Brian has shown). The B10 is probably the easiest conference to set up a balanced schedule for as we have 4 definite kings (and no one else close in brand) with 2 in each division, yet B10 HQ still screwed it up.
Even if you say PSU isn’t the draw for the schools west of OH that the other 3 kings are (and as an Eastern school, they simply can’t engender as much feeling as the other 3 Midwestern kings from IN on west), Brian still set up compelling in-state/border rivalry games for season ticket-holders:
for Illinois: Wisconsin
for IU: PU & (maybe Illinois)
for PU: ND & IU
for Wisconsin: Illinois
LikeLike
Richard,
“Does NE want MI, IA and MSU all in the same year versus PSU in the other, or do they prefer MI and PSU one year and IA/MSU in the other? I assume they’d really prefer MI/IA and PSU/MSU, but would prefer the status quo to your change.”
I can’t see why they’d care. You’re never going to have perfect balance, and compared to their current schedule (of both kings on one side), I think the change is for the better.
The reason they might care is that my plan (MI/IA & PSU/MSU) splits the kings, splits the two schools in MI so their fans don’t have to go there twice in one year, and splits the princes for balance. Your plan just shifts MI’s complaint to NE by giving NE 3 of their top 4 games at home in one year.
“NE – MI, NW, MN / PSU, MSU, IA”
Just wanted to note that your schedule for UNL is the same as mine except with PSU with Iowa and MSU instead of Michigan.
Either are better than their current one.
My full plan wasn’t meant as a critique, per se. I wanted to see what options there really are when you consider all 12 teams, not just 1 or 2. I would have preferred to swap IA with NW or MN, but it caused cascading problems for other schools. I’m sure there are better plans than mine that would fix it, but I didn’t find a quick solution.
LikeLike
Brian:
“splits the princes for balance”
Actually, your plan doesn’t (I assume you meant Iowa and MSU are the princes).
“Your plan just shifts MI’s complaint to NE by giving NE 3 of their top 4 games at home in one year.”
I’d say there’s a big difference between having UNL, OSU, & ND on one side vs. MSU on the other and having Michigan, Iowa, & MSU on one side and PSU on the other.
In one case, you have 3 kings on one side vs. none on the other. In the other case, you have at least 1 king at home every year.
Furthermore, your plan also has UNL playing 3 of their 4 top games at home in one year. Hard for you to criticize my plan when your’s is virtually identical to mine (only difference is splitting the MI schools).
Here it is again, in case you forgot:
“NE – MI, NW, MN / PSU, MSU, IA”
LikeLike
Richard,
“splits the princes for balance”
Actually, your plan doesn’t (I assume you meant Iowa and MSU are the princes).
No, my one off suggestion for NE did. Yours didn’t. When doing the full plan, it was harder to achieve. I wasn’t about to spend a few hours finding a way to do it.
“Your plan just shifts MI’s complaint to NE by giving NE 3 of their top 4 games at home in one year.”
I’d say there’s a big difference between having UNL, OSU, & ND on one side vs. MSU on the other and having Michigan, Iowa, & MSU on one side and PSU on the other.
In one case, you have 3 kings on one side vs. none on the other. In the other case, you have at least 1 king at home every year.
MI may have a bigger complaint, but a large part of it is self-inflicted due to an OOC opponent. Why should NE have to get a much worse schedule in conference just because MI can’t fix their OOC schedule?
Furthermore, your plan also has UNL playing 3 of their 4 top games at home in one year. Hard for you to criticize my plan when your’s is virtually identical to mine (only difference is splitting the MI schools).
There’s a huge difference – my plan looked at all locked opponents for all 12 schools while you just changed the schedules for MI and NE (with NW trading kings). I gave a better plan than yours for NE when I didn’t have to worry about everyone else.
LikeLike
“No, my one off suggestion for NE did. Yours didn’t. When doing the full plan, it was harder to achieve. I wasn’t about to spend a few hours finding a way to do it.”
Well yes, which means that in the real world, it would be very hard if not impossible to actually come up with a plan better than mine. Of course, we could all come up with some one-off ideal schedule that’s perfect for any one particular school, but that schedule most likely isn’t possible in the real world because it causes problems for other schools.
As for Michigan-ND switching home-and-home’s, note that ND wants either Michigan or USC at home every year, USC wants ND or UCLA at home every year, and UCLA wants USC or Cal at home every year. In other words, 3 other schools would have to switch for Michigan to get one king at home every year. In other words, it’s not happening.
“MI may have a bigger complaint, but a large part of it is self-inflicted due to an OOC opponent. Why should NE have to get a much worse schedule in conference just because MI can’t fix their OOC schedule?”
Michigan wouldn’t have had to do anything with their OOC schedule if the B10 schedule-makers had not screwed up. They could have given every school a king at home every year without much effort at all. Look, what if Michigan never played a king OOC? Would it then be OK for Michigan to have 2 kings at home one year and 0 the next? No, of course not. This fiasco is due solely to the incompetence of the B10 schedule-makers.
LikeLike
Richard,
“No, my one off suggestion for NE did. Yours didn’t. When doing the full plan, it was harder to achieve. I wasn’t about to spend a few hours finding a way to do it.”
Well yes, which means that in the real world, it would be very hard if not impossible to actually come up with a plan better than mine. Of course, we could all come up with some one-off ideal schedule that’s perfect for any one particular school, but that schedule most likely isn’t possible in the real world because it causes problems for other schools.
I can’t really agree or disagree with your assessment of the difficulty of finding a better plan. Just because in my first attempt I didn’t make it ideal doesn’t mean someone who was smarter or more focused wouldn’t find a way their first time, so it sounds arrogant for me to agree. Having more time or scheduling software might make it not that hard, so I might disagree. Maybe I’ll look at it again later.
There are certainly a lot of moving parts that complicate things. That I can agree with.
As for Michigan-ND switching home-and-home’s, note that ND wants either Michigan or USC at home every year, USC wants ND or UCLA at home every year, and UCLA wants USC or Cal at home every year. In other words, 3 other schools would have to switch for Michigan to get one king at home every year. In other words, it’s not happening.
Your plan requires changes, too. The CA schools all play each other every year, so the changes wouldn’t be that hard. I agree it’s unlikely, but I don’t see the B10 changing either. Maybe the next two schedules will fix the problem.
What’s not clear to me is why the B10 set it up the way that they did. Did they actually have reasons for it, or did they just not pay attention? Did MI complain loudly and propose an alternative that fixed the problem? If MI finds the schedule than onerous, they should be forcefully presenting an alternative plan for the 2015-6 schedules, preferably one that alleviates problems for others as well. Is that happening?
“MI may have a bigger complaint, but a large part of it is self-inflicted due to an OOC opponent. Why should NE have to get a much worse schedule in conference just because MI can’t fix their OOC schedule?”
Michigan wouldn’t have had to do anything with their OOC schedule if the B10 schedule-makers had not screwed up. They could have given every school a king at home every year without much effort at all. Look, what if Michigan never played a king OOC? Would it then be OK for Michigan to have 2 kings at home one year and 0 the next? No, of course not. This fiasco is due solely to the incompetence of the B10 schedule-makers.
I just can’t agree with you here. MI’s current schedule groups ND, NE and OSU, with MSU the other year. If they shifted ND, it would be NE and OSU one year and ND and MSU the other, which would be pretty balanced. That’s why I say that as flawed as the B10 part of it is, MI’s problem would be fixed if they shifted ND. Let’s say the B10 had set the schedule as NE and MSU versus OSU (that’s the best possible grouping I think). MI would still have a problem unless ND was the same year as OSU (better than MSU against the other 3, but still far from ideal). So again, ND is the key.
Fiasco? Really? That seems over the top, especially since there are the other B10 games plus the OOC games to balance things out. For example, MI gets PSU paired with MSU in 2013-4 plus IA and NW. That makes it an OOC king (ND), a division king (NE) and a rival non-division king (OSU) versus a in-state rival division prince (MSU), another division prince (IA) and a third division team (NW). That isn’t perfect, but it’s not terrible. I don’t focus on 2011-2 so much because we all know the B10 was focused on getting NE on TV and against the other powers as much as possible. 2013-4 looks acceptable to me, and nobody knows what will happen in 2015-6. Even more so, the P12 series will have a big impact. If the P12 team is paired with MSU, IA, NW and PSU/WI (60% of the time one of them, 10% of the time both), that’s pretty good.
LikeLike
So after some more thought, I present a new schedule.
v2.0:
MI – ND, NE, IA, NW / OSU, MSU, MN
MSU – MI, IA, MN / ND, NE, NW, IN
IA – NE, NW, PU, ISU / MI, MSU, MN
MN – MI, IA, NW / NE, WI, MSU
NE – PSU, MSU, MN / MI, IA, NW
NW – NE, MSU, IL / MI, IA, MN
PU – OSU, WI, IN / ND, PSU, IA, IL
IN – PSU, MSU, IL / OSU, WI, PU
IL – OSU, WI, PU / PSU, NW, IN
OSU – MI, WI, IN / PSU, PU, IL
PSU – OSU, PU, IL / NE, WI, IN
WI – PSU, IL, MN / OSU, PU, IN
It’s still not ideal, but everyone has at least 2 good games each year. Considering the other OOC and B10 games are not listed, they could balance out well.
LikeLike
Apologies if I missed this in an earlier post. There is a survey on the BCS and a playoff system from BCSKnowHow.com, you can follow them at https://twitter.com/#!/BCSKnowHow.
https://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9GKIV9MM4Sys1ik
LikeLike
bullet,
In 2000, Purdue went to the Rose Bowl while playing all 3 of PSU, Michigan, and OSU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Purdue_Boilermakers_football_team
LikeLike
I stand corrected. I must have been confusing that year with the year they needed that PSU upset.
LikeLike
As for NW, they missed OSU in 1995 and 1996 but played MI and PSU. In 2000, when they split with MI and PU at 6-2, they did miss OSU and PSU but played both MI and PU. OSU finished 4th at 5-3 and PSU at 4-4, so they weren’t exactly powerhouses.
LikeLike
Yes, but we beat ND in South Bend!
LikeLike
Was that also the year you lost to Miami in Evanston (Miami Ohio)?
LikeLike
Yep, in the very next game. But it’s also the only year we’ve gone to the Rose Bowl since 1949. Dude, this is NU you’re talking about. Single losses are no big embarrassment. I still have pins with “Stop State at 28” on them back when that was the nation’s longest losing streak. You have to play the cards you’re dealt…
LikeLike
I remember watching that Miami game. That was before we really knew how good NW was that year.
Kentucky’s best year since Bear Bryant (and maybe ever) was 1977 and they had a similar story. They were on probation so they didn’t go to a bowl, but had a 10-1 season. Beat Penn St. in Happy Valley. Went unbeaten in the SEC (shared title with Alabama) Their loss was in Waco to Baylor.
LikeLike
Notre Dame Moving Closer to BCS Irrelevance.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-03-21/notre-dame-fighting-irish-brian-kelly-quarterbacks-plus-one-playoff
LikeLike
If accurate, this statement from the Sporting News article is very surprising, almost shocking.
“The advent of conference realignment has changed everything. Last month in Dallas, while the 11 conference commissioners met to begin historic change, Irish athletic director Jack Swarbrick may as well have been the commissioner of the MAC.”
LikeLike
“There once was a time when Notre Dame refused to play in anything but a major bowl.”
That time must have been before 1983/1984, when they went o the Liberty and Aloha Bowls.
They only started going to bowl games in 1970, so that period wasn’t all that long.
LikeLike
Steve,
Hayes gets a lot wrong in that article.
“And here’s where it gets dicey: If the FBS presidents don’t also approve the elimination of standards to qualify for a BCS bowl (see: specific number of wins, BCS ranking), Notre Dame will continue to fall further from relevance outside its huge NBC television contract.”
They can’t eliminate standards or else there is no way to pick 4 teams. And doesn’t the last clause of that sentence seem a little odd? Other than their giant TV contract, ND will be irrelevant? So if we ignore reality, then ND will be irrelevant?
“Not only will it be increasingly harder for the Irish to find a way to the Plus One without an unbeaten or 1-loss season (the last one: 1993), the days of the BCS placating the Irish could be all but over.
It wasn’t long ago that the BCS agreed to give Notre Dame $1.3 million a year just for the whiff of the potential that the Irish could actually qualify for a BCS bowl. That’s right, the renegotiated BCS contract in 2005 came with a rider that gave Notre Dame money just for being Notre Dame.
Those days, everyone, are long gone.”
How will it be increasingly harder? Who else will reach the playoff with 2+ losses? The NCG has almost always required 0-1 losses for everyone, not just ND.
If the days of placating ND are long gone, why did they agree to do it again in for the 2009 contract? The whole point is ND gets a steady revenue stream and in exchange they can’t get a large payout if and when they do make the BCS.
The current deal:
AQ conferences – $22.3M each
non-AQ conferences – $13.2M total (with no automatically qualifying teams)
automatically qualifying team from a non-AQ conference – $26.4M (split according to a formula)
at large – $6.1M
ND – $6.1M if it goes, $1.8M if it doesn’t (1/66th of the total revenue)
Army & Navy – $6.1M if they go, $100k if they don’t
I-AA conferences – $250k each
The payout to ND for 15 years of not making it is about the same as if they made the BCS once in an all or nothing plan. The current plan balances out if ND makes the BCS once every 12 years. That’s not overly generous.
“In years past, the Notre Dame athletic director was the strongest man in the room during BCS meetings. How else do you think the university carved out such unthinkable deals that allowed the Irish to play in the Fiesta Bowl in 1994 with a 6-4-1 record? Or get millions of dollars for simply showing up?”
The ND AD was never the strongest man in the room, just disproporitionately strong since he represents only 1 team. A large part of ND’s power is that the B10 and P12 are generally aligned with them. So are the the other power conferences, though to a lesser degree. It’s the haves versus the have nots, not haves versus other haves.
“The advent of conference realignment has changed everything. Last month in Dallas, while the 11 conference commissioners met to begin historic change, Irish athletic director Jack Swarbrick may as well have been the commissioner of the MAC.”
No. Just no.
“There are two men running college football right now (SEC commissioner Mike Slive and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany), and neither needs Notre Dame to get what they want. The thought process used to be that college football was desperate for Notre Dame’s inclusion; for that one national brand regional products could rotate around and piggyback.”
This is also dead wrong. Larry Scott has power and influence, and so do other people in the room. Delany and Slive may be first among equals, but Swarbrick is there representing 1 school and has an equal voice.
“Now that the sport has grown beyond a regional base, now that monster television contracts have nationally-branded every conference, there is no need for Notre Dame.”
All the people actually in the business seem to disagree. The B10 and P12 have been careful to protect ND.
LikeLike
What has the Big 10 done to protect ND?
(Answer: nothing)
LikeLike
Just off the top of my head:
Not listen to the fans and drop them from schedules. Keep them in the loop when talking expansion. Keep them in the loop when talking with the P12 about the scheduling deal. Not use expansion to try to corner ND and force them into a conference. Not press for the postseason to not pay ND if they don’t make it. Not press for a playoff to exclude independents.
LikeLike
We have no idea if they are going to press for a playoff if it excludes indys, the Big 10 did attempt to use the threat of expansion to leverage ND into joining them (it just didn’t work), the individual schools handle scheduling, and I don’t really consider CCing Jack Swarbrick on some emails with Larry Scott “protection”.
LikeLike
frug,
We have no idea if they are going to press for a playoff if it excludes indys,
They haven’t done it yet, and they could have. Neither has anyone else, despite all the talk of how worthless ND is. Perhaps all the commissioners and ADs know something fans don’t.
the Big 10 did attempt to use the threat of expansion to leverage ND into joining them (it just didn’t work),
Did they? I didn’t see it that way. The B10 didn’t threaten, they expanded after giving ND first crack at the 12th spot. I think they did the exact opposite. I think they told ND what they wanted to do, gave ND a chance to join, then kept ND informed as the process continued. Delany knows that you can’t force ND to do anything, and that if he tried it would backfire as nobody wants an involuntary member.
the individual schools handle scheduling,
Yes, and they are part of the B10. Fans have been saying for years that the conference should tell schools to stop scheduling ND if they don’t join, and they wisely ignored the fans.
and I don’t really consider CCing Jack Swarbrick on some emails with Larry Scott “protection”.
When you make business deals and keep a third party informed, that’s significant. There was no need to let ND know what was going on, but they did. That’s how much they respect ND and the relationships with them.
LikeLike
We have no idea if they are going to press for a playoff if it excludes indys,
They haven’t done it yet, and they could have.
Yes, and they could have said they were going to include independents but they haven’t done that either. Point is, we have no idea if the Big 10 is looking out for ND’s interests in terms of playoff access.
the Big 10 did attempt to use the threat of expansion to leverage ND into joining them (it just didn’t work),
The B10 didn’t threaten, they expanded after giving ND first crack at the 12th spot. I think they did the exact opposite. I think they told ND what they wanted to do, gave ND a chance to join, then kept ND informed as the process continued.
Remember the environment in the summer of 2010. It was almost universally accepted that if the Big 10 took UNL then the Big XII would crack which would set off a chain reaction leading to ND’s ultimate nightmare; being forced to join a 16 member super conference. The Big 10 exploited this fear by telling ND (according to published reports) that if the Irish agreed to join the Big 10, the conference would agree not to expand past 12. The offer nearly worked (the ND BoR actually held an informal on the matter) but decided to roll the dice.
On the latter two matters:
For all the talk of dumping Notre Dame there has never been anything close to a consensus by the fans, and teams regularly keep other parties informed of their intentions even when they intend to damage the party they are informing.
(And for the record I never implied that Notre Dame was worthless, they are worth a whole hell of a lot. I just don’t think they worth as much as other people do)
LikeLike
frug,
you:
We have no idea if they are going to press for a playoff if it excludes indys,
me:
They haven’t done it yet, and they could have.
you:
Yes, and they could have said they were going to include independents but they haven’t done that either. Point is, we have no idea if the Big 10 is looking out for ND’s interests in terms of playoff access.
Nobody has bothered to say it because everyone understands it is part of the deal. TPTB aren’t confused about conference champs only including ND, only fans that try to read too much into things.
—
you:
the Big 10 did attempt to use the threat of expansion to leverage ND into joining them (it just didn’t work),
me:
The B10 didn’t threaten, they expanded after giving ND first crack at the 12th spot. I think they did the exact opposite. I think they told ND what they wanted to do, gave ND a chance to join, then kept ND informed as the process continued.
you:
Remember the environment in the summer of 2010. It was almost universally accepted that if the Big 10 took UNL then the Big XII would crack which would set off a chain reaction leading to ND’s ultimate nightmare; being forced to join a 16 member super conference. The Big 10 exploited this fear by telling ND (according to published reports) that if the Irish agreed to join the Big 10, the conference would agree not to expand past 12. The offer nearly worked (the ND BoR actually held an informal on the matter) but decided to roll the dice.
I can’t agree with you here. That wasn’t “almost universally accepted” even among serious CFB fans. Many people thought the B12 would crack, yes, but even that wasn’t near universal. I don’t even think that a majority of people thought it would lead to 16 team superconferences and ND being forced into one. There wasn’t consensus on here about it, and we’re more in tune with CFB than most fans. A lot of people wanted it to lead to superconferences and forcing ND’s hand, but that’s different.
I don’t see how it is exploiting a fear to say that if you want, you can join the B10. The B10 didn’t want to go past 12 anyway, and barely even considered it after adding NE. ND knows the COP/C and how conservative they are. They know stopping at 12 isn’t a concession, and that the B10 wouldn’t force them into anything.
On the latter two matters:
For all the talk of dumping Notre Dame there has never been anything close to a consensus by the fans, and teams regularly keep other parties informed of their intentions even when they intend to damage the party they are informing.
There’s a large majority that have talked about forcing ND by threatening to not schedule them. It’s mostly fans of the other 9 schools, though, and they know they have no power to control the scheduling by MI, MSU and PU. If fans thought it was actually possible to do it, you might see that group grow.
(And for the record I never implied that Notre Dame was worthless, they are worth a whole hell of a lot. I just don’t think they worth as much as other people do)
I didn’t mean to imply that you had said that, just that the discussion is frequently out there from all parts of the country but the SEC isn’t pushing to crowd out ND either, for example.
LikeLike
Guess we’ll have to agree on the protection issue. That said, this was a dumb article.
LikeLike
Hayes is awful. Sensationalist.
LikeLike
Amen.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1169808.html
CFN’s way too early BCS bowl picks:
Rose – MI/USC
Fiesta – WI/OR
Sugar – UGA/BSU
Orange – FSU/RU
NCG – AL/OU
Read the article for explanations and runner up choices.
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/a-four-team-playoff-in-college-football-what-a-fantastic-thing-that-would-be/article/3654549/?page=1
Sentiment is Barry Trammel’s. Quotes Neinas as saying none of the majors favor more than 4 teams and that most want a 4 team playoff of some sort. While I suspect that is true of the commissioners, what the Presidents finally come up with is unpredictable.
LikeLike
Article is from March 3, but I don’t recall seeing it on here before.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/47016/uw-redshirting-creates-unique-roster
An interesting article about WI, redshirting and recruiting. I knew they had a small recruiting class this year (12) but it looks like next year will be as bad or worse worse since they only have 9 seniors (1 true SR, 8 redshirted). More amazing is the junior class with 28 players (3 true JRs, 25 redshirted). WI needs some JRs to leave early to help even out the class sizes, or else they’ll have to get several players to enroll in January.
What struck me is the high percentage of redshirting, though. It’s great to get that extra experience, especially when developing players (OL really benefit). The downside is how many fewer recruits WI gets. That puts a lot of pressure on the coaches to pick the right players.
The other extreme is Urban Meyer, who announced at OSU that he doesn’t want to redshirt anybody. He expects his recruits to be ready to compete on day 1.
What ratio of redshirting do you think is ideal for a program?
I can see OSU redshirting less because of their recruiting power while a more developmental program (IA, for example) would do it more. WI seems too high to me, though.
My suggested ratios:
elite program (OSU, MI, etc) – 25%
near elite (WI) – 40%
average (NW) – 50%
bad (IN) – 65%
Between high school injuries and OL who need to develop, even top programs should redshirt some players. The lower your recruiting power, the more I expect to redshirt. Even the worst programs will get some skill players and speed guys who can play from day 1.
LikeLike
JoePa wanted to redshirt almost everyone, he’d say a 5th year senior is a better player than a true freshman. He was pretty much right; plus if that redshirt junior isn’t likely to contribute you can let him go after four years…
M, PSU & Ohio should be able to recruit at a high enough level so that their freshman should be buried behind a pretty good talent and be lucky to see the field…
LikeLike
The kings should have a lot of players leaving early, so the redshirt year becomes one less year of playing time to help the team. So, yes, 5th year seniors should be better, but if a player leaves after 3 years or 4 years, you’re wasting a year when they could have played (and 1/3 to 1/4 of their career). That’s the tradeoff.
As for being buried on the depth chart, that’s ideally true for the starters and even the two deep. Realistically, between graduation, NFL losses, injuries, academics and off field issues, even the kings will have some holes in the two deep every year and maybe even some starting positions. On top of that, plenty of freshmen play special teams while learning the systems so the starters don’t get tired or hurt.
Obviously you only have 85 scholarship players either way, but redshirting makes you pick those 85 from fewer candidates. And usually, 5th year players are not the most talented players. More experienced, more mature and better understanding of the systems, sure, but not the most talented (interior OL are an exception).
LikeLike
I don’t think you can break it down solely by how prestigious a program is (and how well it does at attracting recruits who are talented enough to leave for the NFL as juniors, though obviously that matters). A program who’s identity and strength is an overpowering O-line would want to redshirt more. On the other hand, a program that runs a spread offense and wants to get speed all over the field has little reason to redshirt (speed can’t be taught and won’t improve with a year of redshirting, while, if you have a high atrition rate).
So the program that should redshirt the most should be one which relies on a dominating O-line, tries to seek advantage from running a complex offense, and almost never loses juniors to the NFL or attrition (because the players aren’t talented enough for the NFL or the degree is worth enough to stay for & the players aren’t the types that get themselves kicked out of school). I’m thinking a school like Stanford should have the highest percentage of redshirts. A team that runs a simple spread offense, frequently loses players to attrition (grades or otherwise), and gets speedy recruits who think they can play in college right away and in the NFL in 3 years should have the least number of redshirts (yep, Urban’s teams).
Wiscy is fine with their high number of redshirts as nearly all the defensive and skill players they can get simply aren’t talented enough to leave for the NFL after 3 years, and redshirting is a good practice for O-linemen (and their attrition rate is pretty low). NU also redshirts almost everyone. We don’t have a dominating O-line, but we generally don’t have to worry about attrition or players leaving early for the NFL either.
Schools like IU who compete mostly with MAC schools for talent should _not_ redshirt as high as you recommend. For one, they tend to have not insignificant attrition rates, and a redshirt is wasted if the kid leaves school after a year or 2. For another, the roster spot taken up by an unproductive MAC-level-talent redshirt could be given to a JUCO instead. Really, schools like IU would have more success trying to compete by making themselves an attractive place for JUCOs as many power programs don’t recruit JUCOs, so the competition is less.
LikeLike
Obviously those were meant as generic guidelines. Each team will be a little different based on class size, style of play, etc.
While WI’s offensive style could lead to redshirting more OL, it doesn’t explain 25 of 28 (89%). Why are the skill players and defenders also redshirting? WI is prominent enough to recruit better than that. Perhaps their mindset is part of why they lack the defensive speed to beat an OR.
LikeLike
People. Unless a kid straight out of HS is able to displace a jr or sr, or a position is extremely thin, most coaches prefer to RS for both physical and mental development. Andrew Luck RS’d as a freshman. Remember him choosing to forego the draft last year, and yet still having a year of eligibility remaining after this year? The early exit of a FB player or two (after 3 years) from a roster of over 100 does not have the same repercussion as a couple one and done basketball players has. I believe the Ivy League is the only one that doesn’t allow RS.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what your first sentence responds to, but OK. As for the rest, I didn’t say not to redshirt. But redshirting 90% for a prince is too high in my opinion. Coaches may like to redshirt, but most players don’t. Top programs should get the top players, and thus redshirt fewer people. Freshmen can help on special teams and as quality depth, and they learn more from playing than from just film study. Certain positions benefit more than others from the extra year (OL, QB), and the numbers should reflect that.
LikeLike
Brian:
See below. If you look at the data, it doesn’t look like kids make a distinction between “prince” and “non-prince” like you do. Seems that to them, if you’re not a king (and not lower-tier), you’re middle-tier.
Also, their sense of history (at least of schools far away) is about 2 minutes old. It doesn’t take long for a school like Nebraska (universally seen as a king) be be regarded as a non-king by many kids (though ND has held up quite well despite having to recruit far away from home). Finally, cool uniforms seem to raise your king/prince quotient in their eyes (see Oregon).
LikeLike
“WI is prominent enough to recruit better than that.”
No they aren’t. Perhaps their lack of speed has nothing to do with mindset and everything to do with the fact that
1. There aren’t a lot of premier skill and defensive players within a 5 hour drive of Madison.
2. Even though you consider them a “prince”, Wisconsin simply doesn’t have the cachet in places like FL, TX, and CA to beat out the home region powers, most SEC schools, the northern kings, and middle-tier local schools.
“M” on here has compiled how schools do head-to-head in recruiting from 2007-2011 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApeMYNLTfX-9dFJncDFFOG9FaGFNR1hMV1ZnOEcyQWc&hl=en_US#gid=0)
They show that Wisconsin is 2-4 vs. Auburn, 2-4 vs. Clemson, 1-5 vs. Cal, 0-14 vs. UF, 1-9 vs. FSU, 3-5 vs. GTech, 0-10 vs. OU, 2-4 vs. OK St., 4-5 vs. SCarolina, 4-6 vs. USF, 0-5 vs. TCU, 2-6 vs. Tennessee, 0-4 vs. Texas, 1-5 vs. TAMU, 3-2 vs. UCF, 3-7 vs. Virginia, & 4-9 vs. Wake (!)
Also 15-16 vs. Illinois, 21-25 vs. Iowa, 5-13 vs. Mizzou, 11-17 vs. MSU, 8-7 vs. Purdue, & 1-3 vs. Oregon.
Again, they redshirt their defensive and skill players because they’re generally not good enough to leave early for the NFL anyway (and virtually all of the ones that do were “developed” and weren’t regarded as elite recruits coming out of HS).
LikeLike
In short, despite your elevated opinion of where you think Wisconsin’s recruiting should be, they’re a school that is slightly above Vandy & Wake, likely below the 2 MS SEC schools, and about even with USF in terms of desirability to recruits over the past 4 years. Also below all 4 kings as well as Iowa, MSU, and Northwestern in their own conference. Bucky has done a great job of maxing out their results given their one big talent pool advantage (state full of massive dudes) and disadvantage in everything else.
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2012/2/2/2767565/head-to-head-recruiting-records-and-rankings-look-quick-before-urban
If you look at the data, kids these days seem to rank schools in this fashion:
Tier 1: Kings close to home
Tier 2: Middle-tier schools* close to home + kings far away
Tier 3: Lower-tier schools close to home + middle-tier schools far away
Tier 4: Lower-tier schools far away
* They don’t seem to make a distinction between princes and non-princes like you do; if you’re a non-king and not a bottom-feeder, you’re middle-tier, so Rutgers, Baylor, Mizzou, Wisconsin, and MSU are all middle-tier.
When recruiting defensive and skill players, Wisconsin is generally in Tier 3.
LikeLike
Yes, they are.
They may not be within 5 hours, but there are plenty of quality payers in the midwest that the kings don’t get. WI should be getting a big chunk of those players. They don’t need to be out the kings for players to find quality skill players. M’s numbers show them doing just fine against comparable teams. You don’t have to win every battle. But if you get a reputation for always redshirting, players that want to play right away won’t go to your school. If WI recruited more of these players more actively, they might get better players. We’ll never know.
Look at their recent recruiting classes:
2012 – 3.17 It was rated pretty low because it is so small (12), but per player it was tied with MSU for 3rd (behind OSU and MI) and above NE according to Scout.
2011 – 2.90 7th best behind the kings, MSU and IA, almost tied with NW
2010 – 2.73 6th behind the kings, MSU and IA, a little above NW
2009 – 2.71 7th behind the kings, MN, IL and MSU (IL and MSU were close).
2008 – 2.83
2007 – 2.89
2006 – 2.52
2005 – 2.61
2004 – 2.42
2003 – 2.59
2002 – 1.60
WI should be climbing the per player rankings with their success, and they are. When MI was terrible, they improved. As WI gets better players, they should redshirt less often. Maybe they will, since the highly redshirted JR class is from 2009/2010, their lowest years in the past 6.
LikeLike
6th or 7th in the B10 is pretty mediocre (and clearly puts Bucky in the Tier 3 category of schools for skill players); and that’s an improvement! At that level, you’re simply not getting talent that is projected to leave early for the NFL.
I think you really overestimate the number of players who leave for the NFL early. All of 33 left early in 2011 and were amongst the top 100 draft picks (56 declared, which is already a record). The vast majority of those would be going to Tier 1 or Tier 2 schools. That means that for the vast majority of FBS schools, it make little sense to play freshmen.
Thus the recommended redshirting policy should be more like the following:
elite program: 25-75% (depends on type of offense)
near elite: >90%
average: >90%
bad: >90%
LikeLike
“They don’t need to be out the kings for players to find quality skill players.”
Actually, they do. The Midwest isn’t exactly a hotbed of skill and speedy defensive players, and after the kings get their pick, Bucky has to fight with the other mid-tier teams for what’s left, which means they don’t end up with a lot of speed on defense.
LikeLike
Richard,
6th or 7th in the B10 is pretty mediocre
Not necessarily. Trailing the 4 kings and being just behind MSU would be pretty good in most years, actually. It is bad by class rank, but that’s due to class sizes favoring other conferences. On a per player level, WI can do OK. They were top 20 in 2012, top 35 in 2011,
(and clearly puts Bucky in the Tier 3 category of schools for skill players); and that’s an improvement! At that level, you’re simply not getting talent that is projected to leave early for the NFL.
No, it doesn’t clearly put them in tier 3. And at their level, they won’t get many early entry players but they will get some that want to play year 1 and skip WI because they redshirt too much.
I think you really overestimate the number of players who leave for the NFL early.
That would be impossible since I never estimated how many went pro early.
The vast majority of those would be going to Tier 1 or Tier 2 schools. That means that for the vast majority of FBS schools, it make little sense to play freshmen.
No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means that few players go pro early. Lots of players want the chance to play year 1 and skip a school that plans to redshirt them or will transfer if they don’t play enough. The NFL isn’t the only way to lose players.
Thus the recommended redshirting policy should be more like the following:
elite program: 25-75% (depends on type of offense)
near elite: >90%
average: >90%
bad: >90%
That’s completely ridiculous. You’ll just push even more players to the top schools doing that, and they’ll replace players who get buried on the depth chart and transfer..
LikeLike
Richard,
“They don’t need to be out the kings for players to find quality skill players.”
Actually, they do. The Midwest isn’t exactly a hotbed of skill and speedy defensive players, and after the kings get their pick, Bucky has to fight with the other mid-tier teams for what’s left, which means they don’t end up with a lot of speed on defense.
That’s 100% wrong. The footprint is filled with such players. OSU can only take 25 kids at most, and Meyer recruits more nationally than Tressel did, so it’s more like 10-15 every year. After the other kings take some of the rest, there are still plenty of talented players left in OH. Not to mention the players in MI, IL and PA, plus areas without power teams like NJ, and overflow from FL and TX. WI already gets a ton of players from OH, FL and IL (combined, as many as from WI – about 7 per year). They average 1+ per year from TX, MN and PA, too. WI just needs to compete a little higher up the foodchain in those states based on their recent success, and Scout says they are. These better players aren’t going to a school that redshirts 90% of the players, though.
What the B10 area lacks are elite DT, primarily. DE, too, but not as much. The WRs are there, they just aren’t as polished because teams run more in HS in the north. The RBs and DBs are certainly available.
LikeLike
“That’s 100% wrong. The footprint is filled with such players.”
Then where the heck are they, Brian? You say there are “plenty of talented players left in OH”. Sure, talented enough to play in the B10, but are those leftover players talented enough to match Oregon or TCU in speed? If they didn’t go to Wisconsin, where did they go? The only mid-level B10 team I can see with a defense who can match Oregon’s or TCU’s in speed is MSU, and that’s in large part because RichRod did a poor job recruiting his home region, so those kids who otherwise would have been at UM went to MSU instead.
“WI already gets a ton of players from OH, FL and IL”
Sure, they compete with USF for players in FL, for instance. They pretty much never get any of the elite players (who choose UF, FSU, or a king from out of state like ‘Bama, ND, or OSU), and they mostly lose to the mid-tier schools closer to FL (like Clemson and Auburn) as well.
“WI just needs to compete a little higher up the foodchain in those states based on their recent success”
You just can’t underestimate how much proximity matters. Brand matters, but success doesn’t seem to matter to kids as much as proximity to home (and maybe cool uniforms). Both FSU and TAMU have underacheived compared to Wisconsin in recent years, but they blow Bucky away in recruiting. UCLA and TTech have been nothing to write home about, but they also are clearly above Wisconsin in the eyes of recruits. Heck, even Baylor does better than Wisconsin, and they’ve been bad until the past year or 2. Boise wins nearly every game and they’re nowhere in recruiting.
“These better players aren’t going to a school that redshirts 90% of the players, though”
. . . unless it’s close to home. Baylor recruits better than Bucky even though Baylor also redshirts pretty much everyone and is worse than Wisconsin in pretty much every way except for being closer to home. Bucky loses to Wake in recruiting most of the time even though Wake also redshirts pretty much everyone and is worse in virtually every way except being closer to home. These better players aren’t choosing Wisconsin because of its redshirting philosophy, but because it’s far away. This is true in the B10 as well. MSU redshirts pretty much everyone (http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1320585), but they also recruit better than Bucky and beat them in head-to-head battles most of the time even though Wisconsin has been slightly more successful recently. This is because MSU is closer to recruits (OH) than Wisconsin is and has nothing to do with redshirting philosophy.
Face it, Brian, Wisconsin isn’t losing recruits because it redshirts; it redshirts because it can’t get elite defense & skill recruits.
LikeLike
Richard,
Last one, because it’s pointless “discussing” anything with you.
“That’s 100% wrong. The footprint is filled with such players.”
Then where the heck are they, Brian?
On the kings, MSU, IL, Pitt, UC, UL, WV, MAC teams, etc. WI gets a few, just not enough.
You say there are “plenty of talented players left in OH”. Sure, talented enough to play in the B10, but are those leftover players talented enough to match Oregon or TCU in speed?
BSU can compete with OR using the bottom rung of CA players. Or is this where you say the proximity of Boise to CA is a big advantage?
The only mid-level B10 team I can see with a defense who can match Oregon’s or TCU’s in speed is MSU, and that’s in large part because RichRod did a poor job recruiting his home region, so those kids who otherwise would have been at UM went to MSU instead.
Part of it is a coach choosing to recruit speed. TCU started by taking speed first and worrying about size later. As they got better, they could get bigger guys the same speed. Perhaps WI is not looking for speed, preferring size. And to save some grief, I’ll assume you mean mid-level by brand, not performance for that MSU comment.
“WI already gets a ton of players from OH, FL and IL”
Sure, they compete with USF for players in FL, for instance. They pretty much never get any of the elite players (who choose UF, FSU, or a king from out of state like ‘Bama, ND, or OSU), and they mostly lose to the mid-tier schools closer to FL (like Clemson and Auburn) as well.
Of course they do. But USF has a lot of speed on their team, for example. WI doesn’t have to have 5* recruits to get more speed on D (but it’s always nice).
“WI just needs to compete a little higher up the foodchain in those states based on their recent success”
You just can’t underestimate how much proximity matters.
I know how much it matters to most kids. Some kids want to go away from home, though, or are more excited by the chance for playing time and winning. WI could probably get some big RBs from those places, for example. Ron Dayne was from NJ and turned out OK, as did a few other NJ guys like Jonathan Casillas. Montee Ball is from MO. Lee Evans is from OH. Gabe Carimi and O’Brien Scholfield are from IL. Those are just current or future NFL players from the WI program.
In their 2012 class of 12 players, there are 3 from WI, 2 from FL and PA, and 1 each from CA, WA, NJ, IL and IN. Over half that class is going a long distance from home, and they have a 4* QB from CA and a 3* WR from FL in the mix (also a 2* CB from FL).
Brand matters, but success doesn’t seem to matter to kids as much as proximity to home (and maybe cool uniforms). Both FSU and TAMU have underacheived compared to Wisconsin in recent years, but they blow Bucky away in recruiting. UCLA and TTech have been nothing to write home about, but they also are clearly above Wisconsin in the eyes of recruits. Heck, even Baylor does better than Wisconsin, and they’ve been bad until the past year or 2. Boise wins nearly every game and they’re nowhere in recruiting.
WI topped UCLA in recruiting in 2011 and 2012. They topped TT in 2012 and were barely behind TAMU. They were just behind TAMU in 2011, but topped Miami (FL). FSU pulls players every year and never seems to get much out of it, but that’s just like ND in the midwest. The point is, you’re wrong about where WI is in the pecking order.
“These better players aren’t going to a school that redshirts 90% of the players, though”
. . . unless it’s close to home.
So only redshirt all the WI and MN guys then. Why would a player want to come from FL if they know they are guaranteed to sit while they could play their first year at most of their other choices if they earn it? See the quote from your own article later on.
Baylor recruits better than Bucky even though Baylor also redshirts pretty much everyone and is worse than Wisconsin in pretty much every way except for being closer to home.
Since when does Baylor recruit better than WI? Certainly not 2012 or 2011 or 2010. They were about even in 2009, with Baylor slightly ahead. WI crushed them again in 2008. 4 out of 5 favor WI significantly.
Bucky loses to Wake in recruiting most of the time even though Wake also redshirts pretty much everyone and is worse in virtually every way except being closer to home.
They should rarely be competing with WF. I’m not surprised they lose battles to an elite private school that recruits students who also play FB. Those players are looking at other things, and while WI is a strong school in many areas it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
These better players aren’t choosing Wisconsin because of its redshirting philosophy, but because it’s far away. This is true in the B10 as well. MSU redshirts pretty much everyone (http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1320585), but they also recruit better than Bucky and beat them in head-to-head battles most of the time even though Wisconsin has been slightly more successful recently. This is because MSU is closer to recruits (OH) than Wisconsin is and has nothing to do with redshirting philosophy.
From the very article you linked:
“Recruits often say immediate playing time is one of the key factors in their decision-making process for college, but Michigan State lucked out with a signing class that made a bigger impact on the scout team than on the field.”
MSU didn’t plan to redshirt them all, it just worked out that way. That’s a little different from making it your philosophy.
If they know they’re going to redshirt no matter what, many players won’t consider you. That’s a bad thing. WI is farther from OH than MSU, sure, but they’re closer to IL which also pumps out players. They get a lot of guys from NJ, and I have to think closer schools recruited them too.
Face it, Brian, Wisconsin isn’t losing recruits because it redshirts; it redshirts because it can’t get elite defense & skill recruits.
Chicken and egg. WI redshirts, which keeps them from getting some players, so they redshirt some more, so they keep missing out on players.
LikeLike
Bucky went against Wake over 13 recruits over a 4 year period. They lost on 9. The only southern schools (not counting Louisville) Wisconsin competed for recruits with more than Wake were Duke (2-1 advantage to Bucky) & UF (Gators won all 14 recruiting battles). I also got the recruiting rankings from M’s results.
Boise can beat Oregon with much lower-ranked recruits, just as Wiscy can beat OSU with much lower-ranked recruits, but no one thinks that Boise would be competitive with Oregon in recruiting if they just didn’t redshirt as much.
LikeLike
The B10 out performs their recruiting rankings; MSU, Wisky, Iowa, NW, Purdue all are regularly in bowl games yet aren’t regularly top 30 in recruiting. I see it as the recruiting services generally undervalue B10 talent, I have contacts at rivals and they agree that the B10 region is generally considerably under represented in terms of recruiting rankings…
In terms of where NFL talent comes from, the states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin do very well when compared to any region outside of the southeast (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, etc.) and the states of Texas, California.
LikeLike
wmtiger:
The B10 doesn’t perform all that well in the head-to-head rankings either, though (which don’t consider star levels at all and only what schools offered which recruits). The B10 is clearly above the BE (which is clearly above CUSA and the rest), but slightly behind the Pac, which is slightly behind the ACC, which is slightly behind the B12 with the SEC leading, meaning the B10 is 5th overall (though the gap between SEC and B10 is smaller than between B10 and BE).
That means that the B10 doesn’t perform well in getting the most highly desired recruits (which isn’t all that surprising as many, likely most, of the top recruits in the countryare in that swath from NJ down to GA, then west to east Texas & including FL).
However, there was another study done which showed that the B10 overproduces NFL draft picks relative to recruiting rankings (specifically defenders and linemen) while the B12 underproduces NFL draft picks relative to recruiting rankings (specifically defenders and linemen) with every other conference producing the amount of NFL draft picks their recruiting rankings say they would. This could be because recruiting services underrate B10 area talent and overrate B12 area talent (which would really only be TX recruits), but why would they overrate only TX talent and not the talent of Deep South states to the east? The other explanation is that the B10 does a great job of developing linemen and defenders (potentially thanks to redshirting?) while the B12 does a poor job of developing linemen and defenders (maybe due to the many spread offenses run in the B12?)
LikeLike
That is pretty much what I’ve stated Richard…
B10 talent is grossly underrated by the recruiting services, it outperforms its recruiting rankings consistently while the ACC, Pac 12, Big 12under performs. Study of the # of players in the NFL backs this up. B10 does very well in producing NFL talent despite other leagues supposedly always out-recruiting them.
LikeLike
Yep, that seems right. In terms of the actual talent that hits the field, in a world where there is no oversigning, the B10, Pac, ACC, and B12 would all have pretty much the same (B10 doing a tiny bit worse in recruiting is made up for by superior development; B12 doing a tiny bit better in recruiting is negated by inferior development) with the SEC leading those 4 slightly and everyone far beyond the BE (which is far beyond CUSA and the others). As there is oversigning, however, the gap between the SEC (specifically the SEC West) and B10 (and the rest of college football) is wider than it would be otherwise, and there may be smaller gaps between the B10 and some Pac & B12 schools as well (for example, Oregon averaged 24.44 signings a year).
Meanwhile, none of Michigan, OSU, or PSU averaged more than 21.67 recruits from 2002-2010 (Wisconsin averaged 22.67). Texas & USC also averaged 21.33 signings or below. UF and UGa averaged 23.33 signings or below. LSU, Alabama, and Auburn, however, averaged 24.89, 26.11, and 28.11 recruits a year. Add the small advantage the SEC has over everyone else in talent to the bigger margin of error the SEC West schools give themselves by oversigning, and it’s not surprising that an SEC West has won the national title 4 of the last 5 years, including the last 3 straight. Over the past 9 seasons, the SEC West has won more national titles than the rest of college football combined (5 vs. 4).
This despite the fact that in the head-to-head recruiting rankings, Texas is #1 (by far) & OSU is solidly #2 with #3 Alabama and #4 LSU only very slightly ahead of UGa, USC, OU, & ND.
.
LikeLike
Many of the recruiting services are southern based and those areas get recruited by more schools so they the players in the MW may get less attention than they deserve.
LikeLike
Also, assuming your analysis is correct about the Big 12, it could also mean Texas players are better prepared coming out of high school, which would be a more likely explanation than the Big 12 having inferior coaching.
LikeLike
bullet:
Good point. I wouldn’t be surprised if the south is overrepresented in the subscriber base of those recruiting services as well, so there may be a (possibly unconscious) bias towards southern players, or players that do well in southern high schools.
LikeLike
bullet,
The southern states have a lot more 7 on 7s and spring football, so the kids probably are closer to their ceiling than the northern kids on average. Like plants, maybe players take longer to bloom in the north.
LikeLike
That is definitely true in baseball, where the warm weather states dominate the in HS baseball talent (though Illinois hold up well: http://www.csnchicago.com/preps/news/Illinois-top-five-in-high-school-basebal?blockID=642770).
LikeLike
Also, while the position players in warm weather states are more refined (since they get a lot more reps), warm weather pitchers are more at risk for injury (unsurprisingly): http://www.momsteam.com/sports/baseball-players-in-warm-weather-climates-more-prone-injuries-pitching-shoulder
I’m also a bit unsure about ceilings; certainly in baseball, no one hits their ceiling in skill until their 20’s (almost always late 20’s or later). Baseball players in warm weather states (who also tend to be more single-sport-focused compared to their cold-weather HS peers) definitely refine their talent more during their HS years. I’m quite certain both cold-weather and warm-weather HS players improve quite a bit in college (in any sport), though it’s possible that cold-weather players improve more than their warm-weather peers because they’re more raw coming out of HS.
BTW, a baseball organization could find a bit of an edge just by concentrating on scouting cold-weather HS pitchers more than their peers, as they tend to be more overlooked yet are a lower injury risk (compared to warm-weather HS pitchers). Having a rotation with Tom Glavine and then Chris Carpenter and Roy Halladay would not be half bad. Actually, it looks like the Blue Jays did just that, selecting Carpenter in the 1st round (15th pick overall) in 1993 & Halladay in the first round (17th pick overall) in 1995. From 1990-1995, all 4 HS pitchers the Jays took in the first round were from cold-weather states as well as a CC pitcher from NJ (as well as a college pitcher and 7 position players, 6 of whom were HS kids, some of whom became famous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toronto_Blue_Jays_first-round_draft_picks). Having 3 of the 4 turning in to Chirs Carpenter, Roy Halladay, and Steve Karsay isn’t bad.
LikeLike
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_20225336/gophers-mike-rallis-competing-big-ten-football-title
How’s this for confidence? A MN player thinks MN can win the B10 this season. I think that’s very optimistic since MN is the 5th most talented team in the West at best.
LikeLike
http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2012/03/24/dabrowa-wins-fencing-title.html
Apparently there is a B10/SEC Challenge in men’s track (2nd annual, apparently). Who knew? Anyway, the B10 won it (OSU, PU, IN, IL and WI won 400.5 – 314.5 over MS, MS St and TN in Starkville).
LikeLike
Brian – Five teams against three? Let’s hope so.
LikeLike
My understanding is the B10 didn’t use their full teams, or at least OSU didn’t. It’s the first outdoor event for the B10 teams (SEC started a little earlier). I wondered about the 5 vs 3 thing, too. Even with that edge, I’m surprised the B10 won by that margin. Where’s all that SEC speed?
LikeLike
At Fla, LSU, aTm, Aub…?
LikeLike
Wilner:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/03/26/fbs-realignment-m-day-becomes-a-day-for-the-mwc-c-usa-and-what-that-would-mean-for-the-wac-and-sun-belt/
Last week, I reported that the Mountain West and Conference USA would merge sometime next months.
Turns out, the merger plans could very well be shelved in favor of an alliance between the conferences.
According to sources:
* The NCAA told the MWC and C-USA that it would award the merged league only one AQ berth to postseason events. So instead of two 8-10 team leagues and two AQs, there would be one 16+ team league with only one AQ.
(Think that went over well with MWC/C-USA officials?)
* In addition … and I don’t claim to understand the legal nuances involved … the exit fees owed to the conferences by departing members would be deemed null and void if that conference merged with another.
* It also turns out that, because one conference would have legally dissolve itself in order to join the other — or they’d both have to dissolve to form a newly-named league — the NCAA Tournament revenue would be returned to the schools that earned it.
Memphis, for example, would keep its money from March Madness, instead of that cash going to C-USA.
(This stands in contrast to what I reported last week, which you should now forget you ever read.)
* All of which is another way of saying that the months and months and months of merger work done by the MWC, C-USA and their consultants (including Dean Jordan, a heavy hitter from Wasserman) was, it appears, for naught.
And don’t think for a second that the leagues are happy about it.
[snip]
What we don’t know, and what will be decided in the next 2-3 weeks, is:
1) Whether the MWC and C-USA will, in fact, expand.
2) How many schools would be added.
I continue to believe that there’s a good chance both leagues will grow to at least 10 members, and that SJSU and USU are likely headed to the MWC.
But as noted last week, the ultimate outcome depends on which configuration is projected to draw the most lucrative deal from future broadcast partner(s).
Stay tuned.
Nice Chip Brown ending.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyCBS)
MWC and C-USA no longer dissolving sources tell @CBSSports. Will either merge or remain separate leagues
LikeLike
Now that “Mount USA” appears to be dead…
1. Air Force possibly to Big East in football and either the WAC or Patriot League (where Army and Navy are hiding) in basketball and Olympic sports (because the Missouri Valley doesn’t want the Falcons and because the WCC doesn’t want to take a hit in the RPI for men’s basketball.)
2. Hawaii possibly to Big East in football after its agreement with the Mountain West expires in 2013 (because Oceanic Time Warner Cable will not carry the mtn. in Honolulu at any price)
3. Texas-San Antonio from the WAC to the Sun Belt
4. Texas State from the WAC to the Sun Belt
5. La Tech has no choice but to leave the WAC and join the Sun Belt with the Texas twins
6. Charlotte to the Sun Belt (FCS move-up)
7. Georgia State to the Sun Belt (FCS move-up)
8. North Texas and Florida International promoted from the Sun Belt to Conference USA to replace SMU and Central Florida
(CUSA needs one more school to replace Houston: either Middle Tennessee or Florida Atlantic.)
9. Idaho to the Sun Belt as a football-only member
10. New Mexico State to the Sun Belt as a football-only member
11. San Jose State and Utah State promoted from the WAC to the Mountain West in all sports
12. The WAC drops football and will consist of Boise State, Idaho, New Mexico State, Denver, Seattle, Utah Valley (from the Great West), Cal State Bakersfield (the last independent), and either Air Force or UC San Diego (Division II move-up)
Simon Fraser, if it were to become ready for a move up to Division I in the next 10 years, will be ticketed for the Big Sky.
LikeLike
I don’t think CS Bakersfiled or UVU have been in Division I long enough to keep the WAC’s auto bid. That’s only 5 who are long-time division I. A conference must have 7 “active” members and “active” membership requires a certain time in Division I. It used to be 8 years, but I think it may have been decreased last summer.
LikeLike
This was kind of a duh? Why didn’t they think of that? It was obvious the $7 million/school exit fees would go away and NCAA credits would stay with the schools if they dissolved. Thinking they would get 2 AQs was beyond stupid. The question was whether they would even get 1 until 8 years had passed. Now the MWC could dissolve with limited consequences. But CUSA would be costing themselves a chunk of money.
MWC schools could be added to CUSA or could be football only affiliates. Or they could just do a joint TV contract in separate leagues. Or possibly they could just wait a year and dissolve.
LikeLike
Yeah, Brett Murphy has said that they could remain separate leagues but share “television, marketing and scheduling resources.” I get the feeling that is what is going to end up happening.
Could be a preview of where the B1G and PAC will be in 10 years.
LikeLike
B1G baseball stat from Sean Callahan (@Sean_Callahan)
Nebraska drew over 15,000 this weekend in three games. The other 18 Big Ten home games drew a combined 14,597.
LikeLike
I’m surprised that many came out to watch bad teams play.
LikeLike
Weather’s been nice.
LikeLike
I’d watch the Wolverines play if it were over 60 degrees outside…That regularly doesn’t happen till May…
LikeLike
I’m hearing increasing talk from Texas and Oklahoma fans about Florida State, Miami, and Clemson being interested in joining the Big 12. I have no idea, but it seems highly unlikely to me. What do people on here think? Would they do it?
I will say that if it did happen it might be good news for the SEC and B1G. Plumb schools like Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland might suddenly become more available.
LikeLike
Here’s where I think the rumors are coming from: With the loss of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou, the Big 12 has fallen to 5th place among conferences. Adding WVU and TCU didn’t get them out of 5th place. Adding Louisville and BYU wouldn’t either. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine any scenario that pulls the Big 12 out of 5th place. But if there were such a scenario, expanding into Florida and taking FSU and Miami is that scenario. This would pull the Big 12 ahead of the ACC and perhaps even the Pac 12 and into a solid spot at third place. So this is what they want. This is what Texas and OU and WVU fans want. But could it actually happen? Seems like a long shot to me. The ACC is so much better academically than the Big 12. Yes, they Big 12 is a better football league, and yes, I could see it as a step up for schools like FSU, Miami, and Clemson, who athletically fit in more with the SEC than the ACC (and the SEC isn’t interested in taking them). But from an academic standpoint, I just don’t know if they can make that move.
LikeLike
I think that’s part of it (although I I stay maintain the Big 12 is a stronger conference than the PAC-12 or ACC, just not as stable). I think there probably is also an attempt at the upper levels to at least see if it would work and I think the schools would have considered it.
If it was going to happen though, I think we’d be beyond this stage now. The ACC is still attractive enough that I don’t think the members willing to leave it with all the headaches and turmoil it would create (they also like the academic part).
LikeLike
My guess is its about a 10% shot. I would have said less than 1% a couple weeks ago. But there are some people talking about it who seem to know what they are talking about.
Its about $. The story (and I’m skeptical of these numbers) is that expansion would raise the average payout to around $28 million for Tier I and II from $19-$20 million. If it really does, then I think the Big 12 will soon become the Big 14. The Big 12 is getting to a close 3rd on revenues not far behind the Pac 12 and B1G and just ahead of the SEC. The ACC is a distant 5th. If they get to $28 million for Tiers I and II while FSU is at $14-15 million for all 3, it would be very hard for FSU to turn down. If it merely means $19-$20 million, I don’t think it happens.
And the SEC would take FSU or Miami in a New York minute (not an Alabama minute). They’ve tried before and would again if they were interested. They aren’t.
If FSU, Miami and Clemson move to the Big 12, realignment gets very unpredictable. A lot of things could happen with no guarantee they would be good for any one conference.
LikeLike
Competitively (right now) the Big 12 is still probably 2nd in football and they are very competitive with the ACC and B1G for 2nd behind the BE in basketball.
WVU and TCU have done better in recent years in football than any of the 4 schools they lost. WVU has made a final 4 in basketball recently, something UNL and Missouri have never done, and I’m pretty sure that’s true of A&M as well and Colorado since at least the 50s. Its an upgrade short term and long term in basketball (the long term is more doubtful in football).
And financially they are well ahead of the ACC and close behind the B1G (for the next 5 years) and the Pac 12. They are a little ahead of the SEC based on the average contract value as well. Outside of SEC country, noone believes the SEC will get a bump from their look-in that moves them significantly ahead of the Pac 12. So financially, the Big 12 is in a pack with the top 4. Will that still be true in 2025 after the next round of contract renewals? Who knows? 2025 is a long ways away.
LikeLike
“Its an upgrade short term and long term in basketball”
Huh? OK, Colorado and UNL don’t really add anything in bball while TAMU doesn’t get to the NCAA tourney consistently, but TCU adds nothing in bball either and I expect Mizzou to be at least as good as WVU in bball (and they’re better right now as well).
Are you counting Louisville (and BYU) in the B12 already?
LikeLike
Colorado, UNL and A&M were the 3 schools that didn’t really care about basketball. Its addition by subtraction. UNL never won a tourney game. Not sure when Colorado last made it or won a game. You lose 3 bad ones and gain one bad one. WVU has been to the final 4 more than once. Missouri has never been. Both have been to same # of tourneys and WVU has more wins.
LikeLike
A lot of silliness being put forth by bullet here.
First of all, it’s fair to say that the Big 12 is the 2nd best football conference after the SEC. I expect that they’ll stay strong after bringing in TCU and WVU.
Money-wise the Big 12 will be 4th, behind the SEC, the Big Ten, and the Pac 12. So many of you on here cling to the idea that the SEC is somehow locked into a 12 year deal and won’t get a significant bump from their look-in and won’t create an SEC network. They will get a modest bump from the look-in and will create an SEC network. After that, they’ll pass the Big 12, Pac 12, and B1G. Most everyone thinks this will happen.
As for basketball, the Big 12 loses a major player in Missouri. Although Missouri has an unfortunate history of being upset in the tournament over and over again, they have had plenty of regular season success. They left the Big 12 with all time winning records against everyone but Kansas and Oklahoma. They had more regular season and tournament conference titles than anyone but Kansas. This largely came from the success they had in 32 seasons under hall-of-fame coach Norm Stewart. Their success since his retirement has been off and on, but they are trending up and finished the regular season ranked 3rd in the country and with 30 wins. WVU has had more luck in the tournament than Mizzou, but not as much regular season success. Oklahoma has had a lot of success in basketball, as has OSU, but both are really struggling right now. KSU just lost their head coach (to an SEC school) and will likely struggle. Basically, the Big 12 is down to 4 top 25 calibre programs at this point: Kansas, Texas, West Virginia, and Baylor. And let’s be honest, Baylor’s success is precarious at best. Scott Drew won’t get away with that level of cheating forever. On the other hand, the SEC has Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, and Vanderbilt as solid top 25 programs, plus schools like Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama with plenty of potential to get there, and Texas A&M, LSU, and MSU all having decent success in recent years. It’s not a stretch to say that the Big 12 in it’s current form has fallen behind the SEC in basketball. Now, if they were to add Louisville and another strong basketball program, they would have an argument for being stronger than the SEC.
And let’s be honest, right now the B1G is stronger than either the SEC or Big 12 at basketball. The ACC has fallen back a bit, but adding Syracuse and Pitt will help them.
As for FSU and Miami, the SEC is not interested. Because their goal is to create an SEC network, and because they already have the state of Florida, they are focused on expanding outward to new states. That’s why they went after Texas and Missouri.
Why would FSU be interested in the Big 12 and not the SEC? That makes zero sense. They’re both right next to the SEC, and the SEC makes tons of money. The Big 12 is at least a thousand miles away. And it’s not like the Big 12 is any better than the SEC academically at this point (although that used to be true).
Certainly I could see how FSU and Miami to the Big 12 could make financial sense. The Big 12 has a good product, but is currently low on population. Texas is huge, but outside of that they’ve got Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia. Not a whole lot of TVs in those stats. Bring in Florida and they’re in business. It would be enough to get the Big 12 to a point where they would likely make in the high 20s to 30M per school just like the SEC is likely to make.
But as much as it makes sense for the Big 12, and as much money as there is to be made for those schools, it still seems like a radical move for them.
If it did happen it’s hard to imagine what might happen next. Would it be open season on ACC schools? The Big Ten would love to grab up Syracuse, Maryland and Georgia Tech. The SEC would love to get North Carolina and Virginia. Maybe the Big 12 takes FSU, Miami, Clemson, NC State, and Pitt? And what about the Pac 12? They’d have basically no options.
Interesting to think about, but I doubt any of it happens.
LikeLike
Silliness out of me? How about UNC and UVA to the SEC? The only way that happens is if the ACC falls apart and the B1G says no (and I think they probably would say yes). Even then its no guarantee. The SEC preferring Missouri over FSU? Its about ratings, not markets.
FSU isn’t interested in the SEC for the same reason OU and UT aren’t. They don’t like the stretching and breaking of rules that goes on there and the rouge boosters.
SEC basketball-did anyone from the SEC West get invited to the NCAA this year? They didn’t last year. The SEC has actually been slipping a little in the past few years after the top 4 teams or so. Tennessee has not been as good as they used to be. Arkansas is definitely down. WVU is pretty comparable to Missouri. When a school has more wins in 24 tourney appearances, its no longer an upset or fluke.
LikeLike
@Andy
As for basketball, the Big 12 loses a major player in Missouri. Although Missouri has an unfortunate history of being upset in the tournament over and over again, they have had plenty of regular season success. They left the Big 12 with all time winning records against everyone but Kansas and Oklahoma. They had more regular season and tournament conference titles than anyone but Kansas. This largely came from the success they had in 32 seasons under hall-of-fame coach Norm Stewart.
What exactly are you counting? via Wikipedia:
Big 12 Total Regular Season
Kansas – 12
Texas – 3
Iowa St – 2
Oklahoma St – 1
Oklahoma – 1
Missouri – 0
Big 12 Conference Tournament
Kansas – 8
Oklahoma – 3
Oklahoma St. – 2
Missouri – 2
Iowa St – 1
Conference titles From ’07 to ’96
Kansas: 32 outright/43 total
Kansas State: 14/17
Missouri: 12/15
Oklahoma: 8/13
Colorado: 3/5
Nebraska: 2/7
Iowa State: 2/4
Oklahoma State: 1/2
Big 8 only (’59-’96) total titles reg season (selected teams only)
Kansas – 13
Kansas St. – 10
Missouri – 8
Oklahoma – 5
Big 8 Tournament (’77-’96)
Missouri – 6
Kansas – 4
Oklahoma – 4
K State – 2
Nebraska – 1
If you count Big 8 titles, do the Texas schools get to add in SWC titles?
SWC Regular season
Arkansas (22 titles, 14 outright)
Texas (22, 12)
SMU (13, 8)
Texas A&M (11, 9)
TCU (10, 2)
Rice (10, 4)
Texas Tech (6, 4)
Baylor (5, 2)
Houston (3, 2)
Oklahoma St. (1) [1925]
SWC Tournament
Arkansas – 6
Houston – 5
Texas Tech – 5
Texas – 2
Texas A&M – 2
Southern Methodist – 1
I only see Missouri leading everyone but Kansas in (tournament plus regular season) titles if you add in the Big 8 and Big 12 but ignore any SWC titles.
Although at the time of its formation the Big 12 was composed of the old Big Eight plus the four Texas schools, it regards itself as a separate conference, not an enlarged Big Eight, and it does not claim the Big Eight’s history as its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Conference
LikeLike
You’re right, I count Big 8 basketball titles as more valuable than SWC basketball titles, because SWC basketball sucked.
LikeLike
And for the record, I don’t think it would be fair for WVU to count their Big East football titles as equal to the Big 12 football titles earned by UT, OU, KSU, etc. A Big East football champ would be lucky to finish 3rd or 4th in the Big 12, just as an old SWC basketball champ would have been lucky to finish 3rd or 4th in the old Big 8.
LikeLike
@Andy – Did you forget about the late 90’s and early ’00’s Miami and Va Tech teams were part of the Big East?
LikeLike
If you total up everything, Big 12 regular season titles, tournament titles, Big 8 regular season and tournament titles, SWC regular season and tournament titles, here’s how they rank:
1. Kansas – 67
2. Texas – 27
3. Missouri – 23
4. Oklahoma – 21
5. Kansas State – 19
6. Texas A&M – 13
7. Texas Tech – 11
8. Iowa State – 7
9. Baylor – 5
10. Oklahoma State – 5
But if you count an SWC title for about 2/3rds of a Big 8 Title, which is about what they’re worth, then Texas’s total drops to 20, good for 4th place, which is about where they belong.
LikeLike
Yeah, and WVU didn’t hardly win anything when Va Tech and Miami were in that league. They won it once in 93, and then had an 8-5 season in 03 when they were co-champs with Miami. Then Miami and Va Tech left the conference and they’ve won it almost every year since then, beating up on Pittsburg, UConn, and Rutgers. Big deal.
LikeLike
@ bullet, yeah, silliness. It’s silliness to think FSU and Miami would rather be in the Big 12 than the SEC. How does that make any sense at all? Because of cheating, you say? I’m not buying that.
As for UNC and UVA to the SEC, yes, that’s highly unlikely. But if the ACC were to disintegrate, they can’t all go to the Big Ten. You’d have to think Notre Dame takes one of those spots, there would only be 3 spots left, plus 2 spots in the SEC. That’s 5 lucky SEC schools who get to go to one of the top two conferences. Who are the top 5 targets? One would have to think UNC, UVA, Maryland, and Georgia Tech would make the list. Duke, Syracuse, and Boston College would be tempting as well. The Big Ten can only take 3. So the SEC takes a couple more of the good ones in this scenario.
But I don’t think the ACC is breaking up and I don’t think FSU or Miami will go to the Big 12. You’ll have to make due with Louisville and BYU.
LikeLike
@Andy
Why do UT and OU prefer the Big 12 and the Pac 12 to the SEC? Why does UT prefer the ACC to the SEC? Its not because of competition. If so, the Big 8 and SWC might still be around.
Sure FSU and Miami much prefer the ACC to the Big 12. And its about as likely the Big 12 remains mathematically challenged as getting UL and BYU and both are much more likely than getting ACC schools. But FSU and Miami each could have had South Carolina’s spot. They weren’t interested. And you may not believe, but its hard for non-Missouri fans to believe the SEC favored Missouri and didn’t approach FSU to get the #14 spot, despite any “gentleman’s agreement.”
The idea is that the money is there, not some “potential” $ in a “potential” network. Now I’m skeptical the Big 12 can add 4 schools not named Notre Dame and increase their TV contract from 19-20 million to $28 million. That’s $192 to $202 million for 4 schools. I’m skeptical they can get there even if 1 of the schools is Notre Dame. But the idea is that there are real $ in a reputable conference instead of potential $ in a conference with a bad reputation.
LikeLike
Bullet, I don’t think FSU or Miami would want to leave the ACC unless there was a big $ reason to do so. I don’t think the SEC or Big 12 have proven lucrative enough to lure away those schools yet. But I would say that it’s basically ridiculous to think that the Big 12 has more earning potential than the SEC. And I will furthermore say that it’s been widely reported that the SEC was interested in expanding to new states, which would leave FSU and Miami out of consideration. Maybe that was just a cover story because FSU didn’t think it was lucrative enough to justify making the switch. That’s possible. But then the same would apply to the Big 12. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where the Big 12 would be a better landing spot for FSU than the SEC.
LikeLike
Were Clemson, Florida State and Miami to leave for the Big 12 (the $$$ would have to be considerable for that to happen), the ACC would not disintegrate. It’s possible Maryland and Georgia Tech could go to the Big Ten (though I don’t see that happening in a scenario without Notre Dame), but the Virginia and North Carolina schools would remain as a core of six along with Syracuse, Boston College and Pittsburgh, and the ACC would find a 10th member, either Connecticut (assuming Rutgers was part of a Big Ten expansion) or RU. No conference title game in that situation, but for that grouping, not that big a deal.
LikeLike
VP, maybe you’re right, but if the ACC looked like this:
UConn
Syracuse
Pitt
Boston College
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
I’m not sure they could command better than maybe 12 or 13M per year in TV money, while the neighboring SEC would make at least twice that per school (and even more if they expanded to 16). If that were to happen, they might just be able to take their pick of ACC schools for schools #15 and #16. Maybe. Who knows.
LikeLike
@Andy
I don’t think adding 4 schools will double the Big 12 contract. I don’t think $20 million + Tier 3 vs. $15 million in the ACC is enough to get FSU to the Big 12. But I do think an FSU/Clemson/Miami+1 does bring the Big 12 to something more than the $19-$20 they will be earning now. Probably not enough to get them to move, but maybe.
As to why the Big 12 is comparable to the SEC has to do with the timing of the contracts. And that’s why the ACC is so far behind. The networks have the risk if values go up or down. Its not the conferences. They aren’t just going to give up their profits.
LikeLike
@vp
If FSU/Clemson/Miami go to the Big 12, its possible the ACC gets saved by a white (or should I say green) knight. Notre Dame may see that the ACC will take what’s left of the Big East forcing them to find a new home. ND and two out of RU/UConn/USF may go to the ACC. ND could anchor the North and VT the South.
LikeLike
VP, maybe you’re right, but if the ACC looked like this:
UConn
Syracuse
Pitt
Boston College
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
I’m not sure they could command better than maybe 12 or 13M per year in TV money, while the neighboring SEC would make at least twice that per school (and even more if they expanded to 16). If that were to happen, they might just be able to take their pick of ACC schools for schools #15 and #16. Maybe. Who knows.
These 10 wouldn’t make all that much money for football, agreed, but with the ACC/Big East mindset, such a group probably believes it would make up for it with hoops. I don’t necessarily agree, but state politics would make it very difficult for the SEC to pry Virginia or North Carolina schools (although Virginia Tech might be an exception; I don’t think it’s as locked in with UVa as many believe).
LikeLike
Andy;
“The Big Ten would love to grab up Syracuse, Maryland and Georgia Tech.”
The B10 could have taken ‘Cuse at any point. Maryland and GTech are added only if that is necessary to convince ND to come along (same goes with Rutgers or ‘Cuse).
As for the ACC disintegrating, remember that UNC & NCSU are tied at the hip (they have the same board of governors & are in the same university system. Any conference that wants one would have to take the other). I also don’t see Duke & UVa (& obviously not Wake) leaving UNC either, even if it’s a diminished, basketball-focused ACC.
Really the only southern ACC school in a new state the SEC might possibly pry away is VTech (however, VTech rejected them last time, which is why Mizzou is on the SEC). Then, if they’re adamant about adding a new state, Maryland would be by far the best candidate for 16 (though the Terps may prefer the B10). If UMD says no, the pickings are slim: WVU (small poor state) or Pitt (doesn’t deliver the majority of the state). FSU would be by far the most attractive, even if it’s in the footprint.
However, I don’t see the ACC disintegrating. None of the FBS conferences with the highest academic prestige (B10, Pac, and ACC) have lost members. The ACC doing so would be a huge change.
LikeLike
Richard, a lot of opinions in that post stated as fact. I had opinions in my post as well, but didn’t act like they are facts.
Everything I’ve heard is that Va Tech was not invited to the SEC, so they didn’t have a chance to say no. Apparently the SEC’s market researchers found that Va Tech couldn’t deliver the state of Virginia as far as TVs. Also, Vandy and Florida were pushing to get another AAU school, and Va Tech is not AAU.
I agree that the a disintigration of the ACC is highly unlikely. The only scenario under which I can see the SEC getting the plumb schools out of the SEC is if the southern block were to join the Big 12 and some of the others joined the Big Ten. At that point the ACC would be such a mess that the old rules of who has to stick by whom may no longer be valid. Or maybe they would be? Who knows. Likely won’t happen anyway.
LikeLike
Does anyone believe the Big Ten was seriously interested in Syracuse? It’s a relatively small private institution that recently lost its AAU status, largely because its research budget is minimal. Rutgers far better fits the Big Ten prototype and would help in the NYC market (but would still need to be complemented by Notre Dame). If you mixed SU’s athletic history with RU’s size, academics and research, such a school might be an ideal Big Ten candidate, but that’s not how it goes.
LikeLike
Andy, what were opinions in my post that were stated as fact?
Did you mean, perhaps, the following statement: “The Big Ten would love to grab up Syracuse, Maryland and Georgia Tech”?
Perhaps I didn’t lay out the reasoning that led to my conclusions, but simple deduction (and, perhaps, the assumption that the B10 are rational actors) would have led to my conclusions.
For instance, if the B10 would love to grab Syracuse, why didn’t they do so earlier? Do you honestly believe ‘Cuse would have turned down the B10 for the BE? If the B10 didn’t need to add ND to expand beyond 12, why haven’t they done so already?
Finally, a lot of what you seem to hear is hard to believe (and not backed up by any evidence), so forgive me if I don’t find you terribly credible.
LikeLike
Syracuse, Rutgers, I don’t know. The Big Ten at one point wanted the New York market. Who knows what they’d want now. Like I said, I don’t think any of it is very likely. What I meant to say is the Big Ten would love to get the New York, DC and Atlanta markets. I don’t know how they would go about it though.
LikeLike
Couple of quick points
1. I can’t imagine any scenario where the Big 10 takes ‘Cuse. After the debacle with UNL the Big 10 is going to make AAU status a major priority for all potential members besides ND.
2. The fact that UNC and NC-State share a BoR doesn’t necessarily mean the schools are bound together; it means they have veto power over each others decisions vis-a-vis conference affiliation (at least long as the ACC is viable). While the BoR would certainly prefer the two to stick together, I can’t imagine they would actually veto a deal that sent UNC to the Big 10 and NC-State to the SEC if both schools said it was in their best interest and they pledged to continue to play OOC.
LikeLike
I don’t think Syracuse would take the Big 10 over the ACC. I read about their AD a number of years back expressing some concern about being with all the big state universities. Notre Dame has the resources to compete with that (not that they still might not prefer being with ACC schools). Syracuse doesn’t. Most likely the Big 10 would feel the same way about Syracuse.
LikeLike
Personally, I haven’t really seen much discussion out of Big 12 schools. Texas fans are mostly talking about recruiting and Spring practice. Most of the discussion, but not all, still seems to be derived from what the Dude started.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/03/26/bcs.meetings/index.html?eref=twitter_feed
Interesting that Hancock and the BCS is still “running” the conversation. Seems like the presidents need to get those guys away from the table.
LikeLike
Neinas was quoted as saying anything more than 4 was out. That’s no surprise. Still, some of the presidents seem more open to change than the commissioners. Neinas, Delany, Swofford and Slive have been around a long time. Marinatto is clearly caught in the Big East’s past. So all but Scott and Swarbick are traditionalists (don’t know about Swarbick). Tulane’s president said a while back that the non-AQs didn’t really have a say. They have a seat at the table, but their opinions were mostly irrelevant. So you’ve got at least 5 out of 7 very interested in the status quo.
I suspect Hancock will be out of a job within a year. He’s been defending it for years and now has to say different things.
LikeLike
Here’s a handful of things that come to mind while reading this article:
1. If a Plus One is adopted and the Big Ten/Pac 12 are welded to having their conference champions in the Rose Bowl, what happens when it’s less than optimal for those two teams to complete in the RB in order to get into that Plus One game? For example, say USC is the #2 ranked team in the country and they play #10 Michigan in the Rose Bowl while the hypothetical #3 team is playing a more highly ranked opponent (which could even theoretically be the #1 team in the country). Does #3 vault #2 USC for the Plus One berth because that team played a more highly rated opponent? Also, how do the rest of the bowls operate in this environment? Let’s say the Sugar Bowl gets a #1 seeded SEC team–how does the SB committee decide which team to match them up with? Does the SEC get input on the matchup, for example?
2. It’s not surprising that the SEC (and Notre Dame along with Brigham Young, even though the article doesn’t mention them) wants a system where more than one team from a conference can participate in the playoff. While that’s all well and good while the SEC is top dog, will they still think that way if the conference slips to second or third place? I think we’ll see this ending up with the three top rated conference champions getting auto berths plus one at-large team being the final compromise, although and two-and-two type scenario could be a possibility.
3. If you think only 8-12,000 fans from each team will travel to a neutral site to watch their team play in a semi-final game, then you’ve already answered the question about whether or not it’s a good idea for the games to be on campus sites. The answer is clearly yes, it’s a damned good idea, and while the game could be played in cold weather, the fact that the visiting team would have three weeks or more too prepare means any sort of travel “advantage” should be fairly negligible.
4. I think these decision makers are finally realizing that a playoff is going to diminish the regular season. The issue of playing on campus sites and how the top two seeds would be hosting games shows not only that teams have to do well to get into the four-team playoff, but having a perfect regular season goes a long way to getting the homefield advantage. I suspect they’ll also be saying that this move will also enhance the conference championship games as well.
5. CBS Sports has an article about the topic here:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/18067665/bcs-meeting-provides-more-questions-about-playoff-not-many-answers
CBS Sports repeats the claim they made in an earlier article that a four-team plus one would be worth around $500M in the new contract. Neinas didn’t confirm the figure, but said that the television dollars discussed during the meeting were “encouraging”.
LikeLike
Actually, if #3 plays #1, #2 is virtually guaranteed a spot in a true Plus-One title game, as the chances of #1 staying above #2 after losing are infinitesimally small (you’d need #1 to be unbeaten at the end of the regular season and everyone else with 2 or more losses or some crazy scenario like that, and even then, it’s unlikely). The question is if #3 jumps #2 if they beat #4 or something of that sort (and I’d say it’s unlikely most of the time, unless people though #2 won the Rose Bowl unfairly or something).
As for neutral sites, I think they would work only if the semifinals and title game were all held at one Final Four site. You may even have to sell the semifinals as a doubleheader.
Semifinals 6PM and 10PM (Eastern) on the Friday between Christmas and NYD and the national title game Thursday the next week?
Finally, semifinals at home sites would likely have to be played during Army-Navy week.
LikeLike
. . .assuming #2 wins its bowl.
LikeLike
No offense to the Army-Navy game, but if that’s a reason for not having semi-final games at home sites, then I think you overestimate the impact of that particular contest. It has great tradition and what not, but that’s hardly a show stopper for a playoff.
I could certainly see a scenario where the #3 team barely beats #1 and then leap frogs a #2 team while #1 stays #1. Is it likey? Probably not. But if the #3 team were to play #4 while #2 played #10 because the Rose Bowl dictated the matchups, then you have the propsect of some fireworks.
One site for three games over a week’s time? What happens to the fans of the losing team who booked hotels for the week and/or bought tickets for the championship game? Do you think they’ll stick around for that final game? Do you think they’d buy tickets in the first place?
It makes sense to me that CFB should do its utmost ot ensure a full house at these games, which means at least putting the semi-finals at the home stadiums of the higher rated teams. I suspect that’s what they’ll elect doing in the end once they figure out who gets what share of the game day revenue and who has rights to the luxury boxes and premium seating at the stadiums for these particular games.
LikeLike
“No offense to the Army-Navy game, but if that’s a reason for not having semi-final games at home sites, then I think you overestimate the impact of that particular contest.”
Um, no, I didn’t say it was a reason. Merely that that would be where home semifinals would best fit in.
“One site for three games over a week’s time? What happens to the fans of the losing team who booked hotels for the week and/or bought tickets for the championship game? Do you think they’ll stick around for that final game? Do you think they’d buy tickets in the first place?”
Last question first: Yes. I certainly would.
Tickets to title game: Sell on Stubhub. I doubt there would be a lack of demand.
Hotels: Most hotels allow you to cancel with 24 hour notice.
Many would stay around the entire week. How many times do you get to see a national championship game anyway, even if it doesn’t feature your team?
LikeLike
Well if its pollsters, its not uncommon. What if the #2 beats #10 24-21 on a last second FG. #3 beats #4 by 42-17. Pollsters will forget the rest of the season and say this one game means #3 is better. A true +1 is a terrible system which will extend the terrible BCS rating system for determining who gets in.
LikeLike
I agree 100%.
LikeLike
Every system is a terrible system. That’s the problem. They’re trying to choose the least objectionable system, and everyone will still be upset.
LikeLike
I think you meant “not going to diminish the regular season” in pt. #4…right?
I agree with all your points. I just wonder where the Pac-12 and Big10 will compromise.
I heard Stew Mandel on SI’s podcast say that Alabama (this year’s national champion, like it or not) would have been left out if only conference champs are included. Losing at home on Nov. 9 certainly would be a good justification for them to be left out to me…but the SEC is already speaking out against excluding a second team from each conference.
You mention at top 3 conf. champs plus one at -large. I think you go with top 4 conference champ with a priority going to a top 2 team. So, last year, #1LSU-#3OkSt-#5Oregon-#10Wiscy are auto-bids. But, #2Alabama knocks out #10 Wiscy. In that scenario, the only team that’s bummed is #4Stanford (who didn’t win its conference OR make it into the top 2).
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind – I think whatever system that’s created has to be able to include a school like last year’s Alabama team, whether it’s a wild card spot or the top 2 protection that you’ve suggested. The last thing that we need is to finally create a playoff and *still* have the prospect of a split national championship hanging over everything. We can claim the polls don’t matter, but they will in the public’s eyes if a #2 team isn’t included while a #10 team is instead.
I understand the arguments that “LSU shouldn’t have to beat Alabama twice”, yet remember that just using last year as an example, Oregon would be included in a conference champs-only playoff and they also lost to LSU. So, how is it fair that a 1-loss team whose only loss was to the #1 team in overtime gets knocked out on the basis of being in the same conference of that #1 team while a 2 loss team that got thoroughly beaten by the #1 team gets in by virtue of being in a different conference? I’ve seen lots of people bothered by LSU having to play Alabama twice, but no one mentions LSU possibly playing Oregon twice. If it were an 8-team playoff, then I could see allowing in at least the top 5 conference champs. However, last year is a perfect example of how everything can go wrong with a strict conference champ rule in my eyes. It’s a case of the “solution” being worse than the supposed problem of a team not winning its conference getting into a playoff. Conferences aren’t equal in terms of strength or even size (with some having to play a conference championship game and others not), so I’ve never thought not winning your conference should automatically disqualify you. This isn’t the NFL were there are divisions of equal size.
Ultimately, the playoff needs to take into account a team like last year’s Alabama squad and allow for independents such as Notre Dame to get into the playoff if it’s ranked high enough. That’s why I don’t believe that we’ll see a strict conference champ rule.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
@allthatyoucantleavebehind – I think whatever system that’s created has to be able to include a school like last year’s Alabama team, whether it’s a wild card spot or the top 2 protection that you’ve suggested. The last thing that we need is to finally create a playoff and *still* have the prospect of a split national championship hanging over everything. We can claim the polls don’t matter, but they will in the public’s eyes if a #2 team isn’t included while a #10 team is instead.
And I think any system that would include that team is fatally flawed. People put way too much faith in the polls. The system should be as objective as possible. Winning a conference is an objective criteria. Winning a popularity contest vote isn’t.
If you want to include everybody (which I don’t), at least try something like this:
Make a formula that weighs three factors equally: 1. Overall record, 2. SOS and 3. Whether or not they won a conference (winning a conference should be equal to being 1 game better in the W column so a 10-2 champ equals an 11-1 non-champ). Let a committee of people not from any of the conferences involved pick and seed the top 4.
That means for any given record, a conference champ gets precedence over a non-champ and tougher conferences also get priority. It doesn’t automatically eliminate an AL, but it at least punishes them a little for not winning their conference.
For 2011, the top 2 are easy:
1. 13-0 SEC champ LSU with the top SOS
2. 11-1 B12 champ OkSU with a good SOS
3 and 4 would come from:
a. 11-2 P12 champ OR with a decent SOS
b. 11-2 B10 champ WI with a decent SOS
c. 11-1 AL
d. 11-1 BSU
e. 12-1 UH
My preferences are listed in order, but a committee might include AL. And yes, I would have put a 13-0 UH in at #2 or #3 if UH had beaten USM in the CCG.
I understand the arguments that “LSU shouldn’t have to beat Alabama twice”, yet remember that just using last year as an example, Oregon would be included in a conference champs-only playoff and they also lost to LSU. So, how is it fair that a 1-loss team whose only loss was to the #1 team in overtime gets knocked out on the basis of being in the same conference of that #1 team while a 2 loss team that got thoroughly beaten by the #1 team gets in by virtue of being in a different conference? I’ve seen lots of people bothered by LSU having to play Alabama twice, but no one mentions LSU possibly playing Oregon twice.
They shouldn’t have to play anyone twice, but CFB is stupid in that way. Pepole obsess about a playoff without noticing all the obvious problems. As for the difference between AL and OR, OR opted to play LSU OOC, OR still won a conference, and OR/LSU was in September.
I’d be fine if the system picked the top 10 teams and seeded them (like the S-curve in hoops). Then they should declare who is #1, and eliminate anyone they beat that season. The next team left is #2, and then eliminate anyone they beat (except #1). The next is #3, and so on for the top 4. That would have gotten you (assuming the BCS equals the system rankings) #1 LSU (eliminates AL, OR and AR), #2 OkSU (eliminates KSU), #3 Stanford and #4 Boise last year. I would have hoped a committee would choose WI over BSU, but you get the point.
If it were an 8-team playoff, then I could see allowing in at least the top 5 conference champs. However, last year is a perfect example of how everything can go wrong with a strict conference champ rule in my eyes. It’s a case of the “solution” being worse than the supposed problem of a team not winning its conference getting into a playoff. Conferences aren’t equal in terms of strength or even size (with some having to play a conference championship game and others not), so I’ve never thought not winning your conference should automatically disqualify you. This isn’t the NFL were there are divisions of equal size.
I don’t buy that the solution is worse than the problem. The TV numbers show America doesn’t support rematches in the CFB postseason. Conferences aren’t equal, but ranking systems aren’t unbiased either. Why should I have more faith in the votes of coaches with a conflict of interest and who don’t watch games, or votes of media members who also are limited in the games they can watch versus an objective criterion like winning a title? How often is the #2 team at the end of the season actually the second best team? How often is #4 really #4?
Ultimately, the playoff needs to take into account a team like last year’s Alabama squad and allow for independents such as Notre Dame to get into the playoff if it’s ranked high enough. That’s why I don’t believe that we’ll see a strict conference champ rule.
You can take AL into account by disqualifying them for not winning the conference. ND would be treated like a conference champ, so it’s a complete strawman argument to say that a conference champ rule would bar them.
LikeLike
To be fair, Alabama was rated as one of the three best teams in the country by virtually every objective system in the country.
LikeLike
frug,
I don’t count any of the crippled computers the BCS uses, nor any of the secret formulas. If people can’t verify the work, there is no telling why teams rank where they do. When people present a system validated by appropriate statisticians, mathematicians and programmers, then I’ll accept it as a valid, unbiased opinion. What variables it considers and how it weights them would determine how much credence I give the results.
Of the current ones out there, some are predictive and others aren’t. None seem to have been truly validated as mathematically rigorous. Most haven’t even had their codes checked. That said, I’m not completely dismissing their results. It doesn’t mean I agree with them, though.
Should the playoff have the 4 “best” teams or the most “accomplished” teams or the most “deserving” teams or is some other adjective better? And what does that term mean? I would much rather have the most accomplished teams. To me, that means conference champions, preferably with some solid OOC wins. I don’t put much stock in “best” because I think that constantly changes and that any of a number of teams is capable of beating the “best” team on any given Saturday.
Let’s look at last year some more:
LSU – SEC champ, 13-0, beat OR OOC, also beat AL, AR, GA and AU (all in final BCS top 25)
OkSU – B12 champ, 11-1, beat KSU, Baylor, OU, and TX, lost to ISU
OR – P12 champ, 11-2, beat Stanford, lost to LSU and USC
WI – B10 champ, 11-2, beat MSU, NE and PSU, lost to MSU and OSU
AL – 11-1, beat PSU OOC, also beat AR and AU, lost to LSU
Stanford – 11-1, beat USC, lost to OR
Boise – 11-1, beat GA OOC, lost to TCU
OR did the least of the champs, but most would have put them in a playoff but not WI. The computers really didn’t like WI either, but they accomplished more than OR or Stanford or Boise (about even with AL). I’d rather reward that than try to decide which team is better.
LikeLike
I think the teams need to be selected by a committee. The bb committee has shown a streak of independence from the polls, which are flawed. They do have their own biases as any human does, but they do a much better job of looking at the whole body of work. And I think a committee would be a lot more likely to pick Oregon over Stanford.
LikeLike
I agree the BCS computers are neutered because they can not incorporate MoV (though Sagarin publishes his results if they included MoV). That said, Football Guys and College Football Reference both have public formulas that had ‘Bama in the top 3 and so did Football Outsiders F/+. (FO doesn’t make its formulas public but they have published the r^2 for their results)
LikeLike
bullet,
I think the teams need to be selected by a committee. The bb committee has shown a streak of independence from the polls, which are flawed. They do have their own biases as any human does, but they do a much better job of looking at the whole body of work. And I think a committee would be a lot more likely to pick Oregon over Stanford.
I’m not against a committee, but I think that works better for hoops, where they pick 68 (well, more like 35) rather than picking 4 in football. There are a ton of complaints about the last few teams in and out in hoops, and that’s for the 32nd-35th at large picks. How do you avoid the conflicts of interest when an SEC AD is voting whether AL should make it or not, or whether they should get a home game or not? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see death threats.
To help a committee, I’d use objective criteria to reduce the pool they can choose from. My preference is to use a conference championship as a criterion, but there are other objective criteria (no 2 loss above undefeateds, unbiased ranking systems, etc). I’d also provide guidelines that the committee is supposed to follow, so teams know what is expected of them (how much OOC SOS is valued, etc).
LikeLike
frug,
I agree the BCS computers are neutered because they can not incorporate MoV (though Sagarin publishes his results if they included MoV). That said, Football Guys and College Football Reference both have public formulas that had ‘Bama in the top 3 and so did Football Outsiders F/+. (FO doesn’t make its formulas public but they have published the r^2 for their results)
It’s nice that some stat sites have systems, and maybe some of them have even been validated by outside experts. That doesn’t mean their results are right. How many games are “upsets” according to these systems? AL wasn’t top 3 to me because they didn’t win anything. I don’t care about anything else like stats or the eye test. I don’t want personal opinion of the strength of conferences to influence which teams get in. There aren’t enough OOC games to prove how different conferences compare, so it shouldn’t be a major factor.
LikeLike
Brian,
How do you avoid the conflicts of interest when an SEC AD is voting whether AL should make it or not, or whether they should get a home game or not? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see death threats.
Easy. You don’t let anyone who graduated from a bcs schools or is affiliated with one in any way vote. The committee must be as bias free as possible and using people associated with the schools being considered is a mistake imo. This is why I always try to remember and qualify the committee I would suggest as one “similar” to the one that selects the tournament field.
LikeLike
I don’t care about anything else like stats…
Well if you don’t care about stats then there is absolutely no objective way to determine who should take part in a playoff.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
“How do you avoid the conflicts of interest when an SEC AD is voting whether AL should make it or not, or whether they should get a home game or not? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see death threats.”
Easy. You don’t let anyone who graduated from a bcs schools or is affiliated with one in any way vote. The committee must be as bias free as possible and using people associated with the schools being considered is a mistake imo. This is why I always try to remember and qualify the committee I would suggest as one “similar” to the one that selects the tournament field.
Why do you assume the non-AQs would be unbiased? Where you live, who your friends are, where your friends and family went to school, who your mentors are, etc are all bias factors. Since the non-AQs will be essentially shot out of the system, how many of their ADs will volunteer to spend a bunch of time helping the big boys with their playoff? The NCAA only has someone leave if their school is being discussed, but you are disqualifying most of the I-A ADs (half are AQ, many of the rest are tied to AQs). Are the remainder even qualified to judge?
LikeLike
frug,
I don’t care about anything else like stats…
Well if you don’t care about stats then there is absolutely no objective way to determine who should take part in a playoff.
The sort of stats you like are just as biased as anything else. The only goal of football is to win. How you do it shouldn’t be a factor. Teams don’t need to be productive, or efficient, or anything else but winners. Stats never account for that, or the impact of weather, injuries or other non-quanitifed factors.
Stats like W% and SOS matter to me.
Sure there is an objective way. Conference champions limit it to a handful. Sort them by accomplishment (who they beat, where they played, etc) and SOS. That can be done objectively. The rankings won’t be 100% accurate of course, but no system is.
LikeLike
Stats like W% and SOS matter to me.
To be completely honest, that is, more or less, what the current BCS computers do since they are not allowed to measure margin of victory.
I don’t mind a rule requiring teams to win their conferences, but if you want to a get a truly accurate picture of who is the best team you need to account for the fact that beating X-State by 1 point is different than beating them by 21 points.
LikeLike
Brian,
Why do you assume the non-AQs would be unbiased? Where you live, who your friends are, where your friends and family went to school, who your mentors are, etc are all bias factors. Since the non-AQs will be essentially shot out of the system, how many of their ADs will volunteer to spend a bunch of time helping the big boys with their playoff? The NCAA only has someone leave if their school is being discussed, but you are disqualifying most of the I-A ADs (half are AQ, many of the rest are tied to AQs). Are the remainder even qualified to judge?
Actually, I never said that the committee should be made up of ADs and I’m assuming that everyone has biases. Thus no one with current or former ties to ANY fbs school should be on the committee since their schools will be eligible. If we’re talking about having one or more at-large bids anyway. If we end up with only conference champs from the AQ conferences then the committee could have people with ties to non-AQs I guess.
LikeLike
I’m saying that it is impossible to find perfection, just avoid the obvious.
LikeLike
frug,
“Stats like W% and SOS matter to me.”
To be completely honest, that is, more or less, what the current BCS computers do since they are not allowed to measure margin of victory.
Yes, but I’m not a formula. I don’t necessarily mind the use of a wide range of stats to create a ranking, especially if multiple systems use different variables and weight them differently, but I don’t buy into advanced stats as a ranking system all by themselves.
I don’t mind a rule requiring teams to win their conferences, but if you want to a get a truly accurate picture of who is the best team you need to account for the fact that beating X-State by 1 point is different than beating them by 21 points.
I don’t believe in the concept of accurate picture of “best” in CFB. Every team is different every week, and on any given Saturday a bunch of teams might beat #1. I believe in rewarding the team that accomplishes the most, and winning a conference is part of that to me.
That’s why advanced stats don’t impress me. They never account for factors that influence the data they use, like style of play, weather, decision of the coach, etc. The try to be more accurate than they can possibly be.
LikeLike
joe4psu,
“Why do you assume the non-AQs would be unbiased? Where you live, who your friends are, where your friends and family went to school, who your mentors are, etc are all bias factors. Since the non-AQs will be essentially shot out of the system, how many of their ADs will volunteer to spend a bunch of time helping the big boys with their playoff? The NCAA only has someone leave if their school is being discussed, but you are disqualifying most of the I-A ADs (half are AQ, many of the rest are tied to AQs). Are the remainder even qualified to judge?”
Actually, I never said that the committee should be made up of ADs and I’m assuming that everyone has biases. Thus no one with current or former ties to ANY fbs school should be on the committee since their schools will be eligible. If we’re talking about having one or more at-large bids anyway. If we end up with only conference champs from the AQ conferences then the committee could have people with ties to non-AQs I guess.
You said the committee should be like the NCAA, and they use ADs. My point is almost everyone has ties to an AQ school, whether direct or indirect. Whoever is picked would have to try to overcome their bias, but that’s nearly impossible. You just have to hope the committee is large enough to average out the bias.
I’m saying that it is impossible to find perfection, just avoid the obvious.
I’d actually go the opposite way. Take 1 person per conference and just don’t let them be in the room when a team from their conference is under discussion.
LikeLike
It is the imperfect BCS system, but OU was still #1 in the BCS system and its 12-1 record was matched only by LSU and Miami (Ohio) in 2003. They were not conference champs as they lost their ccg. Having only conference champs means their 1 loss counts more than USC’s 1 loss or Michigan, FSU and Miami (FL)’s 2 losses in that year.
LikeLike
The conference champ rule would leave out 2003 OU (who was #1 in the BCS and one of 3 once beaten major schools), 2007 UT (who was ranked #3 and a division co-champ and beat the champ) and 2012 Alabama (who was ranked #2 in the polls and BCS). I don’t think that results in a satisfying post-season, especially in 2003 and 2007 where none of the contenders had defeated the teams that would be left out. And with 3 such situations in 10 years, we aren’t talking about fluky things that happen once in a century. Its a regular occurence. And it will happen more often with more ccgs.
I would say a 4 (and especially an 8) team playoff should not be strictly seeded. Rematches in the 1st round should be avoided.
LikeLike
bullet – I, for one, was very satisfied in the BCS results of 2003 and 2007.
LikeLike
Actually I meant 2003 and 2008. 2007 was a really bizarre year. 1 once beaten team (prior to the BCS game), UK beat a #1 team, A team lost #1 spot twice and ended up back there.
LikeLike
I disagree. If you must have a playoff then the conference season IS the preliminary rounds. Win your conference and move on, lose and be quiet. Otherwise we are just rearranging the BCS deck chairs.
A playoff system may make provision for ND, BYU, etc, but it is not a must.
LikeLike
Remember, this is only a partial playoff system. Most likely only 4 teams get invited.
If all the major conference champs got invited and all had ccgs, I could see eliminating ccg losers. Effectively that would be a 1st round of the playoff. But they aren’t all invited and they don’t all have ccgs. You could have a 10-2 or 9-3 Big 12 champ invited over a SEC team that only lost the ccg. And it doesn’t deal with co-champs. Were Arkansas able to beat LSU last year, we would have undoubtedly had the 3 top ranked teams in the nation all in the same division of the same conference. Yet 2 would be knocked out so a 10-2 champ could be in (actually 2 of those). Most likely, Arkansas or Alabama would be 1st and LSU would sit at home as the pollsters would punish them for losing late despite their difficult schedule.
LikeLike
We don’t let the 2 seed get back in march madness when 15 gets the upset. I don’t care about the record of a non champ. Lose and be quiet (or root your conferences representative on, providing possible justification to a claim of “we’re #2”).
A playoff will not be implemented in order to include as many as possible. It may be a part of winnowing the number of “have” schools and conferences. If some get shorted then possibly more realignment will occur.
LikeLike
That’s totally irrelevant. The ccg is NOT part of the tournament. 2 vs 15 is.
Like I said, I could support eliminating the ccg losers if it was effectively part of the tourney with all the major champs getting in and all the major conferences having ccgs. Then your argument would be relevant.
LikeLike
Determining the conference champion is/would be part of the tournament, whether through CCG or a round robin. Far more regular season conference games will have meaning and importance, which means they retain ability for many more teams to generate more revenue both at the gate and as a more attractive conference media package.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
But teams that don’t win their conference in the regular season and those that lose the conference tournament at the end of the regular season do move on to the tournament. My point, apples and oranges.
We don’t let the 2 seed get back in march madness when 15 gets the upset.
LikeLike
B1G Baseball Update
Conference
Purdue [16-4] 2-1 over Ohio St. [12-10]
Nebraska [17-9] 2-1 over Illinois [11-9]
Indiana [10-14] 2-1 over Penn St. [5-16]
Iowa [9-11] 2-1 over Northwestern [8-14]
Non-conference
Michigan St. [13-7] 3-0 (Oakland)
Minnesota [12-13] 3-2 (No. Dakota St. [L], Citadel [W])
Indiana 2-0 (E Kentucky)
Michigan [11-12] 2-1 (IPFW)
Iowa 1-0 (Grandview)
Penn St. 1-0 (Pitt)
Northwestern 1-0 (Nebraska-Omaha)
Nebraska 1-1 (No. Colorado)
Ohio St. 1-1 (Louisville, Dayton [W])
Purdue is #19 this week, but couldn’t pull off the sweep on Sunday. Four win week for Indiana. Minnesota drops two to decent North Dakota St. teams. Ohio St loses to Louisville midweek 20-0 but gets one win over Purdue. Nebraska tops Frank’s Illini in a series full of blow outs.
LikeLike
Slive meeting with the Tiger Club of Kansas City right now, taking questions from the audience. He said the SEC is in TV contract negotiations right now, and says he is optimistic that the outcome will make Mike Alden (Mizzou’s AD) a “very happy man”.
Also, when asked if any SEC schools could set up their own network like the Longhorn Network, he said “that is not allowed” to a standing ovation from the pro-Mizzou crowd.
Of course the only reason to forbid school based-networks like that is if the plan is to create a conference network.
LikeLike
“A very happy man” is still a relative term that doesn’t tell us anything about the money. I figure the 10 team team “old” Big XII was due about $12.69 million per team this coming year (Pre ABC/ESPN extension that likely wouldn’t have been signed had Missouri and A&M stayed) if the conference split revenue 100% equally. So again say Missouri and A&M add $60 million in value to CBS/ESPN, that brings the SEC television distribution to $16.06 million per team in 2012-2013. For Alden that is a 27% increase over what he would’ve had in the Big XII, and it is an even bigger increase if you want to compare what Missouri will end up making this academic year with the withheld revenue. Getting a 27% year-over-year increase in revenue from a conference would be enough to make most a “very happy man.”
“Of course the only reason to forbid school based-networks like that is if the plan is to create a conference network.”
Here you are just stretching. It isn’t allowed, because everyone in the conference already has access to individual inventory i.e. the one football game, the basketball games, etc. It also isn’t allowed, because none of the other 13 schools are going to sit back and watch a school do what Texas did. Allan’s LSU already has TigerVision, Florida Sun Sports, etc. Things similar to the LHN without going all in on a network behind everyone else’s back already are prevalent in the SEC. All Slive is saying is that the conference actually regulates stuff in the SEC and an individual school like Texas or say Alabama can’t pull stuff like that in his conference.
LikeLike
Not sure about the “behind everyone else’s back” comment. Everyone knew what Texas was doing. None of the schools were interested in a conference network. Texas and Nebraska had to fund the studies themselves. A&M had a chance early on to participate with Texas in a network but wasn’t interested. Noone, including Texas, had any idea how big the $ would be (which is why A&M and the rest weren’t interested-all 12 schools thought the $ would be small).
LikeLike
My point is you had a television contract with FSN for 10+ years that no one thought would be possible to get a football game (or two) unless you were Iowa State and FSN knew they couldn’t make money PPV’ing the game. Nebraska even in the study wasn’t certain they’d be able to get a football game without buying it FSN. Hence my comment about going “behind everyone else’s back.” They managed to get a game, had ESPN negotiating with FSN for another one without the conference involved, etc.
LikeLike
Everyone knew they had 1 game. It was also in the press that they would try to see if they could get a 2nd one (maybe the other schools weren’t paying attention to what Dodds said in the papers, but it was hardly secret). Now its true that when that happened, it was between UT, ESPN, FSN and the other school (1st apparently Texas Tech who refused and later Kansas) and didn’t go through the conference office, but there was never an effort to hide they would try to do that.
Several of the schools were understandably upset with the potential implications, but they simply weren’t paying attention or didn’t think it would happen. It wasn’t some secret conspiracy and required the 2nd school to agree.
LikeLike
I just had a thought about the playoff and leveling the playing field. The top independents and teams that don’t win their division, or who come from a conference without a CCG, should have to win a play-in game. It would only be fair to those schools playing CCGs. So the playoff would include the top two or three conference championship game winners and the winner(s) of the play-in game(s). How many CCG winners and how many play-in game winners would be included in the playoff would be determined each year by circumstances.
LikeLike
I could see this happening down the road, joe4psu. At first, everyone will be thrilled about the inclusiveness of the 4-team playoff, but then the snubbed teams will begin to speak up and make some noise. I could see six teams included. Make the two play-in games the week after CCG week…let the top 2 seeds sit at home and wait for their games.
But that’s a decade down the road. That’s a VERY plausible scenario for “bracket creep” a decade or two from now. A good system now will keep the masses happy for a long time.
LikeLike
I agree that it won’t happen now. TPTB have made it pretty clear that they are only willing to make incremental changes, if any. There may be some wisdom to starting small. Any changes later can be touted as expanding the playoff. If they started at 8, 12 or 16 schools and found out, like the BCS, that they needed to make changes they look foolish, like the BCS has.
LikeLike
I wrote up an extensive treatment of Brett McMurphy’s article from a few days ago. This is what his scenario (taken from his survey of conference commissioners) would look like.
http://nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/march/the-playoff-is-almost-here.html
What do you think? Seems VERY acceptable to me.
LikeLike
I think the results suck, personally. And why not just give some of your ideas here rather than just driving traffic to your blog?
LikeLike
@Brian, have you tried typing something out on here longer than a paragraph or two? It’s not conducive. Not a big deal, don’t know why you are making it one.
LikeLike
Good lord, yes. I’ve made massively long posts at times.
He didn’t even bother to write a paragraph or two, and the other time he posted it he didn’t even acknowledge it was a link to his own blog. I dislike self-serving comments that seem intended solely to drive the page count of another blog. Save that for a commercial web page, not the comments on someone else’s blog. He could have given a brief summary and/or a couple of highlights from his article and let those that want to read more follow the link. That’s a perfectly acceptable approach.
LikeLike
@Brian, understandable. I’ve read many of your longer posts and usually agree with you more than I don’t; just curious as to why that got under your skin.
LikeLike
Frankly, the corporate shill has my hackles up on the topic a bit. You’ll note I didn’t say a thing about your post elsewhere because you said it’s your blog and said a bit about what your post said. That’s a big difference to me. I don’t like people to use someone else’s personal blog to promote their own.
LikeLike
After spending hours writing articles, I then ENJOY rewriting them (and thus filling up HUGE amounts of space) on Frank’s blog.
Cheer up, brian.
LikeLike
Right, because your post was irreducibly complex. It would be impossible to summarize it accurately, or quote part of it.
LikeLike
luv ya
LikeLike
Pingback: A Big Ten Guy’s Defense of Notre Dame (Except for the Ed Hardy Uniforms) « FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT